On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 11:32:38 -0000, Tim Downie wrote:

You're assuming that manufacturers don't speak with forked tongues.
In my experience, rated equivalence ...

I didn't say rated equivalence I said "rated power and lumens output"
both are measurable using standardised units. If the maker was telling
porkies and some one measured the lamps they would be in serious trouble.

I don't trust marketing puff and the equivalence stuff is just that. Real
hard quantifiable facts I trust, if you can find 'em in the puff.

Sure, if you're prepared to dig though the small print you sometimes
find weasel words mentioning that they're actually equivalent to "soft
tone" bulbs but who the heck buys them?

The ones I've looked at recently all have a little ratings section
normally giving the voltage range, power consumption life and lumens.
This applies to (branded) tungsten as well CFLs. Quite often on one of
the box flaps.

--
Cheers
Dave. pam is missing e-mail

On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 20:40:42 +0000 Andy Hall wrote :
Even so, one wonders why there is not similar regulatory
discouragement in terms of provision for electric space heating
and cooking in new houses if there are alternatives available
at a site.

[This is a seriously oversimplified explanation of the L1A AD 2006
edition]

For new housing, electric heating is heavily penalised. In simple
terms, for a new dwelling using the SAP2005 methodology you work
out the CO2 for an identically sized dwelling to the one proposed
built to 2002 standards with a gas boiler, then knock off 20% to
get a target figure that your dwelling's calculated CO2 emissions
must not exceed. There is a limited concession for non gas fuels:
if your design has electric heating the target is multiplied by a
fuel factor of 1.47 ...

... but the assumed CO2 for electricity/kWh (0.422kg) is more than
twice that for gas (0.194), roughly twice factoring in the relative
efficiencies.

So if your target is 1000kg/year, with gas heating and a 90%
efficient boiler, you can burn 5155kWh = 4639kWh useful energy.

With electric you can use 1470kg which (assume 100% efficiency at
point of use) translates to 3483kWh, i.e. you have to reduce the
calculated energy usage by 25%. Easier said than done, especially
on flats where the hot water usage may be 50% of the total.

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk

On 2007-01-18 20:47:28 +0000, "Dave Liquorice" said:

On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 18:11:45 +0000, Andy Hall wrote:

Replacing perfectly good technology in the form of tungsten lighting
which most people do seem to prefer based on sales volumes

Er, "sales volumes" is a false measure unless corrected to take into
account the much longer life of CFLs over tungsten. I was buying and
getting through 16 or so 40W tugnsten candle bulbs for the lounge
lights a year until I replaced them with 6 CFLs. I have yet to replace
those CFLs and they have been in for at least two years alomost
certainly longer...

This is an interesting one - I was having a similar experience to this
and tried several different brands with fairly similar results. I then
bought a job lot of Sylvania ones ( I think - can't check because I'm
not at home) from Screwfix simply to have a lower price per unit.
Coincidentally, all of the previous ones had gone within the space of
about a week and so all were replaced with these. I haven't had a
single failure in 18 months which is a record


If people want to buy these things and use them and if it makes them
feel good, then that's fine.

I quite like the extra cash in my pocket. Tungsten 6 x 40 x 18 =
4.32units/day. 6 * 9 * 18 = 0.972 units/day. Saving 3.348 units at
7.191p/unit, 24p/day, 92 quid/year (once you've added the VAT) or a
weeks groceries.

That's only if you run them 18 hours a day. I'd estimate use of
about a third of that - say 1600 to 0000 worst case in the winter and
2100 to 0000 best case in the summer - average is probably 5hrs a day.
Using the same arithmetic, that comes to 1.2 and 0.27 and a saving of
0.93 units. £25?

I don't think it's worth it - even before factors beyond running cost
are considered.

I can find much easier ways to save or make £25.

On 2007-01-18 21:08:09 +0000, Tony Bryer said:

On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 20:40:42 +0000 Andy Hall wrote :
Even so, one wonders why there is not similar regulatory
discouragement in terms of provision for electric space heating
and cooking in new houses if there are alternatives available
at a site.

[This is a seriously oversimplified explanation of the L1A AD 2006 edition]

For new housing, electric heating is heavily penalised. In simple
terms, for a new dwelling using the SAP2005 methodology you work out
the CO2 for an identically sized dwelling to the one proposed built to
2002 standards with a gas boiler, then knock off 20% to get a target
figure that your dwelling's calculated CO2 emissions must not exceed.
There is a limited concession for non gas fuels: if your design has
electric heating the target is multiplied by a fuel factor of 1.47 ...

.. but the assumed CO2 for electricity/kWh (0.422kg) is more than twice
that for gas (0.194), roughly twice factoring in the relative
efficiencies.

So if your target is 1000kg/year, with gas heating and a 90% efficient
boiler, you can burn 5155kWh = 4639kWh useful energy.

With electric you can use 1470kg which (assume 100% efficiency at point
of use) translates to 3483kWh, i.e. you have to reduce the calculated
energy usage by 25%. Easier said than done, especially on flats where
the hot water usage may be 50% of the total.

... and if mains gas isn't available at the site?

T i m wrote:

I wonder what makes someone dislike the above so much whilst others
can use them without any 'issues' Andy (genuine question).

I expect that for one thing the human vision colour perception and
intensity sensitivity is not consistent between different examples of
us. In the same way that I find 50Hz TV very difficult to watch
(especially at larger screen sizes), when others seem to have no
problem, or some people rave about DLP projectors, yes others complain
of a "rainbow effect" that many can't even see.

Some CFLs I have seen seem to produce a very obvious (to me) green cast
that others seem oblivious to. The next door neighbour is fond of CFLs
all over the place. The ones he has in the front room are "daylight"
(i.e. very strong blue cast). He has one pinky / rose coloured one in a
bedroom that once warmed up is actually ok, but astoundingly dim for the
first 5 mins or so. Then he has another one in the bathroom that to all
intents and purposes leaves the room unlit for the five mins it takes to
achieve any brightness.

I have seen a couple of CFLs that border on "OK" to my eyes but they are
in the minority. So far I have not been motivated to spend that much
time trying different brands for a number of reasons; mostly because I
have lots of dimmers, which I find very useful with the kids at the age
they are, and also have lots of R80 spot fittings, and have yet to see a
decent low energy replacement. The room I would quite like to relamp
with LE if available would be the kitchen which is currently lit with
four GU10s (plus linear fluros under the units). Any recommendations for
GU10 LE bulbs that work?

I find that if you stick enough power into linear fluorescent lighting
you can get quite nice results. The triphosphor (electronic) tubes I
installed in the neighbours kitchen actually produce a really nice light
to work in with no colour casts and plenty bright enough. I put 5
fittings on top of the units reflected off the white ceiling, and five
below illuminating the worktop from behind a pelmet. They start
instantly with no flicker and achieve full output very quickly as well.
Having said that, they are not exactly energy saving since they add up
to 210W combined. The 240W I have in my workshop are nice to work in as
well - apart from at switch on where they start with a (non electronic
ballast) flicker.



--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 2007-01-18 21:40:43 +0000, John Rumm said:

T i m wrote:

I wonder what makes someone dislike the above so much whilst others
can use them without any 'issues' Andy (genuine question).

I expect that for one thing the human vision colour perception and
intensity sensitivity is not consistent between different examples of
us. In the same way that I find 50Hz TV very difficult to watch
(especially at larger screen sizes),

Yep - I find it impossible


when others seem to have no problem, or some people rave about DLP
projectors, yes others complain of a "rainbow effect" that many can't
even see.

I returned a DLP projector because of this -- actually two of them
before I found out the reason.


Some CFLs I have seen seem to produce a very obvious (to me) green cast
that others seem oblivious to.

I tend to see this from pretty much all I've seen. At a certain point
I stopped looking until there is a huge improvement to the technology
and the designs.


The next door neighbour is fond of CFLs all over the place. The ones he
has in the front room are "daylight" (i.e. very strong blue cast). He
has one pinky / rose coloured one in a bedroom that once warmed up is
actually ok, but astoundingly dim for the first 5 mins or so. Then he
has another one in the bathroom that to all intents and purposes leaves
the room unlit for the five mins it takes to achieve any brightness.

I have seen a couple of CFLs that border on "OK" to my eyes but they
are in the minority. So far I have not been motivated to spend that
much time trying different brands for a number of reasons; mostly
because I have lots of dimmers, which I find very useful with the kids
at the age they are, and also have lots of R80 spot fittings, and have
yet to see a decent low energy replacement. The room I would quite like
to relamp with LE if available would be the kitchen which is currently
lit with four GU10s (plus linear fluros under the units). Any
recommendations for GU10 LE bulbs that work?

I looked for those at one point. They all seem to project out of the
fitting and one can see the tube inside.


I find that if you stick enough power into linear fluorescent lighting
you can get quite nice results. The triphosphor (electronic) tubes I
installed in the neighbours kitchen actually produce a really nice
light to work in with no colour casts and plenty bright enough. I put 5
fittings on top of the units reflected off the white ceiling, and five
below illuminating the worktop from behind a pelmet. They start
instantly with no flicker and achieve full output very quickly as well.
Having said that, they are not exactly energy saving since they add up
to 210W combined. The 240W I have in my workshop are nice to work in as
well - apart from at switch on where they start with a (non electronic
ballast) flicker.

For workshop use, I have used a lot of conventional linear fluorescent
lighting as well. With rotating machinery having electronic ballasts
is a pretty good idea.

On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 09:02:41 +0000, Peter Scott
wrote:

Problem is I need to change several light fittings and buy new
free-standing ones for reading etc. I don't want to do this until I know
more about the the sizes, output and light colour of the bulbs. I've
looked at various suppliers sites thrown up by Google, and the suppliers
I use for electrical bits, but the data is very limited. Short of buying
one of each lamp and testing them myself I'm not sure how to proceed.
Its not like a thermostat or a piece of pipe. Lighting is an important
part of the design of a room, so I want to get it right.


If not would people be willing to share their findings?

Hi,

I've found these pretty good, John Lewis do them in other wattages and
screw cap version:

http://www.argos.co.uk/static/Product/partNumber/4301042.htm

They give a warmish light with a CRI of 82. They're a bit longer than
a standard glass bulb, I've found them fine in R80 fittings.

For task lighting eg desk I use 10W Osram halogens which complement
the above well.

cheers,
Pete.

David Hansen wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 15:35:20 GMT someone who may be Harry Bloomfield
wrote this:-

Before installing these types of energy saving lamps and flourescents,
I make a decision as to whether the extra expense is worth while for
the type of use the room receives.

For the sake of argument I won't challenge your "extra expense"
assertion here. Do you think you are the only person who makes such
decisions? Do you think that others might reach different decisions,
or are your decisions the only ones that can be made?



I already worked out that unless I buy bulbs in bulk, the longer
lifetime of CFL's makes them a cost benefit irrespective of energy
consumption.

They may be less efficient on switch on..but they don't draw more power.
They just start up dim. Well some of them anyway.

Andy Hall wrote:
On 2007-01-18 17:22:09 +0000, T i m said:

I wonder what makes someone dislike the above so much whilst others
can use them without any 'issues' Andy (genuine question).

I know it's a genuine question. The genuine answer is that I find the
light artificial and bilious.
The minor cost savings, if any, are therefore irrelevant and the energy
savings are not significant in the overall context of things that can be
done.


I found teh early ones so. The later ones seem much better, to the piunt
where I can't actually distinguish them from ordinary bulbs.


I don't buy into the argument that says that energy in the form of
electricity needs to be saved.

Replacing perfectly good technology in the form of tungsten lighting
which most people do seem to prefer
based on sales volumes really makes no sense; and when one learns that
there is government sponsored coercion in terms of forcing the issue via
building regulation, it is very clear that there is a rat.

Its a sop to the eco mob.

Mostly this government response to a problem by doing something that
makes the average stupid person think that they have actually addressed
the problem. As I pointed out in my long post about saving the planet,
CFL bulbs are so insignificant in a domestic situation as to be
completely irrelevant.

Personally I'd like the government to switch off ALL public lighting at
midnight, and leave it off till morning. Someone with the time should
research what THAT would save.

If one were to say that use of fossil fuel were the *only* way to
produce electricity then that would
make it a discussion point.

Focus should be on alternative sources of supply for electricity such as
nuclear fission and ultimately fusion generation and improving the
technology around those further.


Absolutely.

Instead of this, we are presented with a "no gain without pain" argument
which really holds no water at all; and which in effect, is very similar
to the ancient practice of self flagellation as atonement for sin.


Absolutely

If people want to buy these things and use them and if it makes them
feel good, then that's fine. I don't feel about to follow suit
because I find the aesthetics poor and the technical and ecological
justifications questionable at best. As soon as the element of
government compulsion comes into the mix with these weak justifications,
I close the shutters.


Well I agree but for two points..they ain't that bad and are in most
cases as good as a cheap bulb color temp and output wise, and they last
ten times longer.. Now you can but a bulb for under 50p in bulk, but
typically you pick one up at Tescos for a lot more..

Horses for courses though I guess.

All the best ..

T i m

p.s. I saw CFL based floodlight the other day .. I'm keeping my eye
out for one locally as the 300W flood lamp that covered the back
garden failed about 2 years ago ...

One exterior application is the only one that I have found as an
appropriate use for a CFL.

I have a lantern outside which illuminates an area where the dustbins
are stores. This is switched on only
when I need to go out after dark to put rubbish in the bins and is
switched off again afterwards. I don't care about the light quality
for that but it is inconvenient to access the lantern to change a
tungsten bulb.

Yup. I am replacing all my outside lanterns with CFL's as they blow.
They DO get left on a long time if we go out..otherwise getting the keys
on the locks is tricky.

Andy Hall wrote:


I can find much easier ways to save or make £25.


Yup. Thats three bottles of wine.
5 packs of fags.

300 miles of diesel.

just not watching coronation street.

etc. etc.

David Hansen wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 17:49:27 +0000 someone who may be Andy Hall
wrote this:-

Absolutely agree. This is just a sop for people to think that they
are doing something,

Nice try, but your arguments remain as unconvincing as ever.

done as a diversion from the real issues that
actually do make a difference but which are considered to be too hard.

If energy saving light bulbs were the only thing people are being
encouraged to do you would have a point. However, they are not the
only thing people are being encouraged to do.


If you read my post on 'saving the planet' you would realise that the
things people are being encouraged to do are the most trivially useless
things: The REAL gains would come from boring things like wall and floor
insulation, switching OFF street lights, wearing a jumper, working from
home, and making petrol and diesel so expensive that local shops would
become more cost effective than going to Tescos. Even not bathing or
showering every day would make a significant contribution.

CFL's are a drop in a very big ocean.

Andy Hall wrote:
On 2007-01-18 21:08:09 +0000, Tony Bryer said:

On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 20:40:42 +0000 Andy Hall wrote :
Even so, one wonders why there is not similar regulatory
discouragement in terms of provision for electric space heating
and cooking in new houses if there are alternatives available
at a site.

[This is a seriously oversimplified explanation of the L1A AD 2006
edition]

For new housing, electric heating is heavily penalised. In simple
terms, for a new dwelling using the SAP2005 methodology you work out
the CO2 for an identically sized dwelling to the one proposed built to
2002 standards with a gas boiler, then knock off 20% to get a target
figure that your dwelling's calculated CO2 emissions must not exceed.
There is a limited concession for non gas fuels: if your design has
electric heating the target is multiplied by a fuel factor of 1.47 ...

.. but the assumed CO2 for electricity/kWh (0.422kg) is more than
twice that for gas (0.194), roughly twice factoring in the relative
efficiencies.

So if your target is 1000kg/year, with gas heating and a 90% efficient
boiler, you can burn 5155kWh = 4639kWh useful energy.

With electric you can use 1470kg which (assume 100% efficiency at
point of use) translates to 3483kWh, i.e. you have to reduce the
calculated energy usage by 25%. Easier said than done, especially on
flats where the hot water usage may be 50% of the total.

.. and if mains gas isn't available at the site?


Use oil.

On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 21:32:42 +0000 Andy Hall wrote :
... and if mains gas isn't available at the site?

Flats tend to be in urban areas where there is gas, but there is a
move away from gas because the installation issues and the
maintenance - not only the cost, but for individual boiler systems
it means someone being home. The heating energy requirement is a
flat built to 2006 regs is very low so direct energy costs are much
less important. So if you want to go all electric, heat pumps are
probably the way forward. From a CO2 pov a ground source heat pump
is better than gas, though obviously not practicable everywhere.
Air to air heat pumps are a bit less efficient but give you the
option of A/C in the summer (and which probably undoes everything
that L1 aims to deliver!).

A further complication these days is the 'Merton rule' being
enforced by planners in many places which requires 10% of energy to
come from renewables on all new dwellings regardless of whether
this makes sense. Again particularly problematic on flats. Common
sense would make them see that flats are an intrinsically energy
efficient form of housing, terraced houses next best, and their
fire power would be better directed at big detached houses.

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk

On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 12:27:18 GMT someone who may be Tony Bryer
wrote this:-

A further complication these days is the 'Merton rule' being
enforced by planners in many places which requires 10% of energy to
come from renewables on all new dwellings regardless of whether
this makes sense. Again particularly problematic on flats.

Where would this not make sense and why are flats particularly
problematic?



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

On 2007-01-19 13:00:00 +0000, David Hansen
said:

On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 12:27:18 GMT someone who may be Tony Bryer
wrote this:-

A further complication these days is the 'Merton rule' being enforced
by planners in many places which requires 10% of energy to come from
renewables on all new dwellings regardless of whether this makes sense.
Again particularly problematic on flats.

Where would this not make sense and why are flats particularly
problematic?

Bit tricky to fit a windmill or a solar panel to one on the 8th floor
of a 12 storey building.

They do attempt this in Tel Aviv and the appearance of buildings with
this done is consequently attrocious.

On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 13:09:20 +0000 someone who may be Andy Hall
wrote this:-

Where would this not make sense and why are flats particularly
problematic?

Bit tricky to fit a windmill or a solar panel to one on the 8th floor
of a 12 storey building.

As with heating there is no need to do this sort of thing
individually in a block of flats. It can be done collectively.

I have never understood the British mania for individual boilers in
flats. Far better to have an unobtrusive heat meter that measures
the amount of heat taken from the mains.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

On 2007-01-19 14:12:07 +0000, David Hansen
said:

On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 13:09:20 +0000 someone who may be Andy Hall
wrote this:-

Where would this not make sense and why are flats particularly
problematic?

Bit tricky to fit a windmill or a solar panel to one on the 8th floor
of a 12 storey building.

As with heating there is no need to do this sort of thing
individually in a block of flats. It can be done collectively.

Ah. Collectivism. That means that the approach won't go anywhere
in a hurry


I have never understood the British mania for individual boilers in
flats.

That I can believe.


Far better to have an unobtrusive heat meter that measures
the amount of heat taken from the mains.


I'm aware that this approach is done in apartment buildings in Germany - in
fact in office buildings, there are frequently metering devices on
radiators that are
used to bill the tenants for heat from a central source.

There are some absolute historical disasters of communal heating
systems in the former
Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact countries.

British people seem culturally not to want communal things if they
have a choice - hence the
disasters of the tower blocks. Personal space and personal control
are important.

I agree with you that there may be good technical arguments and even
feasibility for scaling
of energy services to a building size such as a block of flats.
However, if the cultural issues
are not addressed, the technology won't fly because people won't buy into it.

On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 14:12:07 +0000 David Hansen wrote :
As with heating there is no need to do this sort of thing
individually in a block of flats. It can be done collectively.

Yes, I had a user of our software phone up, who to keep the
planners (not BC) happy was putting in a communal solar panel and
DHW preheat tank. I may be being too cynical, but my hunch is that
if this requires repair and residents are given the choice of £1000
shared to fix it or £50 to cap it off, they will choose the latter.

In response to your other post ISTM that the key issues with flats
are (a) if it's everybody's it's nobody's (last para); and (b) the
capital costs do not diminish proportionately with the energy
saved, so in many cases people are being pushed into things that
make no economic and little ecological sense though they might on
larger dwellings.

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk

John Rumm wrote:

to 210W combined. The 240W I have in my workshop are nice to work in as

Jeez. I couldnt tolerate those sort of light levels at all. Just goes
to prove people do perceive vision differently.


NT

Tony Bryer wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 18:32:12 +0000 wrote :

IMHO the energy saved is over stated, in the UK for at least 6
months of the year the energy "wasted" goes towards heating
the house, okay its expensive but not totaly wasted.

True, but more of concern now (as far as Building Regs etc is
concerned) is that in most cases you are displacing a lower CO2
fuel (gas) with a higher CO2 one (electricity).

'ere, youre not running your CFLs on lectrick are you? Mine are all on
gas, they take about 20 seconds to warm up before they give any light
out, and its much more energy efficient than the thorium mantle


NT

On 19 Jan 2007 09:06:20 -0800 wrote :
True, but more of concern now (as far as Building Regs etc is
concerned) is that in most cases you are displacing a lower CO2
fuel (gas) with a higher CO2 one (electricity).

'ere, youre not running your CFLs on lectrick are you? Mine are
all on gas, they take about 20 seconds to warm up before they give
any light out, and its much more energy efficient than the thorium
mantle

Building Regs approach to low energy lighting is touching realistic.
You can specify whatever proportion you choose (subject to a minimum)
but the CO2 sums will be done on 30% of fittings being LEL. So no
making things comply by specifying 100% and then taking them out once
the BCO has signed off!

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk

wrote:

to 210W combined. The 240W I have in my workshop are nice to work in as


Jeez. I couldnt tolerate those sort of light levels at all. Just goes
to prove people do perceive vision differently.

Have you got blue eyes by any chance?

In the case of the kitchen, the lighting levels are not much brighter
than say for example the adjacent hall that has a couple of medium
output CFLs in it. The main difference is the quality of the light - is
very even and diffuse (remember this is all reflected light from small
link lights which are not as energy efficent as the bigger linear tubes).

My workshop is bright enough to work in safely and comfortably but
probably no brighter than most offices. I installed the lights switched
in two sets of two - thinking that all four might bet a bit over the
top. In practice however I have never found using just two satisfactory
and usually have them all on.

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/