I'm planning to install GU10 recessed light fittings into an insulated
(rockwool maybe sheeps wool?) ceiling (the insulation will be there
primarily for acoustics but the thermal insulation will be useful).
The lights will be in a shop, our flat is above.

I know there are fire hazzards associated with using the halogen
GU10's (either low voltage or 240V) and you need to fit fire hoods,
cut away the insulation etc - but if i'm fitting megaman GU10 CFLs
will this still apply? The heat output would be much less... would
Building Control still insist on fire hoods since in theory halogens
could be fitted?

Ideally i'd like to use LEDs but from what I've seen/heard the bulbs
aren't quite up to it yet.

wrote in message
oups.com...
I'm planning to install GU10 recessed light fittings into an insulated
(rockwool maybe sheeps wool?) ceiling (the insulation will be there
primarily for acoustics but the thermal insulation will be useful).
The lights will be in a shop, our flat is above.

I know there are fire hazzards associated with using the halogen
GU10's (either low voltage or 240V) and you need to fit fire hoods,
cut away the insulation etc - but if i'm fitting megaman GU10 CFLs
will this still apply? The heat output would be much less... would
Building Control still insist on fire hoods since in theory halogens
could be fitted?

Ideally i'd like to use LEDs but from what I've seen/heard the bulbs
aren't quite up to it yet.

If your ceiling is fire rated you will need firehoods or fire rated
fittings. Firehoods are to stop the spread of fire through the ceiling from
one level to the next however the fire is caused, not to protect against
halogen lights catching fire.

I recently fitted some firerated GU10 fittings and they are a lot easier to
work with than the fire hoods.

Adam

On 2007-02-05 18:34:41 +0000, said:

I'm planning to install GU10 recessed light fittings into an insulated
(rockwool maybe sheeps wool?) ceiling (the insulation will be there
primarily for acoustics but the thermal insulation will be useful).
The lights will be in a shop, our flat is above.

I know there are fire hazzards associated with using the halogen
GU10's (either low voltage or 240V) and you need to fit fire hoods,
cut away the insulation etc - but if i'm fitting megaman GU10 CFLs
will this still apply? The heat output would be much less... would
Building Control still insist on fire hoods since in theory halogens
could be fitted?

Ideally i'd like to use LEDs but from what I've seen/heard the bulbs
aren't quite up to it yet.

Neither are the CFLs

On 5 Feb, 18:40, "ARWadsworth" wrote:
wrote in message

oups.com... I'm planning to install GU10 recessed light fittings into an insulated
(rockwool maybe sheeps wool?) ceiling (the insulation will be there
primarily for acoustics but the thermal insulation will be useful).
The lights will be in a shop, our flat is above.

I know there are fire hazzards associated with using the halogen
GU10's (either low voltage or 240V) and you need to fit fire hoods,
cut away the insulation etc - but if i'm fitting megaman GU10 CFLs
will this still apply? The heat output would be much less... would
Building Control still insist on fire hoods since in theory halogens
could be fitted?

Ideally i'd like to use LEDs but from what I've seen/heard the bulbs
aren't quite up to it yet.

If your ceiling is fire rated you will need firehoods or fire rated
fittings. Firehoods are to stop the spread of fire through the ceiling from
one level to the next however the fire is caused, not to protect against
halogen lights catching fire.

I recently fitted some firerated GU10 fittings and they are a lot easier to
work with than the fire hoods.

Adam

thanks adam - do you recall the make/model. the megaman bulb is
slightly longer that a standard GU10 and can protrude from fixed
connectors so need a floating connector. would a fire rated fitting
offer any protection in terms of heat shielding or does the insulation
need to be cut away (not ideal)

my ceiling isn't fire rated (at least i don't think so as BC don't
seem to have picked up on it, although it is a boundary between shop
and house)

wrote in message
ups.com...
On 5 Feb, 18:40, "ARWadsworth" wrote:
wrote in message

oups.com... I'm
planning to install GU10 recessed light fittings into an insulated
(rockwool maybe sheeps wool?) ceiling (the insulation will be there
primarily for acoustics but the thermal insulation will be useful).
The lights will be in a shop, our flat is above.

I know there are fire hazzards associated with using the halogen
GU10's (either low voltage or 240V) and you need to fit fire hoods,
cut away the insulation etc - but if i'm fitting megaman GU10 CFLs
will this still apply? The heat output would be much less... would
Building Control still insist on fire hoods since in theory halogens
could be fitted?

Ideally i'd like to use LEDs but from what I've seen/heard the bulbs
aren't quite up to it yet.

If your ceiling is fire rated you will need firehoods or fire rated
fittings. Firehoods are to stop the spread of fire through the ceiling
from
one level to the next however the fire is caused, not to protect against
halogen lights catching fire.

I recently fitted some firerated GU10 fittings and they are a lot easier
to
work with than the fire hoods.

Adam

thanks adam - do you recall the make/model. the megaman bulb is
slightly longer that a standard GU10 and can protrude from fixed
connectors so need a floating connector. would a fire rated fitting
offer any protection in terms of heat shielding or does the insulation
need to be cut away (not ideal)

my ceiling isn't fire rated (at least i don't think so as BC don't
seem to have picked up on it, although it is a boundary between shop
and house)

The lights I used did not have a floating connector. Are these any use to
you

http://www.tlc-direct.co.uk/Main_Index/Lighting_Menu_Index/GUFRD_Fireguard/index.html

Adam

On 5 Feb 2007 10:34:41 -0800 someone who may be
wrote this:-

I'm planning to install GU10 recessed light fittings into an insulated
(rockwool maybe sheeps wool?) ceiling (the insulation will be there
primarily for acoustics but the thermal insulation will be useful).
The lights will be in a shop, our flat is above.

I know there are fire hazzards associated with using the halogen
GU10's (either low voltage or 240V) and you need to fit fire hoods,
cut away the insulation etc - but if i'm fitting megaman GU10 CFLs
will this still apply?

You, the designer, need to cover foreseeable changes made to your
design. It is foreseeable that someone will replace the energy
saving bulbs with "ordinary" bulbs. How do you feel about the
possibility of explaining your design in court?


--
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 6 Feb, 08:16, David Hansen wrote:
On 5 Feb 2007 10:34:41 -0800 someone who may be
wrote this:-

I'm planning to install GU10 recessed light fittings into an insulated
(rockwool maybe sheeps wool?) ceiling (the insulation will be there
primarily for acoustics but the thermal insulation will be useful).
The lights will be in a shop, our flat is above.

I know there are fire hazzards associated with using the halogen
GU10's (either low voltage or 240V) and you need to fit fire hoods,
cut away the insulation etc - but if i'm fitting megaman GU10 CFLs
will this still apply?

You, the designer, need to cover foreseeable changes made to your
design. It is foreseeable that someone will replace the energy
saving bulbs with "ordinary" bulbs. How do you feel about the
possibility of explaining your design in court?

--
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

OK so where do i get guidelines of fitting these lights into an
insulated ceiling. I'm not trying to cut corners I just can't get
hold of any giudance. From what I've read on this site and others
most installations have been 'clay flowerpots' over the fittings which
i don't feel comfortable with. I also made the (mistaken) assumption
that firehoods, or integral fire rated fittings would offer some heat
shielding. Thanks to a previous poster for pointing that out!

On 6 Feb 2007 02:17:43 -0800 someone who may be
wrote this:-

OK so where do i get guidelines of fitting these lights into an
insulated ceiling.

IET.

Personally I advise you not to fit such lights, anywhere.


--
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 6 Feb, 11:35, David Hansen wrote:
On 6 Feb 2007 02:17:43 -0800 someone who may be
wrote this:-

OK so where do i get guidelines of fitting these lights into an
insulated ceiling.

IET.

Personally I advise you not to fit such lights, anywhere.

--
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

what alternatives would you suggest? the room will be a gallery with
paintings/art on the wall. the idea with using recessed gu10 fitting
was to have unobtrusive lighting, which can be directional (ie aimed
at the wall if needed). i thought gu10 because i may have future
options (ie LED - if/when this technology improves) but in the interim
to go for the next best which i think is probably CFL. ideally thes
would also be dimmable (megaman DORS)
we'd like to avoid pendants and only use flourescent tubes if we can
hide the fitting (uplighters? bouncing light of the ceiling) but i've
been unable to find anythinh that fits the bill ...

On 6 Feb 2007 03:50:24 -0800 someone who may be
wrote this:-

what alternatives would you suggest? the room will be a gallery with
paintings/art on the wall.

Lighting such things from the ceiling tends not to do them any
favours, though some installations are better then others.

I would probably study the possibility of "traditional" picture
lights just above the paintings, fitted with fluorescent lamps.
These don't need to be "traditional" brass things though. They can
be individually switched.

For general lighting, if the room is large enough, I might look at
uplighters fitted with mercury vapour lamps or the "white" sodium
lamps. The latter would be more efficient but you would need to
consider whether the "white" is white enough for you.


--
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 6 Feb, 13:15, David Hansen wrote:
On 6 Feb 2007 03:50:24 -0800 someone who may be
wrote this:-

what alternatives would you suggest? the room will be a gallery with
paintings/art on the wall.

Lighting such things from the ceiling tends not to do them any
favours, though some installations are better then others.

I would probably study the possibility of "traditional" picture
lights just above the paintings, fitted with fluorescent lamps.
These don't need to be "traditional" brass things though. They can
be individually switched.

For general lighting, if the room is large enough, I might look at
uplighters fitted with mercury vapour lamps or the "white" sodium
lamps. The latter would be more efficient but you would need to
consider whether the "white" is white enough for you.

--
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

thanks some things to consider... 'traditional' picture lights would
be good but the pictures are likely to change location and shape on a
regular basis so fixed locations would be problemeatic... i tried to
follow your suggestion re IET could you be more specific?

On 6 Feb 2007 06:09:18 -0800 someone who may be
wrote this:-

i tried to
follow your suggestion re IET could you be more specific?

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en...UK%7CcountryGB


--
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 6 Feb, 14:34, David Hansen wrote:
On 6 Feb 2007 06:09:18 -0800 someone who may be
wrote this:-

i tried to
follow your suggestion re IET could you be more specific?

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en...Search&meta=cr...

--
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

found the IET site easily enough - but there was no information on it
relating to installing lighting

On 6 Feb 2007 07:09:22 -0800 someone who may be
wrote this:-

found the IET site easily enough - but there was no information on it
relating to installing lighting

Other people in this group have highlighted articles by the IET on
installing various things, including fitting downlighters into
ceilings.


--
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

what alternatives would you suggest? the room will be a gallery with
paintings/art on the wall.

Just a thought - have you considered something like this....

http://www.gillandroy.com/odds/tracks

lots of flexibility for paintings...

Roy

wrote in message
oups.com...
I'm planning to install GU10 recessed light fittings into an insulated
(rockwool maybe sheeps wool?) ceiling (the insulation will be there
primarily for acoustics but the thermal insulation will be useful).
The lights will be in a shop, our flat is above.

I know there are fire hazzards associated with using the halogen
GU10's (either low voltage or 240V) and you need to fit fire hoods,
cut away the insulation etc - but if i'm fitting megaman GU10 CFLs
will this still apply? The heat output would be much less... would
Building Control still insist on fire hoods since in theory halogens
could be fitted?

If your CFL GU10 bulbs are anything like the load I bought from CPC a while
ago, there's more than a theoretical possibility that they'll be replaced by
halogens - you'll probably do that yourself within a few days before your
eyes have to grow "as big as millwheels" to compensate for the darkness.


Ideally i'd like to use LEDs but from what I've seen/heard the bulbs
aren't quite up to it yet.


Interesting use of "quite"!

Good luck.

Simon.

On 5 Feb, 18:45, Andy Hall wrote:
Ideally i'd like to use LEDs but from what I've seen/heard the bulbs
aren't quite up to it yet.

Neitherare theCFLs

Really? What are the problems with them - I'm happy enough with the
*quality* CFL replacements i've used instead of traditional bulbs
around the place. I'd not use one in, say, a cupboard where instant
light is wanted for a short period but for a light that's going to be
on for some hours they're fine.

Our kitchen has two circuits of 35w 12v spots at the moment. We want
to retain dimming on the ones over the table (and can use the lamps
and dimmers from the other circuit as spares) but were going to swap
out the circuit above the worksurface for 7w Megaman CFL GU10s.

On 6 Feb, 21:26, "Simon Stroud" wrote:

If your CFL GU10 bulbs are anything like the load I bought from CPC a while
ago, there's more than a theoretical possibility that they'll be replaced by
halogens - you'll probably do that yourself within a few days before your
eyes have to grow "as big as millwheels" to compensate for the darkness.


Any idea of the brand you purchased? Megaman stuff I've seen has been
really good. Also, replacing a, say 35w halogen with a 40w equivalent
CFL should compensate for the different light.

wrote in message
oups.com...
On 6 Feb, 21:26, "Simon Stroud" wrote:

If your CFL GU10 bulbs are anything like the load I bought from CPC a
while
ago, there's more than a theoretical possibility that they'll be replaced
by
halogens - you'll probably do that yourself within a few days before your
eyes have to grow "as big as millwheels" to compensate for the darkness.


Any idea of the brand you purchased? Megaman stuff I've seen has been
really good. Also, replacing a, say 35w halogen with a 40w equivalent
CFL should compensate for the different light.


They were like this:

http://cpc.farnell.com/jsp/endecaSea...sp?sku=LP02190

but now apparently these have been replaced by this one:

http://cpc.farnell.com/jsp/endecaSea...sp?sku=LP02762

I thought the ones I had eere something like "Prolite" (like the new ones
they now stock) or some such Chinese-sounding name, but it's possible I'm
confusing them with the LED ones, which were even more disappointing.

Good luck!

Simon.

On 2007-02-07 11:19:14 +0000, said:

On 5 Feb, 18:45, Andy Hall wrote:
Ideally i'd like to use LEDs but from what I've seen/heard the bulbs
aren't quite up to it yet.

Neitherare theCFLs

Really? What are the problems with them - I'm happy enough with the
*quality* CFL replacements i've used instead of traditional bulbs
around the place. I'd not use one in, say, a cupboard where instant
light is wanted for a short period but for a light that's going to be
on for some hours they're fine.

You may find them acceptable - I'm afraid I don't - the light quality
and colour
rendition is poor in my view.

Certainly I wouldn't use them inside the house, especially as the
energy saving claims,
taken in the round are marginal at best.

On 7 Feb, 23:22, Andy Hall wrote:
On 2007-02-07 11:19:14 +0000, said:

On 5 Feb, 18:45, Andy Hall wrote:
Ideally i'd like to use LEDs but from what I've seen/heard the bulbs
aren't quite up to it yet.

Neitherare theCFLs

Really? What are the problems with them - I'm happy enough with the
*quality* CFL replacements i've used instead of traditional bulbs
around the place. I'd not use one in, say, a cupboard where instant
light is wanted for a short period but for a light that's going to be
on for some hours they're fine.

You may find them acceptable - I'm afraid I don't - the light quality
and colour
rendition is poor in my view.

Certainly I wouldn't use them inside the house, especially as the
energy saving claims,
taken in the round are marginal at best.

I was at a friend's 'eco-house' last night which is lit entirely by
Megaman energy saving bulbs and I had (and they seem to have) no
issues with brightness or temperature of light.

There are two colour temperatures available for their GU10
replacements
See - http://www.gbbulbs.co.uk/acatalog/Low_Energy_GU10.html

Can you expand on your view on the energy saving claims? Whilst you
do gain the 'waste' heat from conventional lamps it's not necessarily
where you want it - putting heat into my kitchen ceiling is not
especially useful and for the 6 months of the year when my heating is
probably off any waste heat is just that. Comparisons on
manufacturing energy input don't take account of the final transport
leg to the home (which for many foodstuffs, at least, is the most
significant input to energy).

On 2007-02-08 14:01:06 +0000, said:

On 7 Feb, 23:22, Andy Hall wrote:
On 2007-02-07 11:19:14 +0000, said:

On 5 Feb, 18:45, Andy Hall wrote:
Ideally i'd like to use LEDs but from what I've seen/heard the bulbs
aren't quite up to it yet.

Neitherare theCFLs

Really? What are the problems with them - I'm happy enough with the
*quality* CFL replacements i've used instead of traditional bulbs
around the place. I'd not use one in, say, a cupboard where instant
light is wanted for a short period but for a light that's going to be
on for some hours they're fine.

You may find them acceptable - I'm afraid I don't - the light quality
and colour
rendition is poor in my view.

Certainly I wouldn't use them inside the house, especially as the
energy saving claims,
taken in the round are marginal at best.

I was at a friend's 'eco-house' last night which is lit entirely by
Megaman energy saving bulbs and I had (and they seem to have) no
issues with brightness or temperature of light.

Different people have different perceptions of that. I am quite picky
about light
quality and these devices are simply not up to snuff.


There are two colour temperatures available for their GU10
replacements
See - http://www.gbbulbs.co.uk/acatalog/Low_Energy_GU10.html

Can you expand on your view on the energy saving claims? Whilst you
do gain the 'waste' heat from conventional lamps it's not necessarily
where you want it - putting heat into my kitchen ceiling is not
especially useful and for the 6 months of the year when my heating is
probably off any waste heat is just that.

The longer hours of use for lighting occur during the winter months.
We are on a latitude
where there is a reasonably seasonal shift in sunrise and sunset times.
It is therefore incorrect
to say that the energy released by lighting for 6 months of the year is
not useful. During the summer,
usage of artificial light is much smaller and in the winter much longer.

It is also perfectly reasonable that heat from conventional lamps is
usefully delivered to the room above.


Comparisons on
manufacturing energy input don't take account of the final transport
leg to the home (which for many foodstuffs, at least, is the most
significant input to energy).

That's another issue.

On Thu, 8 Feb 2007 23:25:30 +0000 someone who may be Andy Hall
wrote this:-

The longer hours of use for lighting occur during the winter months.
We are on a latitude
where there is a reasonably seasonal shift in sunrise and sunset times.

Correct.

It is therefore incorrect
to say that the energy released by lighting for 6 months of the year is
not useful. During the summer,
usage of artificial light is much smaller and in the winter much longer.

You have twisted what was said, presumably to fit in with your own
agenda.

The original statement, "putting heat into my kitchen ceiling is not
especially useful and for the 6 months of the year when my heating
is probably off any waste heat is just that", is entirely correct.
It makes no assertion that the amount of heat released is the same
in summer and winter.

It is also perfectly reasonable that heat from conventional lamps is
usefully delivered to the room above.

Some will be, if there are rooms above. However, electricity is an
expensive way of heating a house. You usually advocate that the only
consideration in the choice of heating supplier/fuel is the lowest
cost.


--
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 2007-02-09 08:12:31 +0000, David Hansen
said:

On Thu, 8 Feb 2007 23:25:30 +0000 someone who may be Andy Hall
wrote this:-

The longer hours of use for lighting occur during the winter months.
We are on a latitude
where there is a reasonably seasonal shift in sunrise and sunset times.

Correct.

It is therefore incorrect
to say that the energy released by lighting for 6 months of the year is
not useful. During the summer,
usage of artificial light is much smaller and in the winter much longer.

You have twisted what was said, presumably to fit in with your own
agenda.

I haven't twisted anything and there is no agenda other than to point
out the fallacies in the use of CFLs. Apart from being non-optimal
from the lighting perspective, the energy saving claims don't stack up
in practice.

Heat energy production from lights is greater in the winter
because of longer operating hours. This is because it's dark for more
of the time that people
are normally awake.

OK so far? Good.

The next point is that it's typically colder in the winter and heating
is required. Some of this can
be obtained from the same lights. During that period it is not
wasted energy.


The original statement, "putting heat into my kitchen ceiling is not
especially useful and for the 6 months of the year when my heating
is probably off any waste heat is just that", is entirely correct.
It makes no assertion that the amount of heat released is the same
in summer and winter.

That is true but is misleading. However, in comparison with the amount
of energy used in the winter for lighting, that used in the summer is
almost negligible - probably 4 or 5 to 1 in terms of hours of use.



It is also perfectly reasonable that heat from conventional lamps is
usefully delivered to the room above.

Some will be, if there are rooms above. However, electricity is an
expensive way of heating a house. You usually advocate that the only
consideration in the choice of heating supplier/fuel is the lowest
cost.

Of course. However, it is not correct to say that the energy is wasted
in the summer in terms of that being significant; and it is not correct
to say that it is wasted in the winter because it isn't.

Summer lighting use in comparison with winter use is a small proportion.

Heat energy contribution from lighting towards heating a house is small
in comparison with the total requrement.

The discussion becomes one of a small part of a small part which
immediately illustrates that the focus is wrong.