I'm planning on replacing the kitchen strip-light with either 4 or 6
recessed halogen spotlights.

How do take the single cable which currently feeds the strip-light and
branch it out to 6 spotlights?
Do I use a junction box?

Mark.

In article .com,
wrote:
I'm planning on replacing the kitchen strip-light with either 4 or 6
recessed halogen spotlights.

How do take the single cable which currently feeds the strip-light and
branch it out to 6 spotlights?
Do I use a junction box?

If they are mains you can use a junction box and 'star' connect or daisy
chain. It makes no difference.

--
*Why is "abbreviated" such a long word?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Oct 12, 5:06 pm, wrote:
I'm planning on replacing the kitchen strip-light with either 4 or 6
recessed halogen spotlights.

How do take the single cable which currently feeds the strip-light and
branch it out to 6 spotlights?
Do I use a junction box?

Mark.

Use low voltage downlighters, more efficient, better quality of light
and much better lamp life.
Get a kit which plugs together for simplicity.

Adam

Adam Aglionby wrote:
On Oct 12, 5:06 pm, wrote:
I'm planning on replacing the kitchen strip-light with either 4 or 6
recessed halogen spotlights.

How do take the single cable which currently feeds the strip-light and
branch it out to 6 spotlights?
Do I use a junction box?


Use low voltage downlighters, more efficient, better quality of light
and much better lamp life.

Oh, you've done it now...

Or maybe you're a troll?

David

"Adam Aglionby" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Oct 12, 5:06 pm, wrote:
I'm planning on replacing the kitchen strip-light with either 4 or 6
recessed halogen spotlights.

How do take the single cable which currently feeds the strip-light and
branch it out to 6 spotlights?
Do I use a junction box?

Mark.

Use low voltage downlighters, more efficient, better quality of light
and much better lamp life.
Get a kit which plugs together for simplicity.

Just make sure the transformer doesn't buzz like mad like my parents and
several others I have heard.

Steven.

On Oct 12, 8:33 pm, Lobster wrote:
Adam Aglionby wrote:
On Oct 12, 5:06 pm, wrote:
I'm planning on replacing the kitchen strip-light with either 4 or 6
recessed halogen spotlights.

How do take the single cable which currently feeds the strip-light and
branch it out to 6 spotlights?
Do I use a junction box?

Use low voltage downlighters, more efficient, better quality of light
and much better lamp life.

Oh, you've done it now...

Or maybe you're a troll?

David

Oh dear what have I said, or is it a CFL fan club in here.

LV downlighters get better efficiency lumens per watt than line
voltage incan lamps.
Higher colour temperature and better beam control because of smaller
filament.
Much better lamp life than GU10 MR16s, have some LV lamps that are
past there 10th birthday with a few hours day use.
Good transfomers wont buzz, but cost about as much as a whole kit out
of a shed, can reccomend Mode and IBL.

Adam

wrote:

I'm planning on replacing the kitchen strip-light with either 4 or 6
recessed halogen spotlights.

How do take the single cable which currently feeds the strip-light and
branch it out to 6 spotlights?

Do I use a junction box?

Well that depends... I would strongly suggest using low voltage halogens
rather than mains since they are preferable for many reasons.

After that the choice of wiring comes down to how many transformers you
plan to have and where you will place them. In some respects the
simplest is one small transformer per light. That way you can wire each
position with switched mains, (star or daisychain or combination using
junction boxes etc), and poke the transformer into the hole you make for
the light.

If you are running from a central transformer then you need to watch the
current load on the wire - since even a small voltage drop on 12V lamps
will be far more visible than with mains. A workable layout would be
perhaps a star wiring layout from the transformer with two lights per wire.

--
Cheers,

John.

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

Adam Aglionby wrote:

Oh, you've done it now...

Or maybe you're a troll?

David

Seems a little harsh Lobster....

Oh dear what have I said, or is it a CFL fan club in here.

Na, we are pretty equally divided on them ;-)

LV downlighters get better efficiency lumens per watt than line
voltage incan lamps.
Higher colour temperature and better beam control because of smaller
filament.
Much better lamp life than GU10 MR16s, have some LV lamps that are
past there 10th birthday with a few hours day use.
Good transfomers wont buzz, but cost about as much as a whole kit out
of a shed, can reccomend Mode and IBL.

The option of using dichroic lamps is also worth mentioning with LV
setups, since this projects less heat forward and gives an improvement
in light whiteness again.

--
Cheers,

John.

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

John Rumm wrote:
Adam Aglionby wrote:

Oh, you've done it now...

Or maybe you're a troll?


Seems a little harsh Lobster....

Sorry, wasn't intended.... perhaps I should have included a :-)

Oh dear what have I said, or is it a CFL fan club in here.

Na, we are pretty equally divided on them ;-)

Not sure about that, ISTR every time downlighters are mentioned here
there seems to be a resounding chorus of disapproval!

We have quite a few at home, fitted by yours truly at SWMBO's behest.
Personally I don't particularly like them, mainly because of the power
consumption issue

LV downlighters get better efficiency lumens per watt than line
voltage incan lamps.

If you say so; but the practicality is that they only illuminate a
downward pool of light rather than the whole room, which is why my small
bathroom needs 4 of the buggers totalling 140W, whereas a 20W CFL would
light the room more effectively, at one-seventh of the power usage.

David

On 2007-10-13 11:09:14 +0100, Lobster said:

John Rumm wrote:
Adam Aglionby wrote:

Oh, you've done it now...

Or maybe you're a troll?


Seems a little harsh Lobster....

Sorry, wasn't intended.... perhaps I should have included a :-)

Oh dear what have I said, or is it a CFL fan club in here.

Na, we are pretty equally divided on them ;-)

Not sure about that, ISTR every time downlighters are mentioned here
there seems to be a resounding chorus of disapproval!

Not from me there isn't. I think that they are excellent for a
number of situations. It would be nice if they used a little less
power, but they are not used all day normally, nor all year. When
they are in use, the heat energy is added to that in the house.



We have quite a few at home, fitted by yours truly at SWMBO's behest.
Personally I don't particularly like them, mainly because of the power
consumption issue

LV downlighters get better efficiency lumens per watt than line voltage
incan lamps.

If you say so; but the practicality is that they only illuminate a
downward pool of light rather than the whole room, which is why my
small bathroom needs 4 of the buggers totalling 140W, whereas a 20W CFL
would light the room more effectively, at one-seventh of the power
usage.



To me this is all about context. You have just made a point about
120W of energy, used at certain times in the bathroom - i.e. occasional
use even with women in the house.

Set this into the context of the energy used to heat the house, and
it's a teaspoon and bucket discussion. There is no need for sack cloth
and ashes unless your name is Hilary Benn, for whom it would be
completely appropriate.

Intrinsically, one should know that when the government is trying to
legislate for something that has proved commercially unattractive that
there is some other agenda that that presented going on.

Lobster wrote:

Oh dear what have I said, or is it a CFL fan club in here.

Na, we are pretty equally divided on them ;-)

Not sure about that, ISTR every time downlighters are mentioned here
there seems to be a resounding chorus of disapproval!

He mentioned CFLs not downlights! Downlights are ok when used
sensibly... Thinking about it the OP may want to look he

http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?...logen_Lighting

since there is a fair bit of information on types and uses.

We have quite a few at home, fitted by yours truly at SWMBO's behest.
Personally I don't particularly like them, mainly because of the power
consumption issue

LV downlighters get better efficiency lumens per watt than line
voltage incan lamps.

If you say so; but the practicality is that they only illuminate a
downward pool of light rather than the whole room, which is why my small
bathroom needs 4 of the buggers totalling 140W, whereas a 20W CFL would
light the room more effectively, at one-seventh of the power usage.

Again you seem to be not comparing like with like. The point was that a
35W LV Halogen will give more light than a 35W 240V halogen.

If you want general lighting just with halogens then you need to play
your layouts carefully. Wall washers can help maximise light dispersion,
as can use of the widest beam lamps (not all vendors sell a variety of
beam widths)


--
Cheers,

John.

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

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
Not sure about that, ISTR every time downlighters are mentioned here
there seems to be a resounding chorus of disapproval!

Not from me there isn't. I think that they are excellent for a
number of situations. It would be nice if they used a little less
power, but they are not used all day normally, nor all year. When
they are in use, the heat energy is added to that in the house.

If all that was needed was functional lighting a fluorescent strip light
(or several) on a white ceiling would be fine - and very energy efficient.
But most want lighting to look good and provide a pleasant 'atmosphere'.
So basically to hell with efficiency. Thinking you can save the planet
from global warming by changing a few light bulbs to more efficient types
is like pi**ing in the ocean for all the effect it will have.

--
*Make it idiot-proof and someone will make a better idiot.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 15:34:55 +0100 someone who may be "Dave Plowman
(News)" wrote this:-

Thinking you can save the planet
from global warming by changing a few light bulbs to more efficient types
is like pi**ing in the ocean for all the effect it will have.

Ah yes, the old, "I'll not get off my backside until everyone else
has got off their backside line."


--
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 Fri, 12 Oct 2007 09:06:22 -0700 someone who may be
wrote this:-

I'm planning on replacing the kitchen strip-light with either 4 or 6
recessed halogen spotlights.

For what reason(s)?

What alternatives have you considered?


--
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

In article ,
David Hansen wrote:
Thinking you can save the planet from global warming by changing a few
light bulbs to more efficient types is like pi**ing in the ocean for
all the effect it will have.

Ah yes, the old, "I'll not get off my backside until everyone else
has got off their backside line."

No - it's called being realistic. It's a con happily supported by
politicians of all colours in many countries who refuse to admit that
measures which would have some effect are simply untenable to the majority.
Nature will provide the answer in due coarse. Man may not like that
answer, though.

--
*Give me ambiguity or give me something else.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
David Hansen wrote:
Thinking you can save the planet from global warming by changing a few
light bulbs to more efficient types is like pi**ing in the ocean for
all the effect it will have.

Ah yes, the old, "I'll not get off my backside until everyone else
has got off their backside line."

No - it's called being realistic. It's a con happily supported by
politicians of all colours in many countries who refuse to admit that
measures which would have some effect are simply untenable to the
majority. Nature will provide the answer in due coarse. Man may not like
that answer, though.

And the answer may well be coarse, of course.

--
*Women like silent men; they think they're listening.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 10:08:13 +0100 someone who may be "Dave Plowman
(News)" wrote this:-

Ah yes, the old, "I'll not get off my backside until everyone else
has got off their backside line."

No - it's called being realistic.

If we take the argument to its logical conclusion then nobody would
do anything, because they would be waiting for others to do the same
thing first. However, some people do take the initiative and start
trends rather then follow them.



--
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

David Hansen wrote:
On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 10:08:13 +0100 someone who may be "Dave Plowman
(News)" wrote this:-

Ah yes, the old, "I'll not get off my backside until everyone else
has got off their backside line."
No - it's called being realistic.

If we take the argument to its logical conclusion then nobody would
do anything, because they would be waiting for others to do the same
thing first. However, some people do take the initiative and start
trends rather then follow them.

They would account for flares, wearing baseball caps backwards, and
driving in the centre lane of the motorway then?

Just because you start a trend it does not mean you are doing anything
useful.

--
Cheers,

John.

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

On Oct 13, 12:49 pm, Andy Hall wrote:
On 2007-10-13 11:09:14 +0100, Lobster said:



John Rumm wrote:
Adam Aglionby wrote:

Oh, you've done it now...

Or maybe you're a troll?

Seems a little harsh Lobster....

Sorry, wasn't intended.... perhaps I should have included a :-)

Oh dear what have I said, or is it a CFL fan club in here.

Na, we are pretty equally divided on them ;-)

Not sure about that, ISTR every time downlighters are mentioned here
there seems to be a resounding chorus of disapproval!

Not from me there isn't. I think that they are excellent for a
number of situations. It would be nice if they used a little less
power, but they are not used all day normally, nor all year. When
they are in use, the heat energy is added to that in the house.



We have quite a few at home, fitted by yours truly at SWMBO's behest.
Personally I don't particularly like them, mainly because of the power
consumption issue

LV downlighters get better efficiency lumens per watt than line voltage
incan lamps.

If you say so; but the practicality is that they only illuminate a
downward pool of light rather than the whole room, which is why my
small bathroom needs 4 of the buggers totalling 140W, whereas a 20W CFL
would light the room more effectively, at one-seventh of the power
usage.

To me this is all about context. You have just made a point about
120W of energy, used at certain times in the bathroom - i.e. occasional
use even with women in the house.

Set this into the context of the energy used to heat the house, and
it's a teaspoon and bucket discussion. There is no need for sack cloth
and ashes unless your name is Hilary Benn, for whom it would be
completely appropriate.

Intrinsically, one should know that when the government is trying to
legislate for something that has proved commercially unattractive that
there is some other agenda that that presented going on.

Compared against the lighting load used by places like supermarkets
and shopping centres that deliberately use no natural daylighting,
domestic lighting load is a drop in the bucket. Heavy commercial users
will look for tax incentives to update lighting equipment.

For users looking at economising electrical load makes good sense, it
will save you money, but look at black box power consumers first,
average PC 300W+ running for how long per day?, freeview boxes that
still pull 20W in standby, lighting really is unlikely to biggest
power consumer in the house....

Adam

On 2007-10-15 12:35:22 +0100, David Hansen
said:

On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 10:08:13 +0100 someone who may be "Dave Plowman
(News)" wrote this:-

Ah yes, the old, "I'll not get off my backside until everyone else
has got off their backside line."

No - it's called being realistic.

If we take the argument to its logical conclusion then nobody would
do anything, because they would be waiting for others to do the same
thing first. However, some people do take the initiative and start
trends rather then follow them.

That's just stupid.

If there is an issue, then the appropriate course of action is to
address the most significant contributing factors first.

This one is playing a marketing game of "Let's get everyone involved"
while directing attention away from the more politically difficult
things that may actually make a difference - always assuming that it is
necessary to make a difference.