| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Solar lighting (real not artistic) ;-)
Hi All,
I would like to put some solar powered lights in the 20' x 10' x 8' (to eaves) workshop, mainly just to be able to see in there to move about rather than work as such. I don't have power down there all the time atm (long story) and even if I did (and in the spirit of d_i_y) I still like the idea of 1) making use of some of this kit [1] and 2) having some alternative lighting in there. So, I don't mind having a few unit, say one on each of the 5 roof trusses and a pull switch by the door to turn them on and off but what is currently the most efficient and good vfm please, LED or CF / Fluro? 12V inverted up to ~600V or regulated down to 5 etc? I was thinking those tubular 12V x 8W fluro inspection lamps (typically a fiver) or LED equiv held under the beams by a couple of Terry clips each (as that way they could be easily pulled down to replace the lamp (fluro)) or to help me see in a dark corner). They also have clear outers (not 'diffusers') and even a built in reflector so I can get most of the light out and where I want it and being designed for 'inspection' would probably take a knock or two without damage. If I leave some slack cable on them they could be temporarily re-positioned making use of the hook you often see on the ends of such things? http://www.machinemart.co.uk/images/...large/0231.jpg Re the fluorescent, are there good and no_so_good, from an efficiency pov please? Does spending more money generally mean I get a better design (from a Lumens pov and ignoring the same unit priced higher etc). I did think of using a maintained lamp unit but they would be more expensive and I don't necessarily want them on when the power is off (and I don't think they would be easy to switch etc). Any ideas welcomed. ;-) Cheers, T i m p.s. I guess I could use an inverter to run the existing 6' fluros off a solar / mains charged battery but that might make the whole project that much bigger and I'm not sure how efficient it would all be? This all started from seeing one of those 15 quid solar shed lights! ;-) [1] I have various solar panels (@~5W), can probably find an ex backup type battery or two and have some suitable cable, so it's just the actual lighting units I need. |
Solar lighting (real not artistic) ;-)
On Oct 20, 1:08*pm, T i m wrote:
Hi All, I would like to put some solar powered lights in the 20' x 10' x 8' (to eaves) *workshop, mainly just to be able to see in there to move about rather than work as such. I don't have power down there all the time atm (long story) and even if I did (and in the spirit of d_i_y) I still like the idea of 1) making use of some of this kit [1] and 2) having some alternative lighting in there. So, I don't mind having a few unit, say one on each of the 5 roof trusses and a pull switch by the door to turn them on and off but what is currently the most efficient and good vfm please, LED or CF / Fluro? CFL is most efficient, then linear fl. LEDs vary - theyre most useful for very low light output devices, eg 1w. Ideal for low power drop lights due to robustness. 12V inverted up to ~600V or regulated down to 5 etc? Every change of voltage loses energy, so 12v will be most efficienct. I was thinking those tubular 12V x 8W fluro inspection lamps (typically a fiver) or LED equiv held under the beams by a couple of Terry clips each (as that way they could be easily pulled down to replace the lamp (fluro)) or to help me see in a dark corner). They also have clear outers (not 'diffusers') and even a built in reflector so I can get most of the light out and where I want it and being designed for 'inspection' would probably take a knock or two without damage. *If I leave some slack cable on them they could be temporarily re-positioned making use of the hook you often see on the ends of such things? I'd probably use a couple of those for ceiling lights, and a droplight or 2, maybe LED. http://www.machinemart.co.uk/images/...large/0231.jpg Re the fluorescent, are there good and no_so_good, from an efficiency pov please? there is significant variation. Very thin tube CFLs are some of the best. Does spending more money generally mean I get a better design (from a Lumens pov and ignoring the same unit priced higher etc). Tesco microspirals are efficient and cheap. High CCT lamps are slightly more efficient, but the light quality's nasty. I did think of using a maintained lamp unit but they would be more expensive and I don't necessarily want them on when the power is off (and I don't think they would be easy to switch etc). Any ideas welcomed. ;-) Cheers, *T i m p.s. I guess I could use an inverter to run the existing 6' fluros off a solar / mains charged battery but that might make the whole project that much bigger and I'm not sure how efficient it would all be? This all started from seeing one of those 15 quid solar shed lights! ;-) [1] I have various solar panels (@~5W), can probably find an ex backup type battery or two and have some suitable cable, so it's just the actual lighting units I need. While you could run a 5 footer at 240v, it would take a real long time to replenish the energy used at just 5w. Energy capture can be improved a little with diffuse reflection in winter only - dont concentrate in summer. One option would be to run the 5 footer at much reduced power. Details depend on the ballast type, but either way its easy to do. Tube life would drop signifcantly, but tubes are so cheap and other methods not so, so it may work well. TBH though I'd not overlook gas lighting. Its way more reliable than solar electric, needs no installation, gives sensible output levels. NT |
Solar lighting (real not artistic) ;-)
T i m wrote:
On Mon, 20 Oct 2008 06:07:23 -0700 (PDT), wrote: So, I don't mind having a few unit, say one on each of the 5 roof trusses and a pull switch by the door to turn them on and off but what is currently the most efficient and good vfm please, LED or CF / Fluro? CFL is most efficient, then linear fl. Ah, didn't know that. AFAIK that is in fact not true. That's what I was thinking but whilst I could probably (nearly) run LED's directly from 12V DC (ie, no regulation wastage?) don't these CFL's have inverters in them anyway? Of course. One reason they are not very efficient. Consider the typical 12v powered caravan fluorescent. If you are using solar panels to charge car batteries, anyway. Hmm, I think I'll stick with an independent system then. 240V for real / working lighting and this solar for the odd time I pop down there with the mains off (why is it the tool you need is where you aren't). Yes. I would simply have some batteries charged by solar if you must, or by mains charger, and use caravan lights as emergency, and proper mains tubes for real power. |
Solar lighting (real not artistic) ;-)
On Mon, 20 Oct 2008 06:07:23 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
On Oct 20, 1:08*pm, T i m wrote: Hi All, I would like to put some solar powered lights in the 20' x 10' x 8' (to eaves) *workshop, mainly just to be able to see in there to move about rather than work as such. I don't have power down there all the time atm (long story) and even if I did (and in the spirit of d_i_y) I still like the idea of 1) making use of some of this kit [1] and 2) having some alternative lighting in there. So, I don't mind having a few unit, say one on each of the 5 roof trusses and a pull switch by the door to turn them on and off but what is currently the most efficient and good vfm please, LED or CF / Fluro? CFL is most efficient, then linear fl. LEDs vary - theyre most useful for very low light output devices, eg 1w. Ideal for low power drop lights due to robustness. If you fancy playing around with some LEDs, try these kinda things: http://tinyurl.com/5psh64 Briefly, high-power LEDs are extremely bright. These units claim up to 400 lumems (c.f. 100W bulb: 1700 lumens) and can be wired in series to match the voltage from your battery - more or less. The one's I got a couple of years ago were 1W jobs, they came with a warning not to look directly at the light source. Although not as bright as a mains bulb, the source is much, much smaller so the light is more concentrated. |
Solar lighting (real not artistic) ;-)
On Mon, 20 Oct 2008 15:03:59 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote: That's what I was thinking but whilst I could probably (nearly) run LED's directly from 12V DC (ie, no regulation wastage?) don't these CFL's have inverters in them anyway? Of course. One reason they are not very efficient. Is this in general .. in comparison with incandescent (mind you, I could do with some heating down there as well). ;-) Consider the typical 12v powered caravan fluorescent. I guess it's all relative. Lucky my eyes are still reasonable in the dark and all I'm looking to do here is make it easier than stumbling about in the pitch black or taking a torch. If you are using solar panels to charge car batteries, anyway. I have the panels and ex UPS batteries so I might as well have them wired together and doing *something*? Hmm, I think I'll stick with an independent system then. 240V for real / working lighting and this solar for the odd time I pop down there with the mains off (why is it the tool you need is where you aren't). Yes. I would simply have some batteries charged by solar if you must, or by mains charger, and use caravan lights as emergency, and proper mains tubes for real power. Well, there are currently 6 x 5' (not 6') singles down there and supplementary light over the bench and an Angle poise with mini spot over the lathe. I could leave an auto charger on there as well cos if the solar panels do their job there won't be much for the mains charger to do when the power is on? Cheers, T i m |
Solar lighting (real not artistic) ;-)
On 20 Oct 2008 14:48:16 GMT, pete wrote:
If you fancy playing around with some LEDs, try these kinda things: http://tinyurl.com/5psh64 Briefly, high-power LEDs are extremely bright. These units claim up to 400 lumems (c.f. 100W bulb: 1700 lumens) and can be wired in series to match the voltage from your battery - more or less. Understood. The one's I got a couple of years ago were 1W jobs, they came with a warning not to look directly at the light source. Although not as bright as a mains bulb, the source is much, much smaller so the light is more concentrated. Yes, I have a single_LED torch and it is very intense indeed! If it's agreed that LED's are the most efficient I'm thinking I could wire a few of those little 'stick-up' lights (that normally take 3 x AAA or similar) together in series parallel (if each unit is designed to run on 3 x 1.5V (4.5V) then 3 in series should be ok on ~14V ? I've seen said pretty cheap on the markets and I think are often also magnetic (so would clip directly to my steel roof angles). ;-) http://www.amazon.co.uk/LED-Stick-N-.../dp/B000NOSCYO With enough it will look like those halogen downlighters that people were so keen on before they became too expensive to run. ;-) Cheers, T i m |
Solar lighting (real not artistic) ;-)
On Oct 20, 2:52*pm, T i m wrote:
On Mon, 20 Oct 2008 06:07:23 -0700 (PDT), wrote: 12V inverted up to ~600V or regulated down to 5 etc? Every change of voltage loses energy, so 12v will be most efficienct. That's what I was thinking but whilst I could probably (nearly) run LED's directly from 12V DC (ie, no regulation wastage?) don't these CFL's have inverters in them anyway? Yes, but of a different type to the one's you'd use externally. Ever voltage conversion step loses energy, so the less steps you add the better from an effieicncy POV. Of course most efficient isn't always cheapest - 240v CFLs cost less than 12v ones. Tesco microspirals are efficient and cheap. I don't suppose they are available in 12V though? :-( I guess not :) High CCT lamps are slightly more efficient, but the light quality's nasty. As long as they illuminate the area efficiently I'm not fussy. ;-) ok While you could run a 5 footer at 240v, it would take a real long time to replenish the energy used at just 5w. Understood. Then again if you only use it occasionally, and you've got more than one 5w panel and a battery big enough to supply it for as long as you use it, it would be ok. If. TBH though I'd not overlook gas lighting. Its way more reliable than solar electric, needs no installation, gives sensible output levels. Hmm, not sure about that (gas) .. sounds like the recipe for an instant sun roof on my workshop! ha - they do produce a lot of heat. p.s. Sorry but I'm getting old and my memory is failing fast ... did we meet up once, solar panels and generators etc? Sorry, I've not been to any of the ukdiy meets yet, so I dont think so. Been to other events though, if that's what you mean. NT |
Solar lighting (real not artistic) ;-)
On Oct 20, 3:03*pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
T i m wrote: On Mon, 20 Oct 2008 06:07:23 -0700 (PDT), wrote: So, I don't mind having a few unit, say one on each of the 5 roof trusses and a pull switch by the door to turn them on and off but what is currently the most efficient and good vfm please, LED or CF / Fluro? CFL is most efficient, then linear fl. Ah, didn't know that. AFAIK that is in fact not true. Both technologies cover a range of efficiencies, so best to look at individual ones if you want exact figures. NT |
Solar lighting (real not artistic) ;-)
On Oct 20, 3:03*pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
T i m wrote: On Mon, 20 Oct 2008 06:07:23 -0700 (PDT), wrote: So, I don't mind having a few unit, say one on each of the 5 roof trusses and a pull switch by the door to turn them on and off but what is currently the most efficient and good vfm please, LED or CF / Fluro? CFL is most efficient, then linear fl. Ah, didn't know that. AFAIK that is in fact not true. Both technologies cover a range of efficiencies, so best to look at individual ones if you want exact figures. That's what I was thinking but whilst I could probably (nearly) run LED's directly from 12V DC (ie, no regulation wastage?) You need regulation for that, unless you want to run them with a very inefficient ballast. A constant current regulator is good, ideally an LDO type. don't these CFL's have inverters in them anyway? Of course. One reason they are not very efficient. CFL and linear FL are the 2 most efficient domestic white light sources. NT |
Solar lighting (real not artistic) ;-)
|
Solar lighting (real not artistic) ;-)
wrote:
On Oct 20, 3:03 pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote: T i m wrote: On Mon, 20 Oct 2008 06:07:23 -0700 (PDT), wrote: So, I don't mind having a few unit, say one on each of the 5 roof trusses and a pull switch by the door to turn them on and off but what is currently the most efficient and good vfm please, LED or CF / Fluro? CFL is most efficient, then linear fl. Ah, didn't know that. AFAIK that is in fact not true. Both technologies cover a range of efficiencies, so best to look at individual ones if you want exact figures. Indeed. But AFAIK the figures are roughly 10-25% efficient for linear fluorescents. 6-10% for CFL, similar for LED and 1-3% efficient for incandescent. This makes reasonable reading. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminous_efficacy A CFL bulb is merely a normal fluorescent with all the efficiency compromised by a cheap and nasty inverter, a shortened and coiled tube, and use of natural light phosphors to make it 'look' nicer. Industrial grade striplights with electronic ballasts compromise light quality to get efficiency. NT |
Solar lighting (real not artistic) ;-)
|
Solar lighting (real not artistic) ;-)
On Oct 21, 9:13*am, T i m wrote:
On Mon, 20 Oct 2008 16:51:38 -0700 (PDT), wrote: On Oct 20, 2:52*pm, T i m wrote: On Mon, 20 Oct 2008 06:07:23 -0700 (PDT), wrote: 12V inverted up to ~600V or regulated down to 5 etc? Every change of voltage loses energy, so 12v will be most efficienct. That's what I was thinking but whilst I could probably (nearly) run LED's directly from 12V DC (ie, no regulation wastage?) don't these CFL's have inverters in them anyway? Yes, but of a different type to the one's you'd use externally. So better or worse than the external ones do we think? I mean the external ones are much bigger and what must be built in so and I presume they wouldn't do that less they had to (bigger / heavier might be better but more expensive)? They're really 2 fairly different things. Efficiency and life expectancy vary a fair bit for both types. Ever voltage conversion step loses energy, so the less steps you add the better from an effieicncy POV. Agreed. I was thinking that the nearer I could get to a (say) raw 12V as a ideal supply the less regulation I might need? If youre thinking of LEDs here, its the other way round. The closer your LED string is to 10.4v (cutoff voltage for 12v lead acids), with an unregulated ballast the more the LED current varies as the battery varies from 10.4v to 14v. Say we have a 10v LED string, then the ballast drops anything from 0.4v to 4.4v, current changing by a factor of 11, which is quite useless. If you want efficiency, you need to use a regulator as an LED ballast. However, you often deed a bit of an offset for active regulation so maybe I'd end up looking for a 9V supply rail for the LED's? With yer std LM7809 type regulators does that mean the surplus energy is going to be 'wasted' in the reg? Whats dropped in the reg is wasted, yes. But you cant use a 7809 as 78 series require a min Vdrop of 4v, and 10.4v - 6v = 4.4v max for your LED string, with consequent poor efficiency. Best to use an LDO reg (Low DropOut) in constant current mode, then you can go upto 10v or more with your LED string. If you went with a switched mode reg, then the dropped V wouldnt be wasted, but for LEDs the cost & complication isnt generally worth it. OTOH if you know how to easily make a basic sm reg it would likely be practical. While you could run a 5 footer at 240v, it would take a real long time to replenish the energy used at just 5w. Understood. Then again if you only use it occasionally, and you've got more than one 5w panel and a battery big enough to supply it for as long as you use it, it would be ok. If. Indeed, and that may well be the actual scenario / usage pattern. Would save you buying anything but an invertor & changeover relay. Then again if you've got mains you dont need the panels. As an aside I've just bought a couple of ~1.5W 12V (not 12V but higher of course) bare panels with the intention of making them up into fully waterproof modules to fix the South facing wall of this house, where it happens we park a couple of our motorbikes. A suitable non-latching connector fitted in the right place on the bikes and the panels should at least balance any background losses from alarms, and maybe even keep them topped up and ready. Maybe in summer. Are they going flat? I think there could be a market for a long, narrow 12V 'charging' panel that could be fitted on or on the wall underneath external window sills. Not the ideal angle(s) maybe but probably better than nothing and not 'obvious' to passers by? I'm not sure a PV solar panel is that useful whre there's already mains. TBH though I'd not overlook gas lighting. Its way more reliable than solar electric, needs no installation, gives sensible output levels. Hmm, not sure about that (gas) .. sounds like the recipe for an instant sun roof on my workshop! ha - they do produce a lot of heat. I was thinking more the mixture of gas and air and a lighted match! Who would leave it on unlit? p.s. Sorry but I'm getting old and my memory is failing fast ... did we meet up once, solar panels and generators etc? Sorry, I've not been to any of the ukdiy meets yet, so I dont think so. Been to other events though, if that's what you mean. I was thinking I may have been to yours, a few years back but I must have my wires crossed (sorry). Cheers, T i m Ah, yeah must be someone else then NT |
Solar lighting (real not artistic) ;-)
T i m wrote:
Agreed. I was thinking that the nearer I could get to a (say) raw 12V as a ideal supply the less regulation I might need? However, you often deed a bit of an offset for active regulation so maybe I'd end up looking for a 9V supply rail for the LED's? With yer std LM7809 type regulators does that mean the surplus energy is going to be 'wasted' in the reg? LEDS of the silicon/gallium sort have typical forward voltages in the 1-3v region. They need to be current driven. the cheap and cheerful wy is to bung in a power wasting resistor. The better way is a SMPS that detects the current and adjusts output accordingly. Essentially chop te DC to AC and put an inductor in series to limit current losslessly - well fairly losslesly anyway. 7809 is not what you want at all. Of course most efficient isn't always cheapest - 240v CFLs cost less than 12v ones. By quite a percentage it seems. :-( Econmomies of scale. If you have a large office or industrial space to illuminate, you use ****loads of striplights. They are the most efficient, and because they are produced in ****loads, they are cheap. The mini ones are just as hard, if not harder, to make, and have slightly more complex electronics. And probably slightly less efficient electronics. And are sold in much smaller quantities for boat and caravan type usage. I have since found quite a few suppliers of 12V CFL's and it seems they may be the preferred solution for remote buildings, stables and sheds etc. ie, You can get kits with panel, battery and a couple of lv CFL's. Yup. I've got about 4 such in my camper van. No battery though. Just a 12v capable mini fluorescent pair with the inverters. YOu can in fact get fluorescent torches as well. While you could run a 5 footer at 240v, it would take a real long time to replenish the energy used at just 5w. Understood. Really?. I don't understand at all. 5W is 5W irrespective of the voltage. Then again if you only use it occasionally, and you've got more than one 5w panel and a battery big enough to supply it for as long as you use it, it would be ok. If. Indeed, and that may well be the actual scenario / usage pattern. I can run a couple of 12v fluoros, an occasional water pump, off a nearly fsked leisure battery for a couple of LONG evenings before it goes flat. Many people with boats use solar panels to charge leisure batteries, and run without mains of generator power at all. Its not hugely efficient, nor is it cheap, but if te biats engine isn; running, its reasonable compromise. As an aside I've just bought a couple of ~1.5W 12V (not 12V but higher of course) bare panels with the intention of making them up into fully waterproof modules to fix the South facing wall of this house, where it happens we park a couple of our motorbikes. A suitable non-latching connector fitted in the right place on the bikes and the panels should at least balance any background losses from alarms, and maybe even keep them topped up and ready. I think there could be a market for a long, narrow 12V 'charging' panel that could be fitted on or on the wall underneath external window sills. Not the ideal angle(s) maybe but probably better than nothing and not 'obvious' to passers by? Again, look at the caravan market. My caper has a mains to 12v SMPS charger that is very compact and very efficient. Not weatherproof, but that is simply a question of the right enclosure. Meow is as usual disseminating a mixture, of truths, half truths and mieleading stuff improperly understood. If you want to go into a solar/leisure battery/12v lighting system,with or without mains backup, go and find a caravan or boat specialist suppliers. Everything you need will be there. using an inverter to the run stuff intended for mains is a dubious path: If you want to go THAT route, use a computer UPS - they will run a complete mains installation from batteries for a period. And then use proper full length striplights, not CFLs. |
Solar lighting (real not artistic) ;-)
On Oct 21, 9:39*am, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
wrote: On Oct 20, 3:03 pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote: T i m wrote: On Mon, 20 Oct 2008 06:07:23 -0700 (PDT), wrote: So, I don't mind having a few unit, say one on each of the 5 roof trusses and a pull switch by the door to turn them on and off but what is currently the most efficient and good vfm please, LED or CF / Fluro? CFL is most efficient, then linear fl. Ah, didn't know that. AFAIK that is in fact not true. Both technologies cover a range of efficiencies, so best to look at individual ones if you want exact figures. Indeed. But AFAIK the figures are roughly 10-25% efficient for linear fluorescents. 6-10% for CFL, similar for LED and 1-3% efficient for incandescent. This makes reasonable reading. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminous_efficacy A CFL bulb is merely a normal fluorescent with all the efficiency compromised by a cheap and nasty inverter, a shortened and coiled tube, and use of natural light phosphors to make it 'look' nicer. fair enough, though CFLs also use higher efficiency phosphors (triphosphors), and some of those caravan 12v linear modules have awful ballasts. You also need to compare the 2 options at the specific light output level you're looking for, and ratios vary. Industrial grade striplights with electronic ballasts compromise light quality to get efficiency. NT If you use high efficiency tubes, yes. There are also less efficient ones. Short T12 halophosphate in warm colours dont perform so well - and its lower power tubes that 5w panels will run. NT |
Solar lighting (real not artistic) ;-)
On Oct 21, 9:43*am, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
wrote: don't these CFL's have inverters in them anyway? Of course. One reason they are not very efficient. CFL and linear FL are the 2 most efficient domestic white light sources. That right, but CFLS are not as efficient as linear. *From experience, the caravan type linear fluorescent is probably the best thing from a 12v source, though some LEDS seem to be catching up fast. |
Solar lighting (real not artistic) ;-)
On Oct 21, 10:02*am, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
T i m wrote: Agreed. I was thinking that the nearer I could get to a (say) raw 12V as a ideal supply the less regulation I might need? However, you often deed a bit of an offset for active regulation so maybe I'd end up looking for a 9V supply rail for the LED's? With yer std LM7809 type regulators does that mean the surplus energy is going to be 'wasted' in the reg? LEDS of the silicon/gallium sort have typical forward voltages in the 1-3v region. White LEDs drop 4v or more. I assume Tim would go for white. No LED drops 1v. While you could run a 5 footer at 240v, it would take a real long time to replenish the energy used at just 5w. Understood. Really?. I don't understand at all. 5W is 5W irrespective of the voltage. 5' tubes are 65w or 58w. 240v fittings run them at full power, not less. There are invertor losses and lead acid battery energy losses. A 5w panel won't deliver anywhere near 5w in winter, so will take a very long time over recharging. Simple enough. Then again if you only use it occasionally, and you've got more than one 5w panel and a battery big enough to supply it for as long as you use it, it would be ok. If. Indeed, and that may well be the actual scenario / usage pattern. I can run a couple of 12v fluoros, an occasional water pump, off a nearly fsked leisure battery for a couple of LONG evenings before it goes flat. yes, run time is down to battery capacity, recharge time down to that & panel output. using an inverter to the run stuff intended for mains is a dubious path: Its common enough. It has the advantage that you can run a range of mains appliances when you want to, and the plus that you can get your CFLs with the groceries, or use ones you rejected for house use. If you want to go THAT route, use a computer UPS *- they will run a complete mains installation from batteries for a period. It will run (without load) whenever mains goes down, in most cases discharging itself before you ever get round to switching the light on. Not ideal :) And then use proper full length striplights, not CFLs. Full length strips will eat far more power, not very ideal for a 5w panel. Meow is as usual disseminating a mixture, of truths, half truths and mieleading stuff improperly understood. funny. Neither of us is perfect, but lets stay in reality. NT |
Solar lighting (real not artistic) ;-)
|
Solar lighting (real not artistic) ;-)
|
Solar lighting (real not artistic) ;-)
|
Solar lighting (real not artistic) ;-)
On Oct 21, 1:42*pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
wrote: On Oct 21, 10:02 am, The Natural Philosopher wrote: T i m wrote: using an inverter to the run stuff intended for mains is a dubious path: Its common enough. It has the advantage that you can run a range of mains appliances when you want to, and the plus that you can get your CFLs with the groceries, or use ones you rejected for house use. If you want to go THAT route, use a computer UPS *- they will run a complete mains installation from batteries for a period. It will run (without load) whenever mains goes down, in most cases discharging itself before you ever get round to switching the light on. Not ideal :) That marvellous invention called 'A Switch' generally fixes that ;-) I had assumed the OP wouldn't want to modify the UPS's electronics, but just plug it in. If he's willing to mod it then sure. If not, a switch won't solve the problem. You dont have to run them as backup. They are after all simply inverters that run all the time no theyre not. ..off batteries tat are charged all the time..you can get the separate bits. I was merely pointing out that if you wanted to use mainly mains but occasionally battery, mains lights and an inverter would be possible. Looks like we agree than. I mentioned that several posts back, but ISTR you called it madness. And te UPS industry ahs suitable perty high power invertersm, if you have a shed load of batteries. Its always an option. Beware of adding batteries to UPSes though, since the UPS heatsink may be unable to keep output device temp acceptable for long enough. Meow is as usual disseminating a mixture, of truths, half truths and mieleading stuff improperly understood. funny. Neither of us is perfect, but lets stay in reality. Well you do wander off into needless complexity. The system is needless from the start, so all of this is needless. Each person's choice how much they think is useful or not, and I don't see any special basis for your view on that, its just your view. Before you discuss solutions, it pays to analyse the problem properly. Thats why I suggested gas lighting. NT |
Solar lighting (real not artistic) ;-)
wrote in message ... On Oct 21, 1:42 pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote: wrote: On Oct 21, 10:02 am, The Natural Philosopher wrote: T i m wrote: using an inverter to the run stuff intended for mains is a dubious path: Its common enough. It has the advantage that you can run a range of mains appliances when you want to, and the plus that you can get your CFLs with the groceries, or use ones you rejected for house use. If you want to go THAT route, use a computer UPS - they will run a complete mains installation from batteries for a period. It will run (without load) whenever mains goes down, in most cases discharging itself before you ever get round to switching the light on. Not ideal :) That marvellous invention called 'A Switch' generally fixes that ;-) I had assumed the OP wouldn't want to modify the UPS's electronics, but just plug it in. If he's willing to mod it then sure. If not, a switch won't solve the problem. You dont have to run them as backup. They are after all simply inverters that run all the time no theyre not. Some are, some aren't. I have a UPS that has the ability to start from the battery even when the mains input has gone. It would be quite easy to charge the battery from a solar source and use the switch to turn on the inverter. I think its an APC one with cold start. |
Solar lighting (real not artistic) ;-)
On Tue, 21 Oct 2008 09:39:37 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote: Indeed. But AFAIK the figures are roughly 10-25% efficient for linear fluorescents. 6-10% for CFL, similar for LED and 1-3% efficient for incandescent. But, from reading around my old(ish) 6 x 5' fluro's in the garage aren't as energy efficient as the later stuff, but what would it cost me to upgrade and therefore how long to recoup the upgrade cost (considering I'm not in there very often, especially in the winter)? This makes reasonable reading. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminous_efficacy Interesting indeed. A CFL bulb is merely a normal fluorescent with all the efficiency compromised by a cheap and nasty inverter, a shortened and coiled tube, and use of natural light phosphors to make it 'look' nicer. I guess they are cheap and nasty 'electronic' inverter so could they still be more efficient than the older ballasted jobbies? Industrial grade striplights with electronic ballasts compromise light quality to get efficiency. That's what I want then, especially in the kitchen! ;-) T i m |
Solar lighting (real not artistic) ;-)
In article ,
T i m writes: On Tue, 21 Oct 2008 09:39:37 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote: Indeed. But AFAIK the figures are roughly 10-25% efficient for linear fluorescents. 6-10% for CFL, similar for LED and 1-3% efficient for incandescent. But, from reading around my old(ish) 6 x 5' fluro's in the garage aren't as energy efficient as the later stuff, but what would it cost It depends when they were bought. Around the mid-80's manufacturers started making conventional ballasts less efficient to reduce costs. By the late 1990's this had got really bad, and the EU legislated to mandate specific ballast efficiencies in about 3 steps. The legislation was intenteded to outlaw conventional ballasts, but actually the manufacturers of them have got them as efficient as the electronic ballast category, and hence they are still around. So, if you have a very recent fitting, or a fitting from the 1970's or earlier, these tend to be quite efficient. In the gap inbetween, you'll find they use ballasts which get too hot to touch due to their inefficiency. (One slight fly in the oitment is that the mandated efficiency ratings don't apply to domestic fittings in the UK, so you might find a set of budget fittings from a DIY shed are still not particularly efficient.) The ratings have been required to be marked on ballasts for last decade or so. They go D, C, B, A, AA in increasing efficiency. I think commercial users are only permitted to use A and AA now (at least, there's a date when that becomes the case). "A" was intended to be electronic control gear, but like I said, manufacturers managed to get conventional gear into this range, and now AA is intended to be electronic control gear. Electronic control gear always adds around 10% efficiency, which is due to high frequency operation. Above about 5kHz, the way the gas discharge works changes, and all electronic control gear operates well above 5kHz (15-50kHz is the normal range). me to upgrade and therefore how long to recoup the upgrade cost (considering I'm not in there very often, especially in the winter)? Probably never. I bought a 4-pack of dirt cheap 5-footers, and then changed the control gear to electronic. However, the main reason for this was that they're in the garage where the freezer is, and people nip in and out in a few seconds, by which time about half of them would have finished coming on if they were switch-start. This makes reasonable reading. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminous_efficacy Interesting indeed. A CFL bulb is merely a normal fluorescent with all the efficiency compromised by a cheap and nasty inverter, a shortened and coiled tube, The inverters in these are actually very efficient. They operate in a hot environment due to the tube, and they can't afford to generate any significant extra heat themselves or they'd die. If you distance them from the tube, you will find they barely get warm. If they weren't cheap, you wouldn't be able to afford them. They don't have to last very long -- 20,000 hours would see off all tubes, and that's a very short lifetime for a piece of simple electronics. and use of natural light phosphors to make it 'look' nicer. I guess they are cheap and nasty 'electronic' inverter so could they still be more efficient than the older ballasted jobbies? Industrial grade striplights with electronic ballasts compromise light quality to get efficiency. There are rather a lot of sweeping generalisations here which can't possibly apply across the wide ranging marketplace that exists. That's what I want then, especially in the kitchen! ;-) -- Andrew Gabriel [email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup] |
Solar lighting (real not artistic) ;-)
On Tue, 21 Oct 2008 10:02:51 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote: As an aside I've just bought a couple of ~1.5W 12V (not 12V but higher of course) bare panels with the intention of making them up into fully waterproof modules to fix the South facing wall of this house, where it happens we park a couple of our motorbikes. A suitable non-latching connector fitted in the right place on the bikes and the panels should at least balance any background losses from alarms, and maybe even keep them topped up and ready. I think there could be a market for a long, narrow 12V 'charging' panel that could be fitted on or on the wall underneath external window sills. Not the ideal angle(s) maybe but probably better than nothing and not 'obvious' to passers by? Again, look at the caravan market. My caper has a mains to 12v SMPS charger that is very compact and very efficient. Not weatherproof, but that is simply a question of the right enclosure. And not cheap either? Also not sure how one system would be good for solar charging two motorbikes. ;-) The idea was to have a simple (as in not having to run mains or LV cables to the outside of the house) that would add *something* to a charged battery to stop it self discharging or being discharged by any onboard electronics (one bike has a clock, external temp gauge and immobiliser). If you want to go into a solar/leisure battery/12v lighting system,with or without mains backup, go and find a caravan or boat specialist suppliers. Everything you need will be there. At a price. I have the batteries, I have the cable / switches, I have inverters (150W), ex PC UPS's in varying sizes etc etc but it's all taking it too far, at_the_moment. If I stick two of the several solar panels in the south facing windows of my garage and hook them in parallel to one of my best ex-telephone exchange calcium batteries (possibly via a charge controller to minimize the risk of over discharging) I reckon I could get enough light in there the odd time I need it to be able to safely see myself around. And that's all I really need to be able to do. As you say, I could also give the battery a boost on mains when it's available (and the solar might stop the battery self discharging in-between)? Cheers, T i m |
Solar lighting (real not artistic) ;-)
On Tue, 21 Oct 2008 20:18:07 +0100, "dennis@home"
wrote: You dont have to run them as backup. They are after all simply inverters that run all the time no theyre not. Some are, some aren't. I have a UPS that has the ability to start from the battery even when the mains input has gone. Isn't this the on-line / off-line thing? An online UPS having the charger battery inverter 'on' all the time whereas an offline UPS has the battery under charge but the mains normally switched through to the output via a relay and only switched to the battery inverter when the mains fails? It would be quite easy to charge the battery from a solar source and use the switch to turn on the inverter. I actually have one UPS that has a separate battery box that holds 4 x 17AH seal lead acid batteries. It would be quite easy to supplement that setup with 4 x solar panels etc. I think its an APC one with cold start. Most of mine are APC. ;-) Cheers, T i m |
Solar lighting (real not artistic) ;-)
On Oct 21, 9:20*pm, T i m wrote:
On Tue, 21 Oct 2008 10:02:51 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote: As an aside I've just bought a couple of ~1.5W 12V (not 12V but higher of course) bare panels with the intention of making them up into fully waterproof modules to fix the South facing wall of this house, where it happens we park a couple of our motorbikes. A suitable non-latching connector fitted in the right place on the bikes and the panels should at least balance any background losses from alarms, and maybe even keep them topped up and ready. I think there could be a market for a long, narrow 12V 'charging' panel that could be fitted on or on the wall underneath external window sills. Not the ideal angle(s) maybe but probably better than nothing and not 'obvious' to passers by? Again, look at the caravan market. My caper has a mains to 12v SMPS charger that is very compact and very efficient. Not weatherproof, but that is simply a question of the right enclosure. And not cheap either? Also not sure how one system would be good for solar charging two motorbikes. ;-) 2 diodes. It would inherently charge whichever battery was flatter. NT |
Solar lighting (real not artistic) ;-)
On Oct 20, 6:37*pm, T i m wrote:
On 20 Oct 2008 14:48:16 GMT, pete wrote: If you fancy playing around with some LEDs, try these kinda things: http://tinyurl.com/5psh64 Briefly, high-power LEDs are extremely bright. These units claim up to 400 lumems (c.f. 100W bulb: 1700 lumens) and can be wired in series to match the voltage from your battery - more or less. Understood. The one's I got a couple of years ago were 1W jobs, they came with a warning not to look directly at the light source. Although not as bright as a mains bulb, the source is much, much smaller so the light is more concentrated. Yes, I have a single_LED torch and it is very intense indeed! If it's agreed that LED's are the most efficient I'm thinking I could wire a few of those little 'stick-up' lights (that normally take 3 x AAA or similar) together in series parallel (if *each unit is designed to run on 3 x 1.5V (4.5V) then 3 in series should be ok on ~14V ? I've seen said pretty cheap on the markets and I think are often also magnetic (so would clip directly to my steel roof angles). ;-) http://www.amazon.co.uk/LED-Stick-N-.../dp/B000NOSCYO I'd be surprised if those were the most efficient LEDs around. More likely cheap sh--. NT |
Solar lighting (real not artistic) ;-)
|
Solar lighting (real not artistic) ;-)
On Tue, 21 Oct 2008 17:07:29 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
I've seen said pretty cheap on the markets and I think are often also magnetic (so would clip directly to my steel roof angles). ;-) http://www.amazon.co.uk/LED-Stick-N-.../dp/B000NOSCYO I'd be surprised if those were the most efficient LEDs around. More likely cheap sh--. Well, good point and one I'd considered but I guess these things are relative. Also, I considered that 'several' cheap / (potentially not the best efficiency in the world) lights might just do the intended job better than something less 'affordable'? I've got a few of such LED lights already but more designed for portable / car use (they have a magnet on the back) and yesterday I tried one in the darkened kitchen. As expected the LED's are fairly directional giving me a bright downlighter / spot but still the one lamp was more than sufficient to take a dangerous dark hole into somewhere you could safely make a cuppa. ;-) Given that this lamp has so far lasted *ages* of 3 x cheapo AAA cells I think it would be ok as part of my experiment. [1] Cheers, T i m [1] I will first get 3 off these and run them from 12V and measure the current. I will then compare those with one fluro inspection strip lamp, a 12V cfl and a 'caravan' type fluro. |
Solar lighting (real not artistic) ;-)
"T i m" wrote in message ... [1] I will first get 3 off these and run them from 12V and measure the current. I will then compare those with one fluro inspection strip lamp, a 12V cfl and a 'caravan' type fluro. The LEDs shouldn't take much. If they were the big 1 watt ones they would need about 300 mA but your batteries would be flat in a couple of hours so they aren't that big. I would guess at 50 mA. You then need to look for a LED constant current PSU to drive them all in series. Or maybe something like http://www.maplin.co.uk/Module.aspx?ModuleNo=47376 Or you could just buy a few of these http://www.maplin.co.uk/Module.aspx?ModuleNo=223916 |
Solar lighting (real not artistic) ;-)
Andrew Gabriel wrote:
In article , writes: CFL is most efficient, then linear fl. Other way around. The extra losses in a CFL are caused by folding the tube, so there's always one bit of tube blocking the light from another bit of tube, and the tubes are quite opaque so that this light is almost completely lost. Some effort went into working out ways of folding the tube so as to lose least light (and give a reasonably uniform light distribution). An open coil/spiral is generally the winner, but results in lamps which are too big for many purposes (and I believe there are patent issues with it too). Trying to make a small compact light source from a tube is always the loser. The best/brightest CFLs we have are described as being 'trumpet' style. An open spiral similar in shape to a trumpet mute. On that basis, my experience agrees absolutely. (Also happen to have excellent colour.) -- Rod Hypothyroidism is a seriously debilitating condition with an insidious onset. Although common it frequently goes undiagnosed. www.thyromind.info www.thyroiduk.org www.altsupportthyroid.org |
Solar lighting (real not artistic) ;-)
On Wed, 22 Oct 2008 09:01:13 +0100, "dennis@home"
wrote: "T i m" wrote in message .. . [1] I will first get 3 off these and run them from 12V and measure the current. I will then compare those with one fluro inspection strip lamp, a 12V cfl and a 'caravan' type fluro. The LEDs shouldn't take much. If they were the big 1 watt ones they would need about 300 mA but your batteries would be flat in a couple of hours so they aren't that big. I would guess at 50 mA. Ok and when I find what I'm looking for I'll stick my DMM in there on one lamp first (I'm talking the cheap pack of 3 LED lights you often see on the markets). You then need to look for a LED constant current PSU to drive them all in series. Would I though? I'm not sure what voltage range 3 x AAA's would offer but I guess it might be no worse than the load dip I might get on a decently sized solar charged leisure battery? I was thinking 3 x 4.5V = 13.5V, not far off the float voltage of a 12V battery and as the solar panel isn't going to be dumping 5A in there it may not pick up much above say 14V. I was thinking these lights may well deal with that as-is and if not a series diode or two might just take the edge off it? Or maybe something like http://www.maplin.co.uk/Module.aspx?ModuleNo=47376 I saw them the day they were released and *nearly* bought one at the time (and probably would had they had one in stock). ;-) Whilst nice they are a bit too expensive for this particular project, based on the idea that I need light at fairly frequent and regular intervals along most of the 20' of this garage. Or you could just buy a few of these http://www.maplin.co.uk/Module.aspx?ModuleNo=223916 Yeah, that might even work if I had some translucent roofing panels on this garage (and something I'm also considering). ;-) All the best, T i m |
Solar lighting (real not artistic) ;-)
T i m wrote:
On Tue, 21 Oct 2008 09:39:37 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote: Indeed. But AFAIK the figures are roughly 10-25% efficient for linear fluorescents. 6-10% for CFL, similar for LED and 1-3% efficient for incandescent. But, from reading around my old(ish) 6 x 5' fluro's in the garage aren't as energy efficient as the later stuff, but what would it cost me to upgrade and therefore how long to recoup the upgrade cost (considering I'm not in there very often, especially in the winter)? Duno. I got three cheapo striplights for my loft. I was surprised how cheap the were. But I cant remember how much it was.. In about 1955 my father installed a striplight in our garage. I remember fitting a new starter in about 1968, and IIRC a new tube in the 80's after I had left home. It was still going in 2004 when the house was finally sold. This makes reasonable reading. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminous_efficacy Interesting indeed. A CFL bulb is merely a normal fluorescent with all the efficiency compromised by a cheap and nasty inverter, a shortened and coiled tube, and use of natural light phosphors to make it 'look' nicer. I guess they are cheap and nasty 'electronic' inverter so could they still be more efficient than the older ballasted jobbies? I would say not a lot of difference. Inductor ballasts are more innefficient by virtue of using too little iron, than inherently bad. I believe the electronic ballasts that presumably contain 'starter' circuitry are preferred because the starters don't go! And are in fact cheaper. The extra efficiency is a small bonus. Industrial grade striplights with electronic ballasts compromise light quality to get efficiency. That's what I want then, especially in the kitchen! ;-) YUP. Ultimaletely LED/OLED will beat them, but not yet. T i m |
Solar lighting (real not artistic) ;-)
Andrew Gabriel wrote:
In article , T i m writes: On Tue, 21 Oct 2008 09:39:37 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote: Indeed. But AFAIK the figures are roughly 10-25% efficient for linear fluorescents. 6-10% for CFL, similar for LED and 1-3% efficient for incandescent. But, from reading around my old(ish) 6 x 5' fluro's in the garage aren't as energy efficient as the later stuff, but what would it cost It depends when they were bought. Around the mid-80's manufacturers started making conventional ballasts less efficient to reduce costs. By the late 1990's this had got really bad, and the EU legislated to mandate specific ballast efficiencies in about 3 steps. The legislation was intenteded to outlaw conventional ballasts, but actually the manufacturers of them have got them as efficient as the electronic ballast category, and hence they are still around. So, if you have a very recent fitting, or a fitting from the 1970's or earlier, these tend to be quite efficient. In the gap inbetween, you'll find they use ballasts which get too hot to touch due to their inefficiency. (One slight fly in the oitment is that the mandated efficiency ratings don't apply to domestic fittings in the UK, so you might find a set of budget fittings from a DIY shed are still not particularly efficient.) The ratings have been required to be marked on ballasts for last decade or so. They go D, C, B, A, AA in increasing efficiency. I think commercial users are only permitted to use A and AA now (at least, there's a date when that becomes the case). "A" was intended to be electronic control gear, but like I said, manufacturers managed to get conventional gear into this range, and now AA is intended to be electronic control gear. Electronic control gear always adds around 10% efficiency, which is due to high frequency operation. Above about 5kHz, the way the gas discharge works changes, and all electronic control gear operates well above 5kHz (15-50kHz is the normal range). me to upgrade and therefore how long to recoup the upgrade cost (considering I'm not in there very often, especially in the winter)? Probably never. I bought a 4-pack of dirt cheap 5-footers, and then changed the control gear to electronic. However, the main reason for this was that they're in the garage where the freezer is, and people nip in and out in a few seconds, by which time about half of them would have finished coming on if they were switch-start. This makes reasonable reading. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminous_efficacy Interesting indeed. A CFL bulb is merely a normal fluorescent with all the efficiency compromised by a cheap and nasty inverter, a shortened and coiled tube, The inverters in these are actually very efficient. They operate in a hot environment due to the tube, and they can't afford to generate any significant extra heat themselves or they'd die. If you distance them from the tube, you will find they barely get warm. If they weren't cheap, you wouldn't be able to afford them. They don't have to last very long -- 20,000 hours would see off all tubes, and that's a very short lifetime for a piece of simple electronics. I think tubes should last a lot longer than that. All my CFLs have died long before the tubes ran out. and use of natural light phosphors to make it 'look' nicer. I guess they are cheap and nasty 'electronic' inverter so could they still be more efficient than the older ballasted jobbies? Industrial grade striplights with electronic ballasts compromise light quality to get efficiency. There are rather a lot of sweeping generalisations here which can't possibly apply across the wide ranging marketplace that exists. The generalisation is correct though..we have sodium lamps for efficiency, not for color. The natural spectrum of a fluorescent is UV. The phosphors are what produce the light. The efficient ones are in the green part of the spectrum. You can correct that, with other phosphors, but only at an efficiency penalty. That's what I want then, especially in the kitchen! ;-) |
Solar lighting (real not artistic) ;-)
"T i m" wrote in message ... Or you could just buy a few of these http://www.maplin.co.uk/Module.aspx?ModuleNo=223916 Yeah, that might even work if I had some translucent roofing panels on this garage (and something I'm also considering). ;-) Oh, I forget that most workshop/garages aren't translucent. My workshop roof is entirely translucent. |
Solar lighting (real not artistic) ;-)
On Oct 21, 8:22*pm, T i m wrote:
On Tue, 21 Oct 2008 09:39:37 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote: Indeed. But AFAIK the figures are roughly 10-25% efficient for linear fluorescents. 6-10% for CFL, similar for LED and 1-3% efficient for incandescent. But, from reading around my old(ish) 6 x 5' fluro's in the garage aren't as energy efficient as the later stuff, but what would it cost me to upgrade and therefore how long to recoup the upgrade cost (considering I'm not in there very often, especially in the winter)? I wouldn't even contemplate it. If you've nothing more important to do its time for some serious life questions. A CFL bulb is merely a normal fluorescent with all the efficiency compromised by a cheap and nasty inverter, a shortened and coiled tube, and use of natural light phosphors to make it 'look' nicer. I guess they are cheap and nasty 'electronic' inverter so could they still be more efficient than the older ballasted jobbies? definitely NT |
Solar lighting (real not artistic) ;-)
On Oct 22, 8:36*am, T i m wrote:
On Tue, 21 Oct 2008 17:05:33 -0700 (PDT), wrote: Again, look at the caravan market. My caper has a mains to 12v SMPS charger that is very compact and very efficient. Not weatherproof, but that is simply a question of the right enclosure. And not cheap either? Also not sure how one system would be good for solar charging two motorbikes. ;-) 2 diodes. It would inherently charge whichever battery was flatter. Hmm, couldn't that actually mean the one with some constant load on it (like the alarm) / the lowest voltage. That might be ok if the battery was just flat but what when it's getting old and the voltage doesn't pick up properly (I have such a battery here that generally works ok but an Optimate never stops trying to charge it). :-( No, I don't want 'mains' anywhere near this project and just need something simple / free / idiot proof and self sufficient. The panels were cheap (£18 delivered the pair) so in total half the cost of one Optimate charger. I see no reason why these panels wouldn't provide the same function as two mains powered chargers (and cheaper than even the 4 x Aldi jobbies I've already got but need to be manually 'reset' every time they are re-connected to a battery, something I'm bound to forget to do). I'm not looking to charge, just float / maintain. Cheers, *T i m should be fine if you have long periods between significant amounts of lighting use. 5w panels will take their time to recharge the battery NT |
Solar lighting (real not artistic) ;-)
On Oct 22, 9:34*am, T i m wrote:
On Wed, 22 Oct 2008 09:01:13 +0100, "dennis@home" wrote: "T i m" wrote in message .. . [1] I will first get 3 off these and run them from 12V and measure the current. I will then compare those with one fluro inspection strip lamp, a 12V cfl and a 'caravan' type fluro. The LEDs shouldn't take much. If they were the big 1 watt ones they would need about 300 mA but your batteries would be flat in a couple of hours so they aren't that big. I would guess at 50 mA. Ok and when I find what I'm looking for I'll stick my DMM in there on one lamp first (I'm talking the cheap pack of 3 LED lights you often see on the markets). You then need to look for a LED constant current *PSU to drive them all in series. Would I though? I'm not sure what voltage range 3 x AAA's would offer but I guess it might be no worse than the load dip I might get on a decently sized solar charged leisure battery? I was thinking 3 x 4.5V = 13.5V, not far off the float voltage of a 12V battery and as the solar panel isn't going to be dumping 5A in there it may not pick up much above say 14V. I was thinking these lights may well deal with that as-is and if not a series diode or two might just take the edge off it? way too high a string voltage, and you've not taken account of the wide range of lead acid voltage. Bu this has been explained already. NT |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:37 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter