Bill Wright wrote:
Some time ago I reported in this hallowed forum my disapointment at the
apparent inefficiency of some mains voltage halogen downlights I'd fitted in
the dining room. Based on the 12V halogens I have used elsewhere I expected
the room would need eight 25 watt lamps. In fact it needed eight 50W ones.
400W to light a medium sized room!

I'm now intending to put new lights in the kitchen. Today I lit a 12V 20W
lamp and a 240V 25W lamp side by side. Both lamps were the 36deg type. The
12V lamp was much brighter. I was running it on 12.00VDC, but the current
drawn was 1.7A which equates to 20.4W, so I guess the brightness would be
the same on a nominal 12V AC supply. The 12V lamp had a neutral colour,
whereas the mains lamp was rather warm. I wonder if this accounts for the
greater efficiency of the 12V lamp, and means that the mains lamp, being
relatively under-run, will last longer.

I reduced the voltage on the 12V lamp until it had the same apparent
brightness as the mains lamp. At 8.7V both lamps had the same brightness and
colour temperature, as near as I could tell.

Can anyone cast any light (geddit?) on this? Are 12V lamps really so much
more efficient? If so, why?

The guys over on uk d-iyy will be able to pick this one up. This is a
frequent topic.

Ignore any references to angle grinders.

Andy

On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 21:31:58 +0100, Andy Champ wrote:

Bill Wright wrote:
Some time ago I reported in this hallowed forum my disapointment at the
apparent inefficiency of some mains voltage halogen downlights I'd fitted in
the dining room. Based on the 12V halogens I have used elsewhere I expected
the room would need eight 25 watt lamps. In fact it needed eight 50W ones.
400W to light a medium sized room!

I'm now intending to put new lights in the kitchen. Today I lit a 12V 20W
lamp and a 240V 25W lamp side by side. Both lamps were the 36deg type. The
12V lamp was much brighter. I was running it on 12.00VDC, but the current
drawn was 1.7A which equates to 20.4W, so I guess the brightness would be
the same on a nominal 12V AC supply. The 12V lamp had a neutral colour,
whereas the mains lamp was rather warm. I wonder if this accounts for the
greater efficiency of the 12V lamp, and means that the mains lamp, being
relatively under-run, will last longer.

I reduced the voltage on the 12V lamp until it had the same apparent
brightness as the mains lamp. At 8.7V both lamps had the same brightness and
colour temperature, as near as I could tell.

Can anyone cast any light (geddit?) on this? Are 12V lamps really so much
more efficient? If so, why?

The guys over on uk d-iyy will be able to pick this one up. This is a
frequent topic.

Ignore any references to angle grinders.

Andy

I can't help at all on relative efficiencies, but I can say that we have 11
50W GU10s in the house, one set of three have been going for years with
only one replacement bulb, the other eight blow regularly and usually every
time one blows, a couple more follow within a week. We are slowly replacing
some of them with CFL versions, but mixed in with Halogens for instant
light.

SteveW

On Jul 3, 9:31*pm, Andy Champ wrote:
Bill Wright wrote:

Some time ago I reported in this hallowed forum my disapointment at the
apparent inefficiency of some mains voltage halogen downlights I'd fitted in
the dining room. Based on the 12V halogens I have used elsewhere I expected
the room would need eight 25 watt lamps. In fact it needed eight 50W ones.
400W to light a medium sized room!

partly because theyre (mostly) used in downlighters.


I'm now intending to put new lights in the kitchen. Today I lit a 12V 20W
lamp and a 240V 25W lamp side by side. Both lamps were the 36deg type. *The
12V lamp was much brighter. I was running it on 12.00VDC, but the current
drawn was 1.7A which equates to 20.4W, so I guess the brightness would be
the same on a nominal 12V AC supply.

performance on 12v ac is identical to on 12v dc


The 12V lamp had a neutral colour,
whereas the mains lamp was rather warm. I wonder if this accounts for the
greater efficiency of the 12V lamp,

yes, mains ones generally run at lower filament temp

and means that the mains lamp, being
relatively under-run, will last longer.

quite the contrary. Mains have very thin filaments, so they need to
underrun them to get them to last adequately.


I reduced the voltage on the 12V lamp until it had the same apparent
brightness as the mains lamp. At 8.7V both lamps had the same brightness and
colour temperature, as near as I could tell.

Can anyone cast any light (geddit?) on this? Are 12V lamps really so much
more efficient? If so, why?

yes, thicker filament enables higher operating temp for same life


The guys over on uk d-iyy will be able to pick this one up. *This is a
frequent topic.

more info on halogens, downlighting, dimming, and bulb life he
http://www.wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index....egory:Lighting

Ignore any references to angle grinders.

Andy


NT

In article ,
Andy Champ writes:
Bill Wright wrote:
Some time ago I reported in this hallowed forum my disapointment at the
apparent inefficiency of some mains voltage halogen downlights I'd fitted in
the dining room. Based on the 12V halogens I have used elsewhere I expected
the room would need eight 25 watt lamps. In fact it needed eight 50W ones.
400W to light a medium sized room!

Downlighers are just about the least efficient and least effective
way to provide general lighting in a room.

I'm now intending to put new lights in the kitchen. Today I lit a 12V 20W
lamp and a 240V 25W lamp side by side. Both lamps were the 36deg type. The
12V lamp was much brighter. I was running it on 12.00VDC, but the current
drawn was 1.7A which equates to 20.4W, so I guess the brightness would be
the same on a nominal 12V AC supply. The 12V lamp had a neutral colour,
whereas the mains lamp was rather warm. I wonder if this accounts for the
greater efficiency of the 12V lamp, and means that the mains lamp, being
relatively under-run, will last longer.

For any given power of lamp, there is an optimum design voltage,
which results in optimal filament geometry for the power/temperature
required. For a 100W lamp, this is 55V. For 20/25W, it's going to be
lower (I guess around 25V). The 12V lamp is so much nearer this than
the 240V lamp, that this will make the largest difference in light
output. 240V filament lamps of the order 25W are so far away from
optimal power and voltage rating that their efficiency to doomed to
be completely appalling, not to mention fragile filaments too.

Colour temperature is mainly a trade off for lamp life, and misguided
perceptions of enconomy (which considers only purchase price and not
running costs). People should buy 1000hr (or even shorter lived) lamps,
but consumers won't pay extra for halogen (or any lamps) which don't
last any longer than a regular 1000hr lamp, and so they're no longer
made. Hence halogen lamps sold are mostly underrun compared with their
optimal operation, to increase lamp life.

Strongly suggest you look for a different lighting technology for any
new installations. Downlighters are so bad for general lighting, and
you may well find the EU outlaws the bulbs for them over the next 5
years (certainly the mains ones, and 12V may follow later).

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

In article , Andrew
Gabriel wrote:
Downlighers are just about the least efficient and least effective
way to provide general lighting in a room.

And they give horrible streaky effects if you don't keep your
spectacles surgically clean.

Rod.
--
Virtual Access V6.3 free usenet/email software from
http://sourceforge.net/projects/virtual-access/

SNIPPED
Strongly suggest you look for a different lighting technology for any
new installations. Downlighters are so bad for general lighting, and
you may well find the EU outlaws the bulbs for them over the next 5
years (certainly the mains ones, and 12V may follow later).

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

Again , your suggestions for currently availabke suitable replacement
lighting?

Your source for beleiving MR16 will be "outlawed" within 5 years?

Really there is some crap talked about lighting by the half informed.

Adam

On Sat, 04 Jul 2009 04:14:45 -0700, Adam Aglionby wrote:


Again , your suggestions for currently availabke suitable replacement
lighting?

Your source for beleiving MR16 will be "outlawed" within 5 years?

Really there is some crap talked about lighting by the half informed.

I guess you've come over from the uk.tech.digital-tv group? Andrew Gabriel
has been posting on uk.d-i-y for many years and has consistently shown
himself to be pretty clued up on lighting. Which is not to say that a
request for references is unreasonable, but the "half informed" slur is
.... well, half informed :-)

--
John Stumbles

I used to be indecisive but now I'm not so sure

On 4 July, 13:01, John Stumbles wrote:
On Sat, 04 Jul 2009 04:14:45 -0700, Adam Aglionby wrote:
Again , your suggestions for currently availabke suitable replacement
lighting?

Your source for beleiving MR16 will be "outlawed" within 5 years?

Really there is some crap talked about lighting by the half informed.

I guess you've come over from the uk.tech.digital-tv group? Andrew Gabriel
has been posting on uk.d-i-y for many years and has consistently shown
himself to be pretty clued up on lighting. Which is not to say that a
request for references is unreasonable, but the "half informed" slur is
... well, half informed :-)

--
John Stumbles

I used to be indecisive but now I'm not so sure

Nope, been here a while, and sci.engr.lighting for a lot longer. Mebbe
its posting from google groups means am invsible.

Great respect for Andrew and his generally helpful responses known
also as a fellow poster to sci.engr.lighting for many years, sorry if
appeared to single him out for talking half informed crap on this
particular subject ,its really not personal but strongly disagree with
him on this point and interested as to where this is all originating.

Have come across this same nonsense recently both in the virtual and
real world, halogen lamps are inefficient crap thats going to be
illegal within 5 years, MR16 lamps wont be available anywhere but back
street `bulb dealers`.

Just to tidy up slightly, MR16 is a shape of lamp, its a 2" diameter
reflector lamp.

It can have all sorts of bases GU10 and GX5.3 for two and all sorts of
wattages and voltages for all sorts of applications, for reasons of
clarity will call the 230/240V MR16 a GU10 and 12V MR16 an LV lamp.

LV MR16 was introduced as display lamp for commercial premises
replacing PAR38`s and crown silvered lamps around the mid 1980`s.

GU10 was introduced for reasons probably more to do with lamp makers
margins than it being a good idea, 110V probably works marginally
better 230V has always been heavily compromised, lifetime , colour
temperature and beam control are crap.

For some reason contractors and developers think GU10 is easier and
cheaper to install than LV MR16 , perhaps ones who didn`t understand
Low Voltage first time around, yes have seen qualified electricians
hook up LV lamps to mains.

LV halogen has excellent colour rendering, excellent beam control and
very good efficiency for incandescent.

Fluoro retofit lamps for GU10 are universally RUBBISH, they are crap,
they do not work, they are a waste of money, hope made that clear
enough they are green wash of the very worst kind.
,
Half informed, the proponents of MR16 is soon to be illegal, always
seem to fail to suggest any realistic AVAILABLE alternative.

Mr Gabriel specifically because his advice is usually good, is liaible
to have his view that MR16s are about to become no longer available
given more weight.

But like others of this MR16s are a dissappearing breed persuasion ,
seems very light on alternatives.

Have suggested a couple in a previous topic , do realise there is a
difference between what is available to commercial users and what is
availble in small quantities to domestic and D.I.Y. users.

Scaremongering about lamps being outlawed without any evidence or
suggesting valid alternatives is not helpful to the debate.

Adam

On Sat, 04 Jul 2009 06:49:09 -0700, Adam Aglionby wrote:


---8--- snip ---8---

Great respect for Andrew and his generally helpful responses known
also as a fellow poster to sci.engr.lighting for many years, sorry if
appeared to single him out for talking half informed crap on this
particular subject ,its really not personal but strongly disagree with
him on this point and interested as to where this is all originating.

Have come across this same nonsense recently both in the virtual and
real world, halogen lamps are inefficient crap thats going to be
illegal within 5 years, MR16 lamps wont be available anywhere but back
street `bulb dealers`.

---8--- snip ---8---


Fairy nuff: looks like a case of two pretty well informed folks who happen
to disagree on certain issues. Sorry Adam, I hadn't noticed your name on
this group until now (which probably says more about my observation than
your contributions).

Fluoro retofit lamps for GU10 are universally RUBBISH, they are crap,
they do not work, they are a waste of money, hope made that clear
enough they are green wash of the very worst kind.

In the situation where one already has a GU10 fitting, then CFLs are - in
my personal opinion - less awful than halogens. I have one fitting - a
4-way bar in the kitchen - where I've tried various types of CFL and
cold-cathodes as well as halogens and find the warm white CFLs give a more
pleasant light with a better spread than the halos. However the start-up
time is abysmal and several of the samples have failed after just a few
months, which at pushing £10 a pop is not nice. Hopefully the lifetime and
start-up delay will be improved on and the price reduced over time. Even
so the whole business of building the electronics into the lamp with the
tube - and throwing it all away when the latter fails - is even more
ludicrous where one may have half a dozen relatively low output lamps
illuminating a room than where one has just one largish one.

Half informed, the proponents of MR16 is soon to be illegal, always
seem to fail to suggest any realistic AVAILABLE alternative.

Maybe it's wishful thinking: that mains GU10s _should_ be illegal :-)

Leaving aside the possibility that GU10 CFLs might become less awful, what
about metal halide? ISTR reading (possibly in a post of Andrew's) that
this could be a contender?


--
John Stumbles

Bad artists borrow
Great artists steal

On Jul 4, 2:49*pm, Adam Aglionby wrote:
On 4 July, 13:01, John Stumbles wrote:
On Sat, 04 Jul 2009 04:14:45 -0700, Adam Aglionby wrote:

Again , your suggestions for currently availabke suitable replacement
lighting?

Your source for beleiving MR16 will be "outlawed" within 5 years?

Really there is some crap talked about lighting by the half informed.

I guess you've come over from the uk.tech.digital-tv group? Andrew Gabriel
has been posting on uk.d-i-y for many years and has consistently shown
himself to be pretty clued up on lighting. Which is not to say that a
request for references is unreasonable, but the "half informed" slur is
... well, half informed :-)


Half informed, the proponents of MR16 is soon to be illegal, always
seem to fail to suggest any realistic AVAILABLE alternative.

seems very light on alternatives.

I'm puzzled by your talk of alternatives, is there anyone here that
doesnt know what other types of lighting are available?


NT

On 4 July, 14:49, Adam Aglionby wrote:
Fluoro retofit lamps for GU10 are universally RUBBISH, they are crap,
they do not work, they are a waste of money, hope made that clear
enough they are green wash of the very worst kind.

Such hyperbole is not conducive to your other comments being taken
seriously. I have a number of 7W fluorescent GU10 replacements (two
in the porch and several in garden lighting units) and IMHO they're
absolutely fine for those applications. In fact, the wider beam angle
is actually beneficial.

Richard.
http://www.rtrussell.co.uk/
To reply by email change 'news' to my forename.

In message
,
Richard Russell writes
On 4 July, 14:49, Adam Aglionby wrote:
Fluoro retofit lamps for GU10 are universally RUBBISH, they are crap,
they do not work, they are a waste of money, hope made that clear
enough they are green wash of the very worst kind.

Such hyperbole is not conducive to your other comments being taken
seriously. I have a number of 7W fluorescent GU10 replacements (two
in the porch and several in garden lighting units) and IMHO they're
absolutely fine for those applications. In fact, the wider beam angle
is actually beneficial.

Has anyone tried the 7W G9 type? This is supposedly equivalent to a 35W
filament bulb. I've presently got a light with a halogen 25W G9, and
it's a bit too dim. I'm not sure what wattage filament lamp this is
equivalent to.
http://www.alertelectrical.com/Lamps...ng-Light-Bulbs
/G9-GU9-Series-Low-Energy-Lamps/Megaman-7w-G9-Compact-Lamp-104221.asp

However, what I really want to use is the higher power 9W GU9.
http://www.alertelectrical.com/Lamps...ng-Light-Bulbs
/G9-GU9-Series-Low-Energy-Lamps/Megaman-9w-GU9-Compact-Lamp-104326.asp
This is supposedly equivalent to a 45W filament bulb.
I ordered one online a couple of months ago, but it still hasn't arrived
(apparently still on back order from the manufacturer). Has anyone used
one of these. Do they actually exist, or are they simply 'vapourware' at
present?
--
Ian

Adam Aglionby wrote:
SNIPPED
Strongly suggest you look for a different lighting technology for any
new installations. Downlighters are so bad for general lighting, and
you may well find the EU outlaws the bulbs for them over the next 5
years (certainly the mains ones, and 12V may follow later).

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

Again , your suggestions for currently availabke suitable replacement
lighting?

Your source for beleiving MR16 will be "outlawed" within 5 years?

I did not see Andy make reference to MR16 in particular. However the
general EU timetable is described at the end of this document:

http://ec.europa.eu/energy/efficiency/ecodesign/doc/committee/2008_12_08_technical_briefing_household_lamps.pdf

Really there is some crap talked about lighting by the half informed.

Alas you need to include the law makers in that category.

--
Cheers,

John.

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

In article cb4261d3-91f6-4141-88ae-
, Adam Aglionby wrote:
Fluoro retofit lamps for GU10 are universally RUBBISH, they are crap,
they do not work, they are a waste of money, hope made that clear
enough they are green wash of the very worst kind.

Apart from the slight nuisance that they're slightly bigger than the
filament ones so you have to choose from a limited range of light
fittings that can take them, I've found Fluoro GU10s to be absolutely
fine. They give just as much light with less electrical power, and a
much more pleasant soft light that isn't a horrible green colour, and I
can hot-swap them without burning my fingers.

Rod.
--
Virtual Access V6.3 free usenet/email software from
http://sourceforge.net/projects/virtual-access/

On 4 July, 20:58, John Stumbles wrote:
On Sat, 04 Jul 2009 06:49:09 -0700, Adam Aglionby wrote:

---8--- snip ---8---

Great respect for Andrew and his generally helpful responses known
also as a fellow poster to sci.engr.lighting for many years, sorry if
appeared to single him out for talking half informed crap on this
particular subject ,its really not personal but strongly disagree with
him on this point and interested as to where this is all originating.

Have come across this same nonsense recently both in the virtual and
real world, halogen lamps are inefficient crap thats going to be
illegal within 5 years, MR16 lamps wont be available anywhere but back
street `bulb dealers`.

---8--- snip ---8---

Fairy nuff: looks like a case of two pretty well informed folks who happen
to disagree on certain issues. Sorry Adam, I hadn't noticed your name on
this group until now (which probably says more about my observation than
your contributions).

Im not a regular contrbutor to uk.d-i-y, though a regular reader and
much appreciate the regular posters from whom I have learned a lot.


Fluoro retofit lamps for GU10 are universally RUBBISH, they are crap,
, hope made that clear
enough they are green wash of the very worst kind.

In the situation where one already has a GU10 fitting, then CFLs are - in
my personal opinion - less awful than halogens.

This is what I hate about GU10 fluro, its retrofitting a technology
that shouldn`t have been fitted in the first place, allow me to
rephrase
GU10 are universally RUBBISH, they are crap, they do not work, they
are a waste of money and the fluro retrofits are no better.

I have one fitting - a
4-way bar in the kitchen - where I've tried various types of CFL and
cold-cathodes as well as halogens and find the warm white CFLs give a more
pleasant light with a better spread than the halos. However the start-up
time is abysmal and several of the samples have failed after just a few
months, which at pushing £10 a pop is not nice. Hopefully the lifetime and
start-up delay will be improved on and the price reduced over time.

2" lamp is very tight to curl a tube into and fit the driver
electronics, embodied energy, waste and replacement cost dosn`t add
up to a green lamp thats for sure.

Even
so the whole business of building the electronics into the lamp with the
tube - and throwing it all away when the latter fails -

Something do not understand about current race for CFL is ignoring PL
base lamps, the electronics in the base and throwawy tube.

is even more
ludicrous where one may have half a dozen relatively low output lamps
illuminating a room than where one has just one largish one.

There is advantages to using multiple sources, avoiding shadows being
a top priority.


Half informed, the proponents of MR16 is soon to be illegal, always
seem to fail to suggest any realistic AVAILABLE alternative.

Maybe it's wishful thinking: that mains GU10s _should_ be illegal :-)

Very true :-)


Leaving aside the possibility that GU10 CFLs might become less awful,

Need to get away from GU10 and fluro in same sentence, fluro can be a
very good source but not crammed into a 2" spotlight fitting.
MR16 2" lamp format is great for spotlighting but aging not with a
240V filament crammed into it.

what
about metal halide? ISTR reading (possibly in a post of Andrew's) that
this could be a contender?

Hopefully it should be coming through , used to be only availble in
big lamps couple hundred watts up but with commercial use growing all
the time and miniature lamps for automotive use now big, cost and size
aren`t the problems they used to be , takes some innovative fitting
makers to make domestic acceptable designs.
Metal halide can make a great source, but hopefully not just as a GU10
retrofit.

Adam


--
John Stumbles

Bad artists borrow
Great artists steal

On 4 July, 22:01, NT wrote:
SNIP
I'm puzzled by your talk of alternatives, is there anyone here that
doesnt know what other types of lighting are available?

NT

Think if people did "know what other types of lighting are available"
and crucially how to correctly select appropriate to task, wouldn`t
have a world full of worthless GU10s and hopeless retofits.

Adam


,

On 4 July, 22:26, Richard Russell wrote:
On 4 July, 14:49, Adam Aglionby wrote:

Fluoro retofit lamps for GU10 are universally RUBBISH, they are crap,
they do not work, they are a waste of money, hope made that clear
enough they are green wash of the very worst kind.

Such hyperbole is not conducive to your other comments being taken
seriously. *I have a number of 7W fluorescent GU10 replacements (two
in the porch and several in garden lighting units) and IMHO they're
absolutely fine for those applications. *In fact, the wider beam angle
is actually beneficial.

Richard.http://www.rtrussell.co.uk/
To reply by email change 'news' to my forename.

Clearly your lighting requirements for your porch and garden are
different from what you need chopping veg in the kitchen.

Unfortunate that you were unable to find appropraite fluro or LED
units for your application and had to adapt products to make them
suitable for use.

Adam

On 4 July, 23:02, Ian Jackson
wrote:
In message
,
Richard Russell writesOn 4 July, 14:49, Adam Aglionby wrote:
Fluoro retofit lamps for GU10 are universally RUBBISH, they are crap,
they do not work, they are a waste of money, hope made that clear
enough they are green wash of the very worst kind.

Such hyperbole is not conducive to your other comments being taken
seriously. *I have a number of 7W fluorescent GU10 replacements (two
in the porch and several in garden lighting units) and IMHO they're
absolutely fine for those applications. *In fact, the wider beam angle
is actually beneficial.

Has anyone tried the 7W G9 type? This is supposedly equivalent to a 35W
filament bulb. I've presently got a light with a halogen 25W G9, and
it's a bit too dim. I'm not sure what wattage filament lamp this is
equivalent to.
http://www.alertelectrical.com/Lamps-And-Tubes/Energy-Saving-Light-Bu...

However, what I really want to use is the higher power 9W GU9.
http://www.alertelectrical.com/Lamps-And-Tubes/Energy-Saving-Light-Bu...
This is supposedly equivalent to a 45W filament bulb.
I ordered one online a couple of months ago, but it still hasn't arrived
(apparently still on back order from the manufacturer). Has anyone used
one of these. Do they actually exist, or are they simply 'vapourware' at
present?
--
Ian

Going to guess thats a very tight fit in a G9 fitting, perhaps you
could look for an LV light fitting and burn an extra 11W and get the
intensity and higher colour temp along with good lamp lifer your
after.

Adam

On 5 July, 10:27, Roderick Stewart
wrote:
In article cb4261d3-91f6-4141-88ae-

, Adam Aglionby wrote:
Fluoro retofit lamps for GU10 are universally RUBBISH, they are crap,
they do not work, they are a waste of money, hope made that clear
enough they are green wash of the very worst kind.

Apart from the slight nuisance that they're slightly bigger than the
filament ones so you have to choose from a limited range of light
fittings that can take them, I've found Fluoro GU10s to be absolutely
fine. They give just as much light with less electrical power,

Afraid they don`t.

much more pleasant soft light that isn't a horrible green colour, and I
can hot-swap them without burning my fingers.

Guess your thinking of Cold Cathode FLuro CCFL which seems to be
chosen mathod fpr retrofit in GU10s which moticeably dosnt` have the
green cast of low quality CFL, if your halogen GU10s had a green cast
you have other problems... ;-)

Adam


Rod.
--
Virtual Access V6.3 free usenet/email software fromhttp://sourceforge.net/projects/virtual-access/

On 4 July, 23:33, John Rumm wrote:
Adam Aglionby wrote:
SNIPPED
Strongly suggest you look for a different lighting technology for any
new installations. Downlighters are so bad for general lighting, and
you may well find the EU outlaws the bulbs for them over the next 5
years (certainly the mains ones, and 12V may follow later).

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

Again , your suggestions for currently availabke suitable replacement
lighting?

Your source for beleiving MR16 will be "outlawed" within 5 years?

I did not see Andy make reference to MR16 in particular. However the
general EU timetable is described at the end of this document:

http://ec.europa.eu/energy/efficiency/ecodesign/doc/committee/2008_12...

I took the inference that he was refering to MR16 both LV and GU10
being ill advised for a new installation because of an uncertain
future.
The timetable relies on suitable alternatives being developed , for a
lot of uses of MR16 lamps there is no current or on the horizon
replacement.


Really there is some crap talked about lighting by the half informed.

Alas you need to include the law makers in that category.

Very regretably so.

Adam


--
Cheers,

John.

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

In article 3504a3c2-f17f-426e-a5e4-
, Adam Aglionby wrote:
Apart from the slight nuisance that they're slightly bigger than the
filament ones so you have to choose from a limited range of light
fittings that can take them, I've found Fluoro GU10s to be absolutely
fine. They give just as much light with less electrical power,

Afraid they don`t.

Well, I'm not a photometer, but subjectively four low power fluorescent
GU10s on a lighting bar give plenty of light for me to sit at this computer,
just as the halogen ones did, so effectively they do the same job with much
lower power consumption.

And it' a more pleasant light, not being concentrated in tiny spots that
show up the most microscopic bits of muck on spectacle lenses.

Rod.
--
Virtual Access V6.3 free usenet/email software from
http://sourceforge.net/projects/virtual-access/

In message
,
Adam Aglionby writes
On 4 July, 23:02, Ian Jackson
wrote:
In message
,
Richard Russell writesOn 4 July, 14:49, Adam
Aglionby wrote:
Fluoro retofit lamps for GU10 are universally RUBBISH, they are crap,
they do not work, they are a waste of money, hope made that clear
enough they are green wash of the very worst kind.

Such hyperbole is not conducive to your other comments being taken
seriously. *I have a number of 7W fluorescent GU10 replacements (two
in the porch and several in garden lighting units) and IMHO they're
absolutely fine for those applications. *In fact, the wider beam angle
is actually beneficial.

Has anyone tried the 7W G9 type? This is supposedly equivalent to a 35W
filament bulb. I've presently got a light with a halogen 25W G9, and
it's a bit too dim. I'm not sure what wattage filament lamp this is
equivalent to.
http://www.alertelectrical.com/Lamps-And-Tubes/Energy-Saving-Light-Bu...

However, what I really want to use is the higher power 9W GU9.
http://www.alertelectrical.com/Lamps-And-Tubes/Energy-Saving-Light-Bu...
This is supposedly equivalent to a 45W filament bulb.
I ordered one online a couple of months ago, but it still hasn't arrived
(apparently still on back order from the manufacturer). Has anyone used
one of these. Do they actually exist, or are they simply 'vapourware' at
present?
--
Ian

Going to guess thats a very tight fit in a G9 fitting, perhaps you
could look for an LV light fitting and burn an extra 11W and get the
intensity and higher colour temp along with good lamp lifer your
after.

I'll find out how tight if I ever receive one!

We bought the (ceiling) light because my wife liked it, but, at the
time, I did express my doubts as to whether the 25W halogen (which is
the maximum rating for that style of light) would really be bright
enough. The executive decision went against me, but the executive now
admits that I might have been right.

I took careful measurements of the existing lamp holder and its relation
to the rest of the inside of the light, and I reckoned that if I moved
it as far as possible (backwards) to the side of the light base plate,
the zig-zag glass tube of the Megaman 9W CFL bulb would be right in the
centre of the light bowl. Even though it is very chunky, there is about
1mm clearance with respect to the base plate. [If not, I could modify
things further.]

Even a 9W CFL should run a lot cooler than a 25W halogen. The only
problem is, does this lamp really exist? If not, as you suggest, I'll
have to consider changing the lamp holder - or even replacing the whole
light.
--
Ian

On Jul 5, 2:11*pm, Ian Jackson
wrote:
In message
,
Adam Aglionby writes

On 4 July, 23:02, Ian Jackson
wrote:
In message
,
Richard Russell writesOn 4 July, 14:49, Adam
Aglionby wrote:
Fluoro retofit lamps for GU10 are universally RUBBISH, they are crap,
they do not work, they are a waste of money, hope made that clear
enough they are green wash of the very worst kind.

Such hyperbole is not conducive to your other comments being taken
seriously. *I have a number of 7W fluorescent GU10 replacements (two
in the porch and several in garden lighting units) and IMHO they're
absolutely fine for those applications. *In fact, the wider beam angle
is actually beneficial.

Has anyone tried the 7W G9 type? This is supposedly equivalent to a 35W
filament bulb. I've presently got a light with a halogen 25W G9, and
it's a bit too dim. I'm not sure what wattage filament lamp this is
equivalent to.
http://www.alertelectrical.com/Lamps-And-Tubes/Energy-Saving-Light-Bu....

However, what I really want to use is the higher power 9W GU9.
http://www.alertelectrical.com/Lamps-And-Tubes/Energy-Saving-Light-Bu....
This is supposedly equivalent to a 45W filament bulb.
I ordered one online a couple of months ago, but it still hasn't arrived
(apparently still on back order from the manufacturer). Has anyone used
one of these. Do they actually exist, or are they simply 'vapourware' at
present?
--
Ian

Going to guess thats a very tight fit in a G9 fitting, perhaps you
could look for an LV light fitting and burn an extra 11W and get the
intensity and higher colour temp along with good lamp lifer your
after.

I'll find out how tight if I ever receive one!

We bought the (ceiling) light because my wife liked it, but, at the
time, I did express my doubts as to whether the 25W halogen (which is
the maximum rating for that style of light) would really be bright
enough. The executive decision went against me, but the executive now
admits that I might have been right.

I took careful measurements of the existing lamp holder and its relation
to the rest of the inside of the light, and I reckoned that if I moved
it as far as possible (backwards) to the side of the light base plate,
the zig-zag glass tube of the Megaman 9W CFL bulb would be right in the
centre of the light bowl. Even though it is very chunky, there is about
1mm clearance with respect to the base plate. [If not, I could modify
things further.]

Even a 9W CFL should run a lot cooler than a 25W halogen. The only
problem is, does this lamp really exist? If not, as you suggest, I'll
have to consider changing the lamp holder - or even replacing the whole
light.

Might be easier to leave it be and fit additional concealed lighting
to make up the deficiency


NT

In message
, NT
writes
On Jul 5, 2:11*pm, Ian Jackson
wrote:
In message
,
Adam Aglionby writes





Going to guess thats a very tight fit in a G9 fitting, perhaps you
could look for an LV light fitting and burn an extra 11W and get the
intensity and higher colour temp along with good lamp lifer your
after.

I'll find out how tight if I ever receive one!

We bought the (ceiling) light because my wife liked it, but, at the
time, I did express my doubts as to whether the 25W halogen (which is
the maximum rating for that style of light) would really be bright
enough. The executive decision went against me, but the executive now
admits that I might have been right.

I took careful measurements of the existing lamp holder and its relation
to the rest of the inside of the light, and I reckoned that if I moved
it as far as possible (backwards) to the side of the light base plate,
the zig-zag glass tube of the Megaman 9W CFL bulb would be right in the
centre of the light bowl. Even though it is very chunky, there is about
1mm clearance with respect to the base plate. [If not, I could modify
things further.]

Even a 9W CFL should run a lot cooler than a 25W halogen. The only
problem is, does this lamp really exist? If not, as you suggest, I'll
have to consider changing the lamp holder - or even replacing the whole
light.

Might be easier to leave it be and fit additional concealed lighting
to make up the deficiency

No really. It's in a newly-built shower + toilet area, and I don't want
any more electrics than necessary. If the 9 watt GU9 fits, it should be
just about adequate. I've sent another chasing email to the vendor. It
was originally due 16 April!
--
Ian

Adam Aglionby wrote:

Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]
Again , your suggestions for currently availabke suitable replacement
lighting?
Your source for beleiving MR16 will be "outlawed" within 5 years?
I did not see Andy make reference to MR16 in particular. However the
general EU timetable is described at the end of this document:

http://ec.europa.eu/energy/efficiency/ecodesign/doc/committee/2008_12...

I took the inference that he was refering to MR16 both LV and GU10
being ill advised for a new installation because of an uncertain
future.

I expect his ire was more focussed on GU10 in particular than the
overall form factor. However I stand to be corrected.

The timetable relies on suitable alternatives being developed , for a
lot of uses of MR16 lamps there is no current or on the horizon
replacement.

Well the difficulty is who gets to decide what is "suitable". Many would
argue that there is currently no suitable replacement for a 100W GLS
bulb - the alternatives having poorer colour rendition and/or slow warm
up times, or incompatibility with dimmers, plus a range of other
problems. However this does not seem to have stopped the powers that be
from suggesting that these can be replaced with CFL substitutes.


--
Cheers,

John.

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

On 5 July, 23:49, John Rumm wrote:
Adam Aglionby wrote:
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]
Again , your suggestions for currently availabke suitable replacement
lighting?
Your source for beleiving MR16 will be "outlawed" within 5 years?
I did not see Andy make reference to MR16 in particular. However the
general EU timetable is described at the end of this document:

http://ec.europa.eu/energy/efficiency/ecodesign/doc/committee/2008_12....

I took the inference that he was refering to MR16 both LV and GU10
being ill advised for a new installation because of an uncertain
future.

I expect his ire was more focussed on GU10 in particular than the
overall form factor. However I stand to be corrected.

Problem is people read it as all MR16 format lighting including LV.


The timetable relies on suitable alternatives being developed , for a
lot of uses of MR16 lamps there is no current or on the horizon
replacement.

Well the difficulty is who gets to decide what is "suitable". Many would
argue that there is currently no suitable replacement for a 100W GLS
bulb - the alternatives having poorer colour rendition and/or slow warm
up times, or incompatibility with dimmers, plus a range of other
problems. However this does not seem to have stopped the powers that be
from suggesting that these can be replaced with CFL substitutes.

More than suggesting :-(

Ingo Maurer, lighting designer who came up with LV MR16 lights on
wires amongst other things, protests ;-)

http://www.designboom.com/weblog/cat/8/view/6169/ingo-maurer-euro-condom.html

Cheers
Adam





--
Cheers,

John.

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