Hi,

Call me old fashioned or boring or both, but is the best way to light
a kitchen with a 4' tube?

Our kitchen has a single fitting in the centre of the ceiling which
originally had a 60w bulb; subsequently replaced with a cfl. The
problem with this arrangement is that as the work surfaces, sink, hob,
etc are around the edges of the room, wherever you stand the light is
always behind you and your shadow falls over whatever you are working
on. This is annoying me more now that we have darker nights and use
the light more.

There seems to be a fashion for fitting dozens of halogen lights in
your ceiling. I'm not an eco warrior but even so, I can't see why you
need half a kilowatt of lights in your kitchen. To be fair, I've only
ever seen these on the tv, so I don't know what they are like in "real
life". I have seen a few houses where people have retrofitted a 4-bulb
halogen light fitting in the centre of the ceiling and it creates four
pools of light with a lot of darkness in between. I guess that's why
you need to fit so many to get an even wash of light.

I'm thinking of going with a tube on the ceiling and/or tubes under
the cupboards. What does the group think?

TIA

On 28/10/2012 10:05, Fred wrote:
Hi,

Call me old fashioned or boring or both, but is the best way to light
a kitchen with a 4' tube?

Our kitchen has a single fitting in the centre of the ceiling which
originally had a 60w bulb; subsequently replaced with a cfl. The
problem with this arrangement is that as the work surfaces, sink, hob,
etc are around the edges of the room, wherever you stand the light is
always behind you and your shadow falls over whatever you are working
on. This is annoying me more now that we have darker nights and use
the light more.

There seems to be a fashion for fitting dozens of halogen lights in
your ceiling. I'm not an eco warrior but even so, I can't see why you
need half a kilowatt of lights in your kitchen. To be fair, I've only
ever seen these on the tv, so I don't know what they are like in "real
life". I have seen a few houses where people have retrofitted a 4-bulb
halogen light fitting in the centre of the ceiling and it creates four
pools of light with a lot of darkness in between. I guess that's why
you need to fit so many to get an even wash of light.

I'm thinking of going with a tube on the ceiling and/or tubes under
the cupboards. What does the group think?

TIA

We have four of the 10W triphosphor tubes (below) arranged around our
cupboard tops (plus a fairly powerful CFL in centre pendant). At some
point I might fit them - or extra ones - under cupboards. Only really
waiting to decide about replacement cupboards, pelmets, etc. It does for
now. And about 200% better than the multiway "spot" thing that was in
the centre.

The colour of these lamps is good when new - but they do deteriorate,
going a bit yellowish over time even when kept clean, so replacement
tubes are needed.

http://www.tlc-direct.co.uk/Main_Ind...ing/index.html

--
Rod

On Sun, 28 Oct 2012 10:13:40 +0000, polygonum
wrote:

We have four of the 10W triphosphor tubes (below) arranged around our
cupboard tops

Thanks. That's interesting. I have learnt something new. Those are
only 40cm long and 10W, so if you had not said, I would not have
thought that they would be long enough or powerful enough to light a
room.

On 29/10/2012 09:46, Fred wrote:
On Sun, 28 Oct 2012 10:13:40 +0000, polygonum
wrote:

We have four of the 10W triphosphor tubes (below) arranged around our
cupboard tops

Thanks. That's interesting. I have learnt something new. Those are
only 40cm long and 10W, so if you had not said, I would not have
thought that they would be long enough or powerful enough to light a
room.

The power varies with length... however if you string a row under all
the cabinets and also over the top, you can quickly come out at 200W or
so for the kitchen. (hence why switching them in banks makes sense)


--
Cheers,

John.

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

In article ,
Fred writes:
Hi,

Call me old fashioned or boring or both, but is the best way to light
a kitchen with a 4' tube?

Our kitchen has a single fitting in the centre of the ceiling which
originally had a 60w bulb; subsequently replaced with a cfl. The
problem with this arrangement is that as the work surfaces, sink, hob,
etc are around the edges of the room, wherever you stand the light is
always behind you and your shadow falls over whatever you are working
on. This is annoying me more now that we have darker nights and use
the light more.

This is a well discussed problem - a light in the middle of a kitchen
ceiling is about the worst place to have one.

There seems to be a fashion for fitting dozens of halogen lights in
your ceiling. I'm not an eco warrior but even so, I can't see why you
need half a kilowatt of lights in your kitchen. To be fair, I've only
ever seen these on the tv, so I don't know what they are like in "real
life". I have seen a few houses where people have retrofitted a 4-bulb
halogen light fitting in the centre of the ceiling and it creates four
pools of light with a lot of darkness in between. I guess that's why
you need to fit so many to get an even wash of light.

I'm thinking of going with a tube on the ceiling and/or tubes under
the cupboards. What does the group think?

If you want the light in the middle of the ceiling to be effective,
you want the light source to be as large as possible, e.g. a 4' or
5' tube. It's not most peoples' idea of aesthetic lighting though,
and it's often better to abandon the central lighting point or use
it for something low power and decorative (perhaps a large globe),
rather than functional, with the functional lighting elsewhere.

In my mind, the best kitchen lighting is generated with fluorescent
tubes on top of wall cupboards out of view, bouncing their light off
a brilliant white ceiling. You can add task lighting to light up
work surfaces under cupboards, preferably separately switched.
I've designed and installed this in several kitchens.

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

On Sunday, October 28, 2012 10:32:57 AM UTC, Andrew Gabriel wrote:
In article ,
Fred writes:

Call me old fashioned or boring or both, but is the best way to light
a kitchen with a 4' tube?
Our kitchen has a single fitting in the centre of the ceiling which
originally had a 60w bulb; subsequently replaced with a cfl. The
problem with this arrangement is that as the work surfaces, sink, hob,
etc are around the edges of the room, wherever you stand the light is
always behind you and your shadow falls over whatever you are working
on. This is annoying me more now that we have darker nights and use
the light more.

This is a well discussed problem - a light in the middle of a kitchen
ceiling is about the worst place to have one.

There seems to be a fashion for fitting dozens of halogen lights in
your ceiling. I'm not an eco warrior but even so, I can't see why you
need half a kilowatt of lights in your kitchen. To be fair, I've only
ever seen these on the tv, so I don't know what they are like in "real
life". I have seen a few houses where people have retrofitted a 4-bulb
halogen light fitting in the centre of the ceiling and it creates four
pools of light with a lot of darkness in between. I guess that's why
you need to fit so many to get an even wash of light.
I'm thinking of going with a tube on the ceiling and/or tubes under
the cupboards. What does the group think?

If you want the light in the middle of the ceiling to be effective,
you want the light source to be as large as possible, e.g. a 4' or
5' tube. It's not most peoples' idea of aesthetic lighting though,
and it's often better to abandon the central lighting point or use
it for something low power and decorative (perhaps a large globe),
rather than functional, with the functional lighting elsewhere.
In my mind, the best kitchen lighting is generated with fluorescent
tubes on top of wall cupboards out of view, bouncing their light off
a brilliant white ceiling. You can add task lighting to light up
work surfaces under cupboards, preferably separately switched.
I've designed and installed this in several kitchens.


I'd probably leave the central fitting and add fluorescent over the worktop & sink - or cfls if there's enough depth. CFLs have the advantage of easily changed power levels, less issue with tube quality, less upfront cost and less effort obtaining replacements.

Central fluorescent is certainly a good bit more effective than central filament or cfl, but at the end of the day the light's still in the wrong place.

If you go with linear fl, use standardised tubes, stay away from any tubes over 3500K, and ensure you can dim them. Cfls are easier in these respects.


NT

On 28/10/2012 10:52, wrote:
On Sunday, October 28, 2012 10:32:57 AM UTC, Andrew Gabriel wrote:
In article , Fred
writes:

Call me old fashioned or boring or both, but is the best way to
light
a kitchen with a 4' tube?
Our kitchen has a single fitting in the centre of the ceiling
which
originally had a 60w bulb; subsequently replaced with a cfl. The
problem with this arrangement is that as the work surfaces, sink,
hob, etc are around the edges of the room, wherever you stand the
light is always behind you and your shadow falls over whatever
you are working on. This is annoying me more now that we have
darker nights and use the light more.

This is a well discussed problem - a light in the middle of a
kitchen ceiling is about the worst place to have one.

There seems to be a fashion for fitting dozens of halogen lights
in your ceiling. I'm not an eco warrior but even so, I can't see
why you need half a kilowatt of lights in your kitchen. To be
fair, I've only ever seen these on the tv, so I don't know what
they are like in "real life". I have seen a few houses where
people have retrofitted a 4-bulb halogen light fitting in the
centre of the ceiling and it creates four pools of light with a
lot of darkness in between. I guess that's why you need to fit so
many to get an even wash of light.
I'm thinking of going with a tube on the ceiling and/or tubes
under
the cupboards. What does the group think?

If you want the light in the middle of the ceiling to be
effective, you want the light source to be as large as possible,
e.g. a 4' or 5' tube. It's not most peoples' idea of aesthetic
lighting though, and it's often better to abandon the central
lighting point or use it for something low power and decorative
(perhaps a large globe), rather than functional, with the
functional lighting elsewhere. In my mind, the best kitchen
lighting is generated with fluorescent tubes on top of wall
cupboards out of view, bouncing their light off a brilliant white
ceiling. You can add task lighting to light up work surfaces under
cupboards, preferably separately switched. I've designed and
installed this in several kitchens.

Yup, same here. Very good for galley style kitchens as well.

I'd probably leave the central fitting and add fluorescent over the
worktop & sink - or cfls if there's enough depth. CFLs have the
advantage of easily changed power levels, less issue with tube
quality, less upfront cost and less effort obtaining replacements.

For reasons which I have never really grasped, CFLs have very much
poorer light quality than the proper tubes though I find.

Central fluorescent is certainly a good bit more effective than
central filament or cfl, but at the end of the day the light's still
in the wrong place.

If you go with linear fl, use standardised tubes, stay away from any
tubes over 3500K, and ensure you can dim them. Cfls are easier in
these respects.

The big standard tubes can be a bit bright for under cupboard lights
though - the slim link light type seems better suited. For the top above
cabinet lights the normal tubes are fine, cheap and long lasting)


--
Cheers,

John.

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

On Sun, 28 Oct 2012 12:58:57 +0000, John Rumm
wrote:

For reasons which I have never really grasped, CFLs have very much
poorer light quality than the proper tubes though I find.

I found it strange that the same manufacturers make tubes and CFLs yet
the tubes are 3500K and the CFLs 2700K. I guess that's responsible for
the difference you have seen: they use different coatings on the
tubes? I don't know why though. You would think it would be cheaper to
use the same for all tubes.

The big standard tubes can be a bit bright for under cupboard lights
though - the slim link light type seems better suited. For the top above
cabinet lights the normal tubes are fine, cheap and long lasting)

And as Polygonum said, the tubes don't have to be as long as the
cupboards, which surprised me.

On 29/10/2012 10:13, Fred wrote:
On Sun, 28 Oct 2012 12:58:57 +0000, John Rumm
wrote:

For reasons which I have never really grasped, CFLs have very much
poorer light quality than the proper tubes though I find.

I found it strange that the same manufacturers make tubes and CFLs yet
the tubes are 3500K and the CFLs 2700K. I guess that's responsible for
the difference you have seen: they use different coatings on the
tubes?

Even comparing like with like colour temperature wise, the CFLs seem to
have a noticeably poorer spectral output. I never find myself standing
under a normal strip light thinking, "why is there only half as much red
in this picture as their should be?" whereas with all the CFLs I have
seen so far there are noticeable gaps in their output.

I don't know why though. You would think it would be cheaper to
use the same for all tubes.

The big standard tubes can be a bit bright for under cupboard lights
though - the slim link light type seems better suited. For the top above
cabinet lights the normal tubes are fine, cheap and long lasting)

And as Polygonum said, the tubes don't have to be as long as the
cupboards, which surprised me.

With a good white ceiling, the light will bounce around a bit anyway.


--
Cheers,

John.

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

In article ,
Fred writes:
On Sun, 28 Oct 2012 12:58:57 +0000, John Rumm
wrote:

For reasons which I have never really grasped, CFLs have very much
poorer light quality than the proper tubes though I find.

Phosphors for tubes are made in Europe, whereas phosphors for CFLs
are made in China. However, they are the same product.

There is expected to be a shortage of phosphors for tubes over
the next few years, as there aren't enough rare earths being mined
and China will need most of what it mines for it's own use, leaving
not enough to export for tubes. New mines will come online a couple
of years after that, so it's not a long-term problem, just short term.

I found it strange that the same manufacturers make tubes and CFLs yet
the tubes are 3500K and the CFLs 2700K. I guess that's responsible for
the difference you have seen: they use different coatings on the
tubes? I don't know why though. You would think it would be cheaper to
use the same for all tubes.

They use different proportions of the tri-phosphor mixture.
CFLs are designed mainly for home use where they have to blend in
with filament lamps, and home lighting levels are much lower than
those in offices, which is why a lower colour temperature looks
more correct in the home than in the office.

The big standard tubes can be a bit bright for under cupboard lights
though - the slim link light type seems better suited. For the top above
cabinet lights the normal tubes are fine, cheap and long lasting)

And as Polygonum said, the tubes don't have to be as long as the
cupboards, which surprised me.

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

On 28/10/2012 10:52, wrote:



I'd probably leave the central fitting and add fluorescent over the worktop & sink - or cfls if there's enough depth. CFLs have the advantage of easily changed power levels, less issue with tube quality, less upfront cost and less effort obtaining replacements.

Central fluorescent is certainly a good bit more effective than central filament or cfl, but at the end of the day the light's still in the wrong place.

If you go with linear fl, use standardised tubes, stay away from any tubes over 3500K, and ensure you can dim them. Cfls are easier in these respects.


NT

Why do you say that about 3500K? The linklight link I posted was to
lamps with 4000K colour - and pretty acceptable that is. No - I would
not wish full northern daylight 6000K or so.

We don't bother with any form of dimming - simply switch some on/some
off as needed. One lamp is plenty for getting a glass of water or other
minor functions. Three work well for a lot of the rest - or all lights
when good lighting positively required.

--
Rod

On Sun, 28 Oct 2012 13:01:59 +0000, polygonum
wrote:

Why do you say that about 3500K? The linklight link I posted was to
lamps with 4000K colour - and pretty acceptable that is. No - I would
not wish full northern daylight 6000K or so.

I think it is personal taste. I found the 3500K too blue but OTOH I do
have the same tubes elsewhere (garage and loft) and have never noticed
it. Perhaps I would get used to it in time.

I am puzzled why we don't like daylight bulbs. After all, daylight
lights our homes during the day, so why not use them at night? Or is
it the wrong sort of daylight?

We don't bother with any form of dimming - simply switch some on/some
off as needed. One lamp is plenty for getting a glass of water or other
minor functions. Three work well for a lot of the rest - or all lights
when good lighting positively required.

I am not sure that I would need dimming in a kitchen but I suppose
dimming a tube that is too bright is cheaper than buying a smaller
replacement. When I did my test, I found, like you, that just one lamp
was enough to do most tasks by but I would want a second one on if
cooking etc.

On 29/10/2012 10:17, Fred wrote:
On Sun, 28 Oct 2012 13:01:59 +0000, polygonum
wrote:

Why do you say that about 3500K? The linklight link I posted was to
lamps with 4000K colour - and pretty acceptable that is. No - I would
not wish full northern daylight 6000K or so.

I think it is personal taste. I found the 3500K too blue but OTOH I do
have the same tubes elsewhere (garage and loft) and have never noticed
it. Perhaps I would get used to it in time.

I am puzzled why we don't like daylight bulbs. After all, daylight
lights our homes during the day, so why not use them at night? Or is
it the wrong sort of daylight?

We don't bother with any form of dimming - simply switch some on/some
off as needed. One lamp is plenty for getting a glass of water or other
minor functions. Three work well for a lot of the rest - or all lights
when good lighting positively required.

I am not sure that I would need dimming in a kitchen but I suppose
dimming a tube that is too bright is cheaper than buying a smaller
replacement. When I did my test, I found, like you, that just one lamp
was enough to do most tasks by but I would want a second one on if
cooking etc.

Maybe need to include Colour Rendering Index and not only temperature.
Perhaps that is why the linklights are so acceptable (IMHO)?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_rendering_index

Some lamps actually include their CRI but often in "coded" form. I think
if you see 827 on a lamp that means 80-89% CRI and 2700K temperature.

--
Rod

On Monday, October 29, 2012 10:17:44 AM UTC, Fred wrote:
On Sun, 28 Oct 2012 13:01:59 +0000, polygonum wrote:


Why do you say that about 3500K? The linklight link I posted was to
lamps with 4000K colour - and pretty acceptable that is. No - I would
not wish full northern daylight 6000K or so.

I think it is personal taste. I found the 3500K too blue but OTOH I do

Some people don't mind high CCT tubes, but a lot do.


have the same tubes elsewhere (garage and loft) and have never noticed
it. Perhaps I would get used to it in time.
I am puzzled why we don't like daylight bulbs. After all, daylight
lights our homes during the day, so why not use them at night? Or is
it the wrong sort of daylight?

Perception of CCT and brightness level are interrelated. At the much lower levels of electric lighting, things look much higher CCT to the eye.

Also there's noticeable correlation between temperature and taste. In cold countries people often prefer warm low CCT tubes, in hot coutries they mainly use cool high CCT tubes.


We don't bother with any form of dimming - simply switch some on/some
off as needed. One lamp is plenty for getting a glass of water or other
minor functions. Three work well for a lot of the rest - or all lights
when good lighting positively required.

I am not sure that I would need dimming in a kitchen but I suppose
dimming a tube that is too bright is cheaper than buying a smaller
replacement. When I did my test, I found, like you, that just one lamp
was enough to do most tasks by but I would want a second one on if
cooking etc.

People frequently fit far too much power with fl lighting. Reduced levels are more comfortable in late evening etc.


NT

On 29/10/2012 10:17, Fred wrote:
On Sun, 28 Oct 2012 13:01:59 +0000, polygonum
wrote:

Why do you say that about 3500K? The linklight link I posted was to
lamps with 4000K colour - and pretty acceptable that is. No - I would
not wish full northern daylight 6000K or so.

I think it is personal taste. I found the 3500K too blue but OTOH I do
have the same tubes elsewhere (garage and loft) and have never noticed
it. Perhaps I would get used to it in time.

I am puzzled why we don't like daylight bulbs. After all, daylight
lights our homes during the day, so why not use them at night? Or is
it the wrong sort of daylight?

Its because we are attuned not only to colour temperature, but also
brightness. If we get light of a particular temperature but the wrong
brightness level to go with it, it seems "wrong". Hence daylight colour,
and vastly below daylight illumination levels seems very "blue".



--
Cheers,

John.

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

On Sun, 28 Oct 2012 03:52:21 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

CFLs have the advantage of easil=
y changed power levels, less issue with tube quality, less upfront cost and=
less effort obtaining replacements.

I think you are right about this. If I wanted to try 7w, 9w, 11w, etc.
CFLs, I would just need to buy a number of bulbs until I found one of
the right brightness, whereas with a tube, I would need to buy the
fitting as well as the tube for each size until I found the right
combination, which makes the trial and error approach more expensive.

If you go with linear fl, use standardised tubes, stay away from any tubes =
over 3500K, and ensure you can dim them. Cfls are easier in these respects.

I never really understood colour temperature before, so I visited
wikipedia but there was too much science

All this talk about black body radiators. Do they exist in real life
or are they theoretical only? Is there anything that comes close?

I had an unused 4' light fitting (from Wickes), so I placed that on
top of the cupboard to see. On the one had it was not as bright as
having the central light on, yet it was bright enough to do most tasks
by. I guess it is just a matter of getting used to it. If I do do
this, I would put a second tube on the cupboards on the other side, so
I suppose the light would be doubled.

Looking at the Wickes web site, they only seem to sell 3500K tubes, so
I assume this one is 3500K. I was noticeably more blue/white than the
CFL.

Looking on the internet I see 3500K is described as "white" and 3000K
is "warm white", and 2700K "very warm white". I was wondering whether
to buy a 3000K tube to see if I preferred the colour from that, but I
have read more web sites and it seems that CFLS are 2700K, so perhaps
I should look for a 2700K tube, though they seem rarer than the 3000K
ones. What were tungsten filament lamps? Were they 2700K too?

I think you are right about not going above 3500K; I would say lower,
but it's all personal taste.

On 29/10/2012 10:10, Fred wrote:



All this talk about black body radiators. Do they exist in real life
or are they theoretical only? Is there anything that comes close?



The nearest to a black body radiator is often taken to be a hole!

Imagine a furnace with a small hole in its wall. The emissions through
that hole, interpreted as if the hole itself were a solid at the
temperature of the interior, would be a good approximation to a black body.

--
Rod

On 28/10/2012 10:05, Fred wrote:
Hi,

Call me old fashioned or boring or both, but is the best way to light
a kitchen with a 4' tube?

Na, gallon of paraffin and a match.... oh, I see what you mean! ;-)

Our kitchen has a single fitting in the centre of the ceiling which
originally had a 60w bulb; subsequently replaced with a cfl. The
problem with this arrangement is that as the work surfaces, sink, hob,
etc are around the edges of the room, wherever you stand the light is
always behind you and your shadow falls over whatever you are working
on. This is annoying me more now that we have darker nights and use
the light more.

Yup - a single point source in the middle, does no work well in most
kitchen layouts.

The tube light gets round that a bit by having light from multiple
directions. although used that way they can look a bit industrial.

There seems to be a fashion for fitting dozens of halogen lights in
your ceiling. I'm not an eco warrior but even so, I can't see why you
need half a kilowatt of lights in your kitchen. To be fair, I've only
ever seen these on the tv, so I don't know what they are like in "real
life". I have seen a few houses where people have retrofitted a 4-bulb
halogen light fitting in the centre of the ceiling and it creates four
pools of light with a lot of darkness in between. I guess that's why
you need to fit so many to get an even wash of light.

Downlights are not that effective for lighting wide areas - at least not
unless they are a long way from the subject. Not easy on modern low
ceilings. Used sensibly they can make good task lights and good display
lights. They are also ok in very small rooms where you cans use some
"wall washing" from the lights to get a better coverage.

I'm thinking of going with a tube on the ceiling and/or tubes under
the cupboards. What does the group think?

To make it pleasant to work in you need light that is illuminating the
surface you are working on without being in your eyes.

One option that works well is to do away with the centre light
altogether, and use strip lights under and over the cabinets - with the
top lights hidden behind a cornice and reflected off a white ceiling.
The bottom ones hidden by a pelmet.

That way you get even bright light everywhere, are never working in your
shadow, and yet can't actually see the light source - so it does not
matter if its not he most attractive thing.



--
Cheers,

John.

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

On Sun, 28 Oct 2012 12:52:32 +0000, John Rumm
wrote:

Na, gallon of paraffin and a match.... oh, I see what you mean! ;-)

I didn't think you could light paraffin with a match?

The tube light gets round that a bit by having light from multiple
directions. although used that way they can look a bit industrial.

I think if you had a big kitchen with a couple of rows of tubes along
its length it might look like a supermarket ceiling but I think one or
two tubes would not look industrial.

I realise it is all personal taste but I'm not too bothered what the
lamp looks like, I more interested in how well it lights the area.
I've never understood the attraction of lights that look pretty but
don't illuminate anything usefully. But that's just me

I would like to see some SWMBO-friendly maintained lights though. I
just about got away with fitting one over the CU but I have a second
that I have not been allowed to put on the stairs.

On a light-related note: round dry lining boxes, I have never used
one. I can see how it is easier to use a hole saw to drill a circle of
the perfect size, rather than cut a square but then what? Is the
circle the same size as the rose of a ceiling pendant? Does the rose
screw directly into the dry lining box? Is it that it saves you having
to fix the light fitting with rawlplugs/redidrivers/etc?

TIA

On 29/10/2012 10:31, Fred wrote:
On Sun, 28 Oct 2012 12:52:32 +0000, John Rumm
wrote:

Na, gallon of paraffin and a match.... oh, I see what you mean! ;-)

I didn't think you could light paraffin with a match?

I am sure you can once its splashed all over a kitchen!

(I recall a school friend of mine who had a party trick involving a
candle, and a bicycle pump full of paraffin - it made quite an
impressive impromptu flame thrower!)

The tube light gets round that a bit by having light from multiple
directions. although used that way they can look a bit industrial.

I think if you had a big kitchen with a couple of rows of tubes along
its length it might look like a supermarket ceiling but I think one or
two tubes would not look industrial.

I realise it is all personal taste but I'm not too bothered what the
lamp looks like, I more interested in how well it lights the area.
I've never understood the attraction of lights that look pretty but
don't illuminate anything usefully. But that's just me

Indeed. The house I grew up in had a 4 or 5' tube in the kitchen and it
never seemed unusual. In fact I have one here in our utility room. Aside
from the need to sweep the dead bugs out of the diffuse from time to
time it does the job and does not look too bad.

I would like to see some SWMBO-friendly maintained lights though. I
just about got away with fitting one over the CU but I have a second
that I have not been allowed to put on the stairs.

Hmmm, yes I got some grumbling on that one. One trick I found is to cut
out a hole the size of the base of the lamp and set it into the ceiling
so that only its diffuser sticks out. However it was accepted that with
no street lights, practicality had to trump aesthetics on this one. So
we have one at the top of the stairs, one in the hall, and another
beside the fuse box.

On a light-related note: round dry lining boxes, I have never used
one. I can see how it is easier to use a hole saw to drill a circle of
the perfect size, rather than cut a square but then what? Is the
circle the same size as the rose of a ceiling pendant? Does the rose
screw directly into the dry lining box? Is it that it saves you having
to fix the light fitting with rawlplugs/redidrivers/etc?

I can see the logic for conduit systems and round BESA box mounted
accessories. So perhaps the plan is that you can carry on using the same
fittings in more "flush mounting amenable" locations?

--
Cheers,

John.

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

On Sun, 28 Oct 2012 10:05:29 +0000, Fred
wrote:

Call me old fashioned or boring or both, but is the best way to light
a kitchen with a 4' tube?

Can't speak for anyone else - but I think so.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/1362986...in/photostream

Fred wrote:
Hi,

Call me old fashioned or boring or both, but is the best way to light
a kitchen with a 4' tube?

Our kitchen has a single fitting in the centre of the ceiling which
originally had a 60w bulb; subsequently replaced with a cfl. The
problem with this arrangement is that as the work surfaces, sink, hob,
etc are around the edges of the room, wherever you stand the light is
always behind you and your shadow falls over whatever you are working
on. This is annoying me more now that we have darker nights and use
the light more.

There seems to be a fashion for fitting dozens of halogen lights in
your ceiling. I'm not an eco warrior but even so, I can't see why you
need half a kilowatt of lights in your kitchen. To be fair, I've only
ever seen these on the tv, so I don't know what they are like in "real
life".

The fashion is still there. You just now fit LED lamps not halogen lamps. I
do not have downlights in my kitchen

--
Adam

On Sun, 28 Oct 2012 10:05:29 +0000, Fred
wrote:


Call me old fashioned or boring or both, but is the best way to light
a kitchen with a 4' tube?


I've just installed two of these:
http://www.universal-lighting.co.uk/...roduct_id=6136
to replace the 4ft florescents that wouldn't have looked out of place
in an office.

On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 14:40:30 +0000, Peter Johnson
wrote:

On Sun, 28 Oct 2012 10:05:29 +0000, Fred
wrote:


Call me old fashioned or boring or both, but is the best way to light
a kitchen with a 4' tube?


I've just installed two of these:
http://www.universal-lighting.co.uk/...roduct_id=6136
to replace the 4ft florescents that wouldn't have looked out of place
in an office.

Like the look of the fitting but the output is a bit low for my needs.
A couple of years ago I put up a Thorn Diffundi surface fitting with
2x58w 5ft triphosphor tubes to supplement the MR16 units over the work
surfaces and have been looking for something less functional ever
since.
--
rbel