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

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 10:05, 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 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 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 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 10:13:40 +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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 |
\================================================= ================/

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 |
\================================================= ================/

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 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 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 |
\================================================= ================/

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 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

On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 04:47:50 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

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.

Thanks. That's interesting, I would not have thought of that before,
but it makes sense now that you have said it.

I think I will buy a 2700k tube to try, now that I am used to 2700k
light from my CFLs.

From a quick search on the internet, 3000k seem more common than 2700k
tubes. Is there a noticeable difference between 2700k and 3000k? I
assume there is, otherwise there would be no point making two
different types. I will probably buy a 3000k tube as well, to see
which I prefer. What else has a colour temperature of 3000k? Would I
have a 3000k light at home already that I could use to compare?

TIA

On Tuesday, October 30, 2012 3:52:50 PM UTC, Fred wrote:
On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 04:47:50 -0700 (PDT), meow2222 wrote:

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.

Thanks. That's interesting, I would not have thought of that before,
but it makes sense now that you have said it.
I think I will buy a 2700k tube to try, now that I am used to 2700k
light from my CFLs.
From a quick search on the internet, 3000k seem more common than 2700k
tubes. Is there a noticeable difference between 2700k and 3000k? I
assume there is, otherwise there would be no point making two
different types. I will probably buy a 3000k tube as well, to see
which I prefer. What else has a colour temperature of 3000k? Would I
have a 3000k light at home already that I could use to compare?
TIA

Halogen lighting is about 3000k


NT

In article ,
Fred writes:
On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 04:47:50 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

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.

Thanks. That's interesting, I would not have thought of that before,
but it makes sense now that you have said it.

The theory comes from a Dutchman, Kruithof. Look up Kruithof Curve.
There is a Wikipedia entry, but it often gets damaged by people
editing it who don't actually understand it as much as they think
they do.

6500K will look perfectly natural if you achieve midday sunshine
lighting levels, which would require covering most of the ceiling
with fourescent tubes. Artificial lighting levels in the home tend
to be nearer to outside lighting levels at sunrise/sunset, when
the sun has lots of the blue filtered out (some is reflected from
as the "blue" sky, but not as much as is lost).

There are a number of companies using tri-colour LEDs for dimmable
lighting, which also change the colour temperature with the dimming.
Filament lamps do this naturally anyway.

I think I will buy a 2700k tube to try, now that I am used to 2700k
light from my CFLs.

From a quick search on the internet, 3000k seem more common than 2700k
tubes. Is there a noticeable difference between 2700k and 3000k? I

There is if you can see both together.
Otherwise the likely increased lighting level generated by tubes
will make 3000K look right. In a kitchen which is genuinely used
for food prep, choosing a higher lighting level which makes 3500K
look right is a good thing anyway. Using 3500K or higher at too
low a lighting level will make things like meat preparation
more difficult.

assume there is, otherwise there would be no point making two
different types. I will probably buy a 3000k tube as well, to see
which I prefer. What else has a colour temperature of 3000k? Would I
have a 3000k light at home already that I could use to compare?

The very slightly blue tinted (but still legal) car halogen
headlamps (the blue only visible where concentrated in the
pinch seal).

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

On 30/10/2012 17:07, wrote:
On Tuesday, October 30, 2012 3:52:50 PM UTC, Fred wrote:
On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 04:47:50 -0700 (PDT), meow2222 wrote:

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.

Thanks. That's interesting, I would not have thought of that before,
but it makes sense now that you have said it.
I think I will buy a 2700k tube to try, now that I am used to 2700k
light from my CFLs.
From a quick search on the internet, 3000k seem more common than 2700k
tubes. Is there a noticeable difference between 2700k and 3000k? I
assume there is, otherwise there would be no point making two
different types. I will probably buy a 3000k tube as well, to see
which I prefer. What else has a colour temperature of 3000k? Would I
have a 3000k light at home already that I could use to compare?
TIA

Halogen lighting is about 3000k

IME Mains halogen is probably closer to ordinary filament lamps (i.e.
2700K). LV halogen is a bit higher.

The LV LED MR16 spot I just fitted adjacent to some LV halogens claims
3000K is very slightly "whiter" than the halogens, but there is not much
in it (in fact, compared to new bulbs they would be pretty close).

--
Cheers,

John.

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

On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 10:07:30 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

Halogen lighting is about 3000k

Thanks.

On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 18:14:40 +0000 (UTC),
(Andrew Gabriel) wrote:

6500K will look perfectly natural if you achieve midday sunshine
lighting levels, which would require covering most of the ceiling
with fourescent tubes.

There are a number of companies using tri-colour LEDs for dimmable
lighting, which also change the colour temperature with the dimming.
Filament lamps do this naturally anyway.

Thank you. That has taught me a lot.

Otherwise the likely increased lighting level generated by tubes
will make 3000K look right. In a kitchen which is genuinely used
for food prep, choosing a higher lighting level which makes 3500K
look right is a good thing anyway. Using 3500K or higher at too
low a lighting level will make things like meat preparation
more difficult.

I think I finally understand that it is not just about the colour
temperature but also its brightness too. A high colour temperature
needs a high brightness to look right, otherwise they look too blue.

It is not that 3500K is the right colour for kitchens, it's that 3500K
lighting should be brighter than 2700K or 3000K, so it's the increased
brightness that helps with food preparation rather that the colour.

Have I got that right? Or is my understanding flawed?

I don't do much meat preparation. I buy it and put it in the oven and
that's it! How does a dim 3500K light interfere with that? Is it that
the light is too blue, stopping you seeing how red the meat is, so
that you can not tell whether it is too rare? Is it a similar theory
to blue lights in public toilets to stop drug addicts?

Thanks again.

On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 18:53:51 +0000, John Rumm
wrote:


IME Mains halogen is probably closer to ordinary filament lamps (i.e.
2700K). LV halogen is a bit higher.

I wonder why that is? Perhaps they make the mains ones match filament
lamps so that they blend in around the home?

On 03/11/12 12:47, Fred wrote:
On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 18:53:51 +0000, John Rumm
wrote:


IME Mains halogen is probably closer to ordinary filament lamps (i.e.
2700K). LV halogen is a bit higher.

I wonder why that is? Perhaps they make the mains ones match filament
lamps so that they blend in around the home?

No. Its a simple mechanical fact. The LV halogens have MUCH thicker
filaments and can be run hotter as a result.


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On Saturday, November 3, 2012 12:46:16 PM UTC, Fred wrote:
On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 18:14:40 +0000 (UTC),
(Andrew Gabriel) wrote:

6500K will look perfectly natural if you achieve midday sunshine
lighting levels, which would require covering most of the ceiling
with fourescent tubes.
There are a number of companies using tri-colour LEDs for dimmable
lighting, which also change the colour temperature with the dimming.
Filament lamps do this naturally anyway.

Thank you. That has taught me a lot.

Otherwise the likely increased lighting level generated by tubes
will make 3000K look right. In a kitchen which is genuinely used
for food prep, choosing a higher lighting level which makes 3500K
look right is a good thing anyway. Using 3500K or higher at too
low a lighting level will make things like meat preparation
more difficult.

I think I finally understand that it is not just about the colour
temperature but also its brightness too. A high colour temperature
needs a high brightness to look right, otherwise they look too blue.
It is not that 3500K is the right colour for kitchens, it's that 3500K
lighting should be brighter than 2700K or 3000K, so it's the increased
brightness that helps with food preparation rather that the colour.
Have I got that right? Or is my understanding flawed?

Interior lighting is chosen firstly for its light level, then you can, with some lighting technologies, select what CCT you want, which is to an extent a matter of taste and colour rendition accuracy. You also get to choose CRI, which is again very much about colour rendition and appearance.

There's no right or wrong about 2700K or 3500K in kitchens. 2700 makes things look a bit yellower, and blues dull, 4000K makes them look a bit lacking in red content and a bit over the top on blue. 3000 is a good choice, but fl tubes in 3000K are often not of good CRI, 3500s are much better. There is more to the story of course.


I don't do much meat preparation. I buy it and put it in the oven and
that's it! How does a dim 3500K light interfere with that? Is it that
the light is too blue, stopping you seeing how red the meat is, so
that you can not tell whether it is too rare? Is it a similar theory
to blue lights in public toilets to stop drug addicts?
Thanks again.

You'll be able to see fine under 3500, but it will look different under 2700. They eye partially compensates, so try them side by side to see.


NT

In article ,
scribeth thus
On Monday, October 29, 2012 8:19:02 PM UTC, rbel wrote:
On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 14:40:30 +0000, Peter Johnson
peter wrote:

I've just installed two of these:
http://www.universal-lighting.co.uk/...s/kitchen_ceil
ing_lights?product_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.

You can take 20% power consumption of fl tubes using a capacitor with very
little efect on life expectancy


NT

Wot a "Wattless dropper"?..
--
Tony Sayer

On 03/11/2012 12:47, Fred wrote:
On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 18:53:51 +0000, John Rumm
wrote:


IME Mains halogen is probably closer to ordinary filament lamps (i.e.
2700K). LV halogen is a bit higher.

I wonder why that is? Perhaps they make the mains ones match filament
lamps so that they blend in around the home?

LV halogens are more efficient - giving more lumens per watt. The higher
temperature comes with the higher light output.


--
Cheers,

John.

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

On 03/11/2012 12:46, Fred wrote:
On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 18:14:40 +0000 (UTC),
(Andrew Gabriel) wrote:

6500K will look perfectly natural if you achieve midday sunshine
lighting levels, which would require covering most of the ceiling
with fourescent tubes.

There are a number of companies using tri-colour LEDs for dimmable
lighting, which also change the colour temperature with the dimming.
Filament lamps do this naturally anyway.

Thank you. That has taught me a lot.

Otherwise the likely increased lighting level generated by tubes
will make 3000K look right. In a kitchen which is genuinely used
for food prep, choosing a higher lighting level which makes 3500K
look right is a good thing anyway. Using 3500K or higher at too
low a lighting level will make things like meat preparation
more difficult.

I think I finally understand that it is not just about the colour
temperature but also its brightness too. A high colour temperature
needs a high brightness to look right, otherwise they look too blue.

It is not that 3500K is the right colour for kitchens, it's that 3500K
lighting should be brighter than 2700K or 3000K, so it's the increased
brightness that helps with food preparation rather that the colour.

Have I got that right? Or is my understanding flawed?

Seems ok so far.

There is a further wrinkle in that some light sources have better colour
rendering than others. This is not directly to do with colour
temperature as such, but to do with the spectra emitted.

Filament lights have continuous spectra like daylight (although a bit
weak at the blue end in most cases).

Discharge / fluorescent lights, usually have big gaps in their spectral
output, plus some strong spikes at other frequencies. The result can be
a light that is as bright, and appears the same colour temperature, but
does not render colours in the same way and still looks a bit unnatural.

I don't do much meat preparation. I buy it and put it in the oven and
that's it! How does a dim 3500K light interfere with that? Is it that
the light is too blue, stopping you seeing how red the meat is, so
that you can not tell whether it is too rare? Is it a similar theory
to blue lights in public toilets to stop drug addicts?

I think that is based on the idea its harder to see the blue tracks of a
blood vessel when the skin is rendered blue as well.


--
Cheers,

John.

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

On Saturday, November 3, 2012 4:42:36 PM UTC, tony sayer wrote:
In article ,
meow2222 scribeth thus
On Monday, October 29, 2012 8:19:02 PM UTC, rbel wrote:
On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 14:40:30 +0000, Peter Johnson
peter wrote:

I've just installed two of these:
http://www.universal-lighting.co.uk/...s/kitchen_ceil
ing_lights?product_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.

You can take 20% power consumption of fl tubes using a capacitor with very
little efect on life expectancy

Wot a "Wattless dropper"?..

For iron ballast fittings a wattless capacitor dropper's good. for electronic ballasts I'd probably put the cap between ballast and tube.


NT

In article ,
John Rumm writes:
On 03/11/2012 12:47, Fred wrote:
On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 18:53:51 +0000, John Rumm
wrote:


IME Mains halogen is probably closer to ordinary filament lamps (i.e.
2700K). LV halogen is a bit higher.

I wonder why that is? Perhaps they make the mains ones match filament
lamps so that they blend in around the home?

LV halogens are more efficient - giving more lumens per watt. The higher
temperature comes with the higher light output.

I don't believe this is true.

Halogens can be run at higher temperature, but that's not done in
domestic lighting. The reason is that halogens cost much more to
manufacture, and people won't pay for higher efficiency (those few
people who will aren't using halogens in the first place). So the
only way they can be sold for a higher price is on longer life.
That's done by running them at 2700, same as regular filament lamps,
which gets you about twice the life.

OTOH, car halogen headlamps which are all rated much less than
domestic halogen lamps, do run at higher temperature. However,
people expect to pay more for those, and they expect them to be
higher colour temperature, so much so that they're often lightly
tinted blue, which actually makes them dimmer and less efficient ;-).

The lower efficiency of mains lamps is not due to running at lower
temperature. If you work out the length and crosssectional area
required for a 100W mains filament lamp, and simply make a long
enough wire, it won't glow white hot because the surface area is
much too large and it will dissipate 100W whilst only glowing a
dull red, if you're lucky. The way this is resolved is to reduce
the effective surface area by coiling the filament - to a first
approximation, from the point of view of emmissivity and surface
area, it now behaves more like a shorter fatter wire, with much
less surface area, i.e. more like a LV filament. This process isn't
perfect though - a lot of the light from the internal parts of
the coil is lost by the time it's reflected a few times and
escapes from the filament.

For any given power output of a filament lamp, there is a most
efficient design voltage, taking into account all the factors,
and for a 100W lamp, it's around 55V. As you increase the power,
the ideal design voltage increases. I don't know at what power
rating the ideal voltage reaches 240V, but I suspect it's
probably well over a kW.

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

In article ,
writes:
On Saturday, November 3, 2012 4:42:36 PM UTC, tony sayer wrote:
In article ,
meow2222 scribeth thus
On Monday, October 29, 2012 8:19:02 PM UTC, rbel wrote:
On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 14:40:30 +0000, Peter Johnson
peter wrote:

I've just installed two of these:
http://www.universal-lighting.co.uk/...s/kitchen_ceil
ing_lights?product_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.

You can take 20% power consumption of fl tubes using a capacitor with very
little efect on life expectancy

Wot a "Wattless dropper"?..

For iron ballast fittings a wattless capacitor dropper's good. for electronic ballasts I'd probably put the cap between ballast and tube.

Kills tubes quickly (due to high crest factor), which is why it isn't
used. Thorn developed what they called lag/lead fittings, where half
the tubes use inductors, and the other half use capacitors, and
together the power factor is not far off 1. However, the "lead"
(capacitor ballasted) tubes still have to have a (smaller) series
inductor, to reduce the crest factor so you get reasonable tube life.
The crest factor with inductive ballasts at mains frequency is very
bad.

All current electronic ballasts in the EU are effectively wattless.
They all achieve full light output whilst the total circuit watts
are less than the tube rating. They are able to do this because
the tubes operate more efficiently at high frequency (and it's a
requirement in the EU that they do this).

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

On 04/11/12 13:51, Andrew Gabriel wrote:
..

The lower efficiency of mains lamps is not due to running at lower
temperature. If you work out the length and crosssectional area
required for a 100W mains filament lamp, and simply make a long
enough wire, it won't glow white hot because the surface area is
much too large and it will dissipate 100W whilst only glowing a
dull red, if you're lucky.


I love it when someone start a paragraph with an assertion, and then
totally demolishs it with the arguments he brings to support it.

The way this is resolved is to reduce
the effective surface area by coiling the filament - to a first
approximation, from the point of view of emmissivity and surface
area, it now behaves more like a shorter fatter wire, with much
less surface area, i.e. more like a LV filament. This process isn't
perfect though - a lot of the light from the internal parts of
the coil is lost by the time it's reflected a few times and
escapes from the filament.

For any given power output of a filament lamp, there is a most
efficient design voltage, taking into account all the factors,
and for a 100W lamp, it's around 55V. As you increase the power,
the ideal design voltage increases. I don't know at what power
rating the ideal voltage reaches 240V, but I suspect it's
probably well over a kW.


And then completes the buggers muddle with a totally false statement.



--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.