Never had this before. Fluorescent tubes in my experience either work at
full brightness, flicker, or just the heaters glow.

I had a flickering tube, installed a new one, and it started fine but was
noticeably dimmer in the middle than at the ends. When I got it out of the
store, one pin had been bent, which I bent straight and I tested the heater
at that end with a meter - it was ok. Now obviously it's had a clunk to bend
the pin. If it had spoilt the seal and made a 'soft' tube I'd expect the
heaters to glow brightly then burn out which it didn't. So what process
makes for a dim tube? End 25% at both ends is normal brightness. Could the
phosphor have been dislodged in the middle but not the ends?

I'll leave it in place and observe it's progress as where it is is over a
shelf anyway.

Andrew

In article ,
Andrew Mawson wrote:
Never had this before. Fluorescent tubes in my experience either work at
full brightness, flicker, or just the heaters glow.

I had a flickering tube, installed a new one, and it started fine but
was noticeably dimmer in the middle than at the ends. When I got it out
of the store, one pin had been bent, which I bent straight and I tested
the heater at that end with a meter - it was ok. Now obviously it's had
a clunk to bend the pin. If it had spoilt the seal and made a 'soft'
tube I'd expect the heaters to glow brightly then burn out which it
didn't. So what process makes for a dim tube? End 25% at both ends is
normal brightness. Could the phosphor have been dislodged in the middle
but not the ends?

I'll leave it in place and observe it's progress as where it is is over a
shelf anyway.

I recently fitted one new tube in a twin fitting - smaller diameter than
the original - and it is slower to start and takes a short while to come
up to full. It's better than it was at first, though.

--
*The older you get, the better you realize you were.

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

On Sat, 15 Mar 2014 10:56:47 -0000, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
Andrew Mawson wrote:
Never had this before. Fluorescent tubes in my experience either work at
full brightness, flicker, or just the heaters glow.

I had a flickering tube, installed a new one, and it started fine but
was noticeably dimmer in the middle than at the ends. When I got it out
of the store, one pin had been bent, which I bent straight and I tested
the heater at that end with a meter - it was ok. Now obviously it's had
a clunk to bend the pin. If it had spoilt the seal and made a 'soft'
tube I'd expect the heaters to glow brightly then burn out which it
didn't. So what process makes for a dim tube? End 25% at both ends is
normal brightness. Could the phosphor have been dislodged in the middle
but not the ends?

I'll leave it in place and observe it's progress as where it is is over a
shelf anyway.

I recently fitted one new tube in a twin fitting - smaller diameter than
the original - and it is slower to start and takes a short while to come
up to full. It's better than it was at first, though.

I've stopped using fluorescent tubes, they're very inefficient. As the tubes died, I replaced the fittings to take LEDs.

--
Saying that she is promiscuous is an understatement.
She'll go zero to sixty-nine in under fifteen seconds."

On 15/03/2014 10:56, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Andrew Mawson wrote:
Never had this before. Fluorescent tubes in my experience either work at
full brightness, flicker, or just the heaters glow.

I had a flickering tube, installed a new one, and it started fine but
was noticeably dimmer in the middle than at the ends. When I got it out
of the store, one pin had been bent, which I bent straight and I tested
the heater at that end with a meter - it was ok. Now obviously it's had
a clunk to bend the pin. If it had spoilt the seal and made a 'soft'
tube I'd expect the heaters to glow brightly then burn out which it
didn't. So what process makes for a dim tube? End 25% at both ends is
normal brightness. Could the phosphor have been dislodged in the middle
but not the ends?

I'll leave it in place and observe it's progress as where it is is over a
shelf anyway.

I recently fitted one new tube in a twin fitting - smaller diameter than
the original - and it is slower to start and takes a short while to come
up to full. It's better than it was at first, though.


I'd change that fitting for a "Viper HF" from TLC.


http://www.tlc-direct.co.uk/Main_Ind...atten_Fittings

Instant on, great light, not expensive. I've got one in the kitchen.
Can't get these from DIY sheds yet which is a shame on them ...

--
Adrian C

In message , Adrian C
writes

I'd change that fitting for a "Viper HF" from TLC.

http://www.tlc-direct.co.uk/Main_Ind.../Lighting_Fluo
rescent_Index/Fluorescent_Batten_Fittings/index.html#HF_Batten_Fittings

Instant on, great light, not expensive. I've got one in the kitchen.
Can't get these from DIY sheds yet which is a shame on them ...


+1

I replaced 4 twin fittings around the house with similar HF fittings
from TLC and they made a big difference. They appear to come on at full
brightness instantly, although using a light meter they do take a couple
of minutes, but this isn't actually noticeable to the naked eye. Much
more friendly than the older style of fluorescent. I was expecting
more RF interference from them, but this hasn't been the case, if
anything they are quieter. The only slight issue was having to go and
collect the tubes, for some reason they will not courier these! :-)
--
Bill

In article ,
Uncle Peter wrote:
I've stopped using fluorescent tubes, they're very inefficient. As the
tubes died, I replaced the fittings to take LEDs.

You'd need an awful lot of LEDs to replace a 6ft tube...

And what makes you think they are more efficent?

--
*You never really learn to swear until you learn to drive *

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

"Bill" wrote in message ...

In message , Adrian C
writes

I'd change that fitting for a "Viper HF" from TLC.

http://www.tlc-direct.co.uk/Main_Ind.../Lighting_Fluo
rescent_Index/Fluorescent_Batten_Fittings/index.html#HF_Batten_Fittings

Instant on, great light, not expensive. I've got one in the kitchen.
Can't get these from DIY sheds yet which is a shame on them ...


+1

I replaced 4 twin fittings around the house with similar HF fittings
from TLC and they made a big difference. They appear to come on at full
brightness instantly, although using a light meter they do take a couple
of minutes, but this isn't actually noticeable to the naked eye. Much
more friendly than the older style of fluorescent. I was expecting
more RF interference from them, but this hasn't been the case, if
anything they are quieter. The only slight issue was having to go and
collect the tubes, for some reason they will not courier these! :-)


There a 36 twin 6 foot fittings so they won't be changed !

Andrew

Well, is it or was it quite cold, and has it brightened with time?
I got one out of a shed some years back when I needed light, and found it
exactly as you suggest, but after about half an hour it was normal.
Other than that, it could be either the ionisation at UV li is lower in the
middle somehow, or the phosphor is just thinner or not very good.
Brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
"Andrew Mawson" wrote in message
...
Never had this before. Fluorescent tubes in my experience either work at
full brightness, flicker, or just the heaters glow.

I had a flickering tube, installed a new one, and it started fine but was
noticeably dimmer in the middle than at the ends. When I got it out of the
store, one pin had been bent, which I bent straight and I tested the
heater at that end with a meter - it was ok. Now obviously it's had a
clunk to bend the pin. If it had spoilt the seal and made a 'soft' tube
I'd expect the heaters to glow brightly then burn out which it didn't. So
what process makes for a dim tube? End 25% at both ends is normal
brightness. Could the phosphor have been dislodged in the middle but not
the ends?

I'll leave it in place and observe it's progress as where it is is over a
shelf anyway.

Andrew

On 15/03/2014 11:54, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Uncle Peter wrote:
I've stopped using fluorescent tubes, they're very inefficient. As the
tubes died, I replaced the fittings to take LEDs.

You'd need an awful lot of LEDs to replace a 6ft tube...

And what makes you think they are more efficent?

It's possible to buy pin for pin replacements, all you may need to do is
replace the ballast choke with the appropriate gear for the LED array
used (Which could be just a piece of wire). Have a close look at the
lights in your local supermarket next time you're in there, and you may
just be able to make out the point sources inside what looks exactly
like a normal tube.

http://www.ledchoice.co.uk/led-tube-...FUsUwwodHbMA-w

They give off more lumens per watt, and the clincher for commercial
applications is that the life is longer, so you spend less on maintenance.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

"John Williamson" wrote in message ...

On 15/03/2014 11:54, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Uncle Peter wrote:
I've stopped using fluorescent tubes, they're very inefficient. As the
tubes died, I replaced the fittings to take LEDs.

You'd need an awful lot of LEDs to replace a 6ft tube...

And what makes you think they are more efficent?

It's possible to buy pin for pin replacements, all you may need to do is
replace the ballast choke with the appropriate gear for the LED array used
(Which could be just a piece of wire). Have a close look at the lights in
your local supermarket next time you're in there, and you may just be able
to make out the point sources inside what looks exactly like a normal tube.

http://www.ledchoice.co.uk/led-tube-...FUsUwwodHbMA-w

They give off more lumens per watt, and the clincher for commercial
applications is that the life is longer, so you spend less on maintenance.


So at 58 GPB each and I have 36 doubles ie 72 tubes thats ONLY 4000 quid
so no I'm not changing them !!!!!!!

Andrew

On 15/03/2014 14:03, Andrew Mawson wrote:
"John Williamson" wrote in message
...

On 15/03/2014 11:54, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Uncle Peter wrote:
I've stopped using fluorescent tubes, they're very inefficient. As the
tubes died, I replaced the fittings to take LEDs.

You'd need an awful lot of LEDs to replace a 6ft tube...

And what makes you think they are more efficent?

It's possible to buy pin for pin replacements, all you may need to do
is replace the ballast choke with the appropriate gear for the LED
array used (Which could be just a piece of wire). Have a close look at
the lights in your local supermarket next time you're in there, and
you may just be able to make out the point sources inside what looks
exactly like a normal tube.

http://www.ledchoice.co.uk/led-tube-...FUsUwwodHbMA-w


They give off more lumens per watt, and the clincher for commercial
applications is that the life is longer, so you spend less on
maintenance.


So at 58 GPB each and I have 36 doubles ie 72 tubes thats ONLY 4000
quid so no I'm not changing them !!!!!!!

Tightwad! ;-)


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On Sat, 15 Mar 2014 12:05:54 -0000, "Andrew Mawson"
wrote:

"Bill" wrote in message ...

In message , Adrian C
writes

I'd change that fitting for a "Viper HF" from TLC.

http://www.tlc-direct.co.uk/Main_Ind.../Lighting_Fluo
rescent_Index/Fluorescent_Batten_Fittings/index.html#HF_Batten_Fittings

Instant on, great light, not expensive. I've got one in the kitchen.
Can't get these from DIY sheds yet which is a shame on them ...


+1

I replaced 4 twin fittings around the house with similar HF fittings
from TLC and they made a big difference. They appear to come on at full
brightness instantly, although using a light meter they do take a couple
of minutes, but this isn't actually noticeable to the naked eye. Much
more friendly than the older style of fluorescent. I was expecting
more RF interference from them, but this hasn't been the case, if
anything they are quieter. The only slight issue was having to go and
collect the tubes, for some reason they will not courier these! :-)


There a 36 twin 6 foot fittings so they won't be changed !


A few years ago, after goggling (_not_ googling, in case you
wondered) at the eyewatering price of 5 foot tubes on Tool Station's
web site, I came across a company that would ship tubes at about a
tenth of Tool Station's one off price of 10 quid but only in unit
quantities of 25!

Not really a sensible option when all I wanted was a replacement plus
a spare or two (I'd be dead and buried long before I even got halfway
through that lot!). In the end I bought three tubes from my local CEF
for just less than a tenner.

If you were planning on a complete re-lamping exercise for that lot,
you could certainly have them shipped (72 tubes) as 3 packs of 25
leaving you with 3 spares.

The electronic ballasts (either retro fit kits or complete batten
fittings) just don't make economic sense when it comes to upgrading an
existing installation. They'd never last long enough to realise any
ROI value (never mind the ballast's service life, _you'd_ never live
long enough to see a positive ROI even if the parts could last that
long!). They barely make sense on new build installations as it is.
They need to drop in price by a good 70% before they become a viable
retro fit option.
--
Regards, J B Good

On Sat, 15 Mar 2014 14:03:24 -0000, Andrew Mawson wrote:

"John Williamson" wrote in message ...

On 15/03/2014 11:54, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Uncle Peter wrote:
I've stopped using fluorescent tubes, they're very inefficient. As the
tubes died, I replaced the fittings to take LEDs.

You'd need an awful lot of LEDs to replace a 6ft tube...

And what makes you think they are more efficent?

It's possible to buy pin for pin replacements, all you may need to do is
replace the ballast choke with the appropriate gear for the LED array used
(Which could be just a piece of wire). Have a close look at the lights in
your local supermarket next time you're in there, and you may just be able
to make out the point sources inside what looks exactly like a normal tube.

http://www.ledchoice.co.uk/led-tube-...FUsUwwodHbMA-w

They give off more lumens per watt, and the clincher for commercial
applications is that the life is longer, so you spend less on maintenance.


So at 58 GPB each and I have 36 doubles ie 72 tubes thats ONLY 4000 quid
so no I'm not changing them !!!!!!!

58 quid is a hell of a lot, but they're new, they'll come down in price. I pay about a tenner for a BC fitting domestic bulb at about 100W equivalent. CFLs used to cost 15 quid for that.

--
When I got home last night, my wife demanded that I take her somewhere expensive... So, I took her to a petrol station...
And then the fight started...

On Sat, 15 Mar 2014 11:54:16 -0000, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
Uncle Peter wrote:
I've stopped using fluorescent tubes, they're very inefficient. As the
tubes died, I replaced the fittings to take LEDs.

You'd need an awful lot of LEDs to replace a 6ft tube...

I replaced two 5ft tubes with two triple BC fittings. I only put some 40W equivalents in there (which I had lying around) and it's just as bright. So that's 3x40W to replace a 5ft tube. So I'd replace your 6ft tube with say 3x60W or 2x100W.

And what makes you think they are more efficent?

They are 10 times as efficient as an incandescant. Ballast fluorescents are 4 times as efficient, and electronic fluorescents are 5 times as efficient.

--
There's a word you are misunderstanding or misinterpreting, whether explicitly or by necessary and inescapable implication.

On Sat, 15 Mar 2014 11:29:21 -0000, Adrian C wrote:

On 15/03/2014 10:56, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Andrew Mawson wrote:
Never had this before. Fluorescent tubes in my experience either work at
full brightness, flicker, or just the heaters glow.

I had a flickering tube, installed a new one, and it started fine but
was noticeably dimmer in the middle than at the ends. When I got it out
of the store, one pin had been bent, which I bent straight and I tested
the heater at that end with a meter - it was ok. Now obviously it's had
a clunk to bend the pin. If it had spoilt the seal and made a 'soft'
tube I'd expect the heaters to glow brightly then burn out which it
didn't. So what process makes for a dim tube? End 25% at both ends is
normal brightness. Could the phosphor have been dislodged in the middle
but not the ends?

I'll leave it in place and observe it's progress as where it is is over a
shelf anyway.

I recently fitted one new tube in a twin fitting - smaller diameter than
the original - and it is slower to start and takes a short while to come
up to full. It's better than it was at first, though.


I'd change that fitting for a "Viper HF" from TLC.

http://www.tlc-direct.co.uk/Main_Ind...atten_Fittings

Instant on, great light, not expensive. I've got one in the kitchen.
Can't get these from DIY sheds yet which is a shame on them ...

Why fit outdated technology? If you're going to change a fitting, make it LED.

--
"Boy, will I give YOU a haircut!" said Tom barbarously.

On Sat, 15 Mar 2014 14:35:40 -0000, Johny B Good wrote:

On Sat, 15 Mar 2014 12:05:54 -0000, "Andrew Mawson"
wrote:

"Bill" wrote in message ...

In message , Adrian C
writes

I'd change that fitting for a "Viper HF" from TLC.

http://www.tlc-direct.co.uk/Main_Ind.../Lighting_Fluo
rescent_Index/Fluorescent_Batten_Fittings/index.html#HF_Batten_Fittings

Instant on, great light, not expensive. I've got one in the kitchen.
Can't get these from DIY sheds yet which is a shame on them ...


+1

I replaced 4 twin fittings around the house with similar HF fittings
from TLC and they made a big difference. They appear to come on at full
brightness instantly, although using a light meter they do take a couple
of minutes, but this isn't actually noticeable to the naked eye. Much
more friendly than the older style of fluorescent. I was expecting
more RF interference from them, but this hasn't been the case, if
anything they are quieter. The only slight issue was having to go and
collect the tubes, for some reason they will not courier these! :-)


There a 36 twin 6 foot fittings so they won't be changed !


A few years ago, after goggling (_not_ googling, in case you
wondered) at the eyewatering price of 5 foot tubes on Tool Station's
web site, I came across a company that would ship tubes at about a
tenth of Tool Station's one off price of 10 quid but only in unit
quantities of 25!

Which is why LEDs are better, they are easier to ship (not smashable, and smaller).

Not really a sensible option when all I wanted was a replacement plus
a spare or two (I'd be dead and buried long before I even got halfway
through that lot!). In the end I bought three tubes from my local CEF
for just less than a tenner.

If you were planning on a complete re-lamping exercise for that lot,
you could certainly have them shipped (72 tubes) as 3 packs of 25
leaving you with 3 spares.

The electronic ballasts (either retro fit kits or complete batten
fittings) just don't make economic sense when it comes to upgrading an
existing installation. They'd never last long enough to realise any
ROI value (never mind the ballast's service life, _you'd_ never live
long enough to see a positive ROI even if the parts could last that
long!). They barely make sense on new build installations as it is.
They need to drop in price by a good 70% before they become a viable
retro fit option.

What has the Republic Of Ireland to do with it?

--
"Dear IRS: I would like to cancel my subscription. Please remove my name from your mailing list." -- Joe Cockler

On 15/03/2014 15:05, Uncle Peter wrote:
On Sat, 15 Mar 2014 14:35:40 -0000, Johny B Good
The electronic ballasts (either retro fit kits or complete batten
fittings) just don't make economic sense when it comes to upgrading an
existing installation. They'd never last long enough to realise any
ROI value (never mind the ballast's service life, _you'd_ never live
long enough to see a positive ROI even if the parts could last that
long!). They barely make sense on new build installations as it is.
They need to drop in price by a good 70% before they become a viable
retro fit option.

What has the Republic Of Ireland to do with it?

Are you really too thick to read ROI in context as Return On Investment?

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

In article ,
John Williamson wrote:
It's possible to buy pin for pin replacements, all you may need to do is
replace the ballast choke with the appropriate gear for the LED array
used (Which could be just a piece of wire).

So hardly a direct replacement.

Have a close look at the
lights in your local supermarket next time you're in there, and you may
just be able to make out the point sources inside what looks exactly
like a normal tube.

http://www.ledchoice.co.uk/led-tube-...FUsUwwodHbMA-w

They give off more lumens per watt, and the clincher for commercial
applications is that the life is longer, so you spend less on
maintenance.

Given I have some fluorescent tubes (electronic control gear) here which
are many many years old and still going strong, I'll take any claims for
LED life with a pinch of salt. The few mains ones I've tried have failed
in about the same time as a tungsten. Making for a very expensive
experiment.

And I'm not impressed by the light quality of those LED strip lights.

--
*24 hours in a day ... 24 beers in a case ... coincidence? *

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

On Sat, 15 Mar 2014 15:09:15 -0000, John Williamson wrote:

On 15/03/2014 15:05, Uncle Peter wrote:
On Sat, 15 Mar 2014 14:35:40 -0000, Johny B Good
The electronic ballasts (either retro fit kits or complete batten
fittings) just don't make economic sense when it comes to upgrading an
existing installation. They'd never last long enough to realise any
ROI value (never mind the ballast's service life, _you'd_ never live
long enough to see a positive ROI even if the parts could last that
long!). They barely make sense on new build installations as it is.
They need to drop in price by a good 70% before they become a viable
retro fit option.

What has the Republic Of Ireland to do with it?

Are you really too thick to read ROI in context as Return On Investment?

I've never heard that phrase before. Only "pay for itself in a year" or similar.

--
It turns out that several protected, rare birds in Germany have been feeding on a species of protected, rare fish. In response to this dilemma, exasperated German officials have decided to do the only thing that makes sense in this kind of a situation - kill all the environmentalists.

On Sat, 15 Mar 2014 15:41:48 -0000, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
John Williamson wrote:
It's possible to buy pin for pin replacements, all you may need to do is
replace the ballast choke with the appropriate gear for the LED array
used (Which could be just a piece of wire).

So hardly a direct replacement.

The ones in the link only require the starter to be changed.

Have a close look at the
lights in your local supermarket next time you're in there, and you may
just be able to make out the point sources inside what looks exactly
like a normal tube.

http://www.ledchoice.co.uk/led-tube-...FUsUwwodHbMA-w

They give off more lumens per watt, and the clincher for commercial
applications is that the life is longer, so you spend less on
maintenance.

Given I have some fluorescent tubes (electronic control gear) here which
are many many years old and still going strong, I'll take any claims for
LED life with a pinch of salt. The few mains ones I've tried have failed
in about the same time as a tungsten. Making for a very expensive
experiment.

And I'm not impressed by the light quality of those LED strip lights.

Some are better than others. Nothing in the GU10 fitting is any good for example, they simply get too hot and the LEDs don't last.

--
After Saddam was captured, eight people were killed and almost
80 wounded by shots fired in the air during celebrations
of the capture.

On Sat, 15 Mar 2014 17:17:38 -0000, Huge wrote:

On 2014-03-15, John Williamson wrote:
On 15/03/2014 15:05, Uncle Peter wrote:
On Sat, 15 Mar 2014 14:35:40 -0000, Johny B Good
The electronic ballasts (either retro fit kits or complete batten
fittings) just don't make economic sense when it comes to upgrading an
existing installation. They'd never last long enough to realise any
ROI value (never mind the ballast's service life, _you'd_ never live
long enough to see a positive ROI even if the parts could last that
long!). They barely make sense on new build installations as it is.
They need to drop in price by a good 70% before they become a viable
retro fit option.

What has the Republic Of Ireland to do with it?

Are you really too thick to read ROI in context as Return On Investment?

Well, yes, he *is* thick, but he's also a troll.

Actual trolls in newsgroups are few and far between. You can find most of them in alt.usenet.kooks if you need examples.
You seem to think someone with an opinion different to your own is a troll.

--
Computers are like air conditioners: They stop working when you open Windows.

On Sat, 15 Mar 2014 15:02:19 -0000, "Uncle Peter" wrote:

On Sat, 15 Mar 2014 11:54:16 -0000, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
Uncle Peter wrote:
I've stopped using fluorescent tubes, they're very inefficient. As the
tubes died, I replaced the fittings to take LEDs.

You'd need an awful lot of LEDs to replace a 6ft tube...

I replaced two 5ft tubes with two triple BC fittings. I only put some
40W equivalents in there (which I had lying around) and it's just as
bright. So that's 3x40W to replace a 5ft tube. So I'd replace your
6ft tube with say 3x60W or 2x100W.

And what makes you think they are more efficent?

They are 10 times as efficient as an incandescant.

That explains your misconception then.

Ballast fluorescents are 4 times as efficient, and
electronic fluorescents are 5 times as efficient.

That looks pretty close to the truth of the matter. However, The
reality is that inductively ballasted tubes are a quite few percent
more efficient than even the best CFLs (they don't need a mercury
amalgam to optimize for the higher running temperatures of CFLs at a
slight reduction of efficiency compared to the lower temperature
conditions that normally apply to linear tubes).

When you equalise the benefit of HF electronic ballasting in a linear
fitting to that of a modern CFL, the improvement in luminous efficacy
is even greater.

As things stand, there isn't anything more efficient than an
electronically ballasted linear tube for GLS.
--
Regards, J B Good

On Sat, 15 Mar 2014 15:05:16 -0000, "Uncle Peter" wrote:

On Sat, 15 Mar 2014 14:35:40 -0000, Johny B Good wrote:

On Sat, 15 Mar 2014 12:05:54 -0000, "Andrew Mawson"
wrote:

"Bill" wrote in message ...

In message , Adrian C
writes

I'd change that fitting for a "Viper HF" from TLC.

http://www.tlc-direct.co.uk/Main_Ind.../Lighting_Fluo
rescent_Index/Fluorescent_Batten_Fittings/index.html#HF_Batten_Fittings

Instant on, great light, not expensive. I've got one in the kitchen.
Can't get these from DIY sheds yet which is a shame on them ...


+1

I replaced 4 twin fittings around the house with similar HF fittings
from TLC and they made a big difference. They appear to come on at full
brightness instantly, although using a light meter they do take a couple
of minutes, but this isn't actually noticeable to the naked eye. Much
more friendly than the older style of fluorescent. I was expecting
more RF interference from them, but this hasn't been the case, if
anything they are quieter. The only slight issue was having to go and
collect the tubes, for some reason they will not courier these! :-)


There a 36 twin 6 foot fittings so they won't be changed !


A few years ago, after goggling (_not_ googling, in case you
wondered) at the eyewatering price of 5 foot tubes on Tool Station's
web site, I came across a company that would ship tubes at about a
tenth of Tool Station's one off price of 10 quid but only in unit
quantities of 25!

Which is why LEDs are better, they are easier to ship (not smashable, and smaller).


True enough in this one particular condition. I'm sure it must be a
great comfort to the pioneering souls who are prepared to 'splash the
cash'. There are benefits to LED lamps which some might consider to be
worth the expense but, like most folk, I'm not convinced it's worth
the extra cost at their current price premium.

Not really a sensible option when all I wanted was a replacement plus
a spare or two (I'd be dead and buried long before I even got halfway
through that lot!). In the end I bought three tubes from my local CEF
for just less than a tenner.

If you were planning on a complete re-lamping exercise for that lot,
you could certainly have them shipped (72 tubes) as 3 packs of 25
leaving you with 3 spares.

The electronic ballasts (either retro fit kits or complete batten
fittings) just don't make economic sense when it comes to upgrading an
existing installation. They'd never last long enough to realise any
ROI value (never mind the ballast's service life, _you'd_ never live
long enough to see a positive ROI even if the parts could last that
long!). They barely make sense on new build installations as it is.
They need to drop in price by a good 70% before they become a viable
retro fit option.

What has the Republic Of Ireland to do with it?

**** All.
--
Regards, J B Good

On Sat, 15 Mar 2014 18:31:28 -0000, Johny B Good wrote:

On Sat, 15 Mar 2014 15:02:19 -0000, "Uncle Peter" wrote:

On Sat, 15 Mar 2014 11:54:16 -0000, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
Uncle Peter wrote:
I've stopped using fluorescent tubes, they're very inefficient. As the
tubes died, I replaced the fittings to take LEDs.

You'd need an awful lot of LEDs to replace a 6ft tube...

I replaced two 5ft tubes with two triple BC fittings. I only put some
40W equivalents in there (which I had lying around) and it's just as
bright. So that's 3x40W to replace a 5ft tube. So I'd replace your
6ft tube with say 3x60W or 2x100W.

And what makes you think they are more efficent?

They are 10 times as efficient as an incandescant.

That explains your misconception then.

It's not a misconception, I've got some here.

Ballast fluorescents are 4 times as efficient, and
electronic fluorescents are 5 times as efficient.

That looks pretty close to the truth of the matter. However, The
reality is that inductively ballasted tubes are a quite few percent
more efficient than even the best CFLs (they don't need a mercury
amalgam to optimize for the higher running temperatures of CFLs at a
slight reduction of efficiency compared to the lower temperature
conditions that normally apply to linear tubes).

When you equalise the benefit of HF electronic ballasting in a linear
fitting to that of a modern CFL, the improvement in luminous efficacy
is even greater.

As things stand, there isn't anything more efficient than an
electronically ballasted linear tube for GLS.


--
Why are they called apartments, when they're all stuck together?

On Sat, 15 Mar 2014 18:41:49 -0000, Johny B Good wrote:

On Sat, 15 Mar 2014 15:05:16 -0000, "Uncle Peter" wrote:

On Sat, 15 Mar 2014 14:35:40 -0000, Johny B Good wrote:

On Sat, 15 Mar 2014 12:05:54 -0000, "Andrew Mawson"
wrote:

"Bill" wrote in message ...

In message , Adrian C
writes


+1

I replaced 4 twin fittings around the house with similar HF fittings
from TLC and they made a big difference. They appear to come on at full
brightness instantly, although using a light meter they do take a couple
of minutes, but this isn't actually noticeable to the naked eye. Much
more friendly than the older style of fluorescent. I was expecting
more RF interference from them, but this hasn't been the case, if
anything they are quieter. The only slight issue was having to go and
collect the tubes, for some reason they will not courier these! :-)


There a 36 twin 6 foot fittings so they won't be changed !


A few years ago, after goggling (_not_ googling, in case you
wondered) at the eyewatering price of 5 foot tubes on Tool Station's
web site, I came across a company that would ship tubes at about a
tenth of Tool Station's one off price of 10 quid but only in unit
quantities of 25!

Which is why LEDs are better, they are easier to ship (not smashable, and smaller).

True enough in this one particular condition. I'm sure it must be a
great comfort to the pioneering souls who are prepared to 'splash the
cash'. There are benefits to LED lamps which some might consider to be
worth the expense but, like most folk, I'm not convinced it's worth
the extra cost at their current price premium.

They aren't expensive in BC fittings. In fact a lot of offices seem to have those 1 foot diameter recessed downlights nowadays, which you could put LEDs in easily.

--
What's the ultimate in rejection?
Having a wank and your hand goes to sleep!

In article ,
Johny B Good wrote:
They are 10 times as efficient as an incandescant.

That explains your misconception then.

Ballast fluorescents are 4 times as efficient, and
electronic fluorescents are 5 times as efficient.

That looks pretty close to the truth of the matter. However, The
reality is that inductively ballasted tubes are a quite few percent
more efficient than even the best CFLs (they don't need a mercury
amalgam to optimize for the higher running temperatures of CFLs at a
slight reduction of efficiency compared to the lower temperature
conditions that normally apply to linear tubes).

When you equalise the benefit of HF electronic ballasting in a linear
fitting to that of a modern CFL, the improvement in luminous efficacy
is even greater.

As things stand, there isn't anything more efficient than an
electronically ballasted linear tube for GLS.

The other thing is to compare like for like. LEDs tend to have a pretty
poor spectrum - and the better that is the lower the efficiency.

Of course if all you're doing is illuminating a corridor it probably
doesn't much matter. But to many it will for, say, lighting a living room.

--
*Virtual reality is its own reward *

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

On Sat, 15 Mar 2014 19:27:59 -0000, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
Johny B Good wrote:
They are 10 times as efficient as an incandescant.

That explains your misconception then.

Ballast fluorescents are 4 times as efficient, and
electronic fluorescents are 5 times as efficient.

That looks pretty close to the truth of the matter. However, The
reality is that inductively ballasted tubes are a quite few percent
more efficient than even the best CFLs (they don't need a mercury
amalgam to optimize for the higher running temperatures of CFLs at a
slight reduction of efficiency compared to the lower temperature
conditions that normally apply to linear tubes).

When you equalise the benefit of HF electronic ballasting in a linear
fitting to that of a modern CFL, the improvement in luminous efficacy
is even greater.

As things stand, there isn't anything more efficient than an
electronically ballasted linear tube for GLS.

The other thing is to compare like for like. LEDs tend to have a pretty
poor spectrum - and the better that is the lower the efficiency.

Of course if all you're doing is illuminating a corridor it probably
doesn't much matter. But to many it will for, say, lighting a living room.

In my experience, the spectrum from an LED is vastly BETTER. The LEDs in here make the room look the same as when it's basked in sunlight.

--
Gary Glitter has said if he gets executed he wants cremating and his ashes putting in an etch-a-sketch, so the kids can still play with him!

On 15 Mar 2014 17:17:38 GMT, Huge wrote:

On 2014-03-15, John Williamson wrote:
On 15/03/2014 15:05, Uncle Peter wrote:
On Sat, 15 Mar 2014 14:35:40 -0000, Johny B Good
The electronic ballasts (either retro fit kits or complete batten
fittings) just don't make economic sense when it comes to upgrading an
existing installation. They'd never last long enough to realise any
ROI value (never mind the ballast's service life, _you'd_ never live
long enough to see a positive ROI even if the parts could last that
long!). They barely make sense on new build installations as it is.
They need to drop in price by a good 70% before they become a viable
retro fit option.

What has the Republic Of Ireland to do with it?

Are you really too thick to read ROI in context as Return On Investment?

Well, yes, he *is* thick, but he's also a troll.

There's no doubt about the former assessment and, despite his own
protestations against the latter charge, the effect of his readyness
to argue 'black is white' in the face of seemingly wilful ignorance
makes his behaviour indistinguishable from that of the classic usenet
troll.

I only bother to respond to his posts now to prevent any of his ill
informed assertions going unchallenged (in this case 'that LEDs are
ten times more efficient than incandescent lamps').

As far as trying to argue the facts with him, it's like "Trying to
Educate Pork", so I avoid wasting too much time on this sort of
enterprise. Life's short enough as it is.
--
Regards, J B Good

On Sat, 15 Mar 2014 20:45:52 -0000, Johny B Good wrote:

On 15 Mar 2014 17:17:38 GMT, Huge wrote:

On 2014-03-15, John Williamson wrote:
On 15/03/2014 15:05, Uncle Peter wrote:
On Sat, 15 Mar 2014 14:35:40 -0000, Johny B Good
The electronic ballasts (either retro fit kits or complete batten
fittings) just don't make economic sense when it comes to upgrading an
existing installation. They'd never last long enough to realise any
ROI value (never mind the ballast's service life, _you'd_ never live
long enough to see a positive ROI even if the parts could last that
long!). They barely make sense on new build installations as it is.
They need to drop in price by a good 70% before they become a viable
retro fit option.

What has the Republic Of Ireland to do with it?

Are you really too thick to read ROI in context as Return On Investment?

Well, yes, he *is* thick, but he's also a troll.

There's no doubt about the former assessment and, despite his own
protestations against the latter charge, the effect of his readyness
to argue 'black is white' in the face of seemingly wilful ignorance
makes his behaviour indistinguishable from that of the classic usenet
troll.

I only bother to respond to his posts now to prevent any of his ill
informed assertions going unchallenged (in this case 'that LEDs are
ten times more efficient than incandescent lamps').

That's not ill informed, it's from first hand experience, with LEDs I have on in this room right now.

--
Women, you're in good shape as long as you can still touch your toes.
Just remember, using your boobs doesn't count.

In message , Uncle Peter writes
What has the Republic Of Ireland to do with it?

Are you really too thick to read ROI in context as Return On Investment?

Well, yes, he *is* thick, but he's also a troll.

There's no doubt about the former assessment and, despite his own
protestations against the latter charge, the effect of his readyness
to argue 'black is white' in the face of seemingly wilful ignorance
makes his behaviour indistinguishable from that of the classic usenet
troll.

I only bother to respond to his posts now to prevent any of his ill
informed assertions going unchallenged (in this case 'that LEDs are
ten times more efficient than incandescent lamps').

That's not ill informed, it's from first hand experience, with LEDs I
have on in this room right now.


Right, as we are talking specifics here, "ten times more efficient"
Could you enlighten us as to how you are measuring this?
--
Bill

On Sat, 15 Mar 2014 21:38:44 -0000, Bill wrote:

In message , Uncle Peter writes

Are you really too thick to read ROI in context as Return On Investment?

Well, yes, he *is* thick, but he's also a troll.

There's no doubt about the former assessment and, despite his own
protestations against the latter charge, the effect of his readyness
to argue 'black is white' in the face of seemingly wilful ignorance
makes his behaviour indistinguishable from that of the classic usenet
troll.

I only bother to respond to his posts now to prevent any of his ill
informed assertions going unchallenged (in this case 'that LEDs are
ten times more efficient than incandescent lamps').

That's not ill informed, it's from first hand experience, with LEDs I
have on in this room right now.


Right, as we are talking specifics here, "ten times more efficient"
Could you enlighten us as to how you are measuring this?

10x less electricity, same brightness of bulb.

--
If vegetarians eat vegetables, what do humanitarians eat?

In message , Uncle Peter writes
On Sat, 15 Mar 2014 21:38:44 -0000, Bill wrote:

In message , Uncle Peter writes

Are you really too thick to read ROI in context as Return On Investment?

Well, yes, he *is* thick, but he's also a troll.

There's no doubt about the former assessment and, despite his own
protestations against the latter charge, the effect of his readyness
to argue 'black is white' in the face of seemingly wilful ignorance
makes his behaviour indistinguishable from that of the classic usenet
troll.

I only bother to respond to his posts now to prevent any of his ill
informed assertions going unchallenged (in this case 'that LEDs are
ten times more efficient than incandescent lamps').

That's not ill informed, it's from first hand experience, with LEDs I
have on in this room right now.


Right, as we are talking specifics here, "ten times more efficient"
Could you enlighten us as to how you are measuring this?

10x less electricity, same brightness of bulb.



At the risk of repeating myself, knowing how much one has to be accurate
in these types of discussion. "How are you measuring this?"

Presumably you are measuring power consumed and light output. How?




--
Bill

On Sat, 15 Mar 2014 21:54:07 -0000, Bill wrote:

In message , Uncle Peter writes
On Sat, 15 Mar 2014 21:38:44 -0000, Bill wrote:

In message , Uncle Peter writes



There's no doubt about the former assessment and, despite his own
protestations against the latter charge, the effect of his readyness
to argue 'black is white' in the face of seemingly wilful ignorance
makes his behaviour indistinguishable from that of the classic usenet
troll.

I only bother to respond to his posts now to prevent any of his ill
informed assertions going unchallenged (in this case 'that LEDs are
ten times more efficient than incandescent lamps').

That's not ill informed, it's from first hand experience, with LEDs I
have on in this room right now.


Right, as we are talking specifics here, "ten times more efficient"
Could you enlighten us as to how you are measuring this?

10x less electricity, same brightness of bulb.



At the risk of repeating myself, knowing how much one has to be accurate
in these types of discussion. "How are you measuring this?"

Presumably you are measuring power consumed and light output. How?

Because they look they same. And that is the only important factor in a domestic bulb.

--
Jazz is what you get when you push a blues quartet down a long flight of stairs.

On Sat, 15 Mar 2014 22:03:52 -0000, Huge wrote:

On 2014-03-15, Bill wrote:
In message , Uncle Peter writes


Right, as we are talking specifics here, "ten times more efficient"
Could you enlighten us as to how you are measuring this?

10x less electricity, same brightness of bulb.



At the risk of repeating myself, knowing how much one has to be accurate
in these types of discussion. "How are you measuring this?"

Presumably you are measuring power consumed and light output. How?

You're arguing with a troll. Why?

Because he's not as judgemental and stupid as you are.

--
Jazz is what you get when you push a blues quartet down a long flight of stairs.

In message , Uncle Peter writes
On Sat, 15 Mar 2014 21:54:07 -0000, Bill wrote:

In message , Uncle Peter writes
On Sat, 15 Mar 2014 21:38:44 -0000, Bill wrote:

In message , Uncle Peter writes



There's no doubt about the former assessment and, despite his own
protestations against the latter charge, the effect of his readyness
to argue 'black is white' in the face of seemingly wilful ignorance
makes his behaviour indistinguishable from that of the classic usenet
troll.

I only bother to respond to his posts now to prevent any of his ill
informed assertions going unchallenged (in this case 'that LEDs are
ten times more efficient than incandescent lamps').

That's not ill informed, it's from first hand experience, with LEDs I
have on in this room right now.


Right, as we are talking specifics here, "ten times more efficient"
Could you enlighten us as to how you are measuring this?

10x less electricity, same brightness of bulb.



At the risk of repeating myself, knowing how much one has to be accurate
in these types of discussion. "How are you measuring this?"

Presumably you are measuring power consumed and light output. How?

Because they look they same. And that is the only important factor in
a domestic bulb.

Ah ha, so in the interests of accuracy, which is also an important
factor, could we agree on "appears to be 10X more efficient"?




--
Bill

In message , Huge
writes
On 2014-03-15, Bill wrote:
In message , Uncle Peter writes


Right, as we are talking specifics here, "ten times more efficient"
Could you enlighten us as to how you are measuring this?

10x less electricity, same brightness of bulb.



At the risk of repeating myself, knowing how much one has to be accurate
in these types of discussion. "How are you measuring this?"

Presumably you are measuring power consumed and light output. How?

You're arguing with a troll. Why?

Being a technical type of person I like people who state something as
fact to be able to back it up, or if it is a personal observation to
include "appears" or "seems to me" etc in with the statement.



--
Bill

In article ,
Uncle Peter wrote:
Of course if all you're doing is illuminating a corridor it probably
doesn't much matter. But to many it will for, say, lighting a living
room.

In my experience, the spectrum from an LED is vastly BETTER.

That doesn't surprise me.


The LEDs in here make the room look the same as when it's basked in
sunlight.

Of course they do, pet.

--
*No radio - Already stolen.

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

On Sat, 15 Mar 2014 23:12:22 -0000, Bill wrote:

In message , Uncle Peter writes
On Sat, 15 Mar 2014 21:54:07 -0000, Bill wrote:

In message , Uncle Peter writes
On Sat, 15 Mar 2014 21:38:44 -0000, Bill wrote:

In message , Uncle Peter writes




Right, as we are talking specifics here, "ten times more efficient"
Could you enlighten us as to how you are measuring this?

10x less electricity, same brightness of bulb.



At the risk of repeating myself, knowing how much one has to be accurate
in these types of discussion. "How are you measuring this?"

Presumably you are measuring power consumed and light output. How?

Because they look they same. And that is the only important factor in
a domestic bulb.

Ah ha, so in the interests of accuracy, which is also an important
factor, could we agree on "appears to be 10X more efficient"?

Yes, although you should acknowledge that lighting is designed to APPEAR, that's its only purpose, for us to see things. So the subjective brightness is all that matters (unless you're using it for scientific equipment or something). Consider pulsed LEDs for example.

--
Hit the button marked 'STOP' with remaining hand.

On Sat, 15 Mar 2014 23:41:22 -0000, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
Uncle Peter wrote:
Of course if all you're doing is illuminating a corridor it probably
doesn't much matter. But to many it will for, say, lighting a living
room.

In my experience, the spectrum from an LED is vastly BETTER.

That doesn't surprise me.


The LEDs in here make the room look the same as when it's basked in
sunlight.

Of course they do, pet.

What do they look like to you? Too red? Too green?

--
Definition of a secretary:
An office fixture that isn't permanent until it's been screwed on the boss's desk.

On Sat, 15 Mar 2014 23:41:22 -0000, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
Uncle Peter wrote:
Of course if all you're doing is illuminating a corridor it probably
doesn't much matter. But to many it will for, say, lighting a living
room.

In my experience, the spectrum from an LED is vastly BETTER.

That doesn't surprise me.


The LEDs in here make the room look the same as when it's basked in
sunlight.

Of course they do, pet.

Are you a Yorkshirewoman?

--
If quizzes are quizzical, what are tests?