Hi,

I am having the house rewired. In several places (kitchen, bathroom) I am thinking of having inadequate pendant (?) or fluorescent tube lighting replaced by low power LED bulbs, flush with the ceiling. Now, LED bulbs I saw in the past looked ghastly, like car head lights, lots of tiny spots of light.. The electrician says he will bring some samples. I get the impression the current LED lights have a frosted cover to diffuse the LED light and the fixing is the same "bayonet" fixing as the GU10 bulbs. Are there any drawback to these LED bulbs? They are promoted as the solution to the energy crisis and all other of society's ills, so I wonder how long before they become yesterday's despised fad?.

Thanks,

Clive

On 16/02/16 20:17, wrote:
Hi,

I am having the house rewired. In several places (kitchen, bathroom)
I am thinking of having inadequate pendant (?) or fluorescent tube
lighting replaced by low power LED bulbs, flush with the ceiling.
Now, LED bulbs I saw in the past looked ghastly, like car head
lights, lots of tiny spots of light. The electrician says he will
bring some samples. I get the impression the current LED lights have
a frosted cover to diffuse the LED light and the fixing is the same
"bayonet" fixing as the GU10 bulbs. Are there any drawback to these
LED bulbs? They are promoted as the solution to the energy crisis and
all other of society's ills, so I wonder how long before they become
yesterday's despised fad?.

Oddly, unlike 'energy saving' fluorescents, I am actually liking my LED
bulbs.

You should be able to find something you actually like


Thanks,

Clive



--
New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart in
the right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is in
someone else's pocket.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 16/02/16 20:17, wrote:
Hi,

I am having the house rewired. In several places (kitchen, bathroom)
I am thinking of having inadequate pendant (?) or fluorescent tube
lighting replaced by low power LED bulbs, flush with the ceiling.
Now, LED bulbs I saw in the past looked ghastly, like car head
lights, lots of tiny spots of light. The electrician says he will
bring some samples. I get the impression the current LED lights have
a frosted cover to diffuse the LED light and the fixing is the same
"bayonet" fixing as the GU10 bulbs. Are there any drawback to these
LED bulbs? They are promoted as the solution to the energy crisis and
all other of society's ills, so I wonder how long before they become
yesterday's despised fad?.

Oddly, unlike 'energy saving' fluorescents, I am actually liking my LED
bulbs.

I find LEDs are rather stark compared with tungsten or CFL. We've used GU10
spotlights in two situations: three downlighter spotlights in the bathroom
ceiling; and six attached to a ceiling bar, pointing in various directions,
in the kitchen.

In both cases, the beam spread of the LED version is much narrower than for
the tungsten that they replaced, which leads to more parts of the room in
shadow, and shadows which have harder edges.

My wife has asked me to replace the ones in the bathroom with the older
tungsten bulbs, partly for the warmer colour of light. We've kept the
kitchen ones and I've got used to them now, but to begin with the lighting
was less even, despite the bulb holders being in the same positions as
before.

CFLs (daylight colour) are great. They provide a nice diffuse light (in
large cylindrical "parchment" shades with no top and bottom) and we use them
in all the rooms (bedrooms, landing) which have pendant light fittings; in
the lounge we have a central three-bulb fitting which takes three candle
sized bulbs, and we can't get CFL bulbs that are small enough and yet bright
enough (ie 60W tungsten equivalent).

The CFLs are maybe three years old and are just beginning to show slight
signs of age: they take a minute or so to reach maximum brightness, but at
least their initial brightness is about 80% maximum, unlike early CFLs where
some manufacturers' bulbs were dangerously dim for the first few minutes.


My impression is that daylight CFLs provide better colour rendition than
daylight LEDs: they are better at rendering dark reds which look rather dull
and almost monochromatic under LEDs.

On 16/02/2016 21:36, NY wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 16/02/16 20:17, wrote:
Hi,

I am having the house rewired. In several places (kitchen, bathroom)
I am thinking of having inadequate pendant (?) or fluorescent tube
lighting replaced by low power LED bulbs, flush with the ceiling.
Now, LED bulbs I saw in the past looked ghastly, like car head
lights, lots of tiny spots of light. The electrician says he will
bring some samples. I get the impression the current LED lights have
a frosted cover to diffuse the LED light and the fixing is the same
"bayonet" fixing as the GU10 bulbs. Are there any drawback to these
LED bulbs? They are promoted as the solution to the energy crisis and
all other of society's ills, so I wonder how long before they become
yesterday's despised fad?.

Oddly, unlike 'energy saving' fluorescents, I am actually liking my
LED bulbs.

I find LEDs are rather stark compared with tungsten or CFL. We've used
GU10 spotlights in two situations: three downlighter spotlights in the
bathroom ceiling; and six attached to a ceiling bar, pointing in various
directions, in the kitchen.

In both cases, the beam spread of the LED version is much narrower than
for the tungsten that they replaced, which leads to more parts of the
room in shadow, and shadows which have harder edges.

My wife has asked me to replace the ones in the bathroom with the older
tungsten bulbs, partly for the warmer colour of light. We've kept the
kitchen ones and I've got used to them now, but to begin with the
lighting was less even, despite the bulb holders being in the same
positions as before.

CFLs (daylight colour) are great. They provide a nice diffuse light (in
large cylindrical "parchment" shades with no top and bottom) and we use
them in all the rooms (bedrooms, landing) which have pendant light
fittings; in the lounge we have a central three-bulb fitting which takes
three candle sized bulbs, and we can't get CFL bulbs that are small
enough and yet bright enough (ie 60W tungsten equivalent).

The CFLs are maybe three years old and are just beginning to show slight
signs of age: they take a minute or so to reach maximum brightness, but
at least their initial brightness is about 80% maximum, unlike early
CFLs where some manufacturers' bulbs were dangerously dim for the first
few minutes.


My impression is that daylight CFLs provide better colour rendition than
daylight LEDs: they are better at rendering dark reds which look rather
dull and almost monochromatic under LEDs.

I repaced 4 halogens with 2 x 6 inch panels LED cool white 12 watt, yes
they are bright but that is what she wants (shower room ) so she can
apply make up etc, she is more than happy.
She now wants similar on the kitchen which I will do this year.
I wouldnt use them in other rooms though.

On Tuesday, February 16, 2016 at 10:45:14 PM UTC, ss wrote:
On 16/02/2016 21:36, NY wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 16/02/16 20:17, wrote:
Hi,

I am having the house rewired. In several places (kitchen, bathroom)
I am thinking of having inadequate pendant (?) or fluorescent tube
lighting replaced by low power LED bulbs, flush with the ceiling.
Now, LED bulbs I saw in the past looked ghastly, like car head
lights, lots of tiny spots of light. The electrician says he will
bring some samples. I get the impression the current LED lights have
a frosted cover to diffuse the LED light and the fixing is the same
"bayonet" fixing as the GU10 bulbs. Are there any drawback to these
LED bulbs? They are promoted as the solution to the energy crisis and
all other of society's ills, so I wonder how long before they become
yesterday's despised fad?.

Oddly, unlike 'energy saving' fluorescents, I am actually liking my
LED bulbs.

I find LEDs are rather stark compared with tungsten or CFL. We've used
GU10 spotlights in two situations: three downlighter spotlights in the
bathroom ceiling; and six attached to a ceiling bar, pointing in various
directions, in the kitchen.

In both cases, the beam spread of the LED version is much narrower than
for the tungsten that they replaced, which leads to more parts of the
room in shadow, and shadows which have harder edges.

My wife has asked me to replace the ones in the bathroom with the older
tungsten bulbs, partly for the warmer colour of light. We've kept the
kitchen ones and I've got used to them now, but to begin with the
lighting was less even, despite the bulb holders being in the same
positions as before.

CFLs (daylight colour) are great. They provide a nice diffuse light (in
large cylindrical "parchment" shades with no top and bottom) and we use
them in all the rooms (bedrooms, landing) which have pendant light
fittings; in the lounge we have a central three-bulb fitting which takes
three candle sized bulbs, and we can't get CFL bulbs that are small
enough and yet bright enough (ie 60W tungsten equivalent).

The CFLs are maybe three years old and are just beginning to show slight
signs of age: they take a minute or so to reach maximum brightness, but
at least their initial brightness is about 80% maximum, unlike early
CFLs where some manufacturers' bulbs were dangerously dim for the first
few minutes.


My impression is that daylight CFLs provide better colour rendition than
daylight LEDs: they are better at rendering dark reds which look rather
dull and almost monochromatic under LEDs.

I repaced 4 halogens with 2 x 6 inch panels LED cool white 12 watt, yes
they are bright but that is what she wants (shower room ) so she can
apply make up etc, she is more than happy.
She now wants similar on the kitchen which I will do this year.
I wouldnt use them in other rooms though.

We like LEDs but won't change bulbs/strips anywhere until they die. CFLs are awful in lamps, they get very hot. Strips give dreadful colours.LEDs are like daylight. Trouble is, older 'long life' lighting lasts a long time.

The answer is not to die until they do.

"Mary Fisher" wrote in message
...
On Tuesday, February 16, 2016 at 10:45:14 PM UTC, ss wrote:
We like LEDs but won't change bulbs/strips anywhere until they die. CFLs
are awful in lamps, they get very hot. Strips give dreadful colours.LEDs
are like daylight. Trouble is, older 'long life' lighting lasts a long
time.

Presumably CFLs get a LOT less hot that the tungsten bulb that they
replaced. I've got a 25W CFL (150W tungsten equivalent) in my study and it's
been on for a couple of hours in a shade that's a vertical cylinder about 30
cm diameter with no top and bottom. And the tube (coiled to make a unit
about the size of a tungsten light bulb) is warm but I could easily keep my
fingers on it for a minute or so.

So you think that LEDs give better colour rendition than CFLs? I took a few
test photos under daylight, daylight CFL and daylight LED (with the camera
manually white-balanced to each light source) to see which photo looks most
like real life. I'm not sure whether older strip lights (which are usually
warm-white, somewhere between the colour of tungsten and sunlight) are worse
for good colour rendition.

http://s28.postimg.org/t0eihwib1/daylight.jpg (daylight under 100% cloudy
sky)

http://s23.postimg.org/nwz9yiah7/daylight_CFL.jpg (daylight CFL bulb)

http://s29.postimg.org/qt6gq6j6v/Led.jpg (daylight LED - GU10 spotlight)

http://s18.postimg.org/zc8sxeduh/white_fluor.jpg ("white" fluorescent tube)

http://s27.postimg.org/r3p00p95v/whi...aylight_WB.jpg ("white"
fluorescent tube on camera's cloud setting to show that light is actually
tungsten coloured!)

Manual white balance off a piece of white card which filled the frame

My impression is that the reds (the lettering on the Radio Times and the red
panel on the packet of screws) is darker on the LED and "white" fluorescent,
and a bit more vibrant on the daylight and daylight CFL. Obviously these are
just quick tests: I've not tried to ensure that all the pictures are at the
same exposure (eg metering off 18% grey card or anything technical like
that!). Scuse the camera shake on some of them!

On 17/02/2016 09:34, Mary Fisher wrote:
On Tuesday, February 16, 2016 at 10:45:14 PM UTC, ss wrote:
On 16/02/2016 21:36, NY wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 16/02/16 20:17, wrote:
Hi,

I am having the house rewired. In several places (kitchen, bathroom)
I am thinking of having inadequate pendant (?) or fluorescent tube
lighting replaced by low power LED bulbs, flush with the ceiling.
Now, LED bulbs I saw in the past looked ghastly, like car head
lights, lots of tiny spots of light. The electrician says he will
bring some samples. I get the impression the current LED lights have
a frosted cover to diffuse the LED light and the fixing is the same
"bayonet" fixing as the GU10 bulbs. Are there any drawback to these
LED bulbs? They are promoted as the solution to the energy crisis and
all other of society's ills, so I wonder how long before they become
yesterday's despised fad?.

They are pretty much the future now with efficiency/efficacy overtaking
HPS and fluoro tubes by a fair margin.

Oddly, unlike 'energy saving' fluorescents, I am actually liking my
LED bulbs.

I find LEDs are rather stark compared with tungsten or CFL. We've used
GU10 spotlights in two situations: three downlighter spotlights in the
bathroom ceiling; and six attached to a ceiling bar, pointing in various
directions, in the kitchen.

In both cases, the beam spread of the LED version is much narrower than
for the tungsten that they replaced, which leads to more parts of the
room in shadow, and shadows which have harder edges.

I solved that in my kitchen by using a mixture of Philips LED spotlights
which are a bit too directional but near perfect warm white to match
existing filament lamps and a couple of warm white LED bulbs.

The current crop of LED spotlights are a bit too directional.

My wife has asked me to replace the ones in the bathroom with the older
tungsten bulbs, partly for the warmer colour of light. We've kept the
kitchen ones and I've got used to them now, but to begin with the
lighting was less even, despite the bulb holders being in the same
positions as before.

CFLs (daylight colour) are great. They provide a nice diffuse light (in
large cylindrical "parchment" shades with no top and bottom) and we use
them in all the rooms (bedrooms, landing) which have pendant light
fittings; in the lounge we have a central three-bulb fitting which takes
three candle sized bulbs, and we can't get CFL bulbs that are small
enough and yet bright enough (ie 60W tungsten equivalent).

The CFLs are maybe three years old and are just beginning to show slight
signs of age: they take a minute or so to reach maximum brightness, but
at least their initial brightness is about 80% maximum, unlike early
CFLs where some manufacturers' bulbs were dangerously dim for the first
few minutes.

My impression is that daylight CFLs provide better colour rendition than
daylight LEDs: they are better at rendering dark reds which look rather
dull and almost monochromatic under LEDs.

Whilst CFLs are serviceable they have never had decent colour rendering
and are invariably slow to reach full brightness and unwilling to start
at all in very cold conditions. Couple that with the tendency of their
control electronics to cook itself and you have it.

I repaced 4 halogens with 2 x 6 inch panels LED cool white 12 watt, yes
they are bright but that is what she wants (shower room ) so she can
apply make up etc, she is more than happy.
She now wants similar on the kitchen which I will do this year.
I wouldnt use them in other rooms though.

We like LEDs but won't change bulbs/strips anywhere until they die.
CFLs are awful in lamps, they get very hot. Strips give dreadful colours.
LEDs are like daylight. Trouble is, older 'long life' lighting lasts
a long time.

It makes sense to replace them as they fail and in the areas that get
the most use - you make the most savings that way. Replacing the one in
the loft where you almost never go makes no difference at all.

You want "warm white" LED bulbs if you want to match incandescent
lighting - the Philips and Samsung versions are the best I have found.
Some others are dreadful.


--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On 16/02/16 21:20, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Oddly, unlike 'energy saving' fluorescents, I am actually liking my LED
bulbs.

You should be able to find something you actually like



I agree. I've just put 8 5W GU10 LED spotlights in my kitchen. They seem
at least as bright as the 50W ones they replace and they give a more
diffuse, less shadowy light which I like.

From Poundland. They cost £1 each, obviously.

Another Dave

--
Change nospam to gmx

In article ,
Mary Fisher wrote:
We like LEDs but won't change bulbs/strips anywhere until they die. CFLs
are awful in lamps, they get very hot. Strips give dreadful colours.LEDs
are like daylight. Trouble is, older 'long life' lighting lasts a long
time.

The problem here is LEDs ain't like daylight. They may approximate to the
basic colour temperature of some types of daylight - but have vast chunks
of the spectrum missing.

The same can apply to fluorescent but at least if you care you can buy
tubes with a decent colour spectrum.

Not with CFLs, of course.

--
*WHY IS IT CALLED TOURIST SEASON IF WE CAN'T SHOOT AT THEM?

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

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Mary Fisher wrote:
We like LEDs but won't change bulbs/strips anywhere until they die. CFLs
are awful in lamps, they get very hot. Strips give dreadful colours.LEDs
are like daylight. Trouble is, older 'long life' lighting lasts a long
time.

The problem here is LEDs ain't like daylight. They may approximate to the
basic colour temperature of some types of daylight - but have vast chunks
of the spectrum missing.

The same can apply to fluorescent but at least if you care you can buy
tubes with a decent colour spectrum.

Not with CFLs, of course.

Why is a CFL less likely to have a decent colour spectrum than a larger
strip light tube? Don't they both have the same range of phosphors
available - just that a CFL is a much smaller version and has an instant-on
starter without the flash-flash-on starting of a big tube. Or am I missing
something?

In article ,
NY wrote:
The same can apply to fluorescent but at least if you care you can buy
tubes with a decent colour spectrum.

Not with CFLs, of course.

Why is a CFL less likely to have a decent colour spectrum than a larger
strip light tube? Don't they both have the same range of phosphors
available - just that a CFL is a much smaller version and has an
instant-on starter without the flash-flash-on starting of a big tube.
Or am I missing something?

They are made down to a price as household etc tungsten replacements.

Tubes are made in a big variety of specs for different applications. The
more basic ones may give the highest amount of light per watt - but that
may not be the highest quality of light.

Specialist tubes come in all sorts. Growing lights for plants, etc. Ones
good for live fish. UV for disco lighting. And just about anything in
between.

For not much more cost than the cheapest, you can buy tubes that are a
very good match to real daylight, or say halogen. Given their long life,
the slightly higher initial cost doesn't much matter, if such things are
important to you.

But it's fairly obvious it doesn't much matter to many on here and
elsewhere. Saving a penny or two on costs is, though.

--
*WHY IS THERE AN EXPIRATION DATE ON SOUR CREAM?

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

On 17/02/16 15:26, NY wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Mary Fisher wrote:
We like LEDs but won't change bulbs/strips anywhere until they die. CFLs
are awful in lamps, they get very hot. Strips give dreadful colours.LEDs
are like daylight. Trouble is, older 'long life' lighting lasts a long
time.

The problem here is LEDs ain't like daylight. They may approximate to the
basic colour temperature of some types of daylight - but have vast chunks
of the spectrum missing.

The same can apply to fluorescent but at least if you care you can buy
tubes with a decent colour spectrum.

Not with CFLs, of course.

Why is a CFL less likely to have a decent colour spectrum than a larger
strip light tube? Don't they both have the same range of phosphors
available - just that a CFL is a much smaller version and has an
instant-on starter without the flash-flash-on starting of a big tube. Or
am I missing something?

You are missing the fact you are talking to Plowperson.

He makes up facts to suit prejudice.



--
"The great thing about Glasgow is that if there's a nuclear attack it'll
look exactly the same afterwards."

Billy Connolly

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Why is a CFL less likely to have a decent colour spectrum than a larger
strip light tube? Don't they both have the same range of phosphors
available - just that a CFL is a much smaller version and has an
instant-on starter without the flash-flash-on starting of a big tube. Or
am I missing something?

You are missing the fact you are talking to Plowperson.

He makes up facts to suit prejudice.

Thanks for confirming your ignorance.

When you talk this sort of crap, most with sense would query much of the
rest you go on and on and on about.

There was an excellent name for the likes of you once common.

'Duff gen merchant'

--
*We are born naked, wet, and hungry. Then things get worse.

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

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Why is a CFL less likely to have a decent colour spectrum than a larger
strip light tube? Don't they both have the same range of phosphors
available - just that a CFL is a much smaller version and has an
instant-on starter without the flash-flash-on starting of a big tube.
Or
am I missing something?

You are missing the fact you are talking to Plowperson.

He makes up facts to suit prejudice.

Thanks for confirming your ignorance.

When you talk this sort of crap, most with sense would query much of the
rest you go on and on and on about.

There was an excellent name for the likes of you once common.

'Duff gen merchant'

Getting back to your statement that "you can buy tubes with a decent colour
spectrum. Not with CFLs, of course."

What's the answer to that? Why do you only get a decent spectrum with long
tubes and not with CFLs?

On 16/02/2016 20:17, wrote:
Hi,

I am having the house rewired. In several places (kitchen, bathroom) I am thinking of having inadequate pendant (?) or fluorescent tube lighting replaced by low power LED bulbs, flush with the ceiling. Now, LED bulbs I saw in the past looked ghastly, like car head lights, lots of tiny spots of light.. The electrician says he will bring some samples. I get the impression the current LED lights have a frosted cover to diffuse the LED light and the fixing is the same "bayonet" fixing as the GU10 bulbs. Are there any drawback to these LED bulbs? They are promoted as the solution to the energy crisis and all other of society's ills, so I wonder how long before they become yesterday's despised fad?.

Thanks,

Clive



You can LED panels that have a very uniform light output and you cannot
see the individual LEDs.

https://www.ledhut.co.uk/commercial-led-lighting/20-watt-high-output-300-x-300-led-panel-1477.html

or something cheaper such as
http://tinyurl.com/jcpj5lg

I have both in my home and I'm fairly impressed by their performance,
albeit I only have the smaller round type in hallways.

The square 300mm x 300mm panels spread the light more evenly in a
largish room. I have a 'daylight' 'cool white' fitted in my bathroom.

You need 20/25W+ for a room.





--
mailto: news {at} admac {dot] myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

On 17/02/2016 17:26, alan_m wrote:


https://www.ledhut.co.uk/commercial-led-lighting/20-watt-high-output-300-x-300-led-panel-1477.html



If buying from LED hut perhaps wait a few weeks until they have a VAT
free weekend or another 20% off offer. You may have to check each day
because some of their discount offers only last a few days.



--
mailto: news {at} admac {dot] myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

On 17/02/2016 11:58, Martin Brown wrote:

You want "warm white" LED bulbs if you want to match incandescent
lighting - the Philips and Samsung versions are the best I have found.
Some others are dreadful.


The colour of the light is a personal preference. I much prefer the
colder daylight type bulbs.


--
mailto: news {at} admac {dot] myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

In article ,
NY wrote:
Getting back to your statement that "you can buy tubes with a decent
colour spectrum. Not with CFLs, of course."

What's the answer to that? Why do you only get a decent spectrum with
long tubes and not with CFLs?

It would be possible to make a CFL with any spectrum you want. But as I
said, they are made down to a price and to just replace ordinary GLS
tungsten. The sort of small numbers to satisfy a demand for decent light
quality would simply cost far too much.

Lets face it. Most replace the say 100w tungsten they had before with a
CFL which simply doesn't give as much light, and are happy because it's
saving them money. So why would they worry about the quality of light it
produces?

--
*The e-mail of the species is more deadly than the mail *

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

On 17/02/2016 17:17, NY wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Why is a CFL less likely to have a decent colour spectrum than a
larger
strip light tube? Don't they both have the same range of phosphors
available - just that a CFL is a much smaller version and has an
instant-on starter without the flash-flash-on starting of a big
tube. Or
am I missing something?

You are missing the fact you are talking to Plowperson.

He makes up facts to suit prejudice.

Thanks for confirming your ignorance.

When you talk this sort of crap, most with sense would query much of the
rest you go on and on and on about.

There was an excellent name for the likes of you once common.

'Duff gen merchant'

Getting back to your statement that "you can buy tubes with a decent
colour spectrum. Not with CFLs, of course."

What's the answer to that? Why do you only get a decent spectrum with
long tubes and not with CFLs?

I wouldn't say any fluoro gave a particularly decent spectrum. There is
always a horrible green cast waiting in the wings from mercury lines.

That said there is a much wider range of special lamps available in the
non-CFL format with phosphors eg. to match horticultural requirements
(and butchers shops to make meat look better).

A selection of US lamp models with spectra is online at:
http://ledmuseum.candlepower.us/led/spectra7.htm

There is quite a wide variation. By comparison true LED sources are more
rounded and much less dominated by sharp line emissions.

#http://ledmuseum.candlepower.us/led/spectra4.htm

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
NY wrote:
The same can apply to fluorescent but at least if you care you can buy
tubes with a decent colour spectrum.

Not with CFLs, of course.

Why is a CFL less likely to have a decent colour spectrum than a larger
strip light tube? Don't they both have the same range of phosphors
available - just that a CFL is a much smaller version and has an
instant-on starter without the flash-flash-on starting of a big tube.
Or am I missing something?

They are made down to a price as household etc tungsten replacements.

Tubes are made in a big variety of specs for different applications. The
more basic ones may give the highest amount of light per watt - but that
may not be the highest quality of light.

Specialist tubes come in all sorts. Growing lights for plants, etc. Ones
good for live fish. UV for disco lighting. And just about anything in
between.

For not much more cost than the cheapest, you can buy tubes that are a
very good match to real daylight, or say halogen. Given their long life,
the slightly higher initial cost doesn't much matter, if such things are
important to you.

But it's fairly obvious it doesn't much matter to many on here and
elsewhere. Saving a penny or two on costs is, though.

I think its more that with long tube fluoros that tube is
completely separate from the what's required to use
them so there isnt the same need to reduce costs so
that the sticker price the consumer sees doesn’t cause
them to look for the cheapest, particularly when
replacing a failed tube.

It may also be that the long tube fluoros are easier
to do a better spectrum with just because of the
physical format of the longer fatter tubes too.

"NY" wrote in message
o.uk...
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Why is a CFL less likely to have a decent colour spectrum than a
larger
strip light tube? Don't they both have the same range of phosphors
available - just that a CFL is a much smaller version and has an
instant-on starter without the flash-flash-on starting of a big tube.
Or
am I missing something?

You are missing the fact you are talking to Plowperson.

He makes up facts to suit prejudice.

Thanks for confirming your ignorance.

When you talk this sort of crap, most with sense would query much of the
rest you go on and on and on about.

There was an excellent name for the likes of you once common.

'Duff gen merchant'

Getting back to your statement that "you can buy tubes with a decent
colour spectrum. Not with CFLs, of course."

What's the answer to that? Why do you only get a decent spectrum with long
tubes and not with CFLs?

IMO its mainly because the long tube fluoro market has always
been about a lot more than just the consumer market. In fact the
consumer market is only a small part of the long tube market.

CFLs have always been primarily about the consumer market
and so there is a real incentive to keep the price as low as
possible and that is much more difficult to do when CFLs
have to have the electronics included most of the time.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
NY wrote:
Getting back to your statement that "you can buy tubes with a decent
colour spectrum. Not with CFLs, of course."

What's the answer to that? Why do you only get a decent spectrum with
long tubes and not with CFLs?

It would be possible to make a CFL with any spectrum you want. But as I
said, they are made down to a price and to just replace ordinary GLS
tungsten. The sort of small numbers to satisfy a demand for decent light
quality would simply cost far too much.

On the other hand, if you can make one that looks better light wise,
for not much more, you could end up getting most sales, particularly
if you can get someone like Aldi or Lidl or Ikea to flog it.

Lets face it. Most replace the say 100w tungsten they had before with a
CFL which simply doesn't give as much light, and are happy because it's
saving them money. So why would they worry about the quality of light it
produces?

OTOH if there is a choice of one CFL that produces a better
quality of light than the other at about the same price, even
someone like you would presumably buy the one with the
better quality of light.

On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 17:59:45 +0000, alan_m wrote:

On 17/02/2016 11:58, Martin Brown wrote:

You want "warm white" LED bulbs if you want to match incandescent
lighting - the Philips and Samsung versions are the best I have found.
Some others are dreadful.


The colour of the light is a personal preference. I much prefer the
colder daylight type bulbs.

I like the 4000K - 4500K range, sometimes referred to as Daylight, sometimes
as Cool.
The 6000K range is too blue for me.

BTW, I don't know how they compare to Ledhut, but Ledlam has a range of
panels.
http://ledlam.co.uk/
I first bought from Ledlam via Amazon but get a better price going direct.
--
Peter.
The gods will stay away
whilst religions hold sway

"PeterC" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 17:59:45 +0000, alan_m wrote:

On 17/02/2016 11:58, Martin Brown wrote:

You want "warm white" LED bulbs if you want to match incandescent
lighting - the Philips and Samsung versions are the best I have found.
Some others are dreadful.


The colour of the light is a personal preference. I much prefer the
colder daylight type bulbs.

I like the 4000K - 4500K range, sometimes referred to as Daylight,
sometimes
as Cool.
The 6000K range is too blue for me.

When we first replaced our tungsten bulbs with daylight CFLs, they seemed
very blue. The difference between the bedrooms with daylight and the
bathroom with tungsten GU10s was very noticeable - tungsten looked horribly
yellow.

I don't notice the difference between the two as much now. What I do like
about daylight bulbs is that the inside of my study is now the same colour
as the daylight coming through the window, whereas before the difference was
very noticeable. The only problem with that is that occasionally I forget
that I've left the light on during the day and go out with it still on!


It's quite an eye-opener to see the spectrum of a typical CFL and how many
peaks it has - not exactly black-body radiation :-) It's amazing that the
colour rendition is as good as it is with peaks and gaps like that.

I've always wondered why daylight slide film made fluorescent lights look a
horrible green colour (even when they were probably warm-white around
3500-4000K) whereas you don't get that with a digital camera. The green
emulsion of the film must have been unusually sensitive to one of the lines
in a fluorescent tube, in a way that the green pixels of a digital camera
aren't to the same extent.

On 18/02/16 09:21, NY wrote:
I've always wondered why daylight slide film made fluorescent lights
look a horrible green colour (even when they were probably warm-white
around 3500-4000K) whereas you don't get that with a digital camera. The
green emulsion of the film must have been unusually sensitive to one of
the lines in a fluorescent tube, in a way that the green pixels of a
digital camera aren't to the same extent.

Actually the digital is just as green BUT some cameras seem to recognise
this and do an overall 'white balance' as part of taking the picture


--
No Apple devices were knowingly used in the preparation of this post.

On 18/02/2016 09:21, NY wrote:
"PeterC" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 17:59:45 +0000, alan_m wrote:

On 17/02/2016 11:58, Martin Brown wrote:

You want "warm white" LED bulbs if you want to match incandescent
lighting - the Philips and Samsung versions are the best I have found.
Some others are dreadful.


The colour of the light is a personal preference. I much prefer the
colder daylight type bulbs.

I like the 4000K - 4500K range, sometimes referred to as Daylight,
sometimes
as Cool.
The 6000K range is too blue for me.

It's quite an eye-opener to see the spectrum of a typical CFL and how
many peaks it has - not exactly black-body radiation :-) It's amazing
that the colour rendition is as good as it is with peaks and gaps like
that.

The eye is easily fooled and does auto white balance.

I've always wondered why daylight slide film made fluorescent lights
look a horrible green colour (even when they were probably warm-white
around 3500-4000K) whereas you don't get that with a digital camera. The

And if you used daylight film indoor with incadescent lights it would
have a strong orange cast. Basically the film records reality.

green emulsion of the film must have been unusually sensitive to one of
the lines in a fluorescent tube, in a way that the green pixels of a
digital camera aren't to the same extent.

Not at all. In fact through a curious coincidence colour panchromatic
film is actually less sensitive to green light than it should be with an
insensitive zone around 500nm which is used as a safelight.

The consequence of this was that all the old Palomar slides of deep sky
objects are coral pink and powder blue even when visually the objects
are in fact apple green from the OIII line at 501 & 496nm. The film was
completely blind to this wavelength and it wasn't until the mid 1970's
that true colour images of nebulae were obtained (front page of SciAm)

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...ssion-nebulas/

Slide film: http://www.astropix.com/IMAGES/SHOWCASE/M42C.JPG
CCD:
http://image-photos.linternaute.com/...12-1422462.jpg

Visually it looks an oily green in the very brightest parts, but a few
of the bright planetary nebulae are a bright apple green visually but
still appear to be pink and blue on slide film.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:
It would be possible to make a CFL with any spectrum you want. But as I
said, they are made down to a price and to just replace ordinary GLS
tungsten. The sort of small numbers to satisfy a demand for decent light
quality would simply cost far too much.

On the other hand, if you can make one that looks better light wise,
for not much more, you could end up getting most sales, particularly
if you can get someone like Aldi or Lidl or Ikea to flog it.

Using the sort of phosphors needed for a good colour spectrum generally
results in a slightly reduced light output. You don't get owt for nowt.

--
*Gargling is a good way to see if your throat leaks.

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

On 18/02/2016 11:24, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:
It would be possible to make a CFL with any spectrum you want. But as I
said, they are made down to a price and to just replace ordinary GLS
tungsten. The sort of small numbers to satisfy a demand for decent light
quality would simply cost far too much.

On the other hand, if you can make one that looks better light wise,
for not much more, you could end up getting most sales, particularly
if you can get someone like Aldi or Lidl or Ikea to flog it.

Using the sort of phosphors needed for a good colour spectrum generally
results in a slightly reduced light output. You don't get owt for nowt.

I have never seen a fluorescent tube that even came close to the
comparatively smooth wavelength distribution of LEDs. There are always a
bunch of strong emission lines in the fluoro spectrum together with a
hump from whatever mixture of phosphors are used. The most notably
different ones being those optimised for meat display and horticulture.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On 18/02/2016 09:21, NY wrote:


I've always wondered why daylight slide film made fluorescent lights
look a horrible green colour (even when they were probably warm-white
around 3500-4000K) whereas you don't get that with a digital camera. The
green emulsion of the film must have been unusually sensitive to one of
the lines in a fluorescent tube, in a way that the green pixels of a
digital camera aren't to the same extent.


Fluorescent lights have an emission line spectrum that has a strong green.

The eye doesn't see this.

Digital cameras do see it but the camera can correct for it quite well.

"Martin Brown" wrote in message
...
I've always wondered why daylight slide film made fluorescent lights
look a horrible green colour (even when they were probably warm-white
around 3500-4000K) whereas you don't get that with a digital camera. The

And if you used daylight film indoor with incadescent lights it would have
a strong orange cast. Basically the film records reality.

I realise that. I was meaning, though I didn't say so explicitly, that a
slide film and a digital camera, each set to the *same* white balance (eg
daylight) will record fluorescent lights differently. On daylight film they
will be greenish, on daylight-balanced digital they will be amber if they
are warm-white tubes or reasonably neutral if they are daylight tubes.
Conversely if you use tungsten-balanced film (or an 80A blue filter and
daylight film) and a digital camera balanced for tungsten, then the
fluorescents will still have a strong green component on film but will be
either neutral or blue (depending on whether they are warm white or daylight
tubes) on digital.

So it seems that slide film is unusually sensitive (despite what you say
about "by curious coincidence colour panchromatic film is actually less
sensitive to green light than it should be") to a component in the
fluorescent tubes, whereas digital cameras aren't.

Actually, thinking about it, that's not completely true. Film is sensitive
to *some* component of fluorescents (not necessarily green light) which
*manifests itself* as a green cast - ie it triggers the green-sensitive
grain.

It's less noticeable with negative film because a green cast will probably
be corrected (either manually or automatically) at the printing stage, even
if that causes other colours then to be rendered incorrectly.

On 18/02/2016 13:13, NY wrote:
"Martin Brown" wrote in message
...
I've always wondered why daylight slide film made fluorescent lights
look a horrible green colour (even when they were probably warm-white
around 3500-4000K) whereas you don't get that with a digital camera. The

And if you used daylight film indoor with incadescent lights it would
have
a strong orange cast. Basically the film records reality.

I realise that. I was meaning, though I didn't say so explicitly, that a
slide film and a digital camera, each set to the *same* white balance (eg
daylight) will record fluorescent lights differently. On daylight film they
will be greenish, on daylight-balanced digital they will be amber if they
are warm-white tubes or reasonably neutral if they are daylight tubes.
Conversely if you use tungsten-balanced film (or an 80A blue filter and
daylight film) and a digital camera balanced for tungsten, then the
fluorescents will still have a strong green component on film but will be
either neutral or blue (depending on whether they are warm white or
daylight
tubes) on digital.

So it seems that slide film is unusually sensitive (despite what you say
about "by curious coincidence colour panchromatic film is actually less
sensitive to green light than it should be") to a component in the
fluorescent tubes, whereas digital cameras aren't.

No you have fundamentally failed to grasp the effect of the digital
camera having an automatic white balance. It sees the same weird green
colour cast as the panchromatic film (only more so) in the raw data but
it is corrected before being presented as an image.

On a more advanced camera you can force it to manual white balance and
save the raw sensor data but most default to automatic white balance.
(and have done almost since the advent of digital cameras)

Actually, thinking about it, that's not completely true. Film is sensitive
to *some* component of fluorescents (not necessarily green light) which
*manifests itself* as a green cast - ie it triggers the green-sensitive
grain.

Yes - the very strong mercury green line at 546nm to which it is quite
sensitive away from the 500nm safelight wavelength.

http://sci-toys.com/scitoys/scitoys/...ox_mercury.jpg

It's less noticeable with negative film because a green cast will probably
be corrected (either manually or automatically) at the printing stage, even
if that causes other colours then to be rendered incorrectly.

Auto white balance in the printing stage will compensate for a multitude
of sins (although often leaving some trace of colour cast).

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

In article ,
Martin Brown wrote:
On 18/02/2016 11:24, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:
It would be possible to make a CFL with any spectrum you want. But as I
said, they are made down to a price and to just replace ordinary GLS
tungsten. The sort of small numbers to satisfy a demand for decent light
quality would simply cost far too much.

On the other hand, if you can make one that looks better light wise,
for not much more, you could end up getting most sales, particularly
if you can get someone like Aldi or Lidl or Ikea to flog it.

Using the sort of phosphors needed for a good colour spectrum generally
results in a slightly reduced light output. You don't get owt for nowt.

I have never seen a fluorescent tube that even came close to the
comparatively smooth wavelength distribution of LEDs.

I've never seen a LED that comes close to the comparatively smooth visible
spectrum from a decent tri-phosphor tube. They may well exist for
specialist applications, though. But not the sort you'll buy in the high
street. Although to be fair, you'll not find the best florrie tubes on
sale in the high street either.

There are always a
bunch of strong emission lines in the fluoro spectrum together with a
hump from whatever mixture of phosphors are used. The most notably
different ones being those optimised for meat display and horticulture.

Given they are designed for a particular job, not surprising.

--
*When you get a bladder infection urine trouble.*

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

In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
Fluorescent lights have an emission line spectrum that has a strong
green.


Depends on the phosphors used.

--
*Why are a wise man and a wise guy opposites?

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

In article ,
NY wrote:
I realise that. I was meaning, though I didn't say so explicitly, that a
slide film and a digital camera, each set to the *same* white balance (eg
daylight) will record fluorescent lights differently.

You do realise there is no such uniform thing as daylight? The colour
temperature of that varies according to time of day, time of year, part of
the world and weather conditions. And likely more I've missed out.

--
*Some people are only alive because it is illegal to kill.

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

On 18/02/2016 14:30, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
Fluorescent lights have an emission line spectrum that has a strong
green.


Depends on the phosphors used.


Not really, more on the gas.

On 18/02/2016 14:30, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
Fluorescent lights have an emission line spectrum that has a strong
green.

Depends on the phosphors used.

No. The green and purple lines are from the mercury emission lines and
are intrinsically very strong sharp spikes at specific wavelengths. See

http://ledmuseum.candlepower.us/led/spectra7.htm

The lower lumpy emissions are from the phosphors (and have inferior
colour rendering characteristics to all but the worst LEDs).

"Daylight" ones tend to have a phosphor 500 +/-50nm FWHM

"Pink" for meat/plants have a phosphor 580 +/- 50nm FWHM

Other phosphors allow a better approximation to white light but there
are always very strong emission lines from any CFL or fluoro tube.

Trivial to see this with a CD reflection spectroscope.


--
Regards,
Martin Brown

"Martin Brown" wrote in message
...
On 18/02/2016 13:13, NY wrote:
"Martin Brown" wrote in message
...
I've always wondered why daylight slide film made fluorescent lights
look a horrible green colour (even when they were probably warm-white
around 3500-4000K) whereas you don't get that with a digital camera.
The

And if you used daylight film indoor with incadescent lights it would
have
a strong orange cast. Basically the film records reality.

I realise that. I was meaning, though I didn't say so explicitly, that a
slide film and a digital camera, each set to the *same* white balance (eg
daylight) will record fluorescent lights differently. On daylight film
they
will be greenish, on daylight-balanced digital they will be amber if they
are warm-white tubes or reasonably neutral if they are daylight tubes.
Conversely if you use tungsten-balanced film (or an 80A blue filter and
daylight film) and a digital camera balanced for tungsten, then the
fluorescents will still have a strong green component on film but will be
either neutral or blue (depending on whether they are warm white or
daylight
tubes) on digital.

So it seems that slide film is unusually sensitive (despite what you say
about "by curious coincidence colour panchromatic film is actually less
sensitive to green light than it should be") to a component in the
fluorescent tubes, whereas digital cameras aren't.

No you have fundamentally failed to grasp the effect of the digital camera
having an automatic white balance. It sees the same weird green colour
cast as the panchromatic film (only more so) in the raw data but it is
corrected before being presented as an image.

On a more advanced camera you can force it to manual white balance and
save the raw sensor data but most default to automatic white balance.
(and have done almost since the advent of digital cameras)

I thought I was being clear enough this time by referring to
"daylight-balanced digital". I meant with the digital camera set to a
*fixed* "daylight" white balance (eg round about 5500K for sunlight) and
*not* with auto white-balance enabled.

Auto-white balance, either in a digital camera or of the printing stage with
negative film, can correct a multitude of sins, so all bets are off if
that's used.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
NY wrote:
I realise that. I was meaning, though I didn't say so explicitly, that a
slide film and a digital camera, each set to the *same* white balance (eg
daylight) will record fluorescent lights differently.

You do realise there is no such uniform thing as daylight? The colour
temperature of that varies according to time of day, time of year, part of
the world and weather conditions. And likely more I've missed out.

Yes, I meant the camera/film settings rather than the colour of the light. I
think direct sun in a mostly blue sky has a colour temperature of *around*
5500K (subject to time of day etc variations). And it is this colour
temperature (AFAIK) that "daylight" colour slide film and the "sunlight"
white balance setting of a digital camera are balanced for.

Likewise tungsten film and the "incandescent" setting of a digital camera
are balanced for tungsten light which is about 2500-3000K depending on
whether it's normal household bulbs or Photoflood photographic lights.

My digital camera has a variety of different "fluorescent" white balance
settings for warm-white, white, daylight, low/high-pressure sodium and
mercury lights (I know sodium and mercury are discharge without fluorescent
phosphors, but the camera lumps them all together). None of these settings,
when used with sunlight, gives a pink cast which would be necessary to
counter a green cast from fluorescent lights; instead all these settings
seem to give varying proportions of amber and blue, which seems to suggest
that the digital sensor is less affected by the green line in fluorescent
tubes and therefore does not have settings that correct for it.

I do realise that light from a 100% cloudy sky is bluer (8000K or beyond),
and that shade could be all sorts of weird colours depending on what the
light is reflecting from (grass, buildings of various colours, people's
clothes etc) but is predominantly bluer than direct sunlight because of the
blue from the sky.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Rod Speed wrote

It would be possible to make a CFL with any spectrum you want.
But as I said, they are made down to a price and to just replace
ordinary GLS tungsten. The sort of small numbers to satisfy a
demand for decent light quality would simply cost far too much.

On the other hand, if you can make one that looks better light wise,
for not much more, you could end up getting most sales, particularly
if you can get someone like Aldi or Lidl or Ikea to flog it.

Using the sort of phosphors needed for a good colour
spectrum generally results in a slightly reduced light output.

Yes, otherwise the good color spectrum phosphors would be used if they
don’t cost more than the ones which produce marginally more light.

And few of your customers would even notice the slight reduction
in light output, and would prefer the better looking light.

You don't get owt for nowt.

Irrelevant to what is being discussed, what many customers would choose,
particularly if stores like Ikea had enough of a clue to have the lights
where
you can see the colors properly and choose which bulb to buy etc.

Once upon a time on usenet wrote:
Hi,

I am having the house rewired. In several places (kitchen, bathroom)
I am thinking of having inadequate pendant (?) or fluorescent tube
lighting replaced by low power LED bulbs, flush with the ceiling.
Now, LED bulbs I saw in the past looked ghastly, like car head
lights, lots of tiny spots of light. The electrician says he will
bring some samples. I get the impression the current LED lights have
a frosted cover to diffuse the LED light and the fixing is the same
"bayonet" fixing as the GU10 bulbs. Are there any drawback to these
LED bulbs? They are promoted as the solution to the energy crisis and
all other of society's ills, so I wonder how long before they become
yesterday's despised fad?.

Thanks,

Clive

My opinion for what it's worth is that the biggest problem with LED lighting
is people trying to retro-fit it into fittings deigned for incandescant
bulbs. The LEDS and their drivers tend to overheat and their lives are
consequently shortened considerably.

If you're getting the place rewired anyway I'd suggest getting LED lamps
fitted into the ceiling that have remote drivers and have finned heatsinks
in the ceiling space. I've seen them at a local hardware place and. while
they're not exactly cheap they should last 10 to 20 years and use ~20% of
the electric that other options would.

FWIW.
--
Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy
little classification in the DSM*."
David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
(*Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders)