Hi,

Would someone check my calculation please...

I have been considering fitting downlighters in my kitchen.


The kitchen is roughly 7m by 4m. Reading other posts on this BB it looks as
though I should go for around 15 downlighters + additional under cupboard
lights for effect...

My calculation is:

15 lights
50W per light
7p/Kw
Lights on 15 hours per day

15 * 50/1000 * 0.07 * 15 * 365 = approx £300 per year running cost. Any
additional under-cupboard lights are extra on top of this, as are
replacement bulbs, etc.

I assume that low voltage downlighters cost the same to run as mains
voltage(?)

Seems a bit steep to light just one room in the house!

[At the moment I have a 60w strip light and a 20W low voltage pendant which
gives adequate (but not sexy) lighting and only a tenth of the running
costs.]

Should I be considering something other than downligters? Is this the cost
of a modern-looking kitchen?

Colin

"Colin" wrote in message
...
My calculation is:

15 lights
50W per light
7p/Kw
Lights on 15 hours per day

15 hours a day seems pretty steep....................in winter you
would have to have the lights on for all the darkness hours (even
when you are asleep!)...............and during the summer you would
be using the lights in daylight!!!! I think you need to recalculate.
I doubt my kitchen lights are on for more than 2-3 hours a day in
winter and much less in summer.

Angela

"Colin" wrote in message
...
Hi,

Would someone check my calculation please...

I have been considering fitting downlighters in my kitchen.


The kitchen is roughly 7m by 4m. Reading other posts on this BB it
looks as
though I should go for around 15 downlighters + additional under
cupboard
lights for effect...

My calculation is:

15 lights
50W per light
7p/Kw
Lights on 15 hours per day

My kitchen is 3.3m x 3m and we have 6 50W LV halogens lighting the main
area, plus 2 more in a glazed cupboard. The amount of light they produce
is more than adequate for my purposes.

Presumably you don't have a window in this room and you plan to leave
the lights on all day?

Even if you really do need to have artificial lighting in your kitchen
for 15 hours/day, do you need to have all 15 lamps burning all the time,
or could you divide it into general illumination/tasks?

HTH

Neil

Colin wrote:

My calculation is:

15 lights
50W per light
7p/Kw
Lights on 15 hours per day

15 * 50/1000 * 0.07 * 15 * 365 = approx £300 per year running cost. Any
additional under-cupboard lights are extra on top of this, as are
replacement bulbs, etc.

I assume that low voltage downlighters cost the same to run as mains
voltage(?)

Seems a bit steep to light just one room in the house!

[At the moment I have a 60w strip light and a 20W low voltage pendant which
gives adequate (but not sexy) lighting and only a tenth of the running
costs.]

Should I be considering something other than downligters? Is this the cost
of a modern-looking kitchen?

I'll take this opportunity to rant, if you don't mind. This isn't
personal - lots of people do what you are proposing :-)

rant

I really, *really* don't understand this recent obsession with LV
halogens; specifically with using dozens of them to light a room.

When I was growing up, each room had a 60W/100W bulb, and maybe a
reading lamp/desk lamp as well. That was plenty.

Why anyone would need or want 750W to light their kitchen is beyond me.
I totally do not understand it.

Our kitchen makes use of 3x 21W CFs, and we find this more than enough.
Regardless of cost, to use 750W to light one room is *obscene*.

/rant

--
Grunff

On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 16:50:58 -0000, "Colin"
wrote:

Hi,

Would someone check my calculation please...

I have been considering fitting downlighters in my kitchen.


The kitchen is roughly 7m by 4m. Reading other posts on this BB it looks as
though I should go for around 15 downlighters + additional under cupboard
lights for effect...

My calculation is:

15 lights
50W per light
7p/Kw
Lights on 15 hours per day

15 * 50/1000 * 0.07 * 15 * 365 = approx £300 per year running cost. Any
additional under-cupboard lights are extra on top of this, as are
replacement bulbs, etc.

The calculations are OK, but the assumptions are probably
unreasonable.

First of all, I doubt that you would need all 15 lights for 15 hours a
day, the year round. You can divide the lights into groups and
switch some on at a time. For example, I have some in the ceiling
away from the walls and some closer to the walls to give reflected
light. I probably have about a third of them on for many purposes
and more when needed.



I assume that low voltage downlighters cost the same to run as mains
voltage(?)

Approximately.



Seems a bit steep to light just one room in the house!

[At the moment I have a 60w strip light and a 20W low voltage pendant which
gives adequate (but not sexy) lighting and only a tenth of the running
costs.]

Don't you like sex? ;-)

I also used small high frequency fluorescent fittings underneath the
cupboards for certain jobs.

Being able to mix and select different types of light at different
times is quite appealing.



Should I be considering something other than downligters? Is this the cost
of a modern-looking kitchen?

Colin


..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

15 lights
50W per light

My kitchen has 2 semiflush light fittings. (15W yellow compact fluorescent
bulbs). This give a nice soft warm glow to the room. For task lighting, I
have 4x18W tubes under pelmets and 1x30W tube up the chimney for the range.
This gives a total of 132W when it is all on. It is a LOT of light. The
under pelmet lights only need to be on when cooking.

Why have 750W just for the main lighting? Do you have a one man vendetta
against Bangladesh? Perhaps you like the sight of drowning Polynesians?

Christian.

The kitchen is roughly 7m by 4m. Reading other posts on this BB it...


My kitchen is 3.3m x 3m and we have 6 50W LV halogens lighting the main
area, plus 2 more in a glazed cupboard. The amount of light they produce
is more than adequate for my purposes.

You have 1 50W bulb per 1.75 m^2. I am proposing roughly the same...

Presumably you don't have a window in this room and you plan to leave
the lights on all day?

There is a single window at one end. The lights currently are left on all
day.

Even if you really do need to have artificial lighting in your kitchen
for 15 hours/day, do you need to have all 15 lamps burning all the time,
or could you divide it into general illumination/tasks?

May be possible. I think the wife/children would object to switching lights
on/off all day long.

Would a dimmer switch save electricity?


Colin

rant

I really, *really* don't understand this recent obsession with LV
halogens; specifically with using dozens of them to light a room.

When I was growing up, each room had a 60W/100W bulb, and maybe a
reading lamp/desk lamp as well. That was plenty.

Why anyone would need or want 750W to light their kitchen is beyond me.
I totally do not understand it.

Our kitchen makes use of 3x 21W CFs, and we find this more than enough.
Regardless of cost, to use 750W to light one room is *obscene*.

/rant

After looking at the numbers I must admit that I am also starting to agree
with you...

Colin

The calculations are OK, but the assumptions are probably
unreasonable.

First of all, I doubt that you would need all 15 lights for 15 hours a
day, the year round. You can divide the lights into groups and
switch some on at a time. For example, I have some in the ceiling
away from the walls and some closer to the walls to give reflected
light. I probably have about a third of them on for many purposes
and more when needed.

I guess careful lighting design is important. I don't want to end up in the
situation where I am switching ligts on and off every 5 minutes.

Don't you like sex? ;-)

It doesn't usually cost this much ;-)

Being able to mix and select different types of light at different
times is quite appealing.

Is there a certain configuration that you use 95% of the time?

Colin

Why have 750W just for the main lighting? Do you have a one man vendetta
against Bangladesh? Perhaps you like the sight of drowning Polynesians?

750W seems to be amount recommended by those with downlighters for a kitchen
of 28 sq m. Perhaps downlighters are less efficient/practical?

It is a shame that strip lights don't look nicer... They seem much more
practical in a kitchen...


Colin

I found this quote rather amusing, "I think the wife/children would object
to switching lights on/off all day long."

I like a place to be well lit but there is a limit surely!

Do they cope with flushing the toilet or have you arranged for that to
continuously flush?

I suppose a PIR type of switch would be possible - we have them in the
offices where I work. They dim the lights out after about 20 mins of no
movement.

--


Regards

John



---
All of my outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.567 / Virus Database: 358 - Release Date: 24/01/2004

Colin wrote:
I think the wife/children would object to switching
lights on/off all day long.

Then teach them, like my father taught me!

15w compact fluorescents in the corners above the cabinets work well, as
they wash the ceiling with light which is diffused around the room. These
could stay on for extended periods.
The halogens provide excellent bright light, but 750w won't be needed all
the time, as you seem to concur.

You could go for 3 independently switched lighting sources:
10w - 20w of under cabinet fluorescent strips,
Hidden CF wall/ceiling washes to provide general illumination,
LV halogens for detail lighting and making the missus go ooohH.

--
Toby.

'One day son, all this will be finished'

"Colin" wrote
| 15 lights
| 50W per light

That'll be 2 new lighting circuits then, as each point must be rated at 100W
..

| I assume that low voltage downlighters cost the same to run
| as mains voltage(?)

LV cost a lot less to run in bulb replacement costs, apparrently.

And you'll only require 1 new lighting circuit as you can run 5 transformers
at 150W each.

Owain

"Colin" wrote
| Don't you like sex? ;-)
| It doesn't usually cost this much ;-)

Perhaps you should drop subtle hints to the missus that lots of overhead
halogen lighting emphasises bags under the eyes, wrinkles, moustaches (hers)
and encourages premature aging.

Of course if she wants her kitchen lit up like a pathologist's dissection
table ...

Owain

In uk.d-i-y, Owain wrote:
"Colin" wrote
| 15 lights
| 50W per light

That'll be 2 new lighting circuits then, as each point must be rated at 100W
.
To be fair, not if they're limited to taking lamps only available in
50W max - such as LV halogens. Haven't exhaustively scanned for any GU10-style
mains halogens above 50W, but if they don't exist then 50W per lighting
point is reasonable for them too. Not that I disagree with the notion that
15 * 50W of downlighting is likely to be a right PITA - too bright where
the beams fall, too dim where they don't, i.e. not diffused enough.

Stefek

On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 17:42:19 -0000, "Colin"
wrote:

The calculations are OK, but the assumptions are probably
unreasonable.

First of all, I doubt that you would need all 15 lights for 15 hours a
day, the year round. You can divide the lights into groups and
switch some on at a time. For example, I have some in the ceiling
away from the walls and some closer to the walls to give reflected
light. I probably have about a third of them on for many purposes
and more when needed.

I guess careful lighting design is important. I don't want to end up in the
situation where I am switching ligts on and off every 5 minutes.

I don't think you need to do that. You can split lighting into
general, accent and task.

Most of the time we end up with three different combinations and I
have the switches to achieve that with different sets hooked to each.



Don't you like sex? ;-)

It doesn't usually cost this much ;-)

It does, you know. You just don't realise it...... :-)



Being able to mix and select different types of light at different
times is quite appealing.

Is there a certain configuration that you use 95% of the time?

Using switching as described above, I have 3 switches, each of which
turns on a different scenario. One is for cooking, another for other
work in the kitchen and the third is when nothing much is happening
and I need light to walk through or raid the fridge so just some
accent lights near the wall. It's then just a case of throwing an
additional switch when needed.

You can mix technologies of course, although I prefer to keep
fluorescents of all types to a minimum because I find them bilious in
kitchen applications.



Colin


..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

Stefek Zaba wrote
| | 15 lights
| | 50W per light
| That'll be 2 new lighting circuits then, as each point must
| be rated at 100W
| To be fair, not if they're limited to taking lamps only available in
| 50W max - such as LV halogens. Haven't exhaustively scanned for any
| GU10-style mains halogens above 50W, but if they don't exist then
| 50W per lighting point is reasonable for them too.

I take 100W per mains lighting point because the fittings could be replaced
with 60W or even 100W spots, in another style if not GU10, but the
transformer as one point at actual rating, because that is the end of the
mains wiring.

Owain

Colin wrote:

My calculation is:

15 lights
50W per light
7p/Kw
Lights on 15 hours per day

15 * 50/1000 * 0.07 * 15 * 365 = approx £300 per year running cost.
Any
additional under-cupboard lights are extra on top of this, as are
replacement bulbs, etc.


Well lets add in bulb costs. 15 lights 15 hrs a day = 225 bulb hours
/day = 0.1125 bulb life per day if using 2000 hr bulbs. So you will be
replacing bulbs at the rate of 1 per 9 days - on average.

At say £2 a bulb (you can ignore delivery since youll be buying in
bulk) that's
365 x 0.1125 = 41 bulbs per annum, or £82 pa, and some exercise

So its nearer £400 a year. For 1 room.


I assume that low voltage downlighters cost the same to run as mains
voltage(?)

no. mains halogen cost more, mains cfl cost less, traditional mains
filament cost more.

Seems a bit steep to light just one room in the house!

How many rooms have you got...


[At the moment I have a 60w strip light and a 20W low voltage pendant
which
gives adequate (but not sexy) lighting and only a tenth of the
running
costs.]

Fls are very efficient, and routinely badly installed and poorly used.
They can be made to look fine, but few people seem to have any idea
how to do that. I've been in places lit almost entirely by fls, and
they looked good. Unfortunately widespread bad practice gives them a
bad name.


Should I be considering something other than downligters?

consider

a) avoiding downlighters which are energy inefficient for 2 reasons
- theyre halogen not cfl
- they light up the floor which wastes a lot of light
b) using cfl not halogen
c) not leaving lights on all day long
d) using a more sensible level of lighting than 750w
e) having the lights on a bank of switches so you can put on what
youre comfortable with at the time
f) using small lights where theyre needed
g) training your family to be responsible

and if you want to take things to extremes, use an external reflector
to get more sun and skylight in through the window. It works well.

Is this the cost of a modern-looking kitchen?

no, its the cost of what you propose to do. There are plenty of other
ways to have a modern looking kitchen. There are even ways to have
downlighters without the cost you are looking at here.


Would a dimmer switch save electricity?

no it increases it. I can explain if needed.


Grunff wrote:
Why anyone would need or want 750W to light their kitchen is beyond
me.
I totally do not understand it.

I think they just dont know what theyre doing. Anyone who imagines
having a 500w halogen floodlight in the room, and then adding some
more, will realise its not a bright idea.


I also wouldnt go for PIR, they simply dont make good choices, and are
anoying and wasteful.

Want some new ideas?


Regards, NT

I found this quote rather amusing, "I think the wife/children would object
to switching lights on/off all day long."
Do they cope with flushing the toilet or have you arranged for that to
continuously flush?

Good idea! I am forever flushing the toilets for the children.

The problem with the lights is that not all the children can reach the light
switches. Also the kitchen is a thoroughfare between other rooms (it has 8
doors leading from it).

I suppose a PIR type of switch would be possible - we have them in the
offices where I work. They dim the lights out after about 20 mins of no
movement.

I was wondering about a PIR. Perhaps driving some small lights on the
skirting and with a 10-20 minute timeout. (Oh no not more lights!)

Colin

Colin wrote:

The problem with the lights is that not all the children can reach the light
switches.

Hmmm, letssee, how could we solve that one ;-)

--
Grunff

So its nearer £400 a year. For 1 room.

Yikes!



Seems a bit steep to light just one room in the house!

How many rooms have you got...

Lots.



Fls are very efficient, and routinely badly installed and poorly used.
They can be made to look fine, but few people seem to have any idea
how to do that. I've been in places lit almost entirely by fls, and
they looked good. Unfortunately widespread bad practice gives them a
bad name.

I would like flourecsent tubes if I could find some way of making them look
nice. I think think that they make a better working light. Has anyone seen
any fittings, or got any tips for installation, that would look acceptable?


Is this the cost of a modern-looking kitchen?

no, its the cost of what you propose to do. There are plenty of other
ways to have a modern looking kitchen. There are even ways to have
downlighters without the cost you are looking at here.

I am open to suggestions...


Would a dimmer switch save electricity?

no it increases it. I can explain if needed.

I suspected that they didn't save power...



Colin

"Colin" wrote in message
...
I found this quote rather amusing, "I think the wife/children would
object
to switching lights on/off all day long."
Do they cope with flushing the toilet or have you arranged for that
to
continuously flush?

Good idea! I am forever flushing the toilets for the children.

Have you thought about a Reliance Senselec IR WC control?

http://www.rwc.co.uk/rwc/products/ov....htm#sense250f


The problem with the lights is that not all the children can reach the
light
switches.

Could they be lowered? My 19-month old daughter can *almost* reach the
light switches in my parents house - built in 2002 to the new
accessability regulations.

Also the kitchen is a thoroughfare between other rooms (it has 8
doors leading from it).

But presumably you don't need full lighting to go through the kitchen en
route from one room to another?


I suppose a PIR type of switch would be possible - we have them in
the
offices where I work. They dim the lights out after about 20 mins of
no
movement.

I was wondering about a PIR. Perhaps driving some small lights on the
skirting and with a 10-20 minute timeout. (Oh no not more lights!)

Maybe you could contact Boeing and ask who supplies their floor level
emergency lighting strips - sounds similar...

Neil

On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 16:50:58 -0000, "Colin"
wrote:

Hi,

Would someone check my calculation please...

I have been considering fitting downlighters in my kitchen.


The kitchen is roughly 7m by 4m. Reading other posts on this BB it looks as
though I should go for around 15 downlighters + additional under cupboard
lights for effect...

My calculation is:

15 lights
50W per light
7p/Kw
Lights on 15 hours per day

15 * 50/1000 * 0.07 * 15 * 365 = approx £300 per year running cost. Any
additional under-cupboard lights are extra on top of this, as are
replacement bulbs, etc.

I assume that low voltage downlighters cost the same to run as mains
voltage(?)

Seems a bit steep to light just one room in the house!

[At the moment I have a 60w strip light and a 20W low voltage pendant which
gives adequate (but not sexy) lighting and only a tenth of the running
costs.]

Should I be considering something other than downligters? Is this the cost
of a modern-looking kitchen?

You probably need to start from functional requirements, which will
almost certainly lead to a mix of different lighting types. We have a
somewhat larger kitchen - about 32m^2 - roughly L-shaped, and our
lighting scheme consists of:

- three triple-spot clusters, one in the central part of the L and one
in each "leg" - these provide the general illumination throughout the
room
- striplights underneath wall units covering most of the food
preparation worktop areas
- lights built into the cooker hood
- two sets of two LV downlighters, one over the sink, one over the one
food prep area not covered by the under-unit strip lights

These are all separate switched (apart from the downlighters, each
pair of which is switched with the nearest spot cluster).

I reckon that's a total of 580W of lighting, although its rare for all
to be on at the same time, and there's no way that any will be on for
15hrs a day (the room has one N-facing window, two S-facing, and a
part-glazed exterior door on the S-facing side).

You really need to think about which areas of the room you need to
light and why, then work out an appropriate solution ... and, as other
posters have suggested, switch the damn lights off ;-)

HTH
Julian


--
Julian Fowler
julian (at) bellevue-barn (dot) org (dot) uk

wrote:
Haven't exhaustively scanned for any GU10-style
mains halogens above 50W

75W ones exist:
http://www.thelightbulb.co.uk/produc...il.php?id=1151
http://www.thelightbulb.co.uk/produc...il.php?id=1152
--
Selah

"Owain" wrote in message ...
Stefek Zaba wrote
| | 15 lights
| | 50W per light

| That'll be 2 new lighting circuits then, as each point must
| be rated at 100W

| To be fair, not if they're limited to taking lamps only available in
| 50W max - such as LV halogens. Haven't exhaustively scanned for any
| GU10-style mains halogens above 50W, but if they don't exist then
| 50W per lighting point is reasonable for them too.

I take 100W per mains lighting point because the fittings could be replaced
with 60W or even 100W spots, in another style if not GU10, but the
transformer as one point at actual rating, because that is the end of the
mains wiring.

Owain


But people could make all sorts of modifications, and if they do, the
onus is on them to do it sensibly.

The trouble with (weakly trying to) protect against what someone might
mis-do one day is that its openended: there is no shortage of things
an idiot could do, but how is that relevant to your install? Typically
when I come across this 'but someone might' approach I see just one
maybe offered, and all others ignored, which doesnt seem to make good
sense to me.

And if someone did decide to replace this circuit with 100w fittings,
thus putting 1.5kW of bulbs in the OP's kitchen, there is already
protection equipment in place to deal with that anyhow.

And if they went one step further and replaced the MCB, just how
dangerous is running 1,5kW peak on 1,5mm2?

Any why would the present OP have to take action now to prevent
someone else's highly unlikely mis-actions in this situation? It
sounds like stretching it to me.

I'd love to hear a good explanation though.


Regards, NT

In article ,
"Colin" writes:

I would like flourecsent tubes if I could find some way of making them look
nice. I think think that they make a better working light. Has anyone seen
any fittings, or got any tips for installation, that would look acceptable?

I've done the lighting in two kitchens in last few years.
In both cases, I used T4 fluorescent fittings (CPC, B&Q) under the
cupboards behind tiny pelmets, and concealed fluorescent tubes on
top of the cupboards bouncing light off a white ceiling.
This has worked very well with excellent all round lighting,
excellent task lighting on the worktops and absolutely no glare.
The under cupboard and on cupboard lights are separately switched.

You should consider the colour temperature (and make sure all the
tubes are the same). For domestic kitchen lighting levels you want 2700K.
This will also match the colour temperature of the other lights in your
house and make the kitchen feel warm. If you want to install a
significantly higher level of lighting in the kitchen than is perhaps
the norm for domestic use, then you can also increase the colour
temperture to 3500K, but this will look cold and lifeless unless the
lighting level is much higher than you would normally find in a
domestic residence. This high level of lighting is something you might
particularly want to consider if the kitchen has no natural light and
you will be using the lights all through the day. However, it can be
overpowering in the early morning and evening when we don't expect
such high light levels or high colour temperatures.

--
Andrew Gabriel

Andrew, thanks for the advise... (esp. colour temp.)


I've done the lighting in two kitchens in last few years.
In both cases, I used T4 fluorescent fittings (CPC, B&Q) under the
cupboards behind tiny pelmets, and concealed fluorescent tubes on
top of the cupboards bouncing light off a white ceiling.
This has worked very well with excellent all round lighting,
excellent task lighting on the worktops and absolutely no glare.
The under cupboard and on cupboard lights are separately switched.


The lighting configuration you describe implies that there was no 'direct'
lighting except for the under-worktops. Is that correct?

Colin

In article ,
"Colin" writes:
Andrew, thanks for the advise... (esp. colour temp.)


I've done the lighting in two kitchens in last few years.
In both cases, I used T4 fluorescent fittings (CPC, B&Q) under the

I should point out the CPC and B&Q fittings come with different
colour temperature tubes (CPC is 2700K, and B&Q is 3000K or 3500K,
can't recall which).

cupboards behind tiny pelmets, and concealed fluorescent tubes on
top of the cupboards bouncing light off a white ceiling.
This has worked very well with excellent all round lighting,
excellent task lighting on the worktops and absolutely no glare.
The under cupboard and on cupboard lights are separately switched.

The lighting configuration you describe implies that there was no 'direct'
lighting except for the under-worktops. Is that correct?

Yes.

--
Andrew Gabriel

From: Colin:

I would like flourecsent tubes if I could find some way of making
them look
nice. I think think that they make a better working light. Has anyone
seen
any fittings, or got any tips for installation, that would look
acceptable?


OK, that I can help you with. I used to use fls a lot before CFLs.

There are 5 problems with typical fl lighting installs:

1. bare bright tube gives glare
2. ugly fitting
3. poor light quality
4. Flicker and flash
5. Downtime
6. excessively bright lights are often fitted

.... All of which are easy to avoid.



1 and 2 are easy: use either trough of shelf fittings - preferably
trough.

___________ -- ceiling
|
|
| O | O is bulb on a shelf with a side, making a trough.
|___| The ceiling is lit up diffusely,
| while the fitting and bulb are not seen
|
| -- wall


_________ _
| _ O|_| is bulb and fitting mounted sideways on a shelf
|__0|_| The ceiling is lit up diffusely,
| the bulb is not seen, but the fitting is.
|
| -- wall



3 is a matter of choosing your tube: there are many versions of white
around, eg:

cool white - horrid, avoid
4500K - not nice, avoid
daylight - fair
white - ok
warm white - good
2700K - good
3500K - very good
philips numbered tubes - mostly very good
full spectrum tubes - pricey

These colours are marked near the end of the tubes. Sales assistants
often dont know that there are different versions.


4 can be avoided by using an electronic fitting.


5 can be avoided by
- always keeping a spare starter and tube,
- use the same tube size throughout so youve always got something
suitable
- have more than one light per room

When a ligt fails, first replace the starter, and if that doesnt work,
then replace the tube. With electronic fittings you just replace the
tube, theres no starter.


6 is simple, youve already used fl there so you know how much power
you want.



Finally I'd suggest using 2 foot tubes, as theyre small enough to fit
lots of locations, easy to store, their light output per fitting is
sensible, so they can also be used in every room if you want, and the
tubes are common. 4 foot is the next best. 3' tubes are harder to come
by, 6' are almost obsolete, 5' are too bright to look good in home
use, and 8' are impractical for house use.


Finally wipe the bulb clean twice a year (they last so long), and have
each light on its own wall switch. You wont need PIR.


If you like the downlighter look, a good half way is to add some
miniature very low power downlighter-style fittings (just 2w to 5w),
arranging them to direct the light towards eyes rather than the floor.
This way they give the same appearance as downlighters, but consume
next to nothing. There are many other options too.


Regards, NT

Thanks for the information. There is a lot to think about. Sounds like a
brilliant set of solutions. Just a few supplemental questions...



_________ _
| _ O|_| is bulb and fitting mounted sideways on a shelf
|__0|_| The ceiling is lit up diffusely,
| the bulb is not seen, but the fitting is.
|
| -- wall

Won't the bottom of the fitting look ugly? Or is this covered with
something?


Finally I'd suggest using 2 foot tubes, as theyre small enough to fit
lots of locations, easy to store, their light output per fitting is
sensible, so they can also be used in every room if you want, and the
tubes are common. 4 foot is the next best. 3' tubes are harder to come
by, 6' are almost obsolete, 5' are too bright to look good in home
use, and 8' are impractical for house use.

Do you get more light output per watt with a larger tube rather than a
smaller one?

If you like the downlighter look, a good half way is to add some
miniature very low power downlighter-style fittings (just 2w to 5w),
arranging them to direct the light towards eyes rather than the floor.
This way they give the same appearance as downlighters, but consume
next to nothing. There are many other options too.


Sounds like a great idea. I don't suppose that you have any idea where they
are sold? Would LED's do?... or not bright enough.

Thanks, Colin

On 27 Jan 2004 10:27:56 -0800, (N. Thornton) wrote:

From: Colin:

I would like flourecsent tubes if I could find some way of making
them look
nice. I think think that they make a better working light. Has anyone
seen
any fittings, or got any tips for installation, that would look
acceptable?


OK, that I can help you with. I used to use fls a lot before CFLs.

There are 5 problems with typical fl lighting installs:

1. bare bright tube gives glare
2. ugly fitting
3. poor light quality
4. Flicker and flash
5. Downtime
6. excessively bright lights are often fitted

... All of which are easy to avoid.



1 and 2 are easy: use either trough of shelf fittings - preferably
trough.

___________ -- ceiling
|
|
| O | O is bulb on a shelf with a side, making a trough.
|___| The ceiling is lit up diffusely,
| while the fitting and bulb are not seen
|
| -- wall


_________ _
| _ O|_| is bulb and fitting mounted sideways on a shelf
|__0|_| The ceiling is lit up diffusely,
| the bulb is not seen, but the fitting is.
|
| -- wall



3 is a matter of choosing your tube: there are many versions of white
around, eg:

cool white - horrid, avoid
4500K - not nice, avoid
daylight - fair
white - ok
warm white - good
2700K - good
3500K - very good
philips numbered tubes - mostly very good
full spectrum tubes - pricey

These colours are marked near the end of the tubes. Sales assistants
often dont know that there are different versions.


4 can be avoided by using an electronic fitting.


5 can be avoided by
- always keeping a spare starter and tube,
- use the same tube size throughout so youve always got something
suitable
- have more than one light per room

When a ligt fails, first replace the starter, and if that doesnt work,
then replace the tube. With electronic fittings you just replace the
tube, theres no starter.


6 is simple, youve already used fl there so you know how much power
you want.




Even with all of this trouble, they still look clinical.

I use daylight fittings with electronic ballasts in my workshop
because I want good light intensity and the spectrum is appropriate.

I am far from convinced that fluorescents used in a kitchen to the
exclusion of incandescent lighting can cover the complete range of
requirements and moods.

If the kitchen is like a commercial one, used for preparation and
cooking only and wall to wall white and stainless steel, then this may
be OK. It certainly isn't, in my view if the room is
multifunctional - fluorescents, no matter how good just don't have the
aesthetic warmth. This may cost more to run, but need not be
excessive and is quite reasonable unless one is looking for an energy
saving Holy Grail and that is more important than a balance with
appearance.

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

Andy Hall wrote in message . ..
On 27 Jan 2004 10:27:56 -0800, (N. Thornton) wrote:

Even with all of this trouble, they still look clinical.

I honestly think thats a myth born from the way people mostly use them
- that is what makes them clinical. I have done some very warm moody
fl setups, and people didnt believe it when I told them it was all
fluorescent. A light can be any way you want it. Once you're using the
right tubes (not daylights, I like 3500K best) and installing them the
right way, then you can play and get what you want. The problem with
fls is not fls themselves, it is the culture that has grown up around
them, plus the now antique cold white tubes, which are just plain
orrid. The problem is they can be done so badly.


I use daylight fittings with electronic ballasts in my workshop
because I want good light intensity and the spectrum is appropriate.

I am far from convinced that fluorescents used in a kitchen to the
exclusion of incandescent lighting can cover the complete range of
requirements and moods.

of course, I've yet to meet anyone who believes it till theyve seen
it. Its like telling someone eggs taste good when all they've ever
seen is stinking rotten eggs. I'll just agree to differ.


Regards, NT

"Colin" wrote in message ...
Thanks for the information. There is a lot to think about. Sounds like a
brilliant set of solutions. Just a few supplemental questions...


_________ _
| _ O|_| is bulb and fitting mounted sideways on a shelf
|__0|_| The ceiling is lit up diffusely,
| the bulb is not seen, but the fitting is.
|
| -- wall

Won't the bottom of the fitting look ugly? Or is this covered with
something?

Yes, thats one reason trough is better. You can stick something on the
fittings, but really just use troughs. Shelf setup is more for quick
temporary lighting, you can try things out like that.

Of course you dont have to stick with the original casings, but that
is more work.


Finally I'd suggest using 2 foot tubes, as theyre small enough to fit
lots of locations, easy to store, their light output per fitting is
sensible, so they can also be used in every room if you want, and the
tubes are common. 4 foot is the next best. 3' tubes are harder to come
by, 6' are almost obsolete, 5' are too bright to look good in home
use, and 8' are impractical for house use.

Do you get more light output per watt with a larger tube rather than a
smaller one?

Yes, but not by a lot. 2' tubes are much nicer to use than 4 or 5
footers. Big ones really limit what one can do, a 2 foot tube is much
more versatile.

A modern fashion is to hang a trough from the ceiling in the centre of
the room, and put a large fl tube in that. For commercial premises its
a big step up from the bare tubes, but I wouldnt want something like
that in a kitchen.


If you like the downlighter look, a good half way is to add some
miniature very low power downlighter-style fittings (just 2w to 5w),
arranging them to direct the light towards eyes rather than the floor.
This way they give the same appearance as downlighters, but consume
next to nothing. There are many other options too.


Sounds like a great idea. I don't suppose that you have any idea where they
are sold? Would LED's do?... or not bright enough.

As far as I know theyre not sold. Find some little bright metal cups,
something the right width, find some suitable bulbs... have the bulb
filament forward enough so its directly visible, the idea is just to
recreate the glare and outline of downlighters, but without the
downlight.

I think youre asking for extra work with LEDs.


If you want to play you can change the tint of the lights by painting
some of the wall within the trough a desired colour - I've done that
occasionally. It can be used for a bit of dramatic effect. Best to
play then go back to white, unless youre sure you got what you wanted.
I used coloured paper just to try it out, but the paper always
bleaches after a while. Or you can put the paper over the lights for
great mood lighting. Fls dont get anything like as hot as filament
bulbs. However I'd probly best say dont do that, you never know.

I also like to include a 3-6w fl or cfl for nightlighting, and its
bright enough to use on its own occasionally too. Or a 2w cool white
one gives a moonlit effect. If youve got plants you can put a 3w CFL
in among those for a simple effect.

You can make windows too with fls, hang the curtains up and put 2
vertical tubes behind them to mimic daylight leaking round the edges.
Many tricks, but I must go to bed this century. Have fun.


Regards, NT

Colin wrote:

Hi,

Would someone check my calculation please...

I have been considering fitting downlighters in my kitchen.


The kitchen is roughly 7m by 4m. Reading other posts on this BB it looks as
though I should go for around 15 downlighters + additional under cupboard
lights for effect...

My calculation is:

15 lights
50W per light
7p/Kw
Lights on 15 hours per day

15 * 50/1000 * 0.07 * 15 * 365 = approx £300 per year running cost. Any
additional under-cupboard lights are extra on top of this, as are
replacement bulbs, etc.

I assume that low voltage downlighters cost the same to run as mains
voltage(?)

Seems a bit steep to light just one room in the house!

[At the moment I have a 60w strip light and a 20W low voltage pendant which
gives adequate (but not sexy) lighting and only a tenth of the running
costs.]

Should I be considering something other than downligters? Is this the cost
of a modern-looking kitchen?

Colin




I am running 7x5m on just 9 downlightres and three 40W bubs. Its enough
for us, but it is not a bright modern appearance. Thats about 600W for a
similar sized room


However it does light the worktops and stove well enough, and the gaps
between are well enough lit to avoid trampling on the kittens, mostly :-)

Colin wrote:

rant

I really, *really* don't understand this recent obsession with LV
halogens; specifically with using dozens of them to light a room.

When I was growing up, each room had a 60W/100W bulb, and maybe a
reading lamp/desk lamp as well. That was plenty.

Why anyone would need or want 750W to light their kitchen is beyond me.
I totally do not understand it.

Our kitchen makes use of 3x 21W CFs, and we find this more than enough.
Regardless of cost, to use 750W to light one room is *obscene*.

/rant


After looking at the numbers I must admit that I am also starting to agree
with you...



Its about what a big room takes, sadly. On incandescents.


Colin

Colin wrote:

Why have 750W just for the main lighting? Do you have a one man vendetta
against Bangladesh? Perhaps you like the sight of drowning Polynesians?


750W seems to be amount recommended by those with downlighters for a kitchen
of 28 sq m. Perhaps downlighters are less efficient/practical?

It is a shame that strip lights don't look nicer... They seem much more
practical in a kitchen...




Guess why offices use em throughout...

The MOST efficient INCANDESCENT is a bare bulb dangling on a bit f
wire. about 10W/sq meter. Any kind of mood lighting, wall lights,
standard lamps or downligheters is about 20W/sq meter.


Colin

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher writes:
Colin wrote:
Regardless of cost, to use 750W to light one room is *obscene*.

After looking at the numbers I must admit that I am also starting to agree
with you...

Its about what a big room takes, sadly. On incandescents.

It's more about misusing task lights for general lighting.
Using appropriate incandescent luminares for providing general
lighting would knock the figure down considerably. Downlighters
are not for general lighting, so unsurprisingly they are very
inefficient if you try to misuse them that way.

They're also very good for puncturing holes in your previously
fire resistant ceiling, and as an added bonus, each has the power
and heat available to behave as an incendiary device given the
opportunity, and their excellent positioning in a brech of the
firebreak.

--
Andrew Gabriel

The MOST efficient INCANDESCENT is a bare bulb dangling on a bit f
wire. about 10W/sq meter. Any kind of mood lighting, wall lights,
standard lamps or downligheters is about 20W/sq meter.

So... I guess that to get mood lighting costs twice as much as what I've got
now. I suppose this is acceptable. What I was baulking at was using
downlighters which, on paper, appear to cost ten times more...


It appears to me that downlighters may well go the same way as laminate
flooring and date really quickly... ;-)

Colin

N. Thornton wrote:
A modern fashion is to hang a trough from the ceiling in the centre of
the room, and put a large fl tube in that. For commercial premises its
a big step up from the bare tubes, but I wouldnt want something like
that in a kitchen.

Our kitchen has two circular flourescent fittings for general lighting
which are quite acceptable. There are then under cupboard slim
flourescents and some downlighters over the sink. The two circular
lights are spearately switched and that's what you turn on for
'walking through' the kitchen.


--
Chris Green

"N. Thornton" wrote:

There are 5 problems with typical fl lighting installs:

1. bare bright tube gives glare
2. ugly fitting
[snip]
1 and 2 are easy: use either trough of shelf fittings - preferably
trough.

What about having a square section diffuser over them?

--
Scott

Where are we going and why am I in this handbasket?