"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
Here's a question for the group.

Average family living in an average 3 bedroom family house using the
average amount of electricity.

They change from all tungsten lighting to all LED.

How much money would they save on average per year on their leccy bill?

There is no nice tidy answer. The saving varies depending on
whether you buy the expensive guaranteed leds from operations
like ledhut or the cheapest stuff from aliexpress and alibaba.

On 03/12/2016 16:28, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
house with metering for light only
use. Or to calculate it, I suppose.

I was interested to see how much those on here thought they were saving by
changing to more efficient lighting. Especially as few have anything good
to say about CFL.


CFL is the devils spunk.


--
Adam

On 03/12/2016 18:32, ARW wrote:
On 03/12/2016 16:28, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
house with metering for light only
use. Or to calculate it, I suppose.

I was interested to see how much those on here thought they were
saving by
changing to more efficient lighting. Especially as few have anything good
to say about CFL.

CFL is the devils spunk.

Now LEDs are cheap and readily available, is there any point to CFLs?

(I see the cheap LAP ones I got from Screwfix are now a year old. _So_
much better than the CFLs dotted around the house).

On 03-Dec-16 11:10 AM, Scott wrote:
As I mentioned elsewhere, I am experimenting with LED lighting.

I was having a curry with a former colleague last night, who mentioned
his father hates LED lighting for the following reasons:
....
3. Because of the frequency (colour temperature?) the light does not
travel as far so streetlamps need to be placed closer together but.
Councils are not doing this for cost reasons, leaving blackspots in
illumination.

Probably depends upon the Council. My local County Council has recently
carried out a huge programme of updating the street lights to LEDs. All
but a few minor residential streets, where lights were mounted upon
existing overhead power poles, got new light columns at new spacings.


--
--

Colin Bignell

On 03/12/2016 16:28, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Scott wrote:
On Sat, 03 Dec 2016 14:18:00 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
ss wrote:
On 03/12/2016 12:19, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Average family living in an average 3 bedroom family house using
the average amount of electricity.

They change from all tungsten lighting to all LED.

How much money would they save on average per year on their leccy
bill?

Too many variables to be accurate but as a rough guide I would say if
you have current 60w and move to say 12w LEDs then the lighting part
of leccy bill would approx a fifth of the cost (not including the
cost of the LED bulbs)

Snag with that is it's near impossible to know what proportion of your
leccy bill goes on lighting.

Is there a need to know the proportion? If the question is, how much
money will be saved surely all you need to know is how much electricity
is consumed by the lighting?

I saw a figure quoted the other day.

It wouldn't be difficult to rig up a house with metering for light only
use. Or to calculate it, I suppose.

I was interested to see how much those on here thought they were saving by
changing to more efficient lighting. Especially as few have anything good
to say about CFL.

In my case, I would guess about £250 / year saving.

I tried many CFLs over the years, and only managed to find one or two
that were at best adequate. Most (especially the early ones) had such
poor colour rendition they seemed to make any room cold and unnatural
looking with a green tinge thrown in for good measure. Its odd, because
I find the light from linear tri-phospher florries quite acceptable.

I retired all the CFLs as soon as I found decent LEDs!

One of the things that killed the CFL market was the overstated light
output equivalence figures that were banded about.

--
Cheers,

John.

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

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
ss wrote:
On 03/12/2016 12:19, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Average family living in an average 3 bedroom family house using the
average amount of electricity.

They change from all tungsten lighting to all LED.

How much money would they save on average per year on their leccy bill?

Too many variables to be accurate but as a rough guide I would say if
you have current 60w and move to say 12w LEDs then the lighting part of
leccy bill would approx a fifth of the cost (not including the cost of
the LED bulbs)

Snag with that is it's near impossible to know what proportion of your
leccy bill goes on lighting.

Well you asked the dumb question in the first place.
--
bert

On 03/12/16 13:29, Huge wrote:
On 2016-12-03, RJH wrote:

[62 lines snipped]


Never got on with CFL - glad to see(!) the back of them.

You and me both. I've started chucking them away even though they still
work (for quite small values of the word "work".) Although I have a huge
box of them, I don't think I ever paid more than a few pence each for
them, and that was a waste of money.


When I moved in four months ago every lamp in this house was CFL, the
previous owners had even filled them in place of the reflector spots in
the kitchen. All replaced with LED, a much better light. The CFL went to
the dump.

--
djc

(–€Ì¿Ä¹Ì¯–€Ì¿ Ì¿)
No low-hanging fruit, just a lot of small berries up a tall tree.

"Clive George" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 03/12/2016 18:32, ARW wrote:
On 03/12/2016 16:28, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
house with metering for light only
use. Or to calculate it, I suppose.

I was interested to see how much those on here thought they were
saving by
changing to more efficient lighting. Especially as few have anything
good
to say about CFL.

CFL is the devils spunk.

Now LEDs are cheap and readily available, is there any point to CFLs?

In my case, yes, they are quite literally free.

I only use the one, as a bed head light, where the soft start is handy
because I almost always get up in the dark and hardly ever need to
get up for a **** in the night.

(I see the cheap LAP ones I got from Screwfix are now a year old. _So_
much better than the CFLs dotted around the house).

In article ,
grjw wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
Here's a question for the group.

Average family living in an average 3 bedroom family house using the
average amount of electricity.

They change from all tungsten lighting to all LED.

How much money would they save on average per year on their leccy bill?

There is no nice tidy answer. The saving varies depending on
whether you buy the expensive guaranteed leds from operations
like ledhut or the cheapest stuff from aliexpress and alibaba.

I was asking about energy savings - not the costs of the lamps.

--
*DON'T SWEAT THE PETTY THINGS AND DON'T PET THE SWEATY THINGS.

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

In article ,
John Rumm wrote:
I was interested to see how much those on here thought they were
saving by changing to more efficient lighting. Especially as few have
anything good to say about CFL.

In my case, I would guess about £250 / year saving.

Interesting, John. You're the only one who has put a figure on it. Since
so many on here are very keen on any sort of energy saving lights, I
thought they'd all have some figures to hand.

--
*Nostalgia isn't what is used to be.

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

In article ,
Alan wrote:
How much money would they save on average per year on their leccy bill?

Around 80-90% of their lighting costs. So, say, 4x 60w lamps on , thats
a quarter of a unit a hour, so what, around 4pence per hour.
Add on a few more for larger houses and multiple fittings in kitchens/
bathrooms, then you'll be up to 20 pence per hour.Average for 4 hours
throughout the year is reasonable, so 4 x 20p x 7 £5.60 a week (seems a
little high?) = £292/ a year.
With LEDS it'd be 2-3p per hour, 84p per week, £43 a year.

So your guess is about £250 a year?

Of course, usage will change in every house, I'm at the lower end, other
houses I've been to rival Blackpool for internal illumination.

--
*No radio - Already stolen.

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

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
John Rumm wrote:
I was interested to see how much those on here thought they were
saving by changing to more efficient lighting. Especially as few have
anything good to say about CFL.

In my case, I would guess about £250 / year saving.

Interesting, John. You're the only one who has put a figure on it. Since
so many on here are very keen on any sort of energy saving lights, I
thought they'd all have some figures to hand.

No real point when the saving is obviously substantial.

But what matters is how the saving compares
with the cost of the replacement lights.

I have no idea, but I do know that some LED lights can upset some animals,
so one has to remember that not all animals have the same persistance of
vision as we do.
I think any strobe effects in lighting are to be avoided if used in safety
critical situations.

Brian

--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please!
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Adam Aglionby wrote:
On Saturday, December 3, 2016 at 2:30:42 PM UTC, Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:
In article ,
wrote:
2. HIgh frequency flicker, higher than fluorescents possibly
triggering migraine.

Flicker should be well above perception level, as demonstrated by
numerous crap car tailight designs this basic appears to have escaped
some makers.

Some car LEDs are driven in a very different way from domestic mains
LEDs. Basically, you can't just transfer a problem with those to all.

It is an example of how even well funded, well informed designers can
get it wrong.

Guess that someone read something about getting more brightness out by
pulsing and missed the rest of the article about average power.

Result being the strobe tail lights fitted to some early LED equipped
cars, not got cheep Chinese knock offs to blame either ;-)

I'm not even shure why they strobe. Not something I've been particularly
aware of. Could it be an interaction with some street lighting?

--
*Dance like nobody's watching.

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

"grjw" wrote in message
...


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
John Rumm wrote:
I was interested to see how much those on here thought they were
saving by changing to more efficient lighting. Especially as few have
anything good to say about CFL.

In my case, I would guess about £250 / year saving.

Interesting, John. You're the only one who has put a figure on it. Since
so many on here are very keen on any sort of energy saving lights, I
thought they'd all have some figures to hand.

No real point when the saving is obviously substantial.

But what matters is how the saving compares
with the cost of the replacement lights.

My lighting is ~100W, the TV is ~300.

In article ,
grjw wrote:
Interesting, John. You're the only one who has put a figure on it.
Since so many on here are very keen on any sort of energy saving
lights, I thought they'd all have some figures to hand.

No real point when the saving is obviously substantial.

I asked for an average figure, Wodney. Substantial to the likes of you
could be 5 quid a year.

--
*Plagiarism saves time *

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

On 04/12/2016 00:24, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
John Rumm wrote:
I was interested to see how much those on here thought they were
saving by changing to more efficient lighting. Especially as few have
anything good to say about CFL.

In my case, I would guess about £250 / year saving.

Interesting, John. You're the only one who has put a figure on it. Since
so many on here are very keen on any sort of energy saving lights, I
thought they'd all have some figures to hand.

Its not always straight forward to calculate the savings to be fair. In
my case I have a spreadsheet of all the meter readings over the
years[1], and have also annotated it in places with notable events (like
the boiler swap, or when LED lamps started being used). So in the case
of electricity use, I can see about 5 kWh reduction in the running daily
average. Not all of that will be lighting, but a fair amount will be.

[1] and it includes calculations to work out the average current, and
average consumption per day since the last reading etc.

--
Cheers,

John.

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

Dave Plowman wrote:

You're the only one who has put a figure on it. Since
so many on here are very keen on any sort of energy saving lights, I
thought they'd all have some figures to hand.

Since you exclude the cost of the actual LEDs, don't tell us how many
hours/year they are lit, how many rooms are occupied for how long, etc,
the easy answer is to say they'd save at least 85% of what the spend on
powering the tungsten lamps ... assuming no change in behaviour.

On Sun, 4 Dec 2016 10:39:54 -0000, bm wrote:

"grjw" wrote in message
...


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
John Rumm wrote:
I was interested to see how much those on here thought they were
saving by changing to more efficient lighting. Especially as few have
anything good to say about CFL.

In my case, I would guess about £250 / year saving.

Interesting, John. You're the only one who has put a figure on it. Since
so many on here are very keen on any sort of energy saving lights, I
thought they'd all have some figures to hand.

No real point when the saving is obviously substantial.

But what matters is how the saving compares
with the cost of the replacement lights.

My lighting is ~100W, the TV is ~300.

My LED lamps total about 120W; CFLs were about twice that and OK when warmed
up; incandescent, based on a guestmate, about 600W.
TV is 37 - 40W on a 50" LED-lit panel.
--
Peter.
The gods will stay away
whilst religions hold sway

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
grjw wrote:
Interesting, John. You're the only one who has put a figure on it.
Since so many on here are very keen on any sort of energy saving
lights, I thought they'd all have some figures to hand.

No real point when the saving is obviously substantial.

I asked for an average figure

Doesn’t matter what you asked for, what matters is what makes sense.

There is no point in figures when leds clearly save a very
large chunk of the power used to produce a particular
level of light and you have more than a couple of those
you use much at all as almost everyone does.

In article ,
Andy Burns wrote:
Dave Plowman wrote:

You're the only one who has put a figure on it. Since
so many on here are very keen on any sort of energy saving lights, I
thought they'd all have some figures to hand.

Since you exclude the cost of the actual LEDs, don't tell us how many
hours/year they are lit, how many rooms are occupied for how long, etc,
the easy answer is to say they'd save at least 85% of what the spend on
powering the tungsten lamps ... assuming no change in behaviour.

As I said earlier, an average family living in an average house.
Advertisers seem to be able to claim savings etc without question, so such
figures must be available.

--
*What am I? Flypaper for freaks!?

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

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...

In article ,
Andy Burns wrote:
Dave Plowman wrote:

You're the only one who has put a figure on it. Since
so many on here are very keen on any sort of energy saving lights, I
thought they'd all have some figures to hand.

Since you exclude the cost of the actual LEDs, don't tell us how many
hours/year they are lit, how many rooms are occupied for how long, etc,
the easy answer is to say they'd save at least 85% of what the spend on
powering the tungsten lamps ... assuming no change in behaviour.

As I said earlier, an average family living in an average house.
Advertisers seem to be able to claim savings etc without question, so such
figures must be available.

Are you retarded or what?
You also said earlier, "I saw a figure quoted the other day."

On 03/12/2016 11:35, Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:

my eyes are very sensitive to light

They're designed that way.

Bill

Scott wrote:

As I mentioned elsewhere, I am experimenting with LED lighting.

I was having a curry with a former colleague last night, who mentioned
his father hates LED lighting for the following reasons:

3. Because of the frequency (colour temperature?) the light does not
travel as far so streetlamps need to be placed closer together but.
Councils are not doing this for cost reasons, leaving blackspots in
illumination.

It is the beam angle which causes this, nothing to do with colour
temperature. Whilst some spill reduction is a good thing from the
point of view of dark skies and efficiency, round here they have
simply retrofitted existing lighting columns.

The resulting coverage does appear far more patchy, and since
there is also less spill reaching property frontages, it feels a
much darker environment if you are walking.

Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham UK


Plant amazing Acers.

On 03/12/2016 19:39, Nightjar wrote:
On 03-Dec-16 11:10 AM, Scott wrote:
As I mentioned elsewhere, I am experimenting with LED lighting.

I was having a curry with a former colleague last night, who mentioned
his father hates LED lighting for the following reasons:
...
3. Because of the frequency (colour temperature?) the light does not
travel as far so streetlamps need to be placed closer together but.
Councils are not doing this for cost reasons, leaving blackspots in
illumination.

Probably depends upon the Council. My local County Council has recently
carried out a huge programme of updating the street lights to LEDs. All
but a few minor residential streets, where lights were mounted upon
existing overhead power poles, got new light columns at new spacings.


That's happened here in 'ampshire (SO21). It's good that the lights seem
to have less upwards scatter and are more efficient but the overall
result in our village is that it's very difficult to see parked cars and
walkers on the road that runs through the centre. I'm not sure these new
lights are entirely fit for purpose.

On Saturday, 3 December 2016 12:20:32 UTC, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Here's a question for the group.

Average family living in an average 3 bedroom family house using the
average amount of electricity.

They change from all tungsten lighting to all LED.

How much money would they save on average per year on their leccy bill?

That was on TV the other night I don't think they factored in bulb/lamp prices .
They didn;t include dimming either.

In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
On Saturday, 3 December 2016 12:20:32 UTC, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Here's a question for the group.

Average family living in an average 3 bedroom family house using the
average amount of electricity.

They change from all tungsten lighting to all LED.

How much money would they save on average per year on their leccy bill?

That was on TV the other night I don't think they factored in bulb/lamp
prices . They didn;t include dimming either.

I wasn't asking about the cost of the LEDs.

I asked about how much leccy they would save.

Interesting that despite so many going on and on about energy saving
lights they won't even guess at a figure.

--
*Starfishes have no brains *

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

Dave Plowman wrote:

Interesting that despite so many going on and on about energy saving
lights they won't even guess at a figure.

Why guess what others can save given insufficient data about them?

In article ,
writes:
On 03/12/2016 19:39, Nightjar wrote:
On 03-Dec-16 11:10 AM, Scott wrote:
As I mentioned elsewhere, I am experimenting with LED lighting.

I was having a curry with a former colleague last night, who mentioned
his father hates LED lighting for the following reasons:
...
3. Because of the frequency (colour temperature?) the light does not
travel as far so streetlamps need to be placed closer together but.
Councils are not doing this for cost reasons, leaving blackspots in
illumination.

Probably depends upon the Council. My local County Council has recently
carried out a huge programme of updating the street lights to LEDs. All
but a few minor residential streets, where lights were mounted upon
existing overhead power poles, got new light columns at new spacings.

That's happened here in 'ampshire (SO21). It's good that the lights seem
to have less upwards scatter and are more efficient but the overall
result in our village is that it's very difficult to see parked cars and
walkers on the road that runs through the centre. I'm not sure these new
lights are entirely fit for purpose.

There are substantial government grants available for councils and
commercial users to replace lighting with LEDs, as part of an effort
to reduce electricity consuption, and avoid rolling blackouts. Many
councils have taken this up, as a way to get ageing lighting columns
replaced, which they otherwise could not afford to do. Actually, I've
seen many relatively recent HID installations being pulled out and
replaced again with LEDs.

Mind you - replacement of the large LPS lamps with LEDs is probably
a bogus electricity saving, as the LPS has a higher Lumens/Watt than
LED streetlamps currently do. Replacement of LPS has been pushed by
the lighting industry (because they make no money from them), and the
government fell for it.

North Hampshire has just gone through a program of replacing all
residential streetlamps with fluorescents, including remote
switching and dimming, but I think that predates the recent
government grants.

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

On Monday, 5 December 2016 11:23:19 UTC, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
On Saturday, 3 December 2016 12:20:32 UTC, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Here's a question for the group.

Average family living in an average 3 bedroom family house using the
average amount of electricity.

They change from all tungsten lighting to all LED.

How much money would they save on average per year on their leccy bill?

That was on TV the other night I don't think they factored in bulb/lamp
prices . They didn;t include dimming either.

I wasn't asking about the cost of the LEDs.

Someone has to buy them.
if you''re going around replacing all yuor lights then that costs money, which is the reason I left mine blow through age and then replace them.

I'd like the tubes in my lab replaced with LED's but it seems they can't afford it.
They can install LED under lighting in the roof garden and have them on where no one is , in our new graduate building.


I asked about how much leccy they would save.

They didnlt mentioned that just how mich monet could be saved.


Interesting that despite so many going on and on about energy saving
lights they won't even guess at a figure.

Who was the they ?

In article ,
Andy Burns wrote:
Dave Plowman wrote:

Interesting that despite so many going on and on about energy saving
lights they won't even guess at a figure.

Why guess what others can save given insufficient data about them?

Plenty will volunteer a guess about the percentage you'd save on your gas
bill by changing to a condensing boiler. Without knowing the actual
circumstances of that household. Like if it has gas fires, for example.
Gas cooking.

So I'm curious just why no ballpark figure for changing from tungsten
lighting to LED is also given?

It's just that I saw a figure on TV - as part of other figures given for
saving energy. Insulation and so on.

--
*If a pig loses its voice, is it disgruntled? *

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

In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
I'd like the tubes in my lab replaced with LED's

Why?

--
*Certain frogs can be frozen solid, then thawed, and survive *

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

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
On Saturday, 3 December 2016 12:20:32 UTC, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Here's a question for the group.

Average family living in an average 3 bedroom family house using the
average amount of electricity.

They change from all tungsten lighting to all LED.

How much money would they save on average per year on their leccy bill?

That was on TV the other night I don't think they factored in bulb/lamp
prices . They didn;t include dimming either.

I wasn't asking about the cost of the LEDs.

I asked about how much leccy they would save.

Interesting that despite so many going on and on about energy saving
lights they won't even guess at a figure.

No point when you know the percentage saving is substantial
unless you are calculating how long it would take to pay for
the new higher priced bulb. And few bother to do that for
various reasons when the bulbs are so cheap even with
the new more expensive version.

On Mon, 5 Dec 2016 09:32:03 +0000, wrote:

On 03/12/2016 19:39, Nightjar wrote:
On 03-Dec-16 11:10 AM, Scott wrote:
As I mentioned elsewhere, I am experimenting with LED lighting.

I was having a curry with a former colleague last night, who mentioned
his father hates LED lighting for the following reasons:
...
3. Because of the frequency (colour temperature?) the light does not
travel as far so streetlamps need to be placed closer together but.
Councils are not doing this for cost reasons, leaving blackspots in
illumination.

Probably depends upon the Council. My local County Council has recently
carried out a huge programme of updating the street lights to LEDs. All
but a few minor residential streets, where lights were mounted upon
existing overhead power poles, got new light columns at new spacings.


That's happened here in 'ampshire (SO21). It's good that the lights seem
to have less upwards scatter and are more efficient but the overall
result in our village is that it's very difficult to see parked cars and
walkers on the road that runs through the centre. I'm not sure these new
lights are entirely fit for purpose.

In Leicester, only the lamp heads were replaced. Now the programme is
almost complete there is no longer an orange glow over the city at
night. The streets seem to be as bright as they were before the
change. And I can see constellations and stars from my front door that
I couldn't see before, although it is not as dark as it would be in
the countryside.

On 05/12/16 20:49, Peter Johnson wrote:

In Leicester, only the lamp heads were replaced. Now the programme is
almost complete there is no longer an orange glow over the city at
night. The streets seem to be as bright as they were before the
change. And I can see constellations and stars from my front door that
I couldn't see before, although it is not as dark as it would be in
the countryside.


A village station near me has had platform light upgrades to LED - and
rather cleverly, the lights run dim until you walk near one, then it
fades up (not switches) to full brightness. A sort of inverse
Supernatural mode...

On Monday, 5 December 2016 13:56:34 UTC, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
I'd like the tubes in my lab replaced with LED's

Why?

To save the college money and every, every month I don't have to report that a number of tubes are flickering or have now stopped working.
We brought 4 out of our teching budget as a test and they seem OK.
We are about to have half our windows boarded up so it will be much darker in the lab.

--
*Certain frogs can be frozen solid, then thawed, and survive *

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

On Monday, 5 December 2016 21:13:26 UTC, Tim Watts wrote:
On 05/12/16 20:49, Peter Johnson wrote:

In Leicester, only the lamp heads were replaced. Now the programme is
almost complete there is no longer an orange glow over the city at
night. The streets seem to be as bright as they were before the
change. And I can see constellations and stars from my front door that
I couldn't see before, although it is not as dark as it would be in
the countryside.


A village station near me has had platform light upgrades to LED - and
rather cleverly, the lights run dim until you walk near one, then it
fades up (not switches) to full brightness. A sort of inverse
Supernatural mode...

Sounds like a good idea when I was in stockholm in the miod 8-0s they had escualtors that didn;t start until you go close to them (maybe it was just late at night this happened) 10+ years ago you could select when the central line tube trains doors opened or not now the switches are still they but they no longer work.

On Monday, December 5, 2016 at 12:01:58 PM UTC, Andrew Gabriel wrote:
In article ,
writes:
On 03/12/2016 19:39, Nightjar wrote:
On 03-Dec-16 11:10 AM, Scott wrote:
As I mentioned elsewhere, I am experimenting with LED lighting.

I was having a curry with a former colleague last night, who mentioned
his father hates LED lighting for the following reasons:
...
3. Because of the frequency (colour temperature?) the light does not
travel as far so streetlamps need to be placed closer together but.
Councils are not doing this for cost reasons, leaving blackspots in
illumination.

Probably depends upon the Council. My local County Council has recently
carried out a huge programme of updating the street lights to LEDs. All
but a few minor residential streets, where lights were mounted upon
existing overhead power poles, got new light columns at new spacings.

That's happened here in 'ampshire (SO21). It's good that the lights seem
to have less upwards scatter and are more efficient but the overall
result in our village is that it's very difficult to see parked cars and
walkers on the road that runs through the centre. I'm not sure these new
lights are entirely fit for purpose.

There are substantial government grants available for councils and
commercial users to replace lighting with LEDs, as part of an effort
to reduce electricity consuption, and avoid rolling blackouts. Many
councils have taken this up, as a way to get ageing lighting columns
replaced, which they otherwise could not afford to do. Actually, I've
seen many relatively recent HID installations being pulled out and
replaced again with LEDs.

Here its been head conversion to Concrete Utilities columns, in some areas the spacing is way too far and ends up with puddles of light and threatening shadows, opposite of what street light6ing is meant to achieve.

Never enough cash to do it right , always enough to screw it up a couple of times.


Mind you - replacement of the large LPS lamps with LEDs is probably
a bogus electricity saving, as the LPS has a higher Lumens/Watt than
LED streetlamps currently do. Replacement of LPS has been pushed by
the lighting industry (because they make no money from them), and the
government fell for it.

Only place left in western World making low pressure sodium is (mebbe was) Philips plant in Hamilton, used to have a nice Philips neon sign on outside, neon is starter gas in LPS lamps.


North Hampshire has just gone through a program of replacing all
residential streetlamps with fluorescents, including remote
switching and dimming, but I think that predates the recent
government grants.

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

On Monday, December 5, 2016 at 8:49:47 PM UTC, Peter Johnson wrote:
On Mon, 5 Dec 2016 09:32:03 +0000, wrote:

On 03/12/2016 19:39, Nightjar wrote:
On 03-Dec-16 11:10 AM, Scott wrote:
As I mentioned elsewhere, I am experimenting with LED lighting.

I was having a curry with a former colleague last night, who mentioned
his father hates LED lighting for the following reasons:
...
3. Because of the frequency (colour temperature?) the light does not
travel as far so streetlamps need to be placed closer together but.
Councils are not doing this for cost reasons, leaving blackspots in
illumination.

Probably depends upon the Council. My local County Council has recently
carried out a huge programme of updating the street lights to LEDs. All
but a few minor residential streets, where lights were mounted upon
existing overhead power poles, got new light columns at new spacings.


That's happened here in 'ampshire (SO21). It's good that the lights seem
to have less upwards scatter and are more efficient but the overall
result in our village is that it's very difficult to see parked cars and
walkers on the road that runs through the centre. I'm not sure these new
lights are entirely fit for purpose.

In Leicester, only the lamp heads were replaced. Now the programme is
almost complete there is no longer an orange glow over the city at
night. The streets seem to be as bright as they were before the
change. And I can see constellations and stars from my front door that
I couldn't see before, although it is not as dark as it would be in
the countryside.

Astronomers are one group who don`t like LED streetlights, LPS emits on 2 very narrow bands close together, easy to put a notch filter on telescope and lose all the orange glow, not possible with white LED.

In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
I'd like the tubes in my lab replaced with LED's

Why?

To save the college money and every, every month I don't have to report
that a number of tubes are flickering or have now stopped working.

Do you get your fittings and tubes from the very cheapest on Ebay?

What makes you think cheap LEDs will last any longer?

--
*On the other hand, you have different fingers*

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

In article ,
Tim Watts wrote:
A village station near me has had platform light upgrades to LED - and
rather cleverly, the lights run dim until you walk near one, then it
fades up (not switches) to full brightness. A sort of inverse
Supernatural mode...

Yup - got those on the local station too. A nice touch as the old lighting
spilled everwhere. I'd guess those living nearby will appreciate it.

--
*Growing old is inevitable, growing up is optional

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