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:

1. The spectrum is too narrow thus depriving the body of the right
kind of light.
2. HIgh frequency flicker, higher than fluorescents possibly
triggering migraine.
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.

Is there any merit in these arguments?

"Scott" wrote in message
...
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:

1. The spectrum is too narrow thus depriving the body of the right
kind of light.
2. HIgh frequency flicker, higher than fluorescents possibly
triggering migraine.
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.

Is there any merit in these arguments?

my eyes are very sensitive to light and I have trouble with the fault
finding flicker in cars but no problems at home......I find a nice white
blue light is much better tan that yellow flourescent rubbish we have had to
suffer to save energy in the past and my meigrane with aura is no worse with
LEDs ....however my kooncil is getting flack for bad led street lighting...

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

my eyes are very sensitive to light

They're designed that way.

Bill

In article ,
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:

1. The spectrum is too narrow thus depriving the body of the right
kind of light.
2. HIgh frequency flicker, higher than fluorescents possibly
triggering migraine.
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.

Is there any merit in these arguments?

LED is unlikely to give continuous spectrum light as you'd get from
tungsten. It might be better or worse than CFL, though, which has the same
problem. All depends on how well they are made. Budget ones may be worse
than those from a high end maker.

I've never noticed any flicker from domestic LEDs. If high frequency
flicker you can't see can give you migraine, I dunno.

LEDs often appear brighter to look at. Sometimes uncomfortably so. But
seem to produce less light to the room than this suggests.

--
*Reality? Is that where the pizza delivery guy comes from?

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

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?

--
*(on a baby-size shirt) "Party -- my crib -- two a.m

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

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)

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.

--
*It sounds like English, but I can't understand a word you're saying.

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

On Sat, 03 Dec 2016 14:18:00 +0000, 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.

It's so swamped by other consumption here that I can't be arsed to work
it out! (current year is about 11,500 kWh).




--
My posts are my copyright and if @diy_forums or Home Owners' Hub
wish to copy them they can pay me £1 a message.
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
*lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor

"Bob Eager" wrote in message ...

On Sat, 03 Dec 2016 14:18:00 +0000, 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.

It's so swamped by other consumption here that I can't be arsed to work
it out! (current year is about 11,500 kWh).

That makes my 4,508 kWh for the last 12 months seem quite frugal.

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?

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.

--
*A cartoonist was found dead in his home. Details are sketchy.*

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

On 03/12/2016 15:37, 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?

Depends what else is electric in the house. Chances are the kettle and a
few domestic appliances like fridge, freezer represent the bulk of other
power consumed plus a base load of typically 100W 24/7 for all the
household kit on standby, central heating, alarm, doorbell, router.

Having an energy meter that displays usage in realtime will help cut
down the amount of energy that gets wasted.

A fairly good strategy is replace lamps with LED units as and when they
blow - that way you mostly replace the most heavily used ones first.

One limitation is if you need sets for chandeliers - they can look
really odd with a mish-mash or random lamps in from different eras.

I suspect if we switched entirely to LED it would cut our electricity
bill by about half. I got around 10% off just by finding and removing
the worst offending standby kit using smart switches. Some old digital
TVs have standby in the 20-30W range whereas recent ones are below 0.5W.

Some libraries will lend you a device to measure them accurately or you
can buy a gadget from Maplins.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

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 Sat, 03 Dec 2016 12:19:14 +0000, 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?

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.

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.

On Sat, 03 Dec 2016 06:37:15 -0600, Alan wrote:

On Sat, 03 Dec 2016 12:19:14 +0000, 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?

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.

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.

Perhaps slightly offset by the temptation to leave them on for longer,
on the basis they don't really cost anything?

On Sat, 03 Dec 2016 06:37:15 -0600, Alan wrote:

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.

Complete mess up of figures.
That is a little high, as it should be 4p/hr x 4hrs =16p/day = £1.12/week
=£58/year
With LEDS it'd be between £5 and £10/year.

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.

On 03/12/2016 12:19, 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?

I have managed to trim about 5kWh / day off my electrical usage in the
period where I phased in LED lighting. Not all of that will be just down
to lighting, but I expect most of it will be. However that's not an
average setup.


--
Cheers,

John.

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

"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.

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.

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 ,
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.

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 ,
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.

In article ,
Scott writes:
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:

1. The spectrum is too narrow thus depriving the body of the right
kind of light.
2. HIgh frequency flicker, higher than fluorescents possibly
triggering migraine.
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.

Is there any merit in these arguments?

No.

Lighting industry did lots of experiments with CFLs to try and
understand what people didn't like about them. However, it was
quickly shown that these people didn't like lights they thought
were CFLs and did like light they thought were filaments.
Since what they *thought* didn't match reality, it could only
be put down to physicological bias, not genuine physiological
issues.

Of course, there are poor quality CFLs and poor quality LEDs,
and if you buy those and don't like them, then don't be
surprised.

Some dimmable LEDs have no smoothing of the rectified mains,
so if you don't like 100Hz flicker of moving things, avoid
dimmable LEDs.

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

On 03/12/2016 12:44, Andrew Gabriel wrote:
In article ,
Scott writes:
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:

1. The spectrum is too narrow thus depriving the body of the right
kind of light.
2. HIgh frequency flicker, higher than fluorescents possibly
triggering migraine.
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.

Is there any merit in these arguments?

No.

Lighting industry did lots of experiments with CFLs to try and
understand what people didn't like about them. However, it was
quickly shown that these people didn't like lights they thought
were CFLs and did like light they thought were filaments.
Since what they *thought* didn't match reality, it could only
be put down to physicological bias, not genuine physiological
issues.

Couple of findings from peer reviewed sources:

"LED appears to support positive mood, extended wakefulness, and speeded
performance on both visual perceptual and cognitive tasks" in a work
context.

http://preview.tinyurl.com/gpymsdu (International Journal of Industrial
Ergonomics, 2012)

More general associations between LED light and well-being would need
somebody quite specialist, I'd think. Found this very odd sentence:

"Although highlighted in the scientific literature, concerns about the
potential impacts of increases in LED lights on cancer or other chronic
health outcomes were not raised by residents or key informants in any
settings in the fieldwork, public or private" (Reduced street lighting
at night and health, Health and Place 2015).

Overall, though, I think the evidence of a link between well-being and
LED lighting is weak. Trafford did a study using plain English which was
largely inconclusive: Trafford LED Street Lighting Programme Health
Impact Assessment (2013) - I've only skim read it though.

As for those physical/physiological relationships listed by the OP,
don't know - that literature is far too specialist for me.

I'd say anecdotally that I find the street lighting superficially bright
- it seems at first glance as though more is illuminated, but I can't
distinguish as much. Potholes for example - a big problem cycling at night.

At home (just about all LED now), I don't notice much difference between
tungsten and LED, once the problems of LED directionality and overly
bright source are removed. Decent bulbs and/or shades largely solve
these issues for me.

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

--
Cheers, Rob

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

Me too, but to a lesser extent. I found myself installing higher
wattage than needed CFL's, simply to overcome their initial dimness at
switch on. Not something LED suffers.

I have replaced all the lights which are in regular use with LED, but
left higher wattage CFL's as centre lights, where these are not
normally in use, just so we have brighter lighting available when
needed. LED's come on instantly at full brightness. Many of our lamps
are indistinguishable from ordinary lamps, though some are due to their
more limited colour spectrum.

I would compare LED v standard lamps are 1:7 to 1:9 in power saving,
but the savings only affect the lighting proportion of your
consumption. I have been logging consumption quite carefully over the
past year, from September - there was a very noticeable step change to
less consumption of around 1/3 less than was used in August. That
despite the heating pump running twice a day for HW, laptops running,
plus the usual kettle, microwave, TV's and etc.. Plus the darkening
evenings.

I have also implemented a trial policy of no larger wattage LED than is
needed for lighting an area. I found 3.5W LED's for hall, stairs and
landing adequate for normal use, but swapped them temporarily for 22w
CFL over the past couple of weeks whilst we were redecorating these
areas.

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.

On Saturday, December 3, 2016 at 12:45:30 PM UTC, Andrew Gabriel wrote:
In article ,
Scott writes:
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:

1. The spectrum is too narrow thus depriving the body of the right
kind of light.
2. HIgh frequency flicker, higher than fluorescents possibly
triggering migraine.
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.

Is there any merit in these arguments?


in on my own account, always remember to sign out of gmail on a guest machine....

No.

Lighting industry did lots of experiments with CFLs to try and
understand what people didn't like about them. However, it was
quickly shown that these people didn't like lights they thought
were CFLs and did like light they thought were filaments.
Since what they *thought* didn't match reality, it could only
be put down to physicological bias, not genuine physiological
issues.

C`mon Andrew, that is at best insincere, their are known physical issues with CFLs to photo sensitive people

"some energy
saving compact fluorescent lights may emit ultraviolet radiation at levels that,
under certain conditions of use, can result in exposures higher than guideline
levels. The HPAs view is that single envelope CFLs should not be used where
people are in close proximity - closer than 30 cm or 1 ft - to the bare light bulb
for over one hour a day. "

http://www.nhs.uk/ipgmedia/national/...ensitivity.pdf


Of course, there are poor quality CFLs and poor quality LEDs,
and if you buy those and don't like them, then don't be
surprised.

Some dimmable LEDs have no smoothing of the rectified mains,
so if you don't like 100Hz flicker of moving things, avoid
dimmable LEDs.

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

In the interests of balance ;-) heres industry response to AMA LED warning

http://ecmweb.com/lighting-control/industry-responds-ama-led-streetlight-warning

On Saturday, December 3, 2016 at 11:11:01 AM UTC, 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:

1. The spectrum is too narrow thus depriving the body of the right
kind of light.

It`s a peaky spectrum and the effects are subject of investigation and controversy

http://darksky.org/ama-report-affirm...cts-from-leds/

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.


3. Because of the frequency (colour temperature?) the light does not
travel as far so streetlamps need to be placed closer together but.

Simply not as bright, just not as much light coming out the front.

Councils are not doing this for cost reasons, leaving blackspots in
illumination.

Because lighting is something that `just happens` and dosen`t need specialists with years of training and experience in their field.


Is there any merit in these arguments?

It`s not all wrong but a bit misunderstood in places.

wrote:

Scott wrote:

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

1. The spectrum is too narrow thus depriving the body of the right
kind of light.

It's a peaky spectrum

CFLs have a peaky spectrum, (some?/most?/all?) LEDs are broad like
incandescent

http://web.ncf.ca/jim/misc/cfl

Buy yourself a diffraction grating if you want to check any particular
LED ...

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/diffraction-grating/152316786639

On Saturday, December 3, 2016 at 1:39:03 PM UTC, Andy Burns wrote:
wrote:

Scott wrote:

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

1. The spectrum is too narrow thus depriving the body of the right
kind of light.

It's a peaky spectrum

CFLs have a peaky spectrum, (some?/most?/all?) LEDs are broad like
incandescent

http://web.ncf.ca/jim/misc/cfl

You cannae change the laws of physics, blackbody radiator like tungsten has a continuous spectrum, sources that rely on phosphor conversion will always have peaks and troughs.

LEDs , of any current type, are many miles away from being broad band sources.

Work with LEDs come home to halogen in the main



Buy yourself a diffraction grating if you want to check any particular
LED ...

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/diffraction-grating/152316786639

Will let Mr Craig Johnson at the LED Museum show in more detail

http://www.ledmuseum.org

Adam Aglionby wrote:

Andy Burns wrote:

CFLs have a peaky spectrum, (some?/most?/all?) LEDs are broad like
incandescent

http://web.ncf.ca/jim/misc/cfl

You cannae change the laws of physics, blackbody radiator like
tungsten has a continuous spectrum, sources that rely on phosphor
conversion will always have peaks and troughs.

I said "broad" not "continuous"

LEDs , of any current type, are many miles away from being broad band sources.

You did look at the spectra on the page I linked to? It looks one hell
of a lot better than CFL to me.

On Saturday, December 3, 2016 at 2:16:03 PM UTC, Andy Burns wrote:
Adam Aglionby wrote:

Andy Burns wrote:

CFLs have a peaky spectrum, (some?/most?/all?) LEDs are broad like
incandescent

http://web.ncf.ca/jim/misc/cfl

You cannae change the laws of physics, blackbody radiator like
tungsten has a continuous spectrum, sources that rely on phosphor
conversion will always have peaks and troughs.

I said "broad" not "continuous"

LEDs , of any current type, are many miles away from being broad band sources.

You did look at the spectra on the page I linked to? It looks one hell
of a lot better than CFL to me.

been looking at source spectra for 30 odd years, mebbe I read them differntly from yourself ;-)

In article ,
Andy Burns wrote:
Adam Aglionby wrote:

Andy Burns wrote:

CFLs have a peaky spectrum, (some?/most?/all?) LEDs are broad like
incandescent

http://web.ncf.ca/jim/misc/cfl

You cannae change the laws of physics, blackbody radiator like
tungsten has a continuous spectrum, sources that rely on phosphor
conversion will always have peaks and troughs.

I said "broad" not "continuous"

LEDs , of any current type, are many miles away from being broad band
sources.

You did look at the spectra on the page I linked to? It looks one hell
of a lot better than CFL to me.

That's rather like saying a stroke is better than a heart attack. ;-)

You can make reasonably smooth continuous spectrum florries. But not down
to a price - and may also be less efficient.

The same happens with LEDs - the better the light quality the less
efficient they are. Although are improving.

--
*A woman drove me to drink and I didn't have the decency to thank her

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

On 03/12/16 13:39, Andy Burns wrote:
wrote:

Scott wrote:

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

1. The spectrum is too narrow thus depriving the body of the right
kind of light.

It's a peaky spectrum

CFLs have a peaky spectrum, (some?/most?/all?) LEDs are broad like
incandescent

http://web.ncf.ca/jim/misc/cfl

Excellent find that page!
Confirms my gut feeling that CFLS have the worst spectrum, and LEDS were
immensely better.

I hated CFLs. I tried to love them, but I ended up hating them. They
were unutterable crap. I expected LEDS to be little better, but now I
won't buy anything else. There are issues with cooling, drivers and so
on, but when they work they are just perfect for me


Buy yourself a diffraction grating if you want to check any particular
LED ...

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/diffraction-grating/152316786639

Fun!

--
"In our post-modern world, climate science is not powerful because it is
true: it is true because it is powerful."

Lucas Bergkamp

In article ,
Andy Burns wrote:
wrote:

Scott wrote:

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

1. The spectrum is too narrow thus depriving the body of the right
kind of light.

It's a peaky spectrum

CFLs have a peaky spectrum, (some?/most?/all?) LEDs are broad like
incandescent

With respect, bollox. ;-)

http://web.ncf.ca/jim/misc/cfl

Now try doing the same today using GLS and direct replacements for GLS.

Buy yourself a diffraction grating if you want to check any particular
LED ...

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/diffraction-grating/152316786639

You can do quite an easy test by looking at a paint colour chart under
both decent tungsten - ie halogen - and LED. It can be revealing.

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

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