DIYbanter

DIYbanter (https://www.diybanter.com/)
-   UK diy (https://www.diybanter.com/uk-diy/)
-   -   Them new-fangled flourescent lights (https://www.diybanter.com/uk-diy/619086-them-new-fangled-flourescent-lights.html)

Cursitor Doom[_4_] September 16th 18 06:11 PM

Them new-fangled flourescent lights
 
Gentlemen,

Back in the 1960s, when tubes were coming into service more and more, it
was a widely held belief that they were more expensive to run than
tungsten filament bulbs if turned on for short periods. It was said that
most of the power they consumed was drawn during the 'strike-up' phase so
if they weren't on for at *least* an hour, you might as well be using TF
bulbs.
Well, here we are 50+ years on and tubes are now very much old tech.
What, with the benefit of hindsight, have the Panel to say about those
old efficiency claims of the day?

Just curious.....



--
This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via
the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other
protocols, whether for profit or not, is conditional upon a charge of
GBP10.00 per reproduction. Publication in this manner via non-Usenet
protocols constitutes acceptance of this condition.

Harry Bloomfield[_3_] September 16th 18 07:38 PM

Them new-fangled flourescent lights
 
Cursitor Doom explained :
Back in the 1960s, when tubes were coming into service more and more, it
was a widely held belief that they were more expensive to run than
tungsten filament bulbs if turned on for short periods. It was said that
most of the power they consumed was drawn during the 'strike-up' phase so
if they weren't on for at *least* an hour, you might as well be using TF
bulbs.


That is what I was taught, but the calculation also involved wear and
tear on the tube/starter/choke. I still will not install any sort of
discharge lamp where it is liable to constant switching though.

Andrew Gabriel September 16th 18 07:48 PM

Them new-fangled flourescent lights
 
In article ,
Cursitor Doom writes:
Gentlemen,

Back in the 1960s, when tubes were coming into service more and more, it
was a widely held belief that they were more expensive to run than
tungsten filament bulbs if turned on for short periods. It was said that
most of the power they consumed was drawn during the 'strike-up' phase so
if they weren't on for at *least* an hour, you might as well be using TF
bulbs.
Well, here we are 50+ years on and tubes are now very much old tech.
What, with the benefit of hindsight, have the Panel to say about those
old efficiency claims of the day?

Just curious.....


They were never true.
What was the case was that each switch-on wore the tube out by the
equivalent of some hours running. The instant-start fittings which
were common in the US suffered from this particularly badly. The
switch-start used in most 220-240V countries much less so, but it
was still a significant effect.

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

Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp Esq September 16th 18 08:50 PM

Them new-fangled flourescent lights
 
On Sun, 16 Sep 2018 16:11:54 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
wrote:

Gentlemen,

Back in the 1960s, when tubes were coming into service more and more, it
was a widely held belief that they were more expensive to run than


Yes of course they are more expensive. The light output is of a
frequency that resonates with the thought patterns of muslim child
molesters boosting their desires and leading to increased rumpy pumpy
with our fine British schoolgirls.

The wavelength of the light could with the oscillatory nature means
that peoples eyesight can be damaged and our poor British heroic
houswives will not see rapidly moving kitchen equipment due to the
"strobe" effect. This will lead to increased work for the NHS and if
foreigners are subjected to the same risks, they will have an unfair
advantage over white people as their fingers are darker and easily
found amongst the ingredients for dinner.

If I were you, I would vote to get them all scrapped in favour of
going back to incandescent lighting.

Importing whale oil and candle wax will be a tremendous boost for
Britains economy, we could have trade deals with Japan in almost no
time and the need for lamplighters would give employment to UK
citizens once they have spent a year or so being trained.

By putting Whale oil lamps in operating theaters, the NHS would save
£1,256.43P a week.

AB

[email protected] September 16th 18 09:20 PM

Them new-fangled flourescent lights
 
On Sunday, 16 September 2018 17:11:57 UTC+1, Cursitor Doom wrote:
Gentlemen,

Back in the 1960s, when tubes were coming into service more and more, it
was a widely held belief that they were more expensive to run than
tungsten filament bulbs if turned on for short periods. It was said that
most of the power they consumed was drawn during the 'strike-up' phase so
if they weren't on for at *least* an hour, you might as well be using TF
bulbs.
Well, here we are 50+ years on and tubes are now very much old tech.
What, with the benefit of hindsight, have the Panel to say about those
old efficiency claims of the day?

Just curious.....


it was a misunderstanding. They used around 3x the current for the 1st 1-2 seconds during starting, but not 3x power. Starting added wear & tear to the tube filaments. That's all. ISTR calculating the break even point many years ago at somewere vaguely around a minute.


NT

Josh Nack September 16th 18 09:41 PM

Them new-fangled flourescent lights
 


"Cursitor Doom" wrote in message
...
Gentlemen,


What about us animals, boy ?

Back in the 1960s, when tubes were coming into service more and more, it
was a widely held belief that they were more expensive to run than
tungsten filament bulbs if turned on for short periods. It was said that
most of the power they consumed was drawn during the 'strike-up' phase so
if they weren't on for at *least* an hour, you might as well be using TF
bulbs.
Well, here we are 50+ years on and tubes are now very much old tech.
What, with the benefit of hindsight, have the Panel to say about those
old efficiency claims of the day?


Not so true anyone with modern electronic starters.

But the whole world has changed now with leds much more efficient again.

Just curious.....


Dont forget what the did to the cat.


Chris September 16th 18 09:59 PM

Them new-fangled flourescent lights
 
On Mon, 17 Sep 2018 05:41:27 +1000, Josh Nack wrote:

Dont forget what the did to the cat.


You're Rod Speed and ICTFP.



Peeler[_2_] September 16th 18 11:14 PM

More Heavy Trolling by Nym-Shifting Rot Speed! BG
 
On Mon, 17 Sep 2018 05:41:27 +1000, Josh Nack, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rot Speed, wrote:


Just curious.....


Don¢t forget what the did to the cat.


Don't forget that you are nothing but trolling forsaken senile idiot who,
for very obvious reasons, got nobody in RL to talk to!

--
Richard addressing Rot Speed:
"**** you're thick/pathetic excuse for a troll."
MID:

Johnny B Good September 17th 18 02:25 AM

Them new-fangled flourescent lights
 
On Sun, 16 Sep 2018 16:11:54 +0000, Cursitor Doom wrote:

Gentlemen,

Back in the 1960s, when tubes were coming into service more and more, it
was a widely held belief that they were more expensive to run than
tungsten filament bulbs if turned on for short periods. It was said that
most of the power they consumed was drawn during the 'strike-up' phase
so if they weren't on for at *least* an hour, you might as well be using
TF bulbs.
Well, here we are 50+ years on and tubes are now very much old tech.
What, with the benefit of hindsight, have the Panel to say about those
old efficiency claims of the day?

Just curious.....


There was *some* justification for that belief but it wasn't electricity
costs, it was premature wear of the thoriated cathode filaments due to
the use of the cheap 'n' nasty switch starter.

Fluorescent lamps are discharge lamps which, in common with all lamps of
that class, have a negative impedance characteristic which needs to be
swamped out with a positive impedance wired in series. Their efficiency
was so much better than the incandescent filament lamps they replaced
that even with the losses of a resistive ballast on a 230vdc supply, they
still gave off two or three times more light of a tungsten filament lamp.

However on AC supplies, it became possible to replace the ballast
resistor with a ballast choke to provide a much less lossy positive
impedance. The only downside being the inductive (lagging) current
component this added to the load on the mains supply which increased the
wattless amperage which, as far as the PSUs were concerned weren't
wattless when it came to the I squared R losses in their transmission
lines.

The solution was to mandate that a power factor correction capacitor be
wired across the mains input of each light fitting using a tube with a
rating higher than 20W in order to reduce this inductive loading to an
acceptable level.

The filaments in fluorescent tubes were designed to run at full heat
from the short circuit current of the ballast choke so that a simple neon
heated bi-metallic switch could be used across the lamp as a crude
starter. It worked but at great cost to tube life when used in frequently
switched service.

When such lamps were only switched once or twice a day, there was no
point in upgrading to a "Quickstart"(tm) transformer to give flicker free
almost instant reliable wear free starting that would let you treat it
like an ordinary filament lamp and still get the 7 to 12 thousand rated
hours of life before it dropped to the 80% of design lumens point deemed
to be the most economic point at which to replace it (generally several
thousands of hours before it would actually fail to fire up properly).

Rather annoyingly, the newer T8 reduced mercury fill lamps will no
longer fire up on a Quickstart ballast. For me, that meant shelling out
on an electronically ballasted fitting from B&Q when the missus insisted
on my replacing the older fluorescent fitting in our kitchen after we'd
had the ceiling repaired post flat roof leak.

Unfortunately the B&Q fitting turned out to have been cursed with a
'Dumb' Chinese made ballast which caused the T8 lamps to fail faster than
the old fashioned switch started units used to, simply on account of the
fragility of "modern" inadequately dosed with mercury T8 "high
efficiency" tubes due to the aggressive 'instant start' characteristic of
the 'dumb' electronic ballast.

Luckily, the ballast failed about 18 months and two lamps later, forcing
me to buy a proper microprocessor controlled replacement (about £4.70
delivered) which finally put paid to the problem of short tube life.
Although I'm resigned to the unimpressive 900ms start up time (flicker
free mind!), it seems we've paid a high price for our high efficiency,
inadequately mercury dosed fluorescent tubes when I recall the 300ms
startup and extremely long life of the older adequately mercury dosed T12
tubes of yesteryear running on Quickstart ballasts.

I know that fluorescent lighting is obsolescent technology biding its
time for decent (and cost effective) LED based linear tubes to become
worth investing in as an upgrade in areas where a diffuse source of
bright lighting is required without having to go to the expense and faff
of fitting LED ceiling panel luminaires, hence my replacing the ballast
to carry on using the existing fluorescent lamp fitting in our kitchen.

Eventually, we might finally start to see 200LPW (more reliable) LED
ceiling panels making an appearance in the next 5 to 7 years. I reckon I
will have finally made my ROI on the existing light fitting just about
then. :-)

--
Johnny B Good

John Rumm September 17th 18 04:08 AM

Them new-fangled flourescent lights
 
On 16/09/2018 17:11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
Gentlemen,

Back in the 1960s, when tubes were coming into service more and more, it
was a widely held belief that they were more expensive to run than
tungsten filament bulbs if turned on for short periods. It was said that
most of the power they consumed was drawn during the 'strike-up' phase so
if they weren't on for at *least* an hour, you might as well be using TF
bulbs.


Yup, from an electrical point of view was a load of nonsense at the time
and still is...

If you think about it, say your tube draws 0.25A once lit, if you want
to draw an hours worth of energy in (say) 5 secs, you will need to pull
3600/5 or 720 times the current. That'a 180A - or enough to trip a 32A
circuit breaker instantly, let alone a 6A MCB or 5 amp fuse.

There is some truth in that there is extra cost to start the lamp but,
that is down to accelerated wear on the starting filaments which will
reduce the total lamp life (or at least the available number of
"starts"). Since they were quite expensive at the time, there was a
financial cost associated with that reduced life. So there was some
sense in not turning them off for very short durations.

Well, here we are 50+ years on and tubes are now very much old tech.
What, with the benefit of hindsight, have the Panel to say about those
old efficiency claims of the day?


Probably more wrong now than then since modern tubes are far cheaper,
and probably survive more starts anyway due to better control gear.

--
Cheers,

John.

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

Chris Green September 17th 18 09:25 AM

Them new-fangled flourescent lights
 
Josh Nack wrote:

But the whole world has changed now with leds much more efficient again.

LEDs aren't *yet* much more efficient than the best fluorescents are
they?

--
Chris Green
·

Josh Nack September 17th 18 09:51 AM

Them new-fangled flourescent lights
 


"Chris Green" wrote in message
...
Josh Nack wrote:

But the whole world has changed now with leds much more efficient again.

LEDs aren't *yet* much more efficient than the best fluorescents are
they?


I meant much more efficient than the alternatives to fluorescents were then.

Yes, fluorescents still arguably have their place now,
but that isnt for efficiency, its the much longer life of the
long tube fluorescents than you can be sure of with leds.


Andy Burns[_13_] September 17th 18 10:08 AM

Them new-fangled flourescent lights
 
Chris Green wrote:

LEDs aren't *yet* much more efficient than the best fluorescents are
they?


2500'ish lumens from 24W vs 4000'ish lumens from 58W
but probably the LEDs shine down where you want the light, so useful
lumens per watt better than on paper?


Brian Gaff September 17th 18 10:10 AM

Them new-fangled flourescent lights
 
It was rubbish unless the system was very badly designed as far as I know.
There were of course tubes made that were only dual pigment which were not
as bright as the later ones were too, which meant that efficiency was not
that good.
Brian

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

Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"Cursitor Doom" wrote in message
...
Gentlemen,

Back in the 1960s, when tubes were coming into service more and more, it
was a widely held belief that they were more expensive to run than
tungsten filament bulbs if turned on for short periods. It was said that
most of the power they consumed was drawn during the 'strike-up' phase so
if they weren't on for at *least* an hour, you might as well be using TF
bulbs.
Well, here we are 50+ years on and tubes are now very much old tech.
What, with the benefit of hindsight, have the Panel to say about those
old efficiency claims of the day?

Just curious.....



--
This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via
the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other
protocols, whether for profit or not, is conditional upon a charge of
GBP10.00 per reproduction. Publication in this manner via non-Usenet
protocols constitutes acceptance of this condition.




Brian Gaff September 17th 18 10:13 AM

Them new-fangled flourescent lights
 
Well yes you had to use heaters and stir things up. I cannot say that \I've
had tubes in quickstart electronic ballasts go more often than the normal
starter switched ones.
All in the end end up with black ends and the first indication is that in
cold locations they can and do have trouble staying lit till they warm up.
Brian

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

Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"Andrew Gabriel" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Cursitor Doom writes:
Gentlemen,

Back in the 1960s, when tubes were coming into service more and more, it
was a widely held belief that they were more expensive to run than
tungsten filament bulbs if turned on for short periods. It was said that
most of the power they consumed was drawn during the 'strike-up' phase so
if they weren't on for at *least* an hour, you might as well be using TF
bulbs.
Well, here we are 50+ years on and tubes are now very much old tech.
What, with the benefit of hindsight, have the Panel to say about those
old efficiency claims of the day?

Just curious.....


They were never true.
What was the case was that each switch-on wore the tube out by the
equivalent of some hours running. The instant-start fittings which
were common in the US suffered from this particularly badly. The
switch-start used in most 220-240V countries much less so, but it
was still a significant effect.

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




Halmyre September 17th 18 11:06 AM

Them new-fangled flourescent lights
 
On Sunday, September 16, 2018 at 5:11:57 PM UTC+1, Cursitor Doom wrote:
Gentlemen,

Back in the 1960s, when tubes were coming into service more and more, it
was a widely held belief that they were more expensive to run than
tungsten filament bulbs if turned on for short periods. It was said that
most of the power they consumed was drawn during the 'strike-up' phase so
if they weren't on for at *least* an hour, you might as well be using TF
bulbs.
Well, here we are 50+ years on and tubes are now very much old tech.
What, with the benefit of hindsight, have the Panel to say about those
old efficiency claims of the day?

Just curious.....


Might be cheaper to run but the frequency with which the ******* things in my kitchen (under-cabinet downlighters) need replaced outweigh the benefits.. Even with replacing the starter at the same time as the tube I'm lucky if they last a few months* Meanwhile the monolithic monsters in the garage which must be coming up for 20+ years old are still fine.

*I have looked into replacing the ballast but I'm buggered if I can find a simple how-to guide - it's all "if this then this otherwise this unless this". I might just skip straight to LEDs but find them a bit cold.

Peeler[_2_] September 17th 18 11:22 AM

More Heavy Trolling by Nym-Shifting Rot Speed! BG
 
On Mon, 17 Sep 2018 17:51:13 +1000, Josh Nack, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rot Speed, wrote:

LEDs aren't *yet* much more efficient than the best fluorescents are
they?


I meant much more efficient than the alternatives to fluorescents were then.

Yes, fluorescents still arguably have their place now,
but that isnt for efficiency, it¢s the much longer life of the
long tube fluorescents than you can be sure of with leds.


If fluorescents got a "much" longer life, that would make them more
efficient, you endlessly arguing "argumentative asshole"!

--
Sqwertz to Rot Speed:
"This is just a hunch, but I'm betting you're kinda an argumentative
asshole.
MID:

Andy Burns[_13_] September 17th 18 12:21 PM

Them new-fangled flourescent lights
 
Halmyre wrote:

Might be cheaper to run but the frequency with which the *******
things in my kitchen (under-cabinet downlighters) need replaced
outweigh the benefits.



Are they the smaller T5 tubes though? I do find they blacken and die
early, next time any go in the kitchen, I think it'll be LED time here...

Halmyre September 17th 18 07:23 PM

Them new-fangled flourescent lights
 
On Monday, September 17, 2018 at 11:21:13 AM UTC+1, Andy Burns wrote:
Halmyre wrote:

Might be cheaper to run but the frequency with which the *******
things in my kitchen (under-cabinet downlighters) need replaced
outweigh the benefits.



Are they the smaller T5 tubes though? I do find they blacken and die
early, next time any go in the kitchen, I think it'll be LED time here...


Yes, T5. Three tubes of two different lengths, and the shorter one goes most often.

ARW September 17th 18 07:48 PM

Them new-fangled flourescent lights
 
On 17/09/2018 09:08, Andy Burns wrote:
Chris Green wrote:

LEDs aren't *yet* much more efficient than the best fluorescents are
they?


2500'ish lumens from 24W vs 4000'ish lumens from 58W
but probably the LEDs shine down where you want the light, so useful
lumens per watt better than on paper?


Lumens at final floor level is what counts.

--
Adam

ARW September 17th 18 10:05 PM

Them new-fangled flourescent lights
 
On 16/09/2018 20:59, Chris wrote:
On Mon, 17 Sep 2018 05:41:27 +1000, Josh Nack wrote:

Dont forget what the did to the cat.


You're Rod Speed and ICTFP.



Peeler has already claimed it and spent it.

--
Adam

ARW September 17th 18 10:12 PM

Them new-fangled flourescent lights
 
On 17/09/2018 11:21, Andy Burns wrote:
Halmyre wrote:

Might be cheaper to run but the frequency with which the *******
things in my kitchen (under-cabinet downlighters) need replaced
outweigh the benefits.



Are they the smaller T5 tubes though?Â* I do find they blacken and die
early, next time any go in the kitchen, I think it'll be LED time here...


Go for it.

--
Adam

Johnny B Good September 17th 18 10:47 PM

Them new-fangled flourescent lights
 
On Mon, 17 Sep 2018 18:48:20 +0100, ARW wrote:

On 17/09/2018 09:08, Andy Burns wrote:
Chris Green wrote:

LEDs aren't *yet* much more efficient than the best fluorescents are
they?


2500'ish lumens from 24W vs 4000'ish lumens from 58W but probably the
LEDs shine down where you want the light, so useful lumens per watt
better than on paper?


Lumens at final floor level is what counts.


Useful though that is, I'd say lumens at the work surfaces are the more
important, especially in a kitchen where those surfaces are even further
off-axis from a downwards directed light source than the extent of the
floor.

--
Johnny B Good

PeterC September 18th 18 07:45 AM

Them new-fangled flourescent lights
 
On Mon, 17 Sep 2018 18:48:20 +0100, ARW wrote:

On 17/09/2018 09:08, Andy Burns wrote:
Chris Green wrote:

LEDs aren't *yet* much more efficient than the best fluorescents are
they?


2500'ish lumens from 24W vs 4000'ish lumens from 58W
but probably the LEDs shine down where you want the light, so useful
lumens per watt better than on paper?


Lumens at final floor level is what counts.


Personally, I find that an overall light is better than a directional one. A
4000 lm florrie that shines all around seems better than a directional (even
180 deg+ LED). Under-cabinet lights are the exception.

--
Peter.
The gods will stay away
whilst religions hold sway

Vir Campestris September 20th 18 10:30 PM

Them new-fangled flourescent lights
 
On 17/09/2018 10:06, Halmyre wrote:
I might just skip straight to LEDs but find them a bit cold.


That's the point isn't it? They run cold because they are much more effic...

Oh. You mean colour temperature. You can get lots of different ones,
even down to incandescent coloured ones.

Andy

Andrew Gabriel September 22nd 18 10:18 AM

Them new-fangled flourescent lights
 
In article ,
Halmyre writes:
On Monday, September 17, 2018 at 11:21:13 AM UTC+1, Andy Burns wrote:
Halmyre wrote:

Might be cheaper to run but the frequency with which the *******
things in my kitchen (under-cabinet downlighters) need replaced
outweigh the benefits.



Are they the smaller T5 tubes though? I do find they blacken and die
early, next time any go in the kitchen, I think it'll be LED time here...


Yes, T5. Three tubes of two different lengths, and the shorter one goes most often.


14W and upwards (which are the newer T5 tubes) should have a long life,
even when switched relatively often. If not, the ballast is out of spec.
I've fitted many of those, including eight in my kitchen which are now
8 years old, and not a single tube has died, but they are all using well
known manufacturer tubes and control gear with proper programmed start.

The spec of the older 4,6,8,13W T5 tubes is not so carefully specified,
and control gear for them does vary in quality enormously and good gear
harder to find.

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

Halmyre September 24th 18 09:37 AM

Them new-fangled flourescent lights
 
On Thursday, September 20, 2018 at 9:30:52 PM UTC+1, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 17/09/2018 10:06, Halmyre wrote:
I might just skip straight to LEDs but find them a bit cold.


That's the point isn't it? They run cold because they are much more effic...

Oh. You mean colour temperature. You can get lots of different ones,
even down to incandescent coloured ones.

Andy


I've seen some which are switchable between different colour temperatures.

As usual when considering home improvements, I get paralysed with indecision if there's too much choice and end up not actually doing anything.

John Rumm September 24th 18 02:05 PM

Them new-fangled flourescent lights
 
On 24/09/2018 08:37, Halmyre wrote:
On Thursday, September 20, 2018 at 9:30:52 PM UTC+1, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 17/09/2018 10:06, Halmyre wrote:
I might just skip straight to LEDs but find them a bit cold.


That's the point isn't it? They run cold because they are much more effic...

Oh. You mean colour temperature. You can get lots of different ones,
even down to incandescent coloured ones.

Andy


I've seen some which are switchable between different colour temperatures.


Yup, in my recent bathroom refit I ened up using three of:

https://www.ledhut.co.uk/8w-integrat...reflector.html

They had a choice of three colour temps, ranging from daylight, to warm
white, and a middle one which was perhaps close to 12V halogen. I went
with the middle setting in the end, which was slightly "cooler" than
normal tungsten, but fairly neutral:

http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php/...ShowerBath.jpg

As usual when considering home improvements, I get paralysed with indecision if there's too much choice and end up not actually doing anything.


Well it has to be said its both cheaper and easier that way ;-)

Its funny how choice can be paralysing... when I did those bathrooms, it
took ages just planning and buying the bits simply because there was so
much choice.


--
Cheers,

John.

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

Halmyre October 1st 18 12:52 PM

Them new-fangled flourescent lights
 
On Monday, September 24, 2018 at 1:05:59 PM UTC+1, John Rumm wrote:
On 24/09/2018 08:37, Halmyre wrote:
On Thursday, September 20, 2018 at 9:30:52 PM UTC+1, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 17/09/2018 10:06, Halmyre wrote:
I might just skip straight to LEDs but find them a bit cold.

That's the point isn't it? They run cold because they are much more effic...

Oh. You mean colour temperature. You can get lots of different ones,
even down to incandescent coloured ones.

Andy


I've seen some which are switchable between different colour temperatures.


Yup, in my recent bathroom refit I ened up using three of:

https://www.ledhut.co.uk/8w-integrat...reflector.html

They had a choice of three colour temps, ranging from daylight, to warm
white, and a middle one which was perhaps close to 12V halogen. I went
with the middle setting in the end, which was slightly "cooler" than
normal tungsten, but fairly neutral:

http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php/...ShowerBath.jpg

As usual when considering home improvements, I get paralysed with indecision if there's too much choice and end up not actually doing anything.


Well it has to be said its both cheaper and easier that way ;-)

Its funny how choice can be paralysing... when I did those bathrooms, it
took ages just planning and buying the bits simply because there was so
much choice.



I finally took the plunge and bought a couple of Robus units from Screwfix to replace a batten. You can switch between warm and cool light, but we'll probably stick with the cool - the warm would be fine for mood lighting but not really suitable for a kitchen.



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:50 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter