will be installing recessed lighting in the cellar soon and wondered
what the consensus is on whether to go for mains or low voltage units ?
there'll be a total of 21 light fittings in 3 rooms... 3, 3, and 15
cost is a major factor, i.e. as low as possible

thanks
LJ

"in2minds" wrote in message
...
will be installing recessed lighting in the cellar soon and wondered
what the consensus is on whether to go for mains or low voltage units ?
there'll be a total of 21 light fittings in 3 rooms... 3, 3, and 15
cost is a major factor, i.e. as low as possible

thanks
LJ



Personal preference is low voltage because they last a hell of a lot longer than
mains spot lights.

The three light systems are cheap and cheerful from most DIY stores, and the 15
light system is better to be split up in to 5 by 3 way systems, because a
transformer would need to be huge to run all the lights at once. It definitely
wouldn't fit inside a ceiling void. :-)

But that's just me.

in2minds wrote:
will be installing recessed lighting in the cellar soon and wondered
what the consensus is on whether to go for mains or low voltage units
?
there'll be a total of 21 light fittings in 3 rooms... 3, 3, and 15
cost is a major factor, i.e. as low as possible

thanks
LJ

Hi,

I would go for LV myself. Have both in my house 4 x 35w in bathroom and
4 x 50w in kitchen. The bathroom seems much brighter in my opinion and
the area's lit are around the same size. You can get some systems which
have a small transfer for each fixture and these can just be pushed up
inside the hole that you drill out for the recessed fitting.

CM.

will be installing recessed lighting in the cellar soon and wondered
what the consensus is on whether to go for mains or low voltage units ?

I would go for neither. They are both horrendously inefficient ways of
providing space lighting. A CFL or other fluorescent based solution provides
not only increased thermodynamic efficiency, but increased efficiency in
terms of the lighting profile, enabling lower equivalent power as well.
(i.e. 40W of CFL bulbs provide as much effective space lighting as about
200W to 400W of halogen spotlights, depending on the pattern.

Christian.

in2minds wrote:

will be installing recessed lighting in the cellar soon and wondered
what the consensus is on whether to go for mains or low voltage units ?
there'll be a total of 21 light fittings in 3 rooms... 3, 3, and 15
cost is a major factor, i.e. as low as possible

Low voltage.

Ataround 5 quid a mains halogen, and with a lifetie of about 6 montghs,
compared with several years on LV types costing sub one quid per bulb,
the extra 5 quid a fitting for a transformer soon pays gor itself.

I have two friends with mains halogens. They are never ever all on. At
least one or more isgone whenever I go there, and they spend a fortune
replacing bulbs.

I am so happy I went 12v.


thanks
LJ

Christian McArdle wrote:

will be installing recessed lighting in the cellar soon and wondered
what the consensus is on whether to go for mains or low voltage units ?


I would go for neither. They are both horrendously inefficient ways of
providing space lighting.


But only marginally inefficient wasy of heating a room :-)


For eaxmple, if you house were heated electrically, there would be no
energy savings at all in going to CFL's as you would simply use teh same
amount to heat up tehroom anyway.

Ther same argument applies to halffilled kettles and many many other
ways of '#saving energy'

They just add onto your gas or oil bill instead.

Agreed thats a tad cjhepaer than the electrics..

A CFL or other fluorescent based solution provides
not only increased thermodynamic efficiency, but increased efficiency in
terms of the lighting profile, enabling lower equivalent power as well.
(i.e. 40W of CFL bulbs provide as much effective space lighting as about
200W to 400W of halogen spotlights, depending on the pattern.


Sure, save the whale Christian.

I just wish someone would ban the enormous spotlights that our neighbour
hgas that have totally ruined teh ability to see the stars at might.

Andf how about switching off streetlamps at midnight, and traffic lights
too?


Christian.

For eaxmple, if you house were heated electrically, there would be no
energy savings at all in going to CFL's as you would simply use teh same
amount to heat up tehroom anyway.

In winter, anyway. In summer, it would add to the air conditioning bill. (as
if!)

Christian.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

I just wish someone would ban the enormous spotlights that our neighbour
hgas that have totally ruined teh ability to see the stars at might.

Strictly speaking your neighbours spotlamps should only shine on his ground
and should be either moved / lowered or shielded off to prevent nuisance
lighting of neighbouring properties, but most enlighten the whole
neighbourhood...

Ask him in a nice way to either shield off the lamp from you or to move it
or lower it so the light stays in his garden.


/Morten




---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.825 / Virus Database: 563 - Release Date: 30/12/2004

Morten wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...


I just wish someone would ban the enormous spotlights that our neighbour
hgas that have totally ruined teh ability to see the stars at might.


Strictly speaking your neighbours spotlamps should only shine on his ground
and should be either moved / lowered or shielded off to prevent nuisance
lighting of neighbouring properties, but most enlighten the whole
neighbourhood...

Ask him in a nice way to either shield off the lamp from you or to move it
or lower it so the light stays in his garden.


/Morten



.... or buy an air rifle ???

--
Dave S
(The return email address is a dummy)

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
A CFL or other fluorescent based solution provides
not only increased thermodynamic efficiency, but increased efficiency in
terms of the lighting profile, enabling lower equivalent power as well.
(i.e. 40W of CFL bulbs provide as much effective space lighting as about
200W to 400W of halogen spotlights, depending on the pattern.


Sure, save the whale Christian.

I just wish someone would ban the enormous spotlights that our neighbour
hgas that have totally ruined teh ability to see the stars at might.

Andf how about switching off streetlamps at midnight,

Agreed. Especially on motorways. There must be GWatts-hours used on the M6
each night


and traffic lights too?

They do that in Germany, Austria and so on. I expect it would show up that
our traffic light controllers are still using relays.

Christian McArdle wrote:

For eaxmple, if you house were heated electrically, there would be no
energy savings at all in going to CFL's as you would simply use teh same
amount to heat up tehroom anyway.


In winter, anyway. In summer, it would add to the air conditioning bill. (as
if!)

Christian.


Strangely enough, I find it unnecessary to leave lights burning in the
middle of hot summer days.

Obviously your lifestyle differs...

Morten wrote:

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...


I just wish someone would ban the enormous spotlights that our neighbour
hgas that have totally ruined teh ability to see the stars at might.


Strictly speaking your neighbours spotlamps should only shine on his ground
and should be either moved / lowered or shielded off to prevent nuisance
lighting of neighbouring properties, but most enlighten the whole
neighbourhood...

Ask him in a nice way to either shield off the lamp from you or to move it
or lower it so the light stays in his garden.


Nah. I'm going to invite my freind with a silenced .22 round for a
weekends fun.

/Morten




---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.825 / Virus Database: 563 - Release Date: 30/12/2004

Dave wrote:

Morten wrote:

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...


I just wish someone would ban the enormous spotlights that our neighbour
hgas that have totally ruined teh ability to see the stars at might.



Strictly speaking your neighbours spotlamps should only shine on his
ground
and should be either moved / lowered or shielded off to prevent nuisance
lighting of neighbouring properties, but most enlighten the whole
neighbourhood...

Ask him in a nice way to either shield off the lamp from you or to
move it
or lower it so the light stays in his garden.


/Morten



... or buy an air rifle ???

Got one, but its best done from everal hundred yards range - beyond the
air rifle really.

Mike wrote:

Agreed. Especially on motorways. There must be GWatts-hours used on the M6
each night

But that power is coming from generators that take days not hours to go
through a shutdown/restart cycle so you might as well use it up on
something sensible, I'd rather have safer motorways reasons.

Off topic but have a look the web site for the Drax Power station in
Yorkshire (cant remember URL, google will find it easily). Its
interesting to see how many tons of coal per year are used to generate
only 10% of the countries energy requirements!
CM.

But that power is coming from generators that take days not hours to go
through a shutdown/restart cycle so you might as well use it up on
something sensible, I'd rather have safer motorways reasons.

Most electricity is now generated by controllable sources, like natural gas
and nuclear.

Christian.

Christian McArdle wrote:

Most electricity is now generated by controllable sources, like natural gas
and nuclear.

I thought nuclear provided *most* of the overnight leccy, or is that old
thinking?

"Andy Burns" wrote in message
...
Mike wrote:

Agreed. Especially on motorways. There must be GWatts-hours used on
the M6
each night

But that power is coming from generators that take days not hours to go
through a shutdown/restart cycle so you might as well use it up on
something sensible,

I'd use it if they supplied it at a rate that matched oil or LPG even though
it was only overnight.

Andy Burns wrote:

Mike wrote:

Agreed. Especially on motorways. There must be GWatts-hours used on
the M6
each night


But that power is coming from generators that take days not hours to go
through a shutdown/restart cycle so you might as well use it up on
something sensible, I'd rather have safer motorways reasons.

How about pumping water up into reservoirs to feed hyrdro electric
gerneators for teh morining rush hour?

Or cahrging up battery powered cars?

Or a million and one things that would actually benefort someone.

Have you actually TRAVELLED on a motor way between midnight and 6 a.m.?

Andy Burns wrote:

Christian McArdle wrote:

Most electricity is now generated by controllable sources, like
natural gas
and nuclear.


I thought nuclear provided *most* of the overnight leccy, or is that old
thinking?

Nuclear takes days to run up from cold, but keeping them running doesn't
cost much at all. So they are used for 'baseband' power.

Gas and turbibnes are IIRC the fastest run up and are ceap to build.

Drax is still open because though its not worth building another one, it
still works, and there is coal still to burn.

Nucelar is not corst effective because of teh extraordinarily high cost
of building and running to the safety standards demanded - that vastly
exceeed any other type of industrial actvity. The fuel is relatively cheap.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Nuclear takes days to run up from cold, but keeping them running doesn't
cost much at all. So they are used for 'baseband' power.

Yes, that is what I was getting at, nuclear stations are churning
electrons out night and day, without wanting to get into the pros and
cons of different power sources.

So going back to the original point, lighting up the motorways isn't
much of a waste ...

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

How about pumping water up into reservoirs to feed hyrdro electric
gerneators for teh morining rush hour?

I though they did that in Wales?

Or cahrging up battery powered cars?

If anybody had one ... other than milk floats ...

Have you actually TRAVELLED on a motor way between midnight and 6 a.m.?

many times, and there's a marked contrast between the lit bits and the
dark bits ...

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher writes:

Nuclear takes days to run up from cold, but keeping them running doesn't
cost much at all. So they are used for 'baseband' power.

Gas and turbibnes are IIRC the fastest run up and are ceap to build.

Stored water systems are even faster. Dinorwig in Wales is something
like 0 to 2GW in 12 seconds, which is the fastest run up in the world.

Drax is still open because though its not worth building another one, it
still works, and there is coal still to burn.

and there's not enough alternative capacity spare to replace it.

Nucelar is not corst effective because of teh extraordinarily high cost
of building and running to the safety standards demanded - that vastly
exceeed any other type of industrial actvity. The fuel is relatively cheap.

The highest costs are in the decommissioning of them.
As gas prices increase and gas suppliers become more dubious
(given our own supplies are running out and we're now an importer),
nuclear looks more attractive. Actually, we've been growing nuclear
for years -- we've simply been paying the French to build them all
along their north coast to supply us, due to political problems
building them in the UK.

--
Andrew Gabriel

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher writes:

How about pumping water up into reservoirs to feed hyrdro electric
gerneators for teh morining rush hour?

We do, the Dinorwig emergency resovior in Wales.

--
Andrew Gabriel

The message
from (Andrew Gabriel) contains these words:

The highest costs are in the decommissioning of them.
As gas prices increase and gas suppliers become more dubious
(given our own supplies are running out and we're now an importer),
nuclear looks more attractive. Actually, we've been growing nuclear
for years -- we've simply been paying the French to build them all
along their north coast to supply us, due to political problems
building them in the UK.

Have they upgraded the DC link from Lydd? ISTR that the thyristor stacks
that were being developed for it circa 1970 were pretty puny affairs. On
second thoughts I suppose an undersea cable is an unnecessary
extravagance with the Channel Tunnel to provide a much easier route for
a much larger cable.

--
Roger

Andy Burns wrote:

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Nuclear takes days to run up from cold, but keeping them running
doesn't cost much at all. So they are used for 'baseband' power.


Yes, that is what I was getting at, nuclear stations are churning
electrons out night and day, without wanting to get into the pros and
cons of different power sources.

So going back to the original point, lighting up the motorways isn't
much of a waste ...

It is, because its adds to theralpollutionm, and there are not enough
nuclear powerstatuons so drax still runs at night e.g.

Andy Burns wrote:

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

How about pumping water up into reservoirs to feed hyrdro electric
gerneators for teh morining rush hour?


I though they did that in Wales?

Or cahrging up battery powered cars?


If anybody had one ... other than milk floats ...

Have you actually TRAVELLED on a motor way between midnight and 6 a.m.?


many times, and there's a marked contrast between the lit bits and the
dark bits ...


Thats what God gave you headlights for.

Andrew Gabriel wrote:

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher writes:

How about pumping water up into reservoirs to feed hyrdro electric
gerneators for teh morining rush hour?


We do, the Dinorwig emergency resovior in Wales.


I know, Been there, Wonderful thing.

It was somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember (Andrew
Gabriel) saying something like:

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher writes:

How about pumping water up into reservoirs to feed hyrdro electric
gerneators for teh morining rush hour?

We do, the Dinorwig emergency resovior in Wales.

Johnny-come-lately thing. Cruachan was impressive many years before
that.
--

Dave

"Andy Burns" wrote in message
...
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

How about pumping water up into reservoirs to feed hyrdro electric
gerneators for teh morining rush hour?

I though they did that in Wales?

Or cahrging up battery powered cars?

If anybody had one ... other than milk floats ...

Have you actually TRAVELLED on a motor way between midnight and 6 a.m.?

many times, and there's a marked contrast between the lit bits and the
dark bits ...

Yep. The fuzz can't hide in the general glare from the lights. Your
headlights pick them out miles away.

"Andy Burns" wrote in message
...
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Nuclear takes days to run up from cold, but keeping them running doesn't
cost much at all. So they are used for 'baseband' power.

Yes, that is what I was getting at, nuclear stations are churning
electrons out night and day, without wanting to get into the pros and
cons of different power sources.

They can be throttled back very effectively though. Not turned off though
agreed.

Roger wrote:

The message
from (Andrew Gabriel) contains these words:


The highest costs are in the decommissioning of them.
As gas prices increase and gas suppliers become more dubious
(given our own supplies are running out and we're now an importer),
nuclear looks more attractive. Actually, we've been growing nuclear
for years -- we've simply been paying the French to build them all
along their north coast to supply us, due to political problems
building them in the UK.


Have they upgraded the DC link from Lydd? ISTR that the thyristor stacks
that were being developed for it circa 1970 were pretty puny affairs. On
second thoughts I suppose an undersea cable is an unnecessary
extravagance with the Channel Tunnel to provide a much easier route for
a much larger cable.

IUt is bigger than it was then - I looked it up recently.

It was thyratrons back then too. I think its solid state now.

The message
from The Natural Philosopher contains these words:

Have they upgraded the DC link from Lydd? ISTR that the thyristor stacks
that were being developed for it circa 1970 were pretty puny affairs. On
second thoughts I suppose an undersea cable is an unnecessary
extravagance with the Channel Tunnel to provide a much easier route for
a much larger cable.

IUt is bigger than it was then - I looked it up recently.

It was thyratrons back then too. I think its solid state now.

The name thyratron doesn't ring any bells with me and the dictionary
definition which includes "a gas filled tube" put me in mind of the
mercury arc rectifiers of an earlier era. I am sure the devices that
were stacked in a spiral fashion round a centre support on the prototype
in DC Transmission at Stafford were called thyristors but what happened
from then on I don't know because I had left GEC before that equipment
got to Lydd for testing.

--
Roger

"Roger" wrote in message
k...
The message
from The Natural Philosopher contains these words:

Have they upgraded the DC link from Lydd? ISTR that the thyristor
stacks
that were being developed for it circa 1970 were pretty puny affairs.
On
second thoughts I suppose an undersea cable is an unnecessary
extravagance with the Channel Tunnel to provide a much easier route
for
a much larger cable.

IUt is bigger than it was then - I looked it up recently.

It was thyratrons back then too. I think its solid state now.

The name thyratron doesn't ring any bells with me and the dictionary
definition which includes "a gas filled tube" put me in mind of the
mercury arc rectifiers of an earlier era.

They were derived from those. A trigger electrode was needed to start them
up and then they simply glowed to keep themselves conducting. GTOs are a
lot easier to use :-)

Roger wrote:

The message
from The Natural Philosopher contains these words:


Have they upgraded the DC link from Lydd? ISTR that the thyristor stacks
that were being developed for it circa 1970 were pretty puny affairs. On
second thoughts I suppose an undersea cable is an unnecessary
extravagance with the Channel Tunnel to provide a much easier route for
a much larger cable.


IUt is bigger than it was then - I looked it up recently.


It was thyratrons back then too. I think its solid state now.


The name thyratron doesn't ring any bells with me and the dictionary
definition which includes "a gas filled tube" put me in mind of the
mercury arc rectifiers of an earlier era. I am sure the devices that
were stacked in a spiral fashion round a centre support on the prototype
in DC Transmission at Stafford were called thyristors but what happened
from then on I don't know because I had left GEC before that equipment
got to Lydd for testing.


Definitely were mercury arc when I were there in the 60's, And I think
thyratrons to chop it back up to AC. Valves the size of a fridge freezer.

And about 2 acres of paper capacitors outside in the parking lot to
smooth off the edges.

And several hundred tons of chokes and transformers. Biggest inverter I
have ever seen bar none :-)