musht Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 Er, they`re a lot better than they used to be, magnetic ballasts arent power factor friendly without correction either.Switch mode PSUs are common in a lot of devices now, consumer and industrial, IT centres can have huge switch mode loads. More efficiency means less fittings to deliver required illumination. Currently seem to be heading down the just get used to less illumination road. Have a real problem with a lot of `energy saving` MR16s. I remember low voltage MR16 being introduced as energy efficient alternative to PAR 38 , 50W 12V = 150W 240V. beacuse can deliver about same amount of light in beam, due to smaller filament and higher efficiency of LV lamp. Then along came GU10 line voltage lamps, these really have none of the advantages of their low voltage cousins, but they look similar and are perceived as being easier and cheaper to install. Now because people have had their fingers burnt, sometimes literally, by poor efficiency, poor beam quality , appalling lamp life GU10s , whole MR16 family is getting branded power hungry monsters to be replaced. LED, CFL/CCFL MR16s have their place but it isn`t in being used to replace any lamp anywhere that looks similar. IR reflective glass in latest premium halogens means efficiency is getting better with halogen, at least one maker markets a 42W MR16 lamp thats brighter than a standard 50W, 20% energy saving straight out of the box. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ynot Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 Currently seem to be heading down the just get used to less illumination road. Have a real problem with a lot of `energy saving` MR16s.Have to admit, I've been considering for some time now the consumption of our foyer lighting. We have approx 80 MR16 12v bubbles in the ceiling, and there are usually a couple of these blow each week, so been investigating the limited options for replacement. LED MR16 size run out about a fiver each (best individual price on-line so far) though I'm sure that buying 80 would reduce that somewhat - I have a request in to 3 suppliers for a bulk price - but that's still going to be a big investment IF the replacements are suitable (I've also requested a couple of 'try-me' samples). But when we counted how much power we were consuming (around 4kW!) it made me think there MUST be a better option!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
musht Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 Really a try before you buy option, LED MR16`s I use cost quite a lot more than fiver each in bulk and still aren`t anywhere near as bright as a 50W dichro. LED lamps using multiple 5mm LEDs are fine for low cost applications in display cabinets and niches, some of the 30+ LED models are reasonably bright but concerned about longetivity and the colour is not suitable for many applications. Cost begins to get close to where a high power LED solution would make better sense as well. Other suggestions, downsize lamps to 35W probably be OK on existing transformers, dim existing lamps drop levels during performances and restore during intervals etc wont save a lot but will extend lamp life, soft starting lamps always helps their life. Use IR reflective envelope lamps think all makers have them but they are premium priced. Cut out the MR16 downlighters where lots of light is required and replace them with PL fluro based downlighters. Fluro dropins for some areas, these are brighter lumen for pound than LED by a fair chunk. But share the horrible colour rendering of LED, mebbe replace high traffic areas in this manner but dinnae use them in the snug bar ;-) Think through the areas and you might find mix of solutions is most appropriate. Moderation: Mashed quote removed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ynot Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 Really a try before you buy option, LED MR16`s I use cost quite a lot more than fiver each in bulk and still aren`t anywhere near as bright as a 50W dichro.Which is precisely why the nice man from Wavicle is sending me a loaner sample or two to assess the options!:D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ynot Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 My paper - Daily Mail - noted the price of an incandescent at around 20p, with an average fluoro BC bulb over £2Thats just the Daily Mail being clueless, as usual. Actually, I enjoy much of what the mail publishes - and to be honest they don't seem afraid to show BOTH sides of an issue.For example, after the front page headlines of the other day on the bulb-plot, today has an editorial decrying that there's either a major problem OR that the CFL's are in any way the answer!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimWebber Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 The following quote from the Daily Mail editorial, More seriously, because CFLs need much more ventilation than a standard bulb, they cannot be used in any enclosed light fitting which is not open at both bottom and top - the implications of which for homeowners are horrendous. has left me a little confused... I would have thought that as they use less power, less power is dissipated as heat, therefore they don't require as much ventilation? Or am I completely wrong??? Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
musht Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 No, the Daily Wail is totally wrong, CFLs and fluros in general generate a lot less heat than incans , in large installations the saving on air conditioning load can be considerable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ynot Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 More seriously, because CFLs need much more ventilation than a standard bulb, they cannot be used in any enclosed light fitting which is not open at both bottom and top - the implications of which for homeowners are horrendous.has left me a little confused... I would have thought that as they use less power, less power is dissipated as heat, therefore they don't require as much ventilation? Or am I completely wrong???Hmmm... No, you are correct - he's got this particular aspect wrong.No, the Daily Wail is totally wrong, .....But rather than condemn the whole article and the paper because of that one minor error, does this not support the arguments most of us have? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chappie Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 No, the Daily Mail is not wrong. Because of the electronic circuitry within a CFL, the maximum ambient temperature should remain as low as possible, with most manufacturers warranting their products to a maximum of 50°C. If the heat from the tube and the electronics cannot escape, the temperature will potentially rise to well over 50°C, and the lamp's life and light output will be badly affected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
musht Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 Allowing for certain Mr Angry of Purley bias against Daily Wa..Mail.. :-) Quick run through on errors can spot: "up to 20 times more expensive" Not true, CFL`s been with us 15 + years and costs have dropped dramatically.Have to be a very very special CFL to cost 20 times cost of incan it was equivalent to. "Because they do not produce light in a steady stream, like an incandescent bulb, but flicker 50 times a second"Nope, electronic ballasts up to 20kHz nowadays. "Fluorescent CFLs cannot be used with dimmer switches or electronically-triggered security lights"Half true , technologies exist to answer both these problems but isn`t available on the street, definately something the manufacturers could do with addressing. "CFLs need much more ventilation than a standard bulb"Yup CFL`s include electronics with an operating range lower than that of a filament lamp, however that and the following: 'less than 50 per cent of the fittings installed in UK homes can currently take CFL"Something is missing in this quote, qualification of what they counted, previous mention of fridges and microwaves guess means they were included. Quite frankly find the figure very hard to believe. Can not think of any type of fitting thats enclosed and designed to take a standard 60 or 100W GLS lamp that would not be suitable for direct CFL replacement, fully enclosed IP rated bulkhead fittings spring immediately to mind. Will now be deluged with examples of fittings that have a picture of a CFL with a line through them. Agree with much of the article but some of the errors and missing information puts it at risk of becoming ammuniton for the compulsory CFL brigade.The research the writer has conducted is clearly not as thorough as one would hope. At least lighting is being considered more by the public at large but really wish that those who regard themselves as `professionals` in some other field, be it politics or journalism, would appreciate that lighting is a profession in itself and avail themselves of the resources, would only improve quality of debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neil Hampson Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 'less than 50 per cent of the fittings installed in UK homes can currently take CFL"Something is missing in this quote, qualification of what they counted, previous mention of fridges and microwaves guess means they were included. Quite frankly find the figure very hard to believe. Can not think of any type of fitting thats enclosed and designed to take a standard 60 or 100W GLS lamp that would not be suitable for direct CFL replacement, fully enclosed IP rated bulkhead fittings spring immediately to mind. Will now be deluged with examples of fittings that have a picture of a CFL with a line through them. Leaving the fridges etc. aside, this lead me to have a good look around my house last night, and out of all of the light fittings there were 4 (bedrooms and 1 table lamp) that would take a CFL. The landing is out as it's a chandieler and would look pig ugly with a cluster of CLFs in plus it's not on for very long at a time so wouldn't have time to warm up, not ideal for a staircase. The bathroom is on MR16s, the hallway, kitchen and livingroom (Dimmer Switch) cannot accept the size of a CFL as they are designed for a 40W candle lamp. so in my case yes less than 50% of the fittings in my house are able to take a CFL lamp, those that can, where practical do already have them. As an aside, on average I need to change 2-3 lightbulbs a week (I think we get minor power surges as the some of our electronic stuff acts up as well) at 1.50 for four lightbulbs from ASDA, this is just about tolerable, but I've found that the CFL's don't last any longer in this environment, the longest lasting one I have yet to have is 4 months, they generally last about 2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ynot Posted March 17, 2007 Share Posted March 17, 2007 Which is precisely why the nice man from Wavicle is sending me a loaner sample or two to assess the options!:)Got the samples, Nick - thanks.Will report back on this thread on our findings if that's OK - I'm sure the populace will be interested in the results.Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wuddy Posted September 27, 2007 Share Posted September 27, 2007 I've just heard on the news that the Government is to phase out all high energy filament lamps by 2012. Firstly they try to silence us by selling of the radio spectrum, now they want to plunge us into darkness, have we upset them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndrewR Posted September 27, 2007 Share Posted September 27, 2007 FUD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bruce Posted September 27, 2007 Share Posted September 27, 2007 as already discussed here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.