Fluorescent fittings

[DJM]

Dimming is a requirement for many, but it can be solved by replacing the luminaires, not just the lamps.

I don't have a problem with phasing out incandescents, but IMO they have not picked the right priority target, which should have been 2" spots. They were not (or are not yet) banned because they are over an arbitrary figure of lumens/W, but that completely ignores the amount of wattage needed to light rooms.

I do have a problem with the following:

1) The way that people are encouraged to just fit CFL replacements, as the waste involved in these lamps is terrible.

2) The lack of any awareness campaign about the need to dispose of dead lamps properly because of the mercury in them.

Dimming is a key feature of most peoples use of light. Having spent a considerable amount of money on a light SWMBO likes we dont have massive rooms (or salary) to buy 4 extra complimentary mood lights to do the same thing as one dimmer.
And the solution of spending another 3 figure sum per room on replacing all lights to make them more ugly to take awful CFLs and wait 10 mins (exageratted I know) standing by the light switch waiting for them to reach a reasonable level of brightness does not appeal. Then of course those of us who do not have perfect eyesight or suffer migranes or light sensitivity have the issue of not being able to stay in the room with them anyway. Of course the light colour makes you want to leave the room anyway.

Dont misunderstand, I am all for saving the planet, but pick the best bang for buck not the softest target.

 

[Aragorn84]

Our "mood lights" cost 3 quid a pop from Ikea, so you dont need megabucks.

as for "bang for buck", that'll be CFL's then....

You dont need to use halogen to have dimmable lights anyway, dimmable CFL's are on the market.

 

[Spark123]

Unfortunately dimmable CFLs are not cheap. Imagine having to light a stage with them! (I currently have to light a stage with 100w incandescant lamps, replacing the fittings isn't going to be a near term thing.)

 

[Trog]

Why would you want to keep stocks of crappy GLS incandescent lamps?

CFL's have never given me any problems and use less power, and now they're nicely widespread they're cheap too.

Because GLS incandesents are brighter and more compact than the CFL's.

Which because of the base to contain the electronics, stick up out of any light fitting I put them in. They are also only available in pathetically low wattages, with a flickering yellow light. So to get the same brightness in a room as a GLS bulb you need, CFL's of about the same wattage as their dim yellow light does not seem to carry in the same way, so no saving and with added mercury too.

 

[Aragorn84]

I've never found CFL's "dim" or "yellow"

If anything they are a bit on the harsh white side of the color spectrum.

As for being dim, as long as you ignore the manufacturers overestimations on their output you'll be fine. Lots seem to try and claim that 18w = 100w GLS, when infact you need more like 23w to match it. Not any different than them trying to claim a 35w halogen is an energy saving equivalent of a 50w though is it?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

And the solution of spending another 3 figure sum per room on replacing all lights to make them more ugly to take awful CFLs

That's the point - I'm talking about replacing them so as not to have to use CFLs (as in the replacement lamps with electronics in the base) - the actual lamps are still compact.

and wait 10 mins (exageratted I know) standing by the light switch waiting for them to reach a reasonable level of brightness

Again, you are thinking of the replacement CFLs with electronics in the base. Lamps in luminaires with HF control gear come to full brightness instantly.

Then of course those of us who do not have perfect eyesight or suffer migranes or light sensitivity have the issue of not being able to stay in the room with them anyway.

Why not? Are you thinking of the replacement CFLs with electronics in the base?

Imperfect eyesight? Migraines? Light sensitivity?

Is it not just light?

Of course the light colour makes you want to leave the room anyway.

What's wrong with the colour?

What colour do you want?

Dont misunderstand, I am all for saving the planet, but pick the best bang for buck not the softest target.

By all means.

Let's make the use of 2" spots illegal.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

If anything they are a bit on the harsh white side of the color spectrum.

That's the usual complaint - I've never before seen anyone moan that they are too yellow.

FYI - the colour temperature of daylight is 5500-6500K, depending on conditions...

 

[DJM]

Our "mood lights" cost 3 quid a pop from Ikea, so you dont need megabucks.

as for "bang for buck", that'll be CFL's then....

You dont need to use halogen to have dimmable lights anyway, dimmable CFL's are on the market.

You missed the point, We neither have the space nor the money to buy additional table or floor lights to provide differing lighting conditions. A dimmer does exactly what we and most people want - uses their one lovely luminere to provide a variety of lighting conditions. No turning 3 lights off and another on to get the right light level.
And if you can get a table light and bulb for £3 then I would hate to consider the quality or style.

As for dimmerable CFL, meggerman £16 a pop for claimed incandescent 60W equivilent. Then there's the £30 for the new dimmerswitch as most current dimmers aren't suitable. And then where do you get the candle, small golf ball etc shapes that are dimmerable.

 

[DJM]

And the solution of spending another 3 figure sum per room on replacing all lights to make them more ugly to take awful CFLs

That's the point - I'm talking about replacing them so as not to have to use CFLs (as in the replacement lamps with electronics in the base) - the actual lamps are still compact.

and wait 10 mins (exageratted I know) standing by the light switch waiting for them to reach a reasonable level of brightness

Again, you are thinking of the replacement CFLs with electronics in the base. Lamps in luminaires with HF control gear come to full brightness instantly.

Yes I am thinking of CFLs with the elecs in the base. But then what other choices are their? As I said, spending hundreds or thousands of pounds on quality replacement luminaires is neither cost or planet saving. The cost of manufacture and destruction of the old is much worse for the planet than even your hated halogens.

Then of course those of us who do not have perfect eyesight or suffer migranes or light sensitivity have the issue of not being able to stay in the room with them anyway.

Why not? Are you thinking of the replacement CFLs with electronics in the base?

Imperfect eyesight? Migraines? Light sensitivity?

Is it not just light?

Of course the light colour makes you want to leave the room anyway.

What's wrong with the colour?

What colour do you want?:

Yes it is just light, but of differing frequency/temp/colour and quality. Yes that does matter and yes it does affect people regularly - a lot of people.

Think of it this way, why do people cringe when fingernails are scraped down a blackboard (I am assuming you are old enough to remember them in school lol) but are perfectly happy with Gracy Fields/Madonna/Tinchy Stryder (take your pick).
Try staying in a room with 13Hz pumped out and see how well you feel after 1/2 hour

It's all just sound isn't it?

Dont misunderstand, I am all for saving the planet, but pick the best bang for buck not the softest target.

By all means.

Let's make the use of 2" spots illegal.

By all means, but replace them with something that provides that same light and dark pools to provide the same display and mood capabilities.

 

[flameport]

Most CFLs for sale are somewhat 'yellow' because they are manufactured to be near the colour of incandescent lamps, which are also yellow. These are also the most inefficient types and therefore will appear dim. (which is why 'warm white' and similar colour flourescent tubes are being withdrawn, as are those with poor colour rendering).
A significant number are also rubbish quality, so inevitably will give poor results.
Other colours and better quality are available, they just won't be on the supermarket shelf priced at 10 for 5p.

Same applies to light fittings - buy cheap tat and you get exactly what you paid for.

As for fluorescent lamps causing migranes etc - if people were affected that badly, they wouldn't be able to go into any shop, office, bus, train or or any other building in the country, because they all have fluorescent lighting and have had for decades.

The whole concept of lighting in homes consisting of a few bayonet sockets is coming to an end - luminaires with integrated control gear are the way forward, so only the tube/'bulb' part is replaced.

 

[RF Lighting]

I don't like CFLs at all.

Did you know that rough service filament lamps have not been banned? They seem to last forever in the flex drops in my house

 

[maltaron]

We seem to have left the original post. So to add to the current topic, CFLs will soon be redundant as very low energy LED lamps are getting brighter by the day. Note their use in traffic lights and car brake lights, and they are bright even in daylight. And they are available in several colours.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Yes I am thinking of CFLs with the elecs in the base. But then what other choices are their?

For example.

As I said, spending hundreds or thousands of pounds on quality replacement luminaires is neither cost or planet saving. The cost of manufacture and destruction of the old is much worse for the planet than even your hated halogens.

1) It isn't necessary to spend that much.

2) I'm not sure that when you factor in the electricity, the costs of producing the fuel to make electricity, the cost of making, transporting and selling lamps with desperately short lives, that it is.

Yes it is just light, but of differing frequency/temp/colour and quality. Yes that does matter and yes it does affect people regularly - a lot of people.

Even HF fluorescents?

 

[DJM]

Yes I am thinking of CFLs with the elecs in the base. But then what other choices are their?

For example.

Well I suppose you could get an acceptable looking light for a utility room, garage or shed to take those, but can't see any of those being suitable for decorative (and useful) lounge, bedroom etc lighting. They're large and ugly.

As I said, spending hundreds or thousands of pounds on quality replacement luminaires is neither cost or planet saving. The cost of manufacture and destruction of the old is much worse for the planet than even your hated halogens.

1) It isn't necessary to spend that much.

You are obviously single. Take most (if not all) women shopping and show them bulkhead type fittings which take your example lamps above and it will be a long chilly relationship. BHS and Ikea might be OK for the odd cheap light, but as soon as you want real quality and to properly match the decoration going to a proper lighting shop is a must and then you are almost always into £100 as a start point.
Multiply that across a the average 3 bed house with lounge, dining room and kitchen and very quickly you are heading to the thousand GBP mark.

2) I'm not sure that when you factor in the electricity, the costs of producing the fuel to make electricity, the cost of making, transporting and selling lamps with desperately short lives, that it is.

Manufacturing new of anything is expensive for the planet - new lights waste valuable water and copper. Then there are the hidden costs of CFl disposal. Either the public will just put them in the bin and there will be costs to the refuse collection to seperate or clean up after they break and release pollutants - not to mention the danger to the refuse collectors. Or they will have to go to a designated collection point where they will be disposed of safely - which costs valuable resources. Even greenpeace admit this and have no answer merely saying well the electricity saving should be worth it.
Add in the costs of transporting these lamps to a disposal point - the nearest to me is 7 miles away - and soon the perceived gains slip away.

Yes it is just light, but of differing frequency/temp/colour and quality. Yes that does matter and yes it does affect people regularly - a lot of people.

Even HF fluorescents?

Yes - and again I can reference Greenpeace who's answer is that incandescent bulbs should be available on prescription for those affected - I kid you not - and that the numbers affected will be significant.

What was needed was a considered aproach not a knee jerk reaction from a mis-informed buch of politicians looking for a quick enrgy saving soundbite.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Well I suppose you could get an acceptable looking light for a utility room, garage or shed to take those, but can't see any of those being suitable for decorative (and useful) lounge, bedroom etc lighting. They're large and ugly.

You need to spend more time researching the designs of luminaires available.

You are obviously single. Take most (if not all) women shopping and show them bulkhead type fittings which take your example lamps above and it will be a long chilly relationship.

You need to spend more time researching the designs of luminaires available.

BHS and Ikea might be OK for the odd cheap light, but as soon as you want real quality and to properly match the decoration going to a proper lighting shop is a must and then you are almost always into £100 as a start point.
Multiply that across a the average 3 bed house with lounge, dining room and kitchen and very quickly you are heading to the thousand GBP mark.

I never said you couldn't spend that much - I'm sure you could.

Manufacturing new of anything is expensive for the planet - new lights waste valuable water and copper.

What about the continual manufacture of lamps with a life of only a few thousand hours.

Then there are the hidden costs of CFl disposal. Either the public will just put them in the bin and there will be costs to the refuse collection to seperate or clean up after they break and release pollutants - not to mention the danger to the refuse collectors.

A major awareness campaign is certainly needed.

Or they will have to go to a designated collection point where they will be disposed of safely - which costs valuable resources. Even greenpeace admit this and have no answer merely saying well the electricity saving should be worth it.

Or retailers could be made to provide collection points and charge a deposit on lamps which is refunded when dead ones are returned.

Add in the costs of transporting these lamps to a disposal point - the nearest to me is 7 miles away - and soon the perceived gains slip away.

You could easily go only once a year - how many miles would you clock up buying replacement lamps with short lives?

Even HF fluorescents?

Yes - and again I can reference Greenpeace who's answer is that incandescent bulbs should be available on prescription for those affected - I kid you not - and that the numbers affected will be significant.

I'd be interested in the link to that on the Greenpeace site, if you have it.

What was needed was a considered aproach not a knee jerk reaction from a mis-informed buch of politicians looking for a quick enrgy saving soundbite.