Incandescent versus Halogen

I must admit that I am skeptical about defining these halogen lamps as low energy.

In fact both have filaments, it is just that the halogen lamp uses the halogen cycle to essentially recycle the tungsten evaporation from the filament.

I don't know what criteria the manufacturer uses to claim "low energy"

EDIT: OK my mistake on second reading I see they say "energy saver"


Is there not a CFL technology in that form factor that you could use?
 
Light output is virtually identical.
They are a lower wattage, as the design takes advantage of the fact the filament can run at a higher temperature than normal incandescent lamps, so you get more light for a given power input.

Same idea as these:
http://www.tlc-direct.co.uk/Products/LAHGLS42BCCL.html

Although they use less energy, they are still inefficient when compared to fluorescent lamps. However they do start instantly and the light output is as close to 'normal' lamps as you will get. They can be used with dimmers, although this may reduce their lifespan.
 
I must admit that I am skeptical about defining these halogen lamps as low energy.

In fact both have filaments, it is just that the halogen lamp uses the halogen cycle to essentially recycle the tungsten evaporation from the filament.

I don't know what criteria the manufacturer uses to claim "low energy"

EDIT: OK my mistake on second reading I see they say "energy saver"


Is there not a CFL technology in that form factor that you could use?

I should of said before, I've got 3 rooms with the same set-up; recessed ceiling light units designed for incandescent 100mm diameter 60W reflector lamps and dimmers, and I'm happy with the light output, and I haven't changed any in 18 months when I moved in! I'm sceptical too, and confused. The government are happy to ban all incandescents, but AFAIK there's been no discussion relating too the plethora of 50W GU10/MR16 etc that a lot of folks have in their homes. And CFL's, are they really saving energy? Does all the mercury really get extracted at the end of their life? Why not have traditional 50W incandescents?
 
I'm sceptical too, and confused. The government are happy to ban all incandescents, but AFAIK there's been no discussion relating too the plethora of 50W GU10/MR16 etc that a lot of folks have in their homes. And CFL's, are they really saving energy? Does all the mercury really get extracted at the end of their life? Why not have traditional 50W incandescents?

Never assume those in charge know what they are doing.
 
I'm sceptical too, and confused. The government are happy to ban all incandescents, but AFAIK there's been no discussion relating too the plethora of 50W GU10/MR16 etc that a lot of folks have in their homes. And CFL's, are they really saving energy? Does all the mercury really get extracted at the end of their life? Why not have traditional 50W incandescents?

Never assume those in charge know what they are doing.


Exactly, I think there is minimal coordination. One problem replacing halogen MR16/GU10s at the moment is when there is a dimmer. Obtaining CFL and LED replacements to work well with dimmers is not quite there yet and expensive. Many of the semiconductor companies are developing dimmer chips to go into the lamps.

I fitted six megaman dimmable downlighter CFLs the other day. I have to say that I was quite impressed with them. I also fitted a "low load" dimmer because my remit was not to rewire the switch in an effort on provide a live & neutral. Now they do take about 1 minute to warm up so they do not dim well in that first minute but they illuminated the room nicely (for ceiling torches) and do dim very well when warm.
 

If you need to find a tradesperson to get your job done, please try our local search below, or if you are doing it yourself you can find suppliers local to you.

Select the supplier or trade you require, enter your location to begin your search.


Are you a trade or supplier? You can create your listing free at DIYnot Local

 
Back
Top