- Joined
- 7 Jan 2010
- Messages
- 13,092
- Reaction score
- 3,023
- Country
Is there a direct LED replacement for a fluorescent tube which negates the need to replace the whole batten? They're 4ft ones.
Thank heavens I'm not the only one who has come to this conclusion. Having said that my experience is based on customers asking to restore their LED tubes back to flou.Basically if you replace a florescent tube with an LED it will use less power and give less light. So you may need additional lighting to make up which will of course bring the energy use and cost back up.
Regardless of what makers claim LED tubes do not provide the same even light coverage as fluo tubes.Thanks for the replies. Looks like I may as well just replace the fluorescent tubes.
Maybe so.Regardless of what makers claim LED tubes do not provide the same even light coverage as fluo tubes.
Which is why I've returned so many LED tubes to fluo when the customers complain of dark patchy illumination.Maybe so.
However LED tubes produce the light mainly in one direction - downwards (or "outwards").
Florescent tubes produce light in 360 degrees and most of the "Upwards" light (at least 30 %) is wasted, unless the reflector above is very "efficient" - as in a "mirror" - which is not a likely possibility.
Hence the "less bright" LED tubes produce most "light" in the direction where it is required.
That, or replace the whole fitting for a new LED one. Example: https://www.cef.co.uk/catalogue/products/4837543-35w-4ft-led-steel-batten-fitting-4000k which is brighter than the same length fluorescent tube and approximately the same power (35W compared to 36W + ballast losses). It also starts at full brightness unlike the fluorescent version so will appear significantly brighter in applications where the lights are switched often and used for short periods.Looks like I may as well just replace the fluorescent tubes.
Even though some of the LED fittings are identical to some Fluo fittings?Shoehorning 'LED tubes' into an existing fitting that was designed for fluorescent tubes is total nonsense and is very far from optimal.
I've just realised a confusing error in that drawingThe main problem is the electronic ballast when removed needs a re-wire like this View attachment 278736This means it does not matter which way around the tube is placed, and the fuse replaces the starter so if some one fits a fluorescent instead of a LED it simply blows the fuse, as two heaters will not take 230 volt they need the ballast to reduce the current/voltage at the starters.
But the main problem is tubes like this one are not much better than fluorescent lumen per watt, and only produce 1600 lumen.
OK only 16 watt, and in a corridor we did tend to use OTT lighting to cover the length, so the reduction in light output is OK, but in a kitchen, we want the light, so my old house had 2 x 65 + 58 watt fluorescent lamps, set in a T shape, to lights both the original and extension, my son has removed them and moved to LED down lights, around 30 of them, at 3 watt each, so there is a reduction 123 watt down to 90 watt, if he says at 3 watt each. But he tends to buy what is on offer so likely will end up as 3.6 watt, and with the example shown, 108 watt at 10350 lumen where the original was 123 watt at around 10400 lumen, so as near as you can get same, except the LED lamps cost £67.47 and the fluorescent £10.44 they have gone up in price.
The LED replacement for starter is really a fuse. So not really an error.I've just realised a confusing error in that drawingView attachment 278921
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