If starting from scratch what lighting would you get?

[radweld]

I mistakenly thought that this:

At the slightest mention of downlighters were are treated to your cut&paste of various light fittings intended for non-domestic installations.

was a criticism of me suggesting that lights "intended for non-domestic installations" could be used in a domestic environment, not an agreement.

What on earth leads you to think it is either? It is a statement. I will make this as simple as I possibly can: The lights you suggest are intended for non-domestic installations. Which part of that do you do you consider is incorrect?

I mistakenly thought that it was OK to use them in a domestic environment even if the maker intends them for use elsewhere, in the same way that it's OK to use tools for DIY even if the maker intends them for professional use.

The lights you suggest are intended for non-domestic installations. Which part of that do you do you consider is incorrect?

It would be a great help to me if you could list what sorts of items intended for professional or non-domestic use are OK to use in a non-professional or domestic setting, and which are not, since you clearly have a lot of knowledge in this area, and I clearly don't get it at all.

I am pretty sure I said something along the lines of 'The lights you suggest are intended for non-domestic installations'. I have also said 'I can't see any reason why you can't use them for domestic use.'

Your confusion appears to arise from trying to understand what I mean by something I haven't said. I have no idea why you are getting hung up on this point.

Again, I would appreciate an explanation from you of what kitchen items, e.g. pans, knives, ingredients etc I should use, even if the makers intend them for non-domestic use, and which I should not, because obviously I have been going terribly wrong by considering what things do rather than taking notice of the market the maker thinks he should focus on.

Your confusion appears to arise from trying to understand what I mean by something I haven't said. I have no idea why you are getting hung up on this point.

Unobtrusive: probably, though that doesn't necessarily make them attractive. Whatever.

My apologies - I mistakenly thought that as some people like [different things]

I said:

appearance is clearly a personal opinion

You appear to agree with me on this point.

Would it be OK if I removed the lights and put in a twin 6' fluorescent strip which uses only 140W?

If it requires any new fixed cabling, it will not be OK unless you notify your BCO. You'd be best getting an electrian in. I'm not sure what other point you are trying to make.

That will be the room with 0.78 lights per m², will it, compared to mine with 0.46 and Steve's with 0.12?

Indeed. What is your point?

My apologies - I mistakenly thought that when you agreed that "of course" absolute wattage is not the point you were being truthful.

You seem to be struggling with some basic concepts here which I am sure you are well aware of.

'efficiency' is the how well power can be converted for one form (e.g. from electricity to light). Now we don't know the absolute value of the optical power, but we do know in these cases it is adequate to satisfactorily light the rooms. Hence, in this case, efficiency is inversely proportional to input power and so something requiring x10 more input power is x10 less efficient.

So 1 light for every 1.28m² and 2.35W/m² good, 1 light for every 8.5m² and 3.05W/m² bad.

I have made no statement about what is 'good' and 'bad'. I'm just basing it on your criteria. You have previously said:

MR16 LED lamps consume very little, but they are still inefficient at lighting up rooms

In the scenario given, 2.34W/m² was sufficient to light a room. This, according to you, is 'inefficient'. In the scenarios using the commercial lights, the power required was 3.05 - 24W/m². This, according to you is 'efficient'. I think I must of been ill the day they taught 'using more power to do the same thing is more efficient' so you'll need to explain this to me.

Have you ever looked at LED lamps? The 'MR' part has very little relevance. The beam angle is dominated by the internal reflector within the LED. The ones that use higher-current chips usually have additional per-chip reflectors, but this is entirely independent of the MR16 format. Some even claim beam angles of 120 degrees, although I have no experience of these. You may want to google some images of LED MR16 bulbs.

Could you light a 17m² room with 2 of them?

I don't know. Maybe you should ask somebody has experience of these, rather than somebody who claims to have no experience of these.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

What on earth leads you to think it is either? It is a statement. I will make this as simple as I possibly can: The lights you suggest are intended for non-domestic installations. Which part of that do you do you consider is incorrect?

I will make this as simple as I possibly can: the manufacturer (or retailer) has decided to target the commercial environment for these lights.

What possible feature(s) can they have because of that which make their use in a domestic environment worthy of any comment at all?

The lights you suggest are intended for non-domestic installations. Which part of that do you do you consider is incorrect?

the manufacturer (or retailer) has decided to target the commercial environment for these lights.

What possible feature(s) can they have because of that which make their use in a domestic environment worthy of any comment at all?

I am pretty sure I said something along the lines of 'The lights you suggest are intended for non-domestic installations'. I have also said 'I can't see any reason why you can't use them for domestic use.'

So why did you mention it at all?

Your confusion appears to arise from trying to understand what I mean by something I haven't said. I have no idea why you are getting hung up on this point.

My confusion arises from the fact that when I suggested using those lights you said "At the slightest mention of downlighters were are treated to your cut&paste of various light fittings intended for non-domestic installations."

It did seem to me as if the fact that they were "intended for non-domestic installations" was being presented as a factor which should be regarded as mitigating against their use in domestic installations.

But I thank you for your clarification, and I now accept that you don't think there is any reason whatsoever not to use them there, and that you had no rational excuse whatsoever for writing what you did.

If it requires any new fixed cabling, it will not be OK unless you notify your BCO. You'd be best getting an electrian in. I'm not sure what other point you are trying to make.

I was trying to find out, as you really were (and don't be so pathetic as to try to deny it) disparaging lighting totalling 156W, if a striplight totalling 140W would be acceptable to you.

Indeed. What is your point?

Let's cut to the chase.

My point is that you are a complete ****t who has embarked on a campaign of utterly irrational and inconsistent criticism because of a petty and childish attitude.

'efficiency' is the how well power can be converted for one form (e.g. from electricity to light). Now we don't know the absolute value of the optical power, but we do know in these cases it is adequate to satisfactorily light the rooms. Hence, in this case, efficiency is inversely proportional to input power and so something requiring x10 more input power is x10 less efficient.

Efficiency is about how well something does its job, and how well its design characteristics match those required by the application.

A single-seat purpose designed vehicle may well return absolutely stupendous mpg figures, but it would be SFA use used in multiples to ferry a family plus luggage on holiday.

I have made no statement about what is 'good' and 'bad'. I'm just basing it on your criteria. You have previously said:

MR16 LED lamps consume very little, but they are still inefficient at lighting up rooms

Which they are.

In the scenario given, 2.34W/m² was sufficient to light a room. This, according to you, is 'inefficient'. In the scenarios using the commercial lights, the power required was 3.05 - 24W/m². This, according to you is 'efficient'. I think I must of been ill the day they taught 'using more power to do the same thing is more efficient' so you'll need to explain this to me.

I'll try, but I fear that either because of genuine mental deficiencies on your part, or deliberate obtuseness, you will either fail to understand ot pretend not to.

Firstly, I'll suggest you compare Steve's evidence that 3.06W/m² of lighting like I suggested works, and Aragorn84's evidence that 4.24W/m² of MR16 LED lighting does not work.

Secondly I'll suggest you consider that a Honda 50 will return 145mpg, and show how, if you were organising transport in some kind of logistics capacity, you would explain that a fleet of 100 of them would be the most efficient way to get a party of 100 people from A to B.

I don't know. Maybe you should ask somebody has experience of these, rather than somebody who claims to have no experience of these.

My apologies - I mistakenly assumed that you adduced all that because you knew it to be relevant to and supporting of the position you were taking.

 

[radweld]

It did seem to me as if the fact that they were "intended for non-domestic installations" was being presented as a factor which should be regarded as mitigating against their use in domestic installations.

But I thank you for your clarification, and I now accept that you don't think there is any reason whatsoever not to use them there, and that you had no rational excuse whatsoever for writing what you did.

On the basis it hadn't been previously stated, is an undeniable fact, and may potentially be of significance, I was completely oblivious to the fact I was clearly being irrational.

Efficiency is about how well something does its job, and how well its design characteristics match those required by the application.

Fair enough. Efficiency is a very broad term which can be applied in many different ways. However, in a previous thread you said:

Yes they do use a lot more electricity than some other types of lighting

Precisely - and that is why they are so offensive.

It is the inefficiency of that type of lighting which is unacceptable!

From this, I assumed in this context you were referring to energy-efficiency in particular rather than something more abstract. To be frank, I'm not sure if this is a misunderstanding which is at the root of our disagreement, or if you are trying to move the goal-posts now that you have realised your argument for energy-efficiency is untenable.

In the scenario given, 2.34W/m² was sufficient to light a room. This, according to you, is 'inefficient'. In the scenarios using the commercial lights, the power required was 3.05 - 24W/m². This, according to you is 'efficient'. I think I must of been ill the day they taught 'using more power to do the same thing is more efficient' so you'll need to explain this to me.

I'll try, but I fear that either because of genuine mental deficiencies on your part, or deliberate obtuseness, you will either fail to understand ot pretend not to.

Firstly, I'll suggest you compare Steve's evidence that 3.06W/m² of lighting like I suggested works, and Aragorn84's evidence that 4.24W/m² of MR16 LED lighting does not work.

That's a reasonable point. Probably the more interesting thing is why Aragorn84 is using more power than chuckalicious and appears to be acheiving a worse performance with the same technology. As Aragorn84 suggests in another thread this may be down to ceiling height. It could also be down to the specific fittings, the manufacturer or a host of ther reasons. Unfortunately we'll probably never find out such genuinely useful information as discussions on downlighting generally degenerates fairly quickly in to accusations of mental illness.

Secondly I'll suggest you consider that a Honda 50 will return 145mpg, and show how, if you were organising transport in some kind of logistics capacity, you would explain that a fleet of 100 of them would be the most efficient way to get a party of 100 people from A to B.

Providing that any alternative is below 1.45 passenger-miles per gallon, the Honda 50's would indeed be more energy-efficient. The number of vehicles required is irrelevant.

I don't know. Maybe you should ask somebody has experience of these, rather than somebody who claims to have no experience of these.

My apologies - I mistakenly assumed that you added all that because you knew it to be relevant to and supporting of the position you were taking.

I added it because you appeared to assume LEDs in the same form-factor would have similar characteristics as halogen lamps, which is not correct.

My point is that you are a complete ****t who has embarked on a campaign of utterly irrational and inconsistent criticism because of a petty and childish attitude.

Oh the irony. Incidently, five letters, ending in t - was this a typo?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

On the basis it hadn't been previously stated, is an undeniable fact, and may potentially be of significance, I was completely oblivious to the fact I was clearly being irrational.

Do you think that stating this undeniable fact, which might be of significance, was in any significant way whatsoever different from you writing "At the slightest mention of downlighters were are treated to your cut&paste of various light fittings with a frosted glass centre and a white rim"?

If so, please explain what, and why you thought you should state it.

Fair enough. Efficiency is a very broad term which can be applied in many different ways. However, in a previous thread you said:

Yes they do use a lot more electricity than some other types of lighting

Precisely - and that is why they are so offensive.

It is the inefficiency of that type of lighting which is unacceptable!

From this, I assumed in this context you were referring to energy-efficiency in particular rather than something more abstract.

As you mention the word "context" perhaps you should have tried harder to consider the context of that quote.

B-A-S is right to a point. A downlighter is not good at lighting up a room.

The point he fails to acknowledge is that several properly positioned down lighters do an eccellent job of lighting a room.

Yes - several.

Far from failing to acknowledge that, that is precisely why I object to them.

To be frank, I'm not sure if this is a misunderstanding which is at the root of our disagreement, or if you are trying to move the goal-posts now that you have realised your argument for energy-efficiency is untenable.

I'm moving no goal posts whatsoever.

What you are doing, either through genuine difficulty, or deliberate obtuseness is to fail to grasp what has always been the basis of my criticism of those type of lights, which is the inefficient way they do the job people try to make them do, the way that because they do not efficiently light up a room their inefficiency has to be countered by using lots of them.

I would reject a solution using 13x3W MR16 LED lights over one using 1 x 70W T8 tube even though the LED solution uses less electricity.

As I said, and as you strongly agreed, it's not about absolute power consumption.

It's about how well a light does the job you ask it to. i.e. how efficient it is.

That's a reasonable point. Probably the more interesting thing is why Aragorn84 is using more power than chuckalicious and appears to be acheiving a worse performance with the same technology. As Aragorn84 suggests in another thread this may be down to ceiling height. It could also be down to the specific fittings, the manufacturer or a host of ther reasons. Unfortunately we'll probably never find out such genuinely useful information as discussions on downlighting generally degenerates fairly quickly in to accusations of mental illness.

Perhaps instead you could explain why you chose to ignore what Steve and Aragorn84 said, and instead chose to compare and contrast only what I and chuckalicious said.

Providing that any alternative is below 1.45 passenger-miles per gallon, the Honda 50's would indeed be more energy-efficient. The number of vehicles required is irrelevant.

It is absolutely not irrelevant, and that shows that we have reached the root of our disagreement, which is that you just don't get it at all.

Even if a Honda 50 returned 145,000 mpg, laying on a fleet of 100 of them to get 100 people from A to B would be a barkingly mad inefficient solution. The tool to do the job would be a pair of coaches, not 25 x 4-seater cars, not 50 x 2-seater cars, not 100 motorcycles.

I added it because you appeared to assume LEDs in the same form-factor would have similar characteristics as halogen lamps, which is not correct.

And I asked what I did because you appeared to assume that they would not have the same sort of efficiency problem. My question is still valid - could you light a 17m² room with 2 of them?

If not then they are clearly not as efficient as a large diameter recessed PL light which can do that.

Incidently, five letters, ending in t - was this a typo?

No.

 

[radweld]

Do you think that stating this undeniable fact, which might be of significance, was in any significant way whatsoever different from you writing "At the slightest mention of downlighters were are treated to your cut&paste of various light fittings with a frosted glass centre and a white rim"?

If so, please explain what, and why you thought you should state it.

There are an infinite number of things I didn't say. I made a statement on the basis it hadn't been previously stated, is an undeniable fact, and may potentially be of significance. I am not sure I understand the value of discussing a different statement.

I'm moving no goal posts whatsoever.

What you are doing, either through genuine difficulty, or deliberate obtuseness...

Genuine difficulty probably, as what I think you are saying - and what you've probably been saying all along - is the root your objection to downlighters is the number required. Which - if you unpack this and this is really the case - is something I find incomprehensible.

As I said, and as you strongly agreed, it's not about absolute power consumption.

Indeed. Because I (wrongly) thought we were talking about energy-efficiency, which is generally considered an important metric in lighting design. The lighting device in my kitchen that consumes the most power to illuminate it is the neon on my kettle. I would never claim it is the most energy-efficient.

Perhaps instead you could explain why you chose to ignore what Steve and Aragorn84 said, and instead chose to compare and contrast only what I and chuckalicious said.

Eh? The point I was making was in essence, 'some LED solutions are efficient'. The most succient way to demonstrate this is to demonstate that there is an 'LED' solution which is a least as efficient as a claimed 'efficient' system. (and for the avoidance of doubt, efficient as in 'energy-efficient' rather than some more abstract use).

It is absolutely not irrelevant, and that shows that we have reached the root of our disagreement, which is that you just don't get it at all.

I am struggling with it to be honest. It is a such an illogical, circular and anti-engineering position to take I am genuinely taken aback.

Even if a Honda 50 returned 145,000 mpg, laying on a fleet of 100 of them to get 100 people from A to B would be a barkingly mad inefficient solution. The tool to do the job would be a pair of coaches, not 25 x 4-seater cars, not 50 x 2-seater cars, not 100 motorcycles.

OK - I think I can see where you are coming from. Based on emprical evidence, a pair of coaches would of course be the most sensible approach. This is not because there is anything 'special' about a coach, it is because in reality it will achieve around 250 passenger-miles per gallon. If an Honda 50 really returned 145,000mpg, and all other things - comfort, speed, safety, cost, etc. - being equal, not only would the Honda 50's be absolutely the right solution, but also the would be no such thing as coaches. That may seem counter-intuative, but that because we don't live in a world of hyper-efficient motorbikes.

If A to B was Miami to LA, would you agree that an aeroplane would be the 'tool for the job'? (I want to confirm you agree without making any assumptions - I am not just trying to be a smartarse or deliberately obtuse)

And I asked what I did because you appeared to assume that they would not have the same sort of efficiency problem. My question is still valid - could you light a 17m² room with 2 of them?

If not then they are clearly not as efficient as a large diameter recessed PL light which can do that.

In essence you are defining efficiency as 'how closely something matches the characteristics of an arbitarily selected item'. In which case, any other item will by definition be less 'efficient' by a greater or lesser degree. To that extent it is impossible for me to disagree. What I don't see is what possible value this has with respect to lighting a room.

Incidently, five letters, ending in t - was this a typo?

No.

Either you have a more interesting vocabulary than me, or the insult is disappointly mundane.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

There are an infinite number of things I didn't say. I made a statement on the basis it hadn't been previously stated, is an undeniable fact, and may potentially be of significance. I am not sure I understand the value of discussing a different statement.

Why do you think it might have been significant?

Your initial comment on this issue was:

This light type of light is not intended for domestic applications and is far from 'ideal' in this environment. ... You will notice that the downlighter you linked to is classified as 'commercial/industrial' lighting, and the recommended applications are 'Offices, Computer Rooms, Restaurants and Receptions'.

but so far you have been unable to give any explanation of just why the fact that that particular site classifies them as "commercial/industrial" is worthy of comment, of why it might be a consideration to people, of why it is any more relevant to someone considering fitting them than its shape, size or colour.

You have been unable to show why there is a consequential "and is far from 'ideal' in this environment" which flows from "this light type of light is not intended for domestic applications"

If that site didn't say what it did the nature of those lights would be completely unchanged. Their appearance would be the same, their size would be the same and their performance would be the same

So why does what it says on that site affect in any way the suitability of those lights for any particular application?

Genuine difficulty probably, as what I think you are saying - and what you've probably been saying all along - is the root your objection to downlighters is the number required. Which - if you unpack this and this is really the case - is something I find incomprehensible.

Can't help you there. If you can't see that needing to use lots of little lights because the little lights don't do a good job of lighting up rooms means that they do not carry out their alloted task efficiently then there's little I can do.

Eh? The point I was making was in essence, 'some LED solutions are efficient'. The most succient way to demonstrate this is to demonstate that there is an 'LED' solution which is a least as efficient as a claimed 'efficient' system. (and for the avoidance of doubt, efficient as in 'energy-efficient' rather than some more abstract use).

The point you were trying to make was that the lights I suggested couldn't claim to be an efficient solution as there was an alternative which used less electricity.

Despite agreeing that it wasn't about absolute consumption.

I am struggling with it to be honest. It is a such an illogical, circular and anti-engineering position to take I am genuinely taken aback.

It is absolutely an engineering position. Misusing something like that - choosing to try and use something for an application it was specifically designed to not be good for is engineeringly offensive.

OK - I think I can see where you are coming from. Based on emprical evidence, a pair of coaches would of course be the most sensible approach. This is not because there is anything 'special' about a coach, it is because in reality it will achieve around 250 passenger-miles per gallon. If an Honda 50 really returned 145,000mpg, and all other things - comfort, speed, safety, cost, etc. - being equal, not only would the Honda 50's be absolutely the right solution, but also the would be no such thing as coaches. That may seem counter-intuative, but that because we don't live in a world of hyper-efficient motorbikes.

You really think so?

I think that no matter what mpg a small motorcycle returned you'd still want coaches, as small motorcycles aren't a good workable solution for going on journeys with families/luggage.

Just like no matter how many lumens/w you get out of a small LED luminaire it may not be a good workable solution for evenly illuminating an entire room.

Imagine this group of 100 people standing in a large car park in which there were a couple of 50-seat coaches, 25 4-seat cars, 50 2-seat cars and 100 small motorcycles/mopeds.

Let's say the analogy of wanting to light a whole room rather than having a pendant here, a striplight there, a bunch of downlighters somewhere else is wanting to get all of them from A to B pretty much in unison with the same mode of transport.

Let's say that the analogy of no particular constraints due to ceiling construction, room shape, IP ratings etc is that this group of 100 people are all capable of piloting the cars and bikes (coaches too, if you wish - it makes no difference), the journey length and road and weather conditions, luggage requirements etc etc don't make any of the transport options more or less preferable.

So you put it to a vote - how shall we all leave together and travel to B to arrive there together?

I wonder what odds you'd give on the majority decision being that each individual hops onto a motorbike?

If A to B was Miami to LA, would you agree that an aeroplane would be the 'tool for the job'? (I want to confirm you agree without making any assumptions - I am not just trying to be a smartarse or deliberately obtuse)

It's a tool for the job. A train is another.

In essence you are defining efficiency as 'how closely something matches the characteristics of an arbitarily selected item'. In which case, any other item will by definition be less 'efficient' by a greater or lesser degree. To that extent it is impossible for me to disagree. What I don't see is what possible value this has with respect to lighting a room.

I'm considering efficiency as how well something does the job you ask it to do.

A knife is not an efficient screwdriver.

A screwdriver is not an efficient chisel.

A pair of pliers is not an efficient spanner.

A fleet of Honda 50s is not an efficient way to get a large group of people, as a group, from A to B.

A lot of small lights essentially designed to do the opposite of what you want a room light to do is not an efficient way to light a room.

 

[radweld]

So why does what it says on that site affect in any way the suitability of those lights for any particular application?

The manufacturer appears to think that this product has features which makes it suitable for a particular application. If they think it's worthy of making this distinction - and they are clearly much better positioned than you or I to know specifically what requirements the product was designed and tested to - it does not seem unreasonable to mention this.

Can't help you there. If you can't see that needing to use lots of little lights because the little lights don't do a good job of lighting up rooms means that they do not carry out their alloted task efficiently then there's little I can do.

You appear to have an inability to understand the fundamental difference between a system, and the components of a system. If a system meets the design requirements placed upon it, it is a satisfactory solution, or in your vernacular, 'a tool for the job'. No doubt you will deny it, but I think you may be getting confused between a single downlight and a system based upon a number of then as both do something similar. i.e. emit light. but may have different design criteria against which they should be evaluated.

Can't help you there. If you can't see that needing to use lots of little lights because the little lights don't do a good job of lighting up rooms means that they do not carry out their alloted task efficiently then there's little I can do.

Just for the avoidance of doubt, using lots of little lights may have an impact on the performance of the end system. For example, it would be entirely rational to see that it may take longer to install 13 small lights rather than 3 bigger ones, which may be a consideration when considering the suitability of the system. However, this is not what you are saying. You appear to be claiming there is something inherently wrong with using a particular quantity. This is as irrational as saying "3" is a better number than "13".

The point you were trying to make was that the lights I suggested couldn't claim to be an efficient solution as there was an alternative which used less electricity.

Close enough: ...couldn't claim to be an MORE [energy] efficient solution THAN an alternative which used less electricity TO DO THIS SAME THING. This is no longer really relevant as we were using the term 'efficient' in different ways.

Despite agreeing that it wasn't about absolute consumption.

You do accept that energy-efficiency and power are different measurements?

It is absolutely an engineering position. Misusing something like that - choosing to try and use something for an application it was specifically designed to not be good for is engineeringly offensive.

Why?

...and all other things - comfort, speed, safety, cost, etc. - being equal

You really think so?

I think that no matter what mpg a small motorcycle returned you'd still want coaches, as small motorcycles aren't a good workable solution for going on journeys with families/luggage.

Well clearly, because in that case, all other things are NOT equal.

So you put it to a vote - how shall we all leave together and travel to B to arrive there together?

I wonder what odds you'd give on the majority decision being that each individual hops onto a motorbike?

1/3. By definition, if all of the requirements don't make an option more preferrable than another, each of the three options is equally likely. The scenario you raise is not particularly useful as the it is overly sensitive to emotional decisions in a hypothetical and artifical situation which I doubt could be accurately predicted. It would probably be more illustrative to consider using 100 motorbikes to deliver parcels or something. For the record, I think if you put 100 people together who were equally skilled in driving & riding, you would almost certainly end up with a motorbike race. But that's irrelevant.

I'm considering efficiency as fitness for purpose.

Your arbitarily appear to be considering 'fitness for purpose' of a light fitting to be 'ability to light half a room'. In this case the light fitting in your kitchen meets this far better than a typical LED fitting. So?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

The manufacturer appears to think that this product has features which makes it suitable for a particular application. If they think it's worthy of making this distinction - and they are clearly much better positioned than you or I to know specifically what requirements the product was designed and tested to - it does not seem unreasonable to mention this.

OK, well how about this:

Each PL Downlight has a Diecast Aluminium housing and an Aluminium Reflector to give you a fantastic lighting effect, whether in a domestic or commercial setting.

Same lights, different seller.

The fact is you don't have a leg to stand on.

The fact is that your position is completely irrational.

The fact is you cannot yourself think of anything about those lights which might make them less suitable for application B just because the seller says they are suitable for application A.

The fact is that you are a childish idiot who has been thrashing around trying to find something to criticise ever since you got bent out of shape when you didn't get the answer you expected to "Ah, BAS, have you actually seen lights like this in use?" and I told you how many of your objections to them were based on ignorance.

It is absolutely an engineering position. Misusing something like that - choosing to try and use something for an application it was specifically designed to not be good for is engineeringly offensive.

Why?

Because it just is. It's a misuse. It is the wrong tool for the job, and using lots of them does not change that it just means you are using lots of wrong tools.

 

[RF Lighting]

So what? If using lots of wrong tools still has the desired result then what is the problem?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

So what? If using lots of wrong tools still has the desired result then what is the problem?

It's engineeringly offensive.

 

[radweld]

Each PL Downlight has a Diecast Aluminium housing and an Aluminium Reflector to give you a fantastic lighting effect, whether in a domestic or commercial setting.
The fact is that your position is completely irrational.

It's an entirely rational position, and I'll amend it as you produced evidence to the contrary. That's what rational people do.

It is absolutely an engineering position. Misusing something like that - choosing to try and use something for an application it was specifically designed to not be good for is engineeringly offensive.

Why?

Because it just is. It's a misuse. It is the wrong tool for the job, and using lots of them does not change that it just means you are using lots of wrong tools.

Well, on this point you are wrong and you've failed to show any rationale to justify this.

It is like saying a transistor is the 'wrong tool for the job' because you need a few billion of them to make a PC.

 

[Aragorn84]

Surely the workings of a computer specifically REQUIRES billions of transistors, there is no other option to get the desired result.

Lighting a room does not require billions or even tens of light fittings.

 

[radweld]

Surely the workings of a computer specifically REQUIRES billions of transistors, there is no other option to get the desired result.

Well there is - A PC could be designed to have exactly the same performance (probably better is most respects) with vastly fewer transistors - but it would cost more and take longer to develop. Transistors cost virtually nothing, so the benefits outweigh the diadvantages.

Which is better: a car with a 4 cylinder engine, or a V12?

 

[Aragorn84]

V8 for me thanks, with a pair of turbochargers for added good measure.


I dont really believe you could make a faster computer with less transistors. Every new generation of CPU's has more transistors than the previous, and thus increased performance is directly related to transistor count.

The architecture used within a Desktop PC is fixed by legacy, and thus we all use variations on X86/64. More efficient architectures exist, and are used in things like your smartphone or PS3, where those legacy constraints dont exist.

Having said that, while some architectures of CPU have less transistors for a given performance level than other architectures, doesnt alter the fact that you still need to increase the transistor count within that architecture as performance increases.

 

[dhutch]

Which is better: a car with a 4 cylinder engine, or a V12?

Depends.