Lights

[mravant]

Hi,

I have had a two storey extension built and opted to have downlights fitted (wife always wanted them).

The problem is that we saw some we liked (GU10 mains) and bought them with the normal 50w halogen bulb).
Question is that I'm sure these are not energy efficient, the box says that it can accommodate energy efficient bulbs but i have been looking around on the net for GU10 energy efficient bulbs and lots of different bulbs present themselves, i.e. Eveready 40w=50w.......are these acceptable for building regs or do they have to be another specific type?

 

[sparkticus]

As far as I know building regs do not demand a specific type of energy efficient lamp. Your downlights in general (the main housing) should attempt to maintain any fire rating of the ceiling itself. An LED bulb will not negatively impact that feature.


These should do you but please ensure they will physically fit your downlights. Why not order one first, if Ok then onwards and upwards

http://www.tlc-direct.co.uk/Main_In...x/Energy_Saving_Lamps_Index/GU_Led/index.html

 

[mravant]

Thanks.

I took a look at my Building Reg drawings and it states that every 3 of 4 lights need to be energy efficient.
Im just confused as various manufactures claim to be energy efficient but how can i tell what is acceptable.

To be honest the Eveready bulbs i have seen are 40w consumption giving 50w of light and claim to be an energy efficient bulb but it does not seem really efficient compared to other bulbs that are 11w consumption producing 50w light.

Just confused as to what is acceptable.

 

[riveralt]

This link is to a commercial website but it does have information on the question you are asking.

http://www.low-energy-lighting.com/part-l.htm

However, your other problem is the amount of light that your GU10 bulb will generate.
From the link and Building Regs Part L you cannot utilise halogen GU10 so you are left with either a specific fitting for CFL tubes or LED's.

Now neither GU10 halogen or LED's give you a wide beam of light most are limited to about 35degree beam angle. To see what that means in terms of light check out this website:
http://www.lightbulbs-direct.com/article/spotlight-beam-angles/
Play around with the beam angle and see the difference between proper lamps and GU10 or equivalent.
Also don't forget that you may have to convince building control that the said GU10's meet the fire regulation elements of the Building Regulations.

 

[sparkticus]

Thanks.

I took a look at my Building Reg drawings and it states that every 3 of 4 lights need to be energy efficient.
Im just confused as various manufactures claim to be energy efficient but how can i tell what is acceptable.

To be honest the Eveready bulbs i have seen are 40w consumption giving 50w of light and claim to be an energy efficient bulb but it does not seem really efficient compared to other bulbs that are 11w consumption producing 50w light.

Just confused as to what is acceptable.

I don't know the eveready bulbs but I do know that the LED bulbs on the link I sent you will comply without question and save your electricity bills.

For downlights there really are only two low energy choices (as far as I know)

1) LED
2) Compact fluorescent (CFL)

 

[mravant]

Thanks.
Just as i thought that the Eveready bulbs are not compliant and thank you for narrowing down what is acceptable.
Now just to search for the best deals...

 

[Taylortwocities]

See extract from Building Regs L1.

Untitled

• Taylortwocities
• 11 Dec 2009
• 2

So the lamps you need must provide an efficiency greater than 40lumens per circuit watt.

Get used to the lumen. Its going to replace the watt as the standard way to determine lamp brightness. Read, and weep. No wonder the Euro is going down the tubes
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/ea...to-impose-new-lightbulb-labelling-system.html

You could say that its looming

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Get used to the lumen. Its going to replace the watt as the standard way to determine lamp brightness.

Yup.

The concept of ratings based on lux appears to have escaped them, so MR16 halogens are OK because they are over a certain lumens/W threshold, but GLS lamps are not because they are below it.

The fact that you need several times more wattage of MR16s to light a room than you do with GLSs isn't taken into account.

Madness.

 

[ccam108]

Get used to the lumen. Its going to replace the watt as the standard way to determine lamp brightness.

Yup.

The concept of ratings based on lux appears to have escaped them, so MR16 halogens are OK because they are over a certain lumens/W threshold, but GLS lamps are not because they are below it.

The fact that you need several times more wattage of MR16s to light a room than you do with GLSs isn't taken into account.

Madness.

However, if you only use proper lighting to illuminate a room - lamps that emit light in all directions - then the lumen is the most sensible unit. You can then compare GLS, halogen, CFL, LED.... effectively without the marketing nonsense of "equivalent wattage" which is a load of cow droppings most of the time.

Lux is only meaningful when there is a distance applied. It would be impossible to put a figure on packaging when the application is unknown.

 

[Stoday]

Lux is Lumens per square meter.

A downlighter is more efficient than a hanging GLS lamp at putting lux on a table top underneath it. So a hanging lamp emitting 1000 lumens might illuminate the table with 100 lux compared to a downlighter with a 1000 lumen lamp which might illuminate the table with 300 lux.

 

[Taylortwocities]

The downlight is just great if you happen to want to sit at the table to read your latest Dan Brown book.
Go sit in a chair in the corner and you'll need a head torch.

If you had one GLS tungsten lamp, you could read the book anywhere in the room.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Lux is only meaningful when there is a distance applied. It would be impossible to put a figure on packaging when the application is unknown.

You could have a standard test chamber where the lamp is positioned in the centre, and required to deliver a minimum lux level on all 6 surfaces of the chamber. That level need not necessarily be the same on each surface, but there would be minimum lux per watt targets for all 6.

 

[ccam108]

Lux is only meaningful when there is a distance applied. It would be impossible to put a figure on packaging when the application is unknown.

You could have a standard test chamber where the lamp is positioned in the centre, and required to deliver a minimum lux level on all 6 surfaces of the chamber. That level need not necessarily be the same on each surface, but there would be minimum lux per watt targets for all 6.

But that's referring to a specific application. Lighting does so much more than just illuminating all 6 surfaces of a box, so the results would be entirely meaningless.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

They would be more meaningful than any of the existing measures of "lighting efficiency".

They would, for example, address the lunatic situation where in order to "save energy" the legislators are banning the sale of lamps which are good at lighting up domestic room spaces but allowing the sale to continue of ones which consume more energy to light up domestic room spaces than the ones they are banning.

 

[sparkticus]

But that's referring to a specific application. Lighting does so much more than just illuminating all 6 surfaces of a box, so the results would be entirely meaningless.

The results would not be meaningless. The average person needs a better guide than is currently available. The method BAS suggests seems to me to be a reasonable approach providing information which could be easily conveyed on the packaging. The current situation is misleading.

Lighting does do so much more than illuminate surfaces but those parameters are qualitative. What BAS proposes is a standard to illustrate and compare the quantitative aspects from one lamp type to another. Makes perfect sense to me.