Confused about lightbulbs

I have two chandeliers with 5 x 40 w and 3 x 60 w golf-ball tungsten bulbs at the moment. They are both on dimmer switches. The only place I can get replacement bulbs is the corner shop that buys containers loads from China. My first option for replacement seems to be halogen, which are expensive and why they are supposed to be more ecologically friendly I don't know as the wattage will surely be the same? Second is energy-saving, but they are even more expensive and would 'show' above the glass light-shades - and not work with the dimmer switch. I have not even looked into LEDs as I know nothing about them in this context. Ideas please.
--
Jim S
Tyneside UK
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 07/07/2013 10:24, Jim S wrote:

Halogen lamps tend to be more efficient producing more lumens per watt than a standard lamp. But not by a very large factor.
--
Rod

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I reckon about 25% more efficient - based on practical experience; But it could depend on the type of lamp.
--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
They are also considerable less robust as well!
Brian
--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
"polygonum" < snipped-for-privacy@vrod.co.uk> wrote in message
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 07/07/2013 12:29, Brian Gaff wrote:

Mains ones, yes. 12V, I think are more robust.
--
Rod

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Halogens can be run hotter which pushes the peak of the radiation profile more towards the visible (for ordinary tungstens, the peak is in the infra-red). So more of the energy input comes out as visible light.
--
Tim

"That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed,
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Just to add, they do actually use less energy because the sell 18W halogen for 25W replacement and so on.
Any energy saving turn to shit however when the lamps are dimmed and not used at highest efficiency super hot mode.
--
fred
it's a ba-na-na . . . .
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Are you saying they use more electricity when dimmed?
--
*Snowmen fall from Heaven unassembled*

Dave Plowman snipped-for-privacy@davenoise.co.uk London SW
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

More electricity *per lumen*, yes.
So do normal bulbs.
--
Tciao for Now!

John.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I'm saying that you lose the efficiency benefit of halogen when they are not running white hot, they just become normal lamps.
Actually, because of their high temperature optimisation, they may become less efficient than normal GLS when not in the zone (this is my suspicion/theory, not backed by objective evidence).
It is well known that 50% dimmed GLS lamps still use 75% of rated power with efficiency getting progressively worse the more the lamp is dimmed.
End result is that it's not energy friendly to have a 380W populated fitting mostly running dimmed to 1/4 brightness as it would probably still consume about 190W.
Relative efficiency experiments of dimmed halogen vs dimmed GLS left as an exercise for those with the time.
--
fred
it's a ba-na-na . . . .
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Proportional to the amount of light produced, yes.
--
Tim

"That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed,
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I'd assume if you dim a lamp you are no longer interested in its maximum output or efficiency. Think everyone knows the actual efficiency drops when a filament lamp is dimmed - but then so does the current consumption.
--
*I was once a millionaire but my mom gave away my baseball cards

Dave Plowman snipped-for-privacy@davenoise.co.uk London SW
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 07/07/2013 18:38, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

I think everyone _here_ knows the efficiency drops... that's not necessarily true of the general population.
Andy
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

It's fairly academic anyway. If you dim lights you're not really interested in their performance. And that will save some electricity over them being full on.
--
*Time is fun when you're having flies... Kermit

Dave Plowman snipped-for-privacy@davenoise.co.uk London SW
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 07/07/2013 11:40, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Not more electricity but you would be better off missing one lamp out entirely than dimming several of them at once. Lumens per watt goes down radically as the filament temperature decreases.
Not only that but when dimmed you compromise the internal halogen based recycling chemistry that prevents the envelope from going dark with evaporated tungsten from the filament.
The lamp will dim OK on a dimmer but it doesn't do it much good. I think some of the harm can be undone by running them hot again at full power.
The latest generation of led lamps are getting to be very good but are still fairly expensive at present. Try one out of Amazon and see if it will do what you want. I have been caught out by one that was nominally 60W equivalent being too bright for the intended position!
--
Regards,
Martin Brown
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

If all that matters is the cost of lighting, surely a fluorescent tube is the answer?
However, in the home, it usually does rather more than just provide a means of avoiding tripping over the cat...
--
*Artificial Intelligence is no match for Natural Stupidity *

Dave Plowman snipped-for-privacy@davenoise.co.uk London SW
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
After serious thinking Dave Plowman (News) wrote :

No, they simply become much less efficent at turning moving electrons into light. Less power is consumed, but very much less light is produced. Something like 50% power = 10% light out.
--
Regards,
Harry (M1BYT) (L)
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

They are more efficient, so you can use lower wattage bulbs for the same light output. Indeed many are lower wattage than the 'normal' equivalents.
--
*Santa Claus has the right idea. Visit people only once a year.

Dave Plowman snipped-for-privacy@davenoise.co.uk London SW
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 7 Jul 2013 10:24:19 +0100, Jim S wrote:

200W plus 180 W = 380 W when flat out, roughly 22p/6hr evening (10p/unit(*)) roughly. £80 odd quid/year.

ve

w
No halogens have a lower (75% ish) wattage for a similar light output. Halogens are dimmable but ideally you don't want to run them significantly dimmed for long periods as the tungsten cycle within the capsule doesn't work properly and the tungsten from the filament gets deposited on the inside of the capsule reducing light output and shortening their life. The colour temperature is also higher than ordinary incandescant so the light may appear harsh.

You can get dimmable energy saving Compact Flourescent Lamp (CFL). The extra cost is offset by the lower power consumption and longer life.
Your total power consumption with CFLs would be around 100 W. Based on 9 W CFL for the 40's and 15 W for the 60's. A CFL upright in an open fitting will probably last 8000 hrs or longer, a good 4 times longer than most ordinary tungsten bulbs using 1/4 the energy. CFL tend to be "soft start" ie they take a minute or two to get to full brightness, for somewhere were they are on for long periods this isn't an issue IMHO. The colour temperature can be a bit "odd" but modern ones are much better than ones from 10 years ago.

The big problem with most LED lamps so far is that they are directional, spot lights, downlighters etc. There are a few "corn cob" types about that might be OK in a chandelier or see the "New style LED Light Bulb" thread.
Dimming is again a problem having said that do you really *use* the dimmer to adjust light levels or is it just a "set and forget"? If the former you could probably select your required light level by selecting suitable output bulbs and run them without the dimmer. Mentioned here as LED struggles to get decent light levels but if you don't need the flat out light level of what you have. LED power consumption is a bit lower than CFL but they cost more.
Bottom line, the ordinary tungsten is expensive to run and I expect you are changing a bulb around every 4 to 6 weeks. Halogen will make some savings, I've not done the calculations of power saved v cost v life for halogen. Halogens cost a bit more but I think have a similar life compared to ordinary.
CFL will almost ceratinly end up in "profit".
LED probably will as well but will be very dependant on the capital cost of the lamps. Life should be longer than CFL, like CFL the electronics suffer from overheating in some enclosed fittings.
The only real way to be moderately sure is to build a spreadsheet to model the various lamps and their total overall costs. In your situation I'd take a good look at LED and be prepared to pay quite a bit for a quality, known brand, bulb on the basis of greatest energy saving and life. The fall back would be CFL.
--
Cheers
Dave.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 07 Jul 2013 11:13:06 +0100, Dave Liquorice wrote:

I replaced every possible tungsten lamp[1] in the house with LED, nearly a year ago. I can't recall the exact figures, but something like 1kW of lighting was reduced to less than 100W. Specifically, in the kitchen/utility room 430W of halogens was replaced by 36W of LED, and it's a brighter room than before.
The claimed life of the LEDs lies between 15000 and 30000 hours. Over that period alone replacement tungstens will cost about the same as the LED they replace, leaving massive gains on electricity consumption. I estimate I'll save about £1000 over the life of the LEDs. Buying cheap filament lamps that have a high power consumption is a no-no. Do the capital investment and reap the financial benefits.
Come the power cuts of 2015, a 900W inverter generator will run the lights, TV, fridge-freezer, and central heating...while my neighbours shiver in the dark.
[1] There are two fittings flush to the ceiling that take a G9 lamp; I can't yet find an LED replacement for these that has the 800-lumen output of the 43W Xenon tungsten currently fitted, so for the time being these will stay.
--
Terry Fields

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.