On Mon, 03 Jul 2006 08:56:21 GMT someone who may be "Dave H." kitchen
A kitchen is a kitchen, used for preparing and cooking food. Bright lighting to illuminate the work is necessary.
A dining room is a dining room. Bright enough light to lay the table is necessary, together with more subdued lighting for eating.
If the two functions are combined in one room then even more flexible lighting is necessary.
I have.
Don't take up mind reading, you are not very good at it.
Many people cook with fluorescent and compact fluorescent lights.
Of course. However, both of these things can be changed and can be challenged.
Opponents or they have not thought about it? I suggest that most are in the latter category. Certainly when such bulbs cost ten pounds each many were put off by the initial price. They could or would not do the maths to see the savings they would make.
On Tue, 4 Jul 2006 18:12:36 +0100 someone who may be Andy Hall wrote this:-
You are again postulating that your experiences are the same as those of everyone else. In reality some find the light acceptable and some do not. I suspect that the former outweigh the latter.
The application the OP spoke of was one illuminating a keyboard.
Were I lighting a large area I would be unlikely to use spotlights, for obvious reasons.
Downlighters. What goes in them is a matter of what the fitting will take and what is available and will fit electrically and physically. To provide strong illumination over a sink a downlighter with something like a 20W compact fluorescent reflector bulb is a good choice, in my view.
My kitchen comes in at approx. 6 by 3 as discussed else where, and the guestimate I used was to draw round a bulb on a 1:20 scale drawing of the floor space, this gives unlucky 13 (650W) so will probably fit 12 and and another light fitting over the table ( 3 circuits) in room plus no wall cupboard
so we are opting for 12 gimballed down lighters (CFL were discounted after much discussion in trade lighting shop)
You can now get LV with integral transformers are these worth using or should I stick with mains voltage.
On Tue, 4 Jul 2006 20:50:33 +0100, David Hansen wrote (in article ):
Look at another branch of this thread.
I think that you will find that across the general population, people are not bought into this game. Sorry to disappoint, but the product and the marketing is lacking
On Tue, 4 Jul 2006 20:57:17 +0100, David Hansen wrote (in article ):
If that were true, then these things would be flying off the shelves. They aren't.
So let's consider why:
- People don't buy the eco arguments
- They do not see the "cost benefits"
- They are seen as an expensive purchase
- the arguments are not sufficiently compelling to warrant a change in purchase and use behaviour.
- People don't like the light quality.
- They don't like government games organising their lives.
- The bulbs don't fit.
- They are seen as utilitarian.
- Perception/reality that energy saving does not justify the expense/poor aesthetics and inconvenience.
etc.
Pick which ones you want. Any combination.
The editorial of Green Monthly may be able to provide you with the scientific and other arguments that you feel justifies your purchase of these things.
It hasn't and doesn't convince the general population. If it did then the sales of tungsten bulbs would plummet and CFLs would replace them. The reality is that this only happens when mandated in some way, when people are willing to accept the compromises because they think it will save them money or if they think it is "the right thing to do". This is all very laudable but doesn't fly as an economic or marketing proposition.
Personally I would need a lot of convincing of quality being as good as or better; I don't care that much about the alleged cost saving because it is a second order effect at best and as soon as I detect the merest whiff of any kind of government compulsion or coercion I will immediately go out of my way to do the opposite regardless, within (my) reason of cost.
Does that make it clear for you? I don't mind sensibly justified cases, or of using energy efficiently where the discussion is presented even handedly and there is a clear benefit.
I react strongly against bullshit, and I am afraid that the arguments in favour of CFL lighting, taken in totality, are exactly that,
The point is that the quality of light is poor for task lighting,
A set of halogen lights is far more aesthetically appealing.
All of mine are too, save for the bathroom and loo where the usage makes them uneconomic. As for the slow start, I have come round to preferring it as less of a shock to the eyes. YMMV
Ikea's R50 LE spots are very slow start - which makes them ideal for bedside lamps. They're 7W (61mA!) and because they only get warm they're safe for smalls.
The ones downstairs are Philips and Osram. The last one (a 23w one) is a Morrissons own brand, and I have had a complaint about its slow warmup, but it's fine after that.
The poorer ones get rejected to the garage or bog.
HomeOwnersHub website 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.