LED lighting for a light well

[News]

We have various light wells in this house, two of which are over landings, and each contains a 40w fluorescent tube, one of which is always on all night. In summer, that is perhaps eight hours, but more like eighteen in winter.

One needs a new tube, so now may be a good time to throw out the fluorescent fitting and replace with LED, but which type?

I could just remove the current fitting and replace with a bayonet type (B22) which I happen to have in the shed, then buy a matching bulb. Or some type of 1m strip, as used under kitchen cabinets or ...?

[tabbypurr]

You'd be as well with the fluorescent

Sure, if you want to downgrade

Its hard to recommend without knowing what issue you're trying to solve.

Adding more control would be useful. Perhaps a PIR or a few that reach out at least as far as people can see the fl lighting, with a long on time like 20 minutes.

NT

[Dave Plowman (News)]

A decent fluorescent with a decent electronic ballast will have a very long life. Will usually continue working beyond the quoted life of the tube at reduced efficiency.

I'd want to be certain the LEDs you choose are going to be as good. I doubt they will - despite the claims.

[DerbyBorn]

At least get a new high frequency fitting and in a few years replace the tube with a LED tube.

[ARW]

I say fit LED:-)

It has now reached a point at work that I now spend more time replacing whole classrooms, hospital wards, and factories fluorescent lighting with LEDs than I spend swapping faulty fluorescent lights on maintenance call outs.

I am now three lamps away from going all LED at home. One lamp will become LED when the lamp fails, one will stay as a halogen (for now), and the other will stay as a CDM-T until LED can match it.

[News]

In message , [e-mail] writes

The whole existing tube is probably knackered. It must have been there thirty years, and new tube life is measured in months rather than years. I have replaced the starter.

The family like one light on at night, so I'm stuck with that. Given that the fluorescent fitting probably needs replacing, and the tube definitely does, I thought some sort of electricity saving LED could be the answer.

[tabbypurr]

fitting life is typically much more then that

if you stick with fluoro you can fit an electronic ballast for even more efficiency. That plus T8 halophosphate or even T5 can get you well over 100lm/w.

Average LED compared to fl: less energy efficiency shorter life more failures The main upside of LED is more controllability. You can switch on any level of brightness you like at any time, thus producing an energy saving at times, as well as the energy loss at times.

Probably a good option would be to keep the fl and add some LED in BC holders. Use fl for full output, and LED at times you want low night levels.

NT

[Dave Plowman (News)]

But does the average LED save electricity?

[Richard]

Is that a rhetorical question?

If not, compared to what?

[Dave Plowman (News)]

I take it you've not read or understood the thread?

[ARW]

?????????

You are making it up.

[ARW]

Compared to LFLs?

You get the same brightness for less electrical power when you use LEDs.

[tabbypurr]

No, I've read tables of available products. Linear fl can manage over 100lm/w, with better life and lower cost than led. You otoh are, if you think going from fl to led will save money with any consistency.

NT

[News]

In message , ARW writes

Well, that was my logic :-)

Seems to me that a 4.8w LED produces roughly the same light as a 40w fluorescent tube, so roughly same light for 10% of the electricity.

The exact light level required here is not critical. The light is in a well, on the landing, and is on all night, with bedroom doors almost closed. Provides just enough light for occupants to wander around at night, going for a wee etc., without having to turn on bedroom or bathroom lights.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

Not actually convinced, Adam. If you compare like for like. Both units giving the same colour temperature, for example. LED efficiency as you go towards the warm end of the spectrum drops considerably.

And then there's overall costs. We already know how long LFL can last as it's tried and tested. LEDs are too new to be certain they'll last as they claim.

There is probably some very good commercial LED stuff available. But not so sure at the consumer end yet.

[Richard]

I take it you've not read or understood the thread?

[Fredxxx]

There's me thinking Dave was responding to Adam's claims?

[ARW]

You don't think we fit the same shit all over the place - the cheapest LFLs and the cheapest LEDs - do you:-)?

LEDs vs fluorescent was always going to be tough. I am now happy to use LED for almost everything including fluorescent swaps - early LED failure rates are now low (2 years ago they were shit) and they now seem to last.

As an aside, and not naming names, but a hospital (local to me) has just paid out thousands of pounds for dimmable 600x 600 LED lights and dimmable PIR sensors but want the dimmable bit not connecting up! Top quality stuff but the non dimmable stuff was much cheaper than the dimmable stuff.