recessed lighting questions (having read previous posts)

Hi all

I am planning a lighting scheme for our kitchen. The objective is to give good illumination to all work-areas within the kitchen, which the current single pendant light does not do. I had been considering using a track system attached to the ceiling, however the ceiling is quite low so now I am considering using recessed lights.

I've read past posts on the subject of recessed lights, and the consensus seems to be that LV is better than mains voltage. Can anyone tell me what lifetime to expect from the transformer(s)? - I'm concerned about having to potentially rip up floorboards in the room above the kitchen in order to replace a broken transformer.. Can anyone recommend a good quality make of tiltable LV recessed lights and transformers?

One detrimental factor is that it seems that recessed lights are energy inefficient -is this because energy saving bulbs are fluorescent and there don't exist small enough fluorescent bulbs to fit into a recessed light fitting? An alternative might be to use fluorescent lights above and under the wall units and just have a couple of recessed lights above the sink, which is far away from any wall cupboards..

thanks

Julian

Reply to
noos999
Loading thread data ...

I have adopted an unconventional approach. I installed mains downlights with ES lampholders. These are intended to be used with R80 spotlights, but instead I have used IKEA 7 W low energy bulbs (4 W also available). This has a number of advantages - energy efficient, and a much softer edge to the lighting pattern. I have 4 over a 4 m worktop, and it works splendidly.

Having Googled, I see that you can now get a low-energy R80, but they cost a bit more than the IKEA ones.

formatting link

Reply to
Chris J Dixon

(i) One way of avoiding the risk is to have the transformer accessible from below; if you fit one per light you can install them by popping them up through the hole you cut in the ceiling for the light fitting.

(ii) Another way is to make future life easy for yourself when installing them from above - ie, if you're taking up the floorboards in a carpeted bedroom to fit transformers, don't take up a 6' board right in the middle of the room where it will be under a carpet and double bed

- instead organise a short screwed-down "access-panel" floorboard which spans a couple of joists, and is at the very edge of the room, eg in the doorway.

Yes, and the fact that each downlighter only illuminates a very small area, immediately below it - therefore to light a whole room (which in the old days would have been fine with a single 100W pendant bulb) will probably end up with something like 5-10 50W downlighters instead.

David

Reply to
Lobster

On 10 Dec 2006 02:51:54 -0800 someone who may be " snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.co.uk" wrote this:-

1) Separate the lighting into general lighting and task lighting. 2) Consider how to implement both sorts of lighting. 2a) Linear fluorescent tubes work well for general lighting. The fancy way to use them is as uplighters, placed on top of kitchen cupboards. The less fancy way is fittings with prismatic diffusers on the ceiling. Some or all of the general lighting should be switchable from all entrances. 2b) Task lighting is more complicated. Small linear fluorescents under units work well. Where there is no cupboard then a mains downlighter can work well, fitted with a compact fluorescent reflector bulb. Other areas may need a variety of other fittings. Switching should be local.
Reply to
David Hansen

Lifetime tends to be longer on LV lamps, although you can help that a bit by using soft start switching dimmers and decent quality mains halogen lamps.

It is better to use electronic transformers which are basically a switching power supply. Like anything else electronic, if you buy good quality ones they are likely to be more reliable.

Either way, there should be service access for them

You can avoid this by locating the transformers on the top of kitchen cupboards and running the wiring via the shortest route.

Have a look at products from Christoper Wray Lighting.

A lot of bullshit is spoken about that. They are not energy inefficient in the sense that the emitted heat is added to the heating contribution for the house. Lighting tends to be on more in the winter when extra heat is needed anyway. Therefore the real equation is that you might be adding a few hundred watts of heat provided by electricity vs. gas at a higher cost. However, set in the context of the heat requirement of 10-30kW for a typical range of houses, this is a drop in the bucket.

That depends on whether you like CF lights or not. Personally I detest them because the qualiy of the light is distinctly industrial and bilious for my liking. If you like the kitchen to look like McDonalds then perhaps it's OK

It may be interesting to have part of lighting provided in this way, but if you have a sense of the aesthetic, fluorescents do not score highly, IMNSHO.

Either way, the energy saving argument is bogus

Reply to
Andy Hall

On Sun, 10 Dec 2006 15:43:53 +0000 someone who may be Andy Hall wrote this:-

A lot of bullshit is certainly spoken on the subject by some.

Only in a very inefficient way. If one wants to use electric lights to supply a little heat to a house then there are far better ways of doing so, for instance by having the lights in the occupied space.

However, it is even better to use the heating system to heat the house when necessary. In the summer one tends not to want any extra heat, especially in a kitchen. Some people end up burning even more electricity to cool down houses where the lighting is inefficient.

You have made this assertion an number of times before. It remains as unconvincing as it was the last time.

Incorrect, for the reasons given above.

Reply to
David Hansen

the heating from lights in ceilings being particularly relevent if the heat is being wasted into an attic or bedroom that is little used.

Concerning the use of CFL's in traditional lamp holders, yes the bulbs do look a little different and the light is slightly different and if you have developed a scunner against them, then they will always annoy you, but I've noticed that I very quickly got used to both and my initial awareness and slight irritation at the difference has completely disappeared.

I do like the idea of modern fluorescents mounted in the top of the kitchen cupboards - my kitchen is so low that I'm not sure that it would work but the up-lighter concept always appeals to me.

Rob

Reply to
robgraham

So why do you do it.?

It's a littlte less efficient than using gas in the sense that the unit cost is higher. However, in the context of the total heat requirement for a house, a drop in the bucket.

So which is it? Either the heat is released into the envelope of the house or it's not. You can't have it both ways.

I'm making an observation based on personal choice. I have no inclination to convince anybody.

Correct, if one takes the total context rather than focus on the minority effect.

Reply to
Andy Hall

The context is a couple of hundred watts in tens of kilowatts.....

A matter of taste. Personally I find them bilious and unnatural.

Reply to
Andy Hall

On Sun, 10 Dec 2006 18:32:33 +0000 someone who may be Andy Hall wrote this:-

I don't.

Not quite. In most houses the space between the ceiling and what is above it is unoccupied. One hopes it is also ventilated. Releasing heat in these unoccupied spaces, whether from light fittings or pipes, is not an efficient way of heating the occupied parts of the house (aka the rooms).

Huff and puff as much as you like on the subject, but it will not change the basic engineering. You may have the last word for the moment, if you wish.

Reply to
David Hansen

Of all lighting schemes, downlighter spots are one of the least able to provide even ilumination. To get acceptable evenness one has to use lots of them. Your power bills go up, your kitchen will be even hotter in summer, and you'll be replacing bulbs on a frequent basis (for 10 bulbs, 10x as often)

if comparing only halogens, yes, no contest. I wouldnt choose halogens though.

There are electronic supplies and the more expensive toroidals. The toroidals are very long lived, the electronic stuff generally isnt.

I wouldnt recommend that approach full stop.

grossly so. First halogen isnt energy efficient. 2nd you need loads of them to get passable evenness of illumination. 3rd most of their light is bouncing off the floor, so even more light is needed.

yes, no-one uses lighting in summer. And when we use it in winter it makes no difference if we're paying 10x the price one needs to.

False on 2 grounds. First the last time I calculated the extra cost of use of halogen downlighters in one room it came to a 4 figure sum over the lighting's estimated lifetime, so bear in mind the real cost of these things. 2ndly if your house eats 10-30kW in heat youve got quite a problem there, that or its a castle.

CFL downlighters are available, though theyre not as small as halogens. Small halogen sized downlighters are also available as replacements for halogen bulbs, but because of the small size the output power is much lower.

trough fitted fluorescents are an ideal option for a lot of kitchens. With troughs you dont see the fitting or bulb at all.

There is a lot of misinformation and myth about this. Linear fluorescent comes in many tube types, some are excellent, some so so, and some truly hideous, especially 'cool white'. If you use the right tube and trough mounted electronic fittings, the result can be excellant. Use a nasty centre mounted bare tube fitting, with unpleasant glowstarting (which flash during startup) and a horrid tube and yes, it can be really nasty.

If you want the look of halogen with the nergy efficiency of fluorescent, pick fl trough lighting plus very low power halogen downlighters, ie 5w or 10w.

Whatever lighting scheme, I always recommend a switchbank. With a row of 3 or more switches you can use whatever lights are most comfortable at the time, and bear in mind eventual preference is often not the same as what went in. But the main plus is you get what lighting level is comfortable at the time, instead of being stuck with one level only, which is either uncomforrtably bright or not bright enough.

NT

Reply to
meow2222

Ah, I see....

Who said anything about unoccupied spaces? Generally bedrooms and bathroom are above kitchens

I thought you needed that to run your windmills, or are you planning a move to Kensal Rise?

Reply to
Andy Hall

There are low-energy 'spots' - but they tend to be of poor quality, and the better ones are quite physically large.

LED is in fact almost here - apart from price.

You can currently get for about 6 quid, a 60lm/1W LED + reflector (not fully assembled, say a tenner assembled) that's perfect as a micro spot.

This is as bright as about 4W of halogen bulbs, and has a lifetime of hundreds of thousands of hours.

You'd just put these in 3 times as densely as ordinary spots, in a 25mm hole, with no need for fireproofing, as they are designed to withstand

30min of fire without letting flame up.

They produce negligable heat, and the wiring could safely go under the skim.

Of course, the downside is that if you needed 500W of halogen to light the kitchen, this'd cost over a grand to do in LED at the moment.

It would look - and stay looking quite good IMO. (though the colour rendition is for the moment a little off)

(the actual products haven't been made into a domestic lighting system as far as I'm aware)

Reply to
Ian Stirling

That depends on the quality of the bulbs. In terms of total energy usage, there is not a large difference other than a small increase in electricity use offset by less use of gas.

This has to be looked at in the context of the total energy used - it's not simply a case of comparing a few hundreds of watts with one technology vs. tens with another when the contexr is many kilowatts of heating energy

Except that it isn't 10x and the comparison is not one form of lighting vs. another in terms of energy cost.

It's a castle.

... and the light quality is appalling.

But the appearance in terms of light quality remains industrial.

I have not yet seen anything in fluorescent (and I look regularly) that comes anywhere close to incandescent lighting in terms of visual appeal. Until that is addressed, I would not consider them for use other than in an industrial setting

I certainly agree with that.

Reply to
Andy Hall

nothing to do with it. If you get bad bulbs, as mains halogens are famous for, it gets even worse.

far from it, run the numbers.

yes i'd say that much is obvious.

what the heating bill is usually makes no difference to your halogen extra costs.

more like 2.5 - 10x IRL

?

If it were you'd need a heck of a lot of halogens, it would cost a fortune. Still you could offset the saving of not needing a central heating system.

there are 2 popular types, one is very good, the other less so.

CRI of above 90 and CCT of whatever you want makes it very hard to support that view from a technical pov. Why dont you summarise the main tube types for us then?

light quality or fitting appearance? I'll quite accept fittings are usually not designed to look decent, and hiding them is the simplest solution. If youre willing to make your own kit then they can be made to look good, its a shame there's always been so little good looking consumer fl lighting. I guess a small BC holder is cheaper than 2 holders, ballast and starter.

NT

Reply to
meow2222

where do you get them at that price?

Re light quality, dont forget it deteriorates over time, fairly quickly as well.

NT

Reply to
meow2222

formatting link
?blurbThese are bare LEDs only. They cost maybe 6 quid, if you included a little protective housing, and some IDC terminals in addition to the reflector. They'd sell for a bit more than that of course.

It depends on the class of LED. These claim 70% at 50000 hours.

Reply to
Ian Stirling

On 10 Dec 2006 21:36:25 GMT someone who may be Ian Stirling wrote this:-

They are floodlights, rather then spotlights. Having a reflector does not mean a lamp is a spotlight.

Not that I've noticed. Ones the size of reflector bulbs are now available, which will fit in downlighters designed for reflector bulbs.

Reply to
David Hansen

Of course it does. If you meant that statistically, if one has 10x bulbs of a given type replacement is 10x as frequent as 1x of a given type then yes. However, in terms of frequency in relation to other technologies, then that is related to the bulb quality.

Which is the point about not buying cheap and nasty ones.

Which numbers?

The heat energy doesn't just disappear.....

From where?

Clear enough.

I was of course being facetious. I could have picked 15kW, 20kW or any other number. A range of 10 - 30 probably covers most properties, accounting also for those without insulated walls.

They aren't popular with me and considering the shelf space allocated to them in places that supply, not with very many other people either.

It isn't really the technical POV that's important - it's how the eye perceives them that is. Perhaps some people find that acceptable, I just don't.

Both.

Therein lies a clue. Hmm... could it be that people don't actually

*want* them..?

Reply to
Andy Hall

In my kitchen I put two of these over the worktops

formatting link
a nice even light just where you want it.

Meanwhile my mother got the fluorescents in her kitchen changed for

4 x 50W mains halogens. Apart from the fact that I am forever changing bulbs, their central location gives nasty harsh shadows on the worktop.
Reply to
Tony Bryer

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.