Process of changing normal globes to downlights?

[silentC]

Hey Skylark, if you have a problem with something I said, why not address it in the open, rather than just sending me a red?

What am I "misinformed" about? That 12v lighting is not exactly "fancy" and "new", that plenty of other electrical appliances have transformers that reduce 240v down to all sorts of other voltages, or are you just annoyed that I picked you up on your spelling? Come on, educate me.

[patty]

now now silent he was just showing off his electrical expertise in the subject you know how keen apprentices are

[patty]

ohms law is the first thing they teach you in 1st year at tech

[silentC]

I was just wondering how old the text books are with all this talk of fancy new 12 volt lighting.

I learned ohms law in high school!!

But I forgot it

[patty]

thats what im saying matey he's an apprentice! ohms law just remember draw a triangle put a line thru the guts of it and put V in the top box and IR underneath bloody scaring myself here havent done that for years

[Skylark]

Looks like I have cooked up a silent storm, for everyone to see.

Don't take a red from me too seriously, silentC, but I felt you pinned me down on points that I had never disputed with you in the first place. Let me clear up this minsunderstanding.

I don't doubt most applicances have in built transformers, but I wouldn't go so far as to label a light bulb as an appliance, rather as an accessory considering its low tech simplicity. Unless of course you want to opt for the "low voltage" solution, which would then involve our friend Mr. Transformer, and in turn be termed as an appliance.

In realtion to lights, I have never said that 12 Volt lights are "new" in the sense that they are the latest gadget to come out onto the electrical market. Rather, "new" was used to differentiate from older models, so as to eliminate any ambiguity that might have arisen. Much the opposite though!

And no, getting cut up over something as trivial as a spelling error is the least of my worries. We will leave child's play for another day.

Until next time, keep on smiling.

[Bleedin Thumb]

I didn't think you could issue reds untill you had a certain amount of posts on the board? Have the rules changed?

PS Skylark you shouldn't issued reds lightly (unless your names Gumby )

[patty]

alright now we have all made some valid points and any feedback is good feedback it gets"us"talking but i think we have strayed away from the original question posed! ets put it to bed

[silentC]

I don't doubt most applicances have in built transformers, but I wouldn't go so far as to label a light bulb as an appliance, rather as an accessory considering its low tech simplicity.

Well we won't get into a debate about whether or not a light is an electrical appliance, that's not actually what I'm saying. You suggested that 12 volt lighting is bad because it relies on a transformer that reduces 240 volts down to 12 volts and you expressed the opinion that they would be better suited to a boat or somewhere that 240 volts was not available. I merely pointed out that there are actually very few electrical appliances in the average house that DO use a full 240 volts. Consider things like TVs, stereos, radios, computers, Playstation games, clocks. Most of these items are at least on standby all day long, whereas lights are only on for a few hours a night and they are all sitting there busily reducing 240 volts down to whatever they run on.

If I look out my window across the street, there is a very large box the size of a fridge hanging from a power pole. I suspect it is full of copper wire and oil and I think it's job is to reduce high voltage lines down to 240 volts.

Now if you want to give me some science on why this a bad thing for lighting in particular, then I'm eager to hear it.

I am quite bemused by all of this sometimes unnecessary extravagance, that householders will go to installing these fancy new "low voltage" down light fittings.

I'm not sure how this was eliminating ambiguity, but no matter how I read it, "fancy new" sort of sounds like they only came out last week.

Don't worry, I've got a thick skin when it comes to those reddies. But it is a bit cheeky to hand one out to someone you've just met without even challenging the remarks that have upset you.

It's also a bit galling to be told by an 18 year old that I'm misinformed. That just cannot be allowed.

[Skylark]

Hmmm, <sigh>, this is almost like a runaway train.

Silentc, you have definitely lost the essence of my original proposition to this forum, and have unfortunately gone on this tangent of yours. Thus, you have not understood what I was originally pointing out.

Now if you want to give me some science on why this a bad thing for lighting in particular, then I'm eager to hear it.

This is not rocket science, so I am not getting involved in unnecessary scientific bravado here. Secondly, I had never claimed that there was anything wrong with the use of transfromers for lighting. In fact, I was suggesting that it was financially wiser to choose florescent lights because of their higher efficiency rating, and that running incandescent lights would actually be cheaper when compared to the low voltage lighting alternative.

Don't worry, I've got a thick skin when it comes to those reddies. But it is a bit cheeky to hand one out to someone you've just met without even challenging the remarks that have upset you.

I have doubts about that skin of yours. If it was that thick, then you wouldn't have complained publicly about my correspondence that upset you. And yes, I did challenge you, why do you think I sent you those reddies?

It's also a bit galling to be told by an 18 year old that I'm
misinformed. That just cannot be allowed.

Galling? That is an understatement to say the least when compared to that preposterous comment of yours. The old adage that experience comes with age can only go so far with you, silentc. There will come such a time in where a younger person might be right on something, just when you get it totally wrong . What then, go on the attack? I can clearly see that you don't take too kindly to criticism that is directed to you from someone younger. That is not to say someone younger is an authority on everything, same goes with an older person.

Possessing a tinge of open-mindedness would be virtue for you silentc, rather than succumbing to sheer arrogance, using age as your sanctimonious shield. Just think outside the square, for once.

Enough of the soap opera, now back to your scheduled programming........

[silentC]

I had never claimed that there was anything wrong with the use of transfromers for lighting.

Remembering that these fancy fittings come with transformers that have to reduce 240V down to 12V, which is quite a substantial reduction.

Isn't this your point? You're saying this is a bad thing. Or maybe I'm misinformed about your point.

This is not rocket science

So explain it. I might learn something. Learner told me on a previous page that the transformers are efficient, it's the lamps that are energy wasting - they waste energy as heat (like incandescant bulbs).

If it was that thick, then you wouldn't have complained publicly

To the contrary, if I was upset about it I would take revenge by doing the same to you, or asking the mods to revert it. Instead, I'm publicly debating you instead of secretly firing off a red. Notice I haven't done that, I don't think they serve any purpose other than to p!ss people off. I think it's better to say what you think in the open forum.

There will come such a time in where a younger person might be right on something ...

You're right, I probably shouldn't have made a comment about your age, that isn't playing the ball. But, you know if you go around calling people misinformed, they are going to get a bit annoyed with you, it is a bit condescending.

I can clearly see that you don't take too kindly to criticism that is directed to you from someone younger.

Water off a duck's back, sonny

[Mcblurter]

Ahhhhh the joys of forums!!!!!
Thanks everyone for the informative and entertaining replies, you have all added to my knowledge, thank you. Will no doubt be hearing from me again soon!
Cheers
McBlurter

[silentC]

No worries!!

Sorry for hijacking your thread, but it's a bit slow at work at the moment.

[Mcblurter]

Yeah I'm far too busy at home to spend time on this forum! Work time is the only chance I get!
I'd always rather get 4 pages of replies than just one reply. Sometimes the tangents can be just as beneficial, if not at least entertaining!
Cheers
McBlurter

[silentC]

The thing about all this is that people spout all this stuff but they don't back it up with facts.

I have no electrical training whatsoever. I wanted to know how much power my downlights were using, so I plugged in a meter that I borrowed from Country Energy and guess what? A 50w halogen globe uses 50 watts of electricity. Not really any surprises there.

The reason why halogens use more is because people put them in banks of 4 or 6 in an area in which they would have traditionally run a single 100 watt globe, or maybe a pair of 60s. The lights themselves aren't less efficient in terms of the power they use individually, but because of the design of the globe and fitting, they don't throw out as much light. It's highly directional, rather than the broadcast pattern of a normal globe.

I had 240 volt downlights in a bedroom once. They used two normal incandescant globes but the light that came from one of them was less than a single surface mounted batten holder would have been. So that was costing me double in terms of electricity.

Sparkies often say that fluoros are the most economical. I have no reason to doubt that. But who is going to put fluoros in every room? It just isn't going to happen because people are more concerned about the look. Maybe if electricity triples in price, then lighting might become a factor to look at.

I monitored the electricty use in my house for several weeks with that meter and lighting is such a small percentage of the total consumption, even with the fancy new halogens everywhere, that it's just not on the radar.

As far as lighting goes, yes I'm sure halogens are down there with the least efficient. But they look good, that's why people use them. One day soon enough we will have a viable alternative that is cheap to run, but in the meantime I've got other things to worry about.