Fluorescent Strip Light Replace with LED .The light is instant

Largs

JohnB47 said:

Largs said:

Yes I agree with above. Mines are T5 and described as either 12" or 300mm depending on shop.

I go through about 5 or so every 12 months as they are used in the entrance and common areas in my flat. They were previously £1 per tube off eBay but now nearly £2 per tube. So this thread has been most helpful as didn't realise LED tubes were an option. 

Maybe after 18 years my neighbours will consider contributing to the cost if I buy LED!!!!

That's quite a throughput. I think one of the common reasons for failure of any type of lamp is heat. Are the tubes enclosures well ventilated?

Sorry I was meaning there are 5 different bulkheads in the common areas.  They come on timed by the street lighting so from about 4pm right through the night till maybe 8am so the tubes only last about a year. 

bob2302

twopenny said:

The previous thread on the subject, not soo long ago showed that there was little saving to be gained

A T8 on Wickes website lowers the power from 58W to 20W. It seems quite substantial to me, if you used it 3h a day it would pay for itself in a year.

Phones4Chris

bob2302 said:

bbobb said:

This might have been covered before but just in case.

I have just replaced a 40watt tube light with an LED equivalent that uses less than half the power(17.5 Watts). The light now switches on instantly. 

The only note of caution : - Check which ballast the old light uses. There are plenty of firms selling lights that show how to check and all you need is a phone or ipad with a camera. Screwfix sells these lights at a good price.

FWIW when I looked at these, the reason they use half the power is that they produce roughly half the lumens. I can't say I've noticed much of a difference though - maybe they are better at directing the light.
..............

Err, no, not quite. LED technology is somewhat more efficient than Fluorescent. Yes the light is "more directed" not that you'd notice with the tube in the fitting. These tubes are improving all the time, some suppliers are better than others.

bbobb mentioned 17.5W for a 4ft tube - maybe that's the 4ft G13 LAP LED T8 2600lm which I bought several weeks ago to replace two fluorescents in my twin 4ft fitting in the kitchen. I have yet to see any others that produce the same light output for that low power consumption! (I haven't searched exhaustively in the last couple of weeks).

@twopenny
Wow, the light output in the kitchen from one tube was good, but two, fluorescent doesn't stand a chance! I'm getting far more light from the two tubes and at less energy consumption than one fluorescent tube (according to the IHD). I can thoroughly recommend these tubes 4000degK (cool) but just right for a kitchen IMHO. Only ~£2 more than a fluorescent IF you can find a fluorescent locally now!
A Philips TL-D might produce 3350lm when new (some is going upwards at the fitting!) BUT it consumes 36W and never mind the loss in the ballast (heading towards ~10W).

As mentioned you must check what ballast your fitting has and get the correct tube. If it's an electronic ballast a rewire is needed.

Qyburn

Just referring back to the title, the fluorescent lights in my garage and workshop come on instantly.

bob2302

Phones4Chris said:

bob2302 said:

bbobb said:

This might have been covered before but just in case.

I have just replaced a 40watt tube light with an LED equivalent that uses less than half the power(17.5 Watts). The light now switches on instantly. 

The only note of caution : - Check which ballast the old light uses. There are plenty of firms selling lights that show how to check and all you need is a phone or ipad with a camera. Screwfix sells these lights at a good price.

FWIW when I looked at these, the reason they use half the power is that they produce roughly half the lumens. I can't say I've noticed much of a difference though - maybe they are better at directing the light.
..............

Err, no, not quite. LED technology is somewhat more efficient than Fluorescent. Yes the light is "more directed" not that you'd notice with the tube in the fitting. These tubes are improving all the time, some suppliers are better than others.

Take at look at this one:

https://www.wickes.co.uk/V-TAC-T8-Nano-Plastic-LED-Tube-with-Samsung-Chip-20W-150cm---6500K/p/288444

Equivalent Wattage: 58 W

Wattage: 20 W

Lumens: 2100 lm

Old 58W T8 fluorescent tubes were typically rated at 5200 lm

So most of the reduction in energy consumption is down to reduced output rather than an improvement in lm/W. This is why I mentioned directionality, I think it may be that how they get away with the lower output.

Phones4Chris

bob2302 said:

Phones4Chris said:

bob2302 said:

bbobb said:

This might have been covered before but just in case.

I have just replaced a 40watt tube light with an LED equivalent that uses less than half the power(17.5 Watts). The light now switches on instantly. 

The only note of caution : - Check which ballast the old light uses. There are plenty of firms selling lights that show how to check and all you need is a phone or ipad with a camera. Screwfix sells these lights at a good price.

FWIW when I looked at these, the reason they use half the power is that they produce roughly half the lumens. I can't say I've noticed much of a difference though - maybe they are better at directing the light.
..............

Err, no, not quite. LED technology is somewhat more efficient than Fluorescent. Yes the light is "more directed" not that you'd notice with the tube in the fitting. These tubes are improving all the time, some suppliers are better than others.

Take at look at this one:

https://www.wickes.co.uk/V-TAC-T8-Nano-Plastic-LED-Tube-with-Samsung-Chip-20W-150cm---6500K/p/288444

Equivalent Wattage: 58 W

Wattage: 20 W

Lumens: 2100 lm

Old 58W T8 fluorescent tubes were typically rated at 5200 lm

So most of the reduction in energy consumption is down to reduced output rather than an improvement in lm/W. This is why I mentioned directionality, I think it may be that how they get away with the lower output.

I obviously didn't make my points very clear, because the remark I've italicised is unfortunately misleading and does not give the full picture. The reduction in energy consumption is NOT just down to reduced output.
Light that's being directed upwards towards the fitting isn't that useful!! which is what you get with a standard fluorescent tube, but just taking tube energy usage for the examples I quoted, the LAP LED is ~148lm/W and the TL-D is 93lm/W.

You've just given an example of an older technology LED tube, which I wouldn't personally recommend, and that 5ft tube has less light output that the 4ft LAP tube I mentioned (I also said technology is improving all the time). But even then just taking tube power consumption alone, your example LED is ~105lm/W whereas the fluorescent is ~90lm/W. (The LAP LED equivalent is ~150lm/W).
As it so happens, I bought a similar 5ft tube to your example, about 3years ago, for my garage where temperatures are cooler, the fluorescent was a slow starter, the LED is instant. Fluorescent light output never stays at peak for that long, so the new tube figure you could take as not  meaning a lot. The directivity of an LED obviously helps with the light Intensity on the "working surfaces" (so to speak), and with that older tech there probably wasn't an awful lot of difference, but if one wanted to be precise then measurements with a light meter would be the way to go.

BUT apart from my previous post, I've not mentioned the losses in the ballast again, which for a 4ft will be about 10W and for a 5ft about 13W. So overall fluorescent consumption of a 4ft will be around 46W and 71W for a 5ft and if you now compare lm/W the 4ft is ~72lm/W and the 5ft is ~73lm/W.

So with an LED, even if you assume the useful light intensity on your working surfaces is about the same, you are still saving a load of electricity (and so money on your bill!). 4ft (LAP) 17.5W vs 46W fluorescent, LAP 5ft 22W vs 71W fluorescent (and I did say the LAP light levels seemed a lot better than my previous fluorescent).
As I also said, I've not done an exhaustive search to see of any other manufacturers are doing any LED tubes as efficient as those latest LAP, but they are certainly very good value for money.

bob2302

Phones4Chris said:

bob2302 said:

Phones4Chris said:

bob2302 said:

bbobb said:

This might have been covered before but just in case.

I have just replaced a 40watt tube light with an LED equivalent that uses less than half the power(17.5 Watts). The light now switches on instantly. 

The only note of caution : - Check which ballast the old light uses. There are plenty of firms selling lights that show how to check and all you need is a phone or ipad with a camera. Screwfix sells these lights at a good price.

FWIW when I looked at these, the reason they use half the power is that they produce roughly half the lumens. I can't say I've noticed much of a difference though - maybe they are better at directing the light.
..............

Err, no, not quite. LED technology is somewhat more efficient than Fluorescent. Yes the light is "more directed" not that you'd notice with the tube in the fitting. These tubes are improving all the time, some suppliers are better than others.

Take at look at this one:

https://www.wickes.co.uk/V-TAC-T8-Nano-Plastic-LED-Tube-with-Samsung-Chip-20W-150cm---6500K/p/288444

Equivalent Wattage: 58 W

Wattage: 20 W

Lumens: 2100 lm

Old 58W T8 fluorescent tubes were typically rated at 5200 lm

So most of the reduction in energy consumption is down to reduced output rather than an improvement in lm/W. This is why I mentioned directionality, I think it may be that how they get away with the lower output.

I obviously didn't make my points very clear, because the remark I've italicised is unfortunately misleading and does not give the full picture. The reduction in energy consumption is NOT just down to reduced output.
Light that's being directed upwards towards the fitting isn't that useful!! which is what you get with a standard fluorescent tube, but just taking tube energy usage for the examples I quoted, the LAP LED is ~148lm/W and the TL-D is 93lm/W.

You've just given an example of an older technology LED tube, which I wouldn't personally recommend, and that 5ft tube has less light output that the 4ft LAP tube I mentioned (I also said technology is improving all the time). But even then just taking tube power consumption alone, your example LED is ~105lm/W whereas the fluorescent is ~90lm/W. (The LAP LED equivalent is ~150lm/W).
As it so happens, I bought a similar 5ft tube to your example, about 3years ago, for my garage where temperatures are cooler, the fluorescent was a slow starter, the LED is instant. Fluorescent light output never stays at peak for that long, so the new tube figure you could take as not  meaning a lot. The directivity of an LED obviously helps with the light Intensity on the "working surfaces" (so to speak), and with that older tech there probably wasn't an awful lot of difference, but if one wanted to be precise then measurements with a light meter would be the way to go.

BUT apart from my previous post, I've not mentioned the losses in the ballast again, which for a 4ft will be about 10W and for a 5ft about 13W. So overall fluorescent consumption of a 4ft will be around 46W and 71W for a 5ft and if you now compare lm/W the 4ft is ~72lm/W and the 5ft is ~73lm/W.

So with an LED, even if you assume the useful light intensity on your working surfaces is about the same, you are still saving a load of electricity (and so money on your bill!). 4ft (LAP) 17.5W vs 46W fluorescent, LAP 5ft 22W vs 71W fluorescent (and I did say the LAP light levels seemed a lot better than my previous fluorescent).
As I also said, I've not done an exhaustive search to see of any other manufacturers are doing any LED tubes as efficient as those latest LAP, but they are certainly very good value for money.

I find it implausible that  2200 lm  from an LED tube can produce the same as illumination as 5200 lm from a fluorescent. Fittings for fluorescent tubes have reflectors that are designed to direct most of the light downwards.  

There is a general trend towards using less light than in the past and I think the manufactures are just assuming consumers want that to apply to kitchens too.

The efficiency of LED tubes depends on the LED technology and electronics, there no reason that 5 ft tubes would be old technology just because of their length.

Phones4Chris

bob2302 said:

Phones4Chris said:

bob2302 said:

Phones4Chris said:

bob2302 said:

bbobb said:

This might have been covered before but just in case.

I have just replaced a 40watt tube light with an LED equivalent that uses less than half the power(17.5 Watts). The light now switches on instantly. 

The only note of caution : - Check which ballast the old light uses. There are plenty of firms selling lights that show how to check and all you need is a phone or ipad with a camera. Screwfix sells these lights at a good price.

FWIW when I looked at these, the reason they use half the power is that they produce roughly half the lumens. I can't say I've noticed much of a difference though - maybe they are better at directing the light.
..............

Err, no, not quite. LED technology is somewhat more efficient than Fluorescent. Yes the light is "more directed" not that you'd notice with the tube in the fitting. These tubes are improving all the time, some suppliers are better than others.

Take at look at this one:

https://www.wickes.co.uk/V-TAC-T8-Nano-Plastic-LED-Tube-with-Samsung-Chip-20W-150cm---6500K/p/288444

Equivalent Wattage: 58 W

Wattage: 20 W

Lumens: 2100 lm

Old 58W T8 fluorescent tubes were typically rated at 5200 lm

So most of the reduction in energy consumption is down to reduced output rather than an improvement in lm/W. This is why I mentioned directionality, I think it may be that how they get away with the lower output.

I obviously didn't make my points very clear, because the remark I've italicised is unfortunately misleading and does not give the full picture. The reduction in energy consumption is NOT just down to reduced output.
Light that's being directed upwards towards the fitting isn't that useful!! which is what you get with a standard fluorescent tube, but just taking tube energy usage for the examples I quoted, the LAP LED is ~148lm/W and the TL-D is 93lm/W.

You've just given an example of an older technology LED tube, which I wouldn't personally recommend, and that 5ft tube has less light output that the 4ft LAP tube I mentioned (I also said technology is improving all the time). But even then just taking tube power consumption alone, your example LED is ~105lm/W whereas the fluorescent is ~90lm/W. (The LAP LED equivalent is ~150lm/W).
As it so happens, I bought a similar 5ft tube to your example, about 3years ago, for my garage where temperatures are cooler, the fluorescent was a slow starter, the LED is instant. Fluorescent light output never stays at peak for that long, so the new tube figure you could take as not  meaning a lot. The directivity of an LED obviously helps with the light Intensity on the "working surfaces" (so to speak), and with that older tech there probably wasn't an awful lot of difference, but if one wanted to be precise then measurements with a light meter would be the way to go.

BUT apart from my previous post, I've not mentioned the losses in the ballast again, which for a 4ft will be about 10W and for a 5ft about 13W. So overall fluorescent consumption of a 4ft will be around 46W and 71W for a 5ft and if you now compare lm/W the 4ft is ~72lm/W and the 5ft is ~73lm/W.

So with an LED, even if you assume the useful light intensity on your working surfaces is about the same, you are still saving a load of electricity (and so money on your bill!). 4ft (LAP) 17.5W vs 46W fluorescent, LAP 5ft 22W vs 71W fluorescent (and I did say the LAP light levels seemed a lot better than my previous fluorescent).
As I also said, I've not done an exhaustive search to see of any other manufacturers are doing any LED tubes as efficient as those latest LAP, but they are certainly very good value for money.

I find it implausible that  2200 lm  from an LED tube can produce the same as illumination as 5200 lm from a fluorescent. Fittings for fluorescent tubes have reflectors that are designed to direct most of the light downwards.  

There is a general trend towards using less light than in the past and I think the manufactures are just assuming consumers want that to apply to kitchens too.

The efficiency of LED tubes depends on the LED technology and electronics, there no reason that 5 ft tubes would be old technology just because of their length.

I was referring to the particular tube example - the one from Wickes that you quoted - as being older LED technology, as yes 2200lm is pathetic, so perhaps you could re-read my post and not misquote!
Not all fluorescent fittings have reflectors, in fact in my experience, the majority in current domestic use, don't have them.
As far as your remarks about kitchen lighting (in fact, domestic LED lighting in general) I think you are talking absolute rhubarb, and my twin 4ft (which doesn't have any reflectors) with the 2x 4ft LAP tubes produces a better light at the working surfaces than the fluorescent tubes did AND at less power than ONE fluorescent tube and the fitting previously consumed.
Try comparing that LAP one of 3300lm for the 5ft (like most such tubes is directional). I suggest you go and buy one of the LAP ones and try for yourself before making remarks that you cannot substantiate.