Points 1 and 5 - merely an opinion.
Indeed, but valid opinions none the less, and no reason not to state them. Refurbishing a ceiling peppered with holes is a lot bigger job than replacing different luminaire types for style reasons, so if someone is contemplating installing them because they think it's the de facto choice, and is what everyone likes, maybe they should pause to consider the fact that it ain't necessarily so.
And as for #5, the rebuttal was WHEN THE OVERALL LIGHTING DESIGN IS POORLY CONSIDERED. WHEN PART OF A WHOLLISTIC (sic) LIGHTING DESIGN, THEY WORK VERY WELL. THAT'S WHAT ARCHITECTS AND LIGHTING DESIGNERS DO FOR A LIVING.
9 times out of 10, 99 times out of 100, or whatever, no holistic design is done, no design expertise is employed, people just bung in hundreds and hundreds of watts of lighting and hope for the best.
Point 2 - not a problem if you use CFL's
The relative inefficiency of the design affects CFLs to just the same extent it does incandescents. Plus, if environmental costs are one of your concerns you shouldn't use CFLs with built-in ballasts anyway.
Point 3 - if most electrical equipment isn't installed correctly it can cause a fire. Avoid this by installing them correctly!
True, but greater attention to fire risks has to be paid - it can complicate the installation process.
Point 4 can't be relevant as if they're installed correctly then it's up to the installer to ensure that insulation is replaced correctly.
True, but that can definitely complicate the installation process - it will take longer and cost more, and in some situations it will be impossible to do. This is a real drawback.
Point's 6 and 7 can't be relevant as if the ceiling is a fire barrier then fire rated downlights would be used. If sound travel was a problem then acoustic rated fittings would be used.
I always use fire and acoustic rated fittings as standard.
Not everybody does. It limits the choices of luminaire, and it is a real issue which people need to consider as part of their overall decision making process.
Point 8 - place them to light the room, not pieces of furniture.
They aren't designed to do that. Making them work in that application requires an excessive number of fittings compared to ones which are designed to light room spaces.
Point 9 doesn't seem to mention that there are many downlighters which accept CFL's without any protruding problems.
And some that don't.
And how bright are CFLs which are constrained to fit more or less within an MR16 envelope? How efficient are they compared to real (tube only) CFLs in luminaires with good quality HF ballasts?
Point 10 is irrelevant - I've had a CFL explode - I guess any lamp type can
possibly do that.
Point 11 - typical of this one sided article, titled '10 reasons......'!
See my comment above about presenting the other side of the argument, but in a proper way, not the mess which DoctorC has gone for.
As for there being 11 points, go and take that up with
sm1thson who created the "10 reasons..." article and then added an 11th one at 10:54 on 13/03/07...
