Stephen Fitz-Gerald
I think the decision was to spare electricity and because not a lot of light was required of these fixtures.They will illuminate a painting but they are also intended to provide a low light ambiance for a room with high ceilings. It's a quaint old Victorian in Napa.

In my time as a remodeler I installed a great many low voltage lights (indoors). They solve quite a few design problems... fit into smaller spaces/areas, are much safer, great for task lighting, generally produce much less heat, less glare, far easier to hide the small wires (anyway high voltage would require conduit which is huge or must be run inside walls). We often ran the low voltage feed wires in caulked corners or under small moldings. The fixtures can be very small and much more designer friendly. The lighting can be much more even by spreading the wattage over numerous small fixtures instead of a few larger ones. We commonly used them for display lights and undercounter lighting. They also excel when designing dramatic uplighting or downlighting (showing off the expensive moldings, paintings, sculptures, etcetera).

Does anyone use LEDs?
I`ve seen them used in a few sculptures/art furniture pieces and they are also VERY small and fed by small wires and I`m told they give off more light at much lower voltage than even low voltage lighting.They also have a longer life expectancy and are very resistant to impact and vibration.They are also available in different colors and give off next to no heat.

In theory there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice there is.

Light Emitting Diodes are the most efficient, but also have the highest inital cost. They are also a very green product. The newest ones sold in strips are much brighter, and will last about five years. Diodes operate on DC voltage and positive and negitive wires can not be reversed.
Best regards,
Thesculptor @ stephenkishel . com

I'm a big fan of LEDs but the problem I run into with them is not the LEDs themselves, but the interior designers - they insist on incandescent lamps because they want the "warm" color spectrum. This is non-fact based, since LEDs are available in a wide variety of color temperatures and colors and you can mix them to get absolutely any color light you might want, but I have a hard time convincing interior designers of this.

LEDs have such a long service life and low operating temperature as well as the low current draw that they are far and away the greenest light source available to us presently. Compact fluorescents are a distant second, but again, the interior designers think they're all "cold" light. Again, they're dead wrong. In fact, most CFLs these days are almost too "warm" a light. I'd prefer something closer to a daylight spectrum myself, but I've only found a very few that offer anything approximating that. CFLs don't light to kindle in low ambient temperatures, either. That can be a problem on exterior lighting. LED's don't care about that, fortunately.

Rich

LED's run at a mathematically different spectrum from incandescent light, this is a fact.

you are experiencing an observer metameric failure.

Incandescent lamps generally, though by no means always, run at a temperature around 3800K. LEDs are available in a wide array of color temperatures , many of them in the range between 3500K and 4000K, so I can't agree that they are at a "mathematically different spectrum" than incandescent lamps. Just as incandescent lamps can have their color temperatures changed by input voltage or by combining lamps of differing color temps, LEDs can also be intermixed to obtain specific combined-output color temperatures. They can also, to some degree, have their color temperature shifted by adjusting input voltage.

An observer metameric failure is the difference in color perception, not in the color temperature of the light source, as I understand it. This is due to the variations in how individuals' optic receptors/nerves respond to colors rather than to source light temperature variations, and can even vary depending on how an individual looks at an object, i.e.directly, from an angle, etc.

The issue I was addressing was more one of overcoming ingrained shibboleths than achieving a technological solution. The technology is already there but getting beyond peoples' superstitions and biases is another thing altogether. In a few short years legislation will, however, make this a moot point as the production and use of incandescent lamps are ultimately outlawed in the interests of conserving energy. The reactionaries in the interior design field may howl all they like but they'll be forced to adopt more modern technologies. Or stick with burning oil lamps, maybe...(grin)

Rich

"color temperature of the light source"
first you must define your argument more clearly,her eis a chart:
Quantity Symbol SI unit Abbr. Notes
Luminous energy Qv lumen second lm·s units are sometimes called talbots
Luminous flux F lumen (= cd·sr) lm also called luminous power
Luminous intensity Iv candela (= lm/sr) cd an SI base unit
Luminance Lv candela per square metre cd/m2 units are sometimes called "nits"
Illuminance Ev lux (= lm/m2) lx Used for light incident on a surface
Luminous emittance Mv lux (= lm/m2) lx Used for light emitted from a surface
Luminous efficacy lumen

you need to differentiate between your opinion about the color of the light and the scientific quantity of light, these are, as you already know, objective to an extent , so you must clarify what you mean in numbers, not adjectives!

I've been an engineer most of my life, and LED's have always been interesting in how they are used.
Don

Color temperature of the light source, expressed in terms of degrees Kelvin is not what I would call an opinion - it is a recognized way of measuring light color, used throughout the lighting, printing, photographic, painting and other industries. It is a quantifiable scientific expression of light color in standard metrics.

My point was precisely that the issue is one of perceptions, not of scientific minutia. Designers care no more for candela than for candidia - they just want that "nice warm rosy glow that suffuses a room with warmth and personality." When you begin to discuss lighting with them in terms of lumens, color temperature in degrees Kelvin and incident versus reflected light they promptly develop that "deer in the headlights" expression and communication stops. Been there, done that and got the t-shirt.

After around six years of effort I have one (1) designer client that is finally beginning to recognize that there may be viable alternatives to incandescent lamps. I find this a bit frustrating as I'm trying to design lighting that will have a service life commensurate with the high cost of custom forged work. I don't see much joy in either designing something for which there will be no lamp available in five years or which the designer will not forward to the client because it utilizes technology they refuse to understand or accept. As avant garde as designers promote themselves to be, many become card-carrying Luddites when you try to discuss technology with them. It is a conundrum.

Rich

i figured out long ago that designers are like talentless artists.they have the trappings of an artist, but not the spirit. i had an older friend of mine tell me once"the artist sometimes needs a sculptor to be an artist, but the sculptor never needs an artist to be an artist".

Stephen Fitz-Gerald
These may indeed be wired with LEDs.
That is one of the solutions currently on the table...
Thank you all for your input...