Thread
:
Equivalent fluorescent power
View Single Post
#
39
N. Thornton
Posts: n/a
Equivalent fluorescent power
(Andrew Gabriel) wrote in message ...
(N. Thornton) writes:
(Andrew Gabriel) wrote in message news:
Traditional ballasts:
Very reliable and long life component (except in the US;-).
Electronic control gear:
Life follows standard reliability curve for medium current
semiconductor circuits (some early failures, a few years
without problems, then gradual increasing failure rate).
Traditional ballasts:
Can generate 50Hz flicker with cheaper tubes.
Can continue trying to start a dead lamp.
Electronic control gear:
10% higher light output by running tube at ~5kHz (20kHz is typical).
No flicker.
Dead lamps remain extinguished.
Also more energy efficient,
small and light
If I'm understanding your scheme correctly, it provides only all
the disadvantageous points, so it's worse than either a traditional
ballast or electronic control gear, each of which does have some
advantages. It's not going to be any cheaper to make than either of
these either.
I've tried to remember with more clarity, and I cant. The first tronic
fl fitting I had I made the thingy for, and it slotted in without
rewiring. So it must have been the type where the tube stayed on the
ac side. The second fitting I didnt make, but again flicker was an
issue on occasion. But I agree the tube straight on the OPTF has 2
advantages.
FWLIW there are also 50Hz choke fittings that dont keep trying to
start a duff tube, but I'll let someone else tell us what kind they
are
Regards, NT
Reply With Quote