I am in the UK.

I have an old 13 watt linear fluorescent lamp (20 inch long) which is
not really bright enough for my needs.

Can I replace the tube with a tube of a different technology so it is
brighter?

Bart Z. Lederman wrote:
In article , Susan P writes:

I am in the UK.

I have an old 13 watt linear fluorescent lamp (20 inch long) which is
not really bright enough for my needs.

Can I replace the tube with a tube of a different technology so it is
brighter?


If the lamp is really old, then a new replacement lamp (bulb)
may help. Fluorescent lamps lose some light output with time,
and if the lamp is very old (or was really cheap) a new lamp
may be more efficient and give you more light.

And, not to be insulting, but the next most common cause of
loss of light output is dirt. You don't say if the fixture is
open or closed, or if there is any cover over the lamp, but
dirt can cause more light loss than you might think.

If those two things don't do enough, then you'll probably need
to get a different fixture. Re-wiring an existing unit to take
a different lamp can be done, but it's really for people with
experience, or who like to tinker and don't mind if they spend
more to make the change than to buy a new lamp.

Get yourself a triphosphor tube, these have higher output than the
older halophosphates. And output falls over time with halos, and dirt
does have quite an effect. Hopefully between those 3 you'll get enough
light again. If not, step up to a 2' fitting or a 23w cfl..

Note about tubes: there are good and bad. You'll want anything from
2700K to 3500K, I would not buy anything higher, such as 4500K.


NT

In article , Susan P writes:
I am in the UK.

I have an old 13 watt linear fluorescent lamp (20 inch long) which is
not really bright enough for my needs.

Can I replace the tube with a tube of a different technology so it is
brighter?


If the lamp is really old, then a new replacement lamp (bulb)
may help. Fluorescent lamps lose some light output with time,
and if the lamp is very old (or was really cheap) a new lamp
may be more efficient and give you more light.

And, not to be insulting, but the next most common cause of
loss of light output is dirt. You don't say if the fixture is
open or closed, or if there is any cover over the lamp, but
dirt can cause more light loss than you might think.

If those two things don't do enough, then you'll probably need
to get a different fixture. Re-wiring an existing unit to take
a different lamp can be done, but it's really for people with
experience, or who like to tinker and don't mind if they spend
more to make the change than to buy a new lamp.

In message , Susan P
writes
I am in the UK.

I have an old 13 watt linear fluorescent lamp (20 inch long) which is
not really bright enough for my needs.

Can I replace the tube with a tube of a different technology so it is
brighter?

If the tube has been in use a while then it may be fairly dim anyway.
In this case a new tube could be much brighter.

There are certainly some good quality tubes with high efficiency
phosphors available. I'm not sure how available they are for the older
13W 21"(?) tube.

--
Clive Mitchell
http://www.bigclive.com

On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 18:23:49 +0100, Susan P
wrote:

I am in the UK.

I have an old 13 watt linear fluorescent lamp (20 inch long) which is
not really bright enough for my needs.

Can I replace the tube with a tube of a different technology so it is
brighter?

In Susan P writes:

I am in the UK.

I have an old 13 watt linear fluorescent lamp (20 inch long)
which is not really bright enough for my needs.

Can I replace the tube with a tube of a different technology so
it is brighter?


Bart Z. Lederman wrote:

If the lamp is really old, then a new replacement lamp (bulb)
may help.

[snip]

If those two things don't do enough, then you'll probably need
to get a different fixture. Re-wiring an existing unit to take
a different lamp can be done, but it's really for people with
experience, or who like to tinker and don't mind if they spend
more to make the change than to buy a new lamp.

Get yourself a triphosphor tube, these have higher output than the
older halophosphates. And output falls over time with halos, and
dirt does have quite an effect. Hopefully between those 3 you'll
get enough light again. If not, step up to a 2' fitting or a 23w
cfl..


On 24 Oct 2006, wrote:

Note about tubes: there are good and bad. You'll want anything from
2700K to 3500K, I would not buy anything higher, such as 4500K.


I am in the UK.

In my kitchen I have a five foot tube (1.5 inches diameter) marked
Philips F65W/35 which has been there for about 15 years.

Can a triposphor tube simply be put in where this old style
(halophosphate?) tube has been?

What about the need for improved things I hear about like electronic
balasts and quick start devices. My old fitting seems unlikely to have
any of those.

Rather than upgrade the tube and perhaps have to change components would
it be a whole lot better to get a new triphospor tube and fitting? I
hear that T8 may be the best value.

------

If so then where can I get such a thing from as the DIY shops I have
tried (Focus, Homebase, local shops) don't seem to stock anything marked
"triphosphor". Are they usually marked like that?

Alex wrote:
On 24 Oct 2006, wrote:

Note about tubes: there are good and bad. You'll want anything from
2700K to 3500K, I would not buy anything higher, such as 4500K.

I am in the UK.

In my kitchen I have a five foot tube (1.5 inches diameter) marked
Philips F65W/35 which has been there for about 15 years.

Can a triposphor tube simply be put in where this old style
(halophosphate?) tube has been?

yes

What about the need for improved things I hear about like electronic
balasts and quick start devices. My old fitting seems unlikely to have
any of those.

theres no need for any of those

Rather than upgrade the tube and perhaps have to change components would
it be a whole lot better to get a new triphospor tube and fitting? I
hear that T8 may be the best value.

If your fitting works ok theres no need to replace it. If you do, and
you pick an electronic one, you'll get:
- an unnoticeably small light output increase
- no flicker & flash during starting
- longer tube life, which given the cost of tubes now is of small
value.
- lower reliability and shorter fitting life
- less money left in your pocket
- some unnecessary extra work to do


NT

On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 13:48:07 GMT, Alex
wrote:

I am in the UK.

In my kitchen I have a five foot tube (1.5 inches diameter) marked
Philips F65W/35 which has been there for about 15 years.

Can a triposphor tube simply be put in where this old style
(halophosphate?) tube has been?

I passed on your message the first time around since I
didn't have data on UK lamps handy. However, I don't want
you to have only the advice of an anonymous person who goes
by the dual names of meow2222 and NT.

If the F65W/35 is a has a diameter of 1.5 inches (T12) and a
length of 5 feet, yes, there is a triphosphor version
available. However, it is most likely more expensive than
an equivalent T8 lamp.

What about the need for improved things I hear about like electronic
balasts and quick start devices. My old fitting seems unlikely to have
any of those.

Rather than upgrade the tube and perhaps have to change components would
it be a whole lot better to get a new triphospor tube and fitting? I
hear that T8 may be the best value.

An electronic ballast will reduce energy consumption, reduce
lamp flicker and increase lamp life. Moving to T8 would
probably provide the best value - I know it would in the US
but I don't have as much information about the UK market.

If so then where can I get such a thing from as the DIY shops I have
tried (Focus, Homebase, local shops) don't seem to stock anything marked
"triphosphor". Are they usually marked like that?

The lamps are not marked triphosphor. They use have a three
number color code such as 835 for a CRI in the 80's and a
CCT of 3500. To make sure it is a triphosphor lamp you will
have to check the lamp manufacturer's on line catalog.

--
Vic Roberts
http://www.RobertsResearchInc.com
To reply via e-mail:
replace xxx with vdr in the Reply to: address
or use e-mail address listed at the Web site.

This information is provided for educational purposes only.
It may not be used in any publication or posted on any Web
site without written permission.

In article . com,
writes:
Alex wrote:
On 24 Oct 2006, wrote:

Note about tubes: there are good and bad. You'll want anything from
2700K to 3500K, I would not buy anything higher, such as 4500K.

I am in the UK.

In my kitchen I have a five foot tube (1.5 inches diameter) marked
Philips F65W/35 which has been there for about 15 years.

Can a triposphor tube simply be put in where this old style
(halophosphate?) tube has been?

yes

Yes, providing it has switch-start control gear (i.e. a plug-in
starter and the tube flashes a few times when switched on).
The tube will operate with some other types of control gear,
but at the wrong power rating, which may or may not matter.
A T8 58W tube is designed to run on a ballast for a T12 65W tube.
So, in theory you should check the fitting has a 65W ballast
rather than an 80W ballast. (5' fittings were originally 80W
in the UK, but were reduced to 65W around 1970, although 5' T12
tubes remained dual rated 65/80W for a further 10 years. If the
fitting is only 15 years old, it should be a 65W ballast.)

What about the need for improved things I hear about like electronic
balasts and quick start devices. My old fitting seems unlikely to have
any of those.

theres no need for any of those

Rather than upgrade the tube and perhaps have to change components would
it be a whole lot better to get a new triphospor tube and fitting? I
hear that T8 may be the best value.

If your fitting works ok theres no need to replace it. If you do, and
you pick an electronic one, you'll get:
- an unnoticeably small light output increase
- no flicker & flash during starting
- longer tube life, which given the cost of tubes now is of small
value.

Depends on the starting style of the electronic one and the
average time you have the tube on each time. Switch-start will
give longer life than electronic instant start (at least in the
UK, although this seems not to be true in the US on 120V mains
where switch-start doesn't work too well). Electronic pre-heat
might give slightly longer life than switch-start, but I've
never seen any real-life evidence of this.

Note that it is very difficult to tell in advance if an electronic
ballast is instant start or preheat from any markings on it.
Unfortunately, the term "instant start" in Europe is increasingly
used to refer to any type of electronic ballast, including those
which don't start instantly.

Also note that the US uses the same control gear names to mean
completely different types of control gear. I have stuck to the
UK/European names here, which means this posting probably looks
like complete garbage to a US reader in sci.engr.lighting.

- lower reliability and shorter fitting life
- less money left in your pocket
- some unnecessary extra work to do

- significantly reduced choice of fittings

--
Andrew Gabriel

I am in the UK.

In my kitchen I have a five foot tube (1.5 inches diameter)
marked Philips F65W/35 which has been there for about 15
years.

Can a triposphor tube simply be put in where this old style
(halophosphate?) tube has been?



On 30 Nov 2006, Andrew Gabriel wrote:

Yes, providing it has switch-start control gear (i.e. a plug-in
starter and the tube flashes a few times when switched on).

When I switch on the tube glows orange at each end for about a full
second and then the whole tube lights up.

Is this as good as the "few flashes" you write?


The tube will operate with some other types of control gear,
but at the wrong power rating, which may or may not matter.
A T8 58W tube is designed to run on a ballast for a T12 65W tube.

My fluorescent fitting has a 65W choke. (This is a ballast, it it?).

The lettering on the choke is truly ancient looking and I think it says
Thorn in the letters around a logo. The whole thing is about 5 inches
long. Hope fully this is ok.

Out of interest what is the difference if this was rated at 80W and the
T8 58W tube you mentioned was used?

So, in theory you should check the fitting has a 65W ballast
rather than an 80W ballast. (5' fittings were originally 80W
in the UK, but were reduced to 65W around 1970, although 5' T12
tubes remained dual rated 65/80W for a further 10 years. If the
fitting is only 15 years old, it should be a 65W ballast.)

On 24 Oct 2006, wrote:

Note about tubes: there are good and bad. You'll want anything
from 2700K to 3500K, I would not buy anything higher, such as
4500K.

Alex wrote:

I am in the UK.

In my kitchen I have a five foot tube (1.5 inches diameter) marked
Philips F65W/35 which has been there for about 15 years.

Can a triposphor tube simply be put in where this old style
(halophosphate?) tube has been?



What about the need for improved things I hear about like
electronic balasts and quick start devices. My old fitting seems
unlikely to have any of those.


On 29 Nov 2006, wrote:

theres no need for any of those

Rather than upgrade the tube and perhaps have to change components
would it be a whole lot better to get a new triphospor tube and
fitting? I hear that T8 may be the best value.


If your fitting works ok theres no need to replace it. If you do,
and you pick an electronic one, you'll get:

- an unnoticeably small light output increase
- no flicker & flash during starting
- longer tube life, which given the cost of tubes now is of
small value.
- lower reliability and shorter fitting life
- less money left in your pocket
- some unnecessary extra work to do


Hey, I thought that an electronic light fitting for a fluorescent was
the smart modern smart thing to get. You make it sound like a backward
step!

What am I misunderstanding?

Is there no real advantage to an electronic fitting (electronic starter
and ballast) other than instant-on and a slightly longer tube life?

On 30 Nov 2006 08:16:17 GMT,
(Andrew Gabriel) wrote:


Depends on the starting style of the electronic one and the
average time you have the tube on each time. Switch-start will
give longer life than electronic instant start (at least in the
UK, although this seems not to be true in the US on 120V mains
where switch-start doesn't work too well). Electronic pre-heat
might give slightly longer life than switch-start, but I've
never seen any real-life evidence of this.

I'm rather surprised about your comments switch-start
lamp life in the UK. Major manufacturers are now
advertising fluorescent lamps with rated lives of 30,000
hours and greater when operated on programmed rapid start
ballasts using the 3-hour on and 20-minute off cycle. Can a
switch-start lamp in the UK really come close to that same
life with the same operating cycle?

--
Vic Roberts
http://www.RobertsResearchInc.com
To reply via e-mail:
replace xxx with vdr in the Reply to: address
or use e-mail address listed at the Web site.

This information is provided for educational purposes only.
It may not be used in any publication or posted on any Web
site without written permission.

On 30 Nov 2006, Victor Roberts wrote:

On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 13:48:07 GMT, Alex
wrote:

I am in the UK.

In my kitchen I have a five foot tube (1.5 inches diameter) marked
Philips F65W/35 which has been there for about 15 years.

Can a triposphor tube simply be put in where this old style
(halophosphate?) tube has been?

I passed on your message the first time around since I
didn't have data on UK lamps handy. However, I don't want
you to have only the advice of an anonymous person who goes
by the dual names of meow2222 and NT.

If the F65W/35 is a has a diameter of 1.5 inches (T12) and a
length of 5 feet, yes, there is a triphosphor version
available. However, it is most likely more expensive than
an equivalent T8 lamp.

What about the need for improved things I hear about like
electronic balasts and quick start devices. My old fitting seems
unlikely to have any of those.

Rather than upgrade the tube and perhaps have to change components
would it be a whole lot better to get a new triphospor tube and
fitting? I hear that T8 may be the best value.

An electronic ballast will reduce energy consumption, reduce
lamp flicker and increase lamp life. Moving to T8 would
probably provide the best value - I know it would in the US
but I don't have as much information about the UK market.

If so then where can I get such a thing from as the DIY shops I
have tried (Focus, Homebase, local shops) don't seem to stock
anything marked "triphosphor". Are they usually marked like that?

The lamps are not marked triphosphor. They use have a three
number color code such as 835 for a CRI in the 80's and a
CCT of 3500. To make sure it is a triphosphor lamp you will
have to check the lamp manufacturer's on line catalog.



Victor, I guess you differ and are saying that you feel the value of an
electronic fitting is greater than posted by meow2222/NT.

Against that the other poster lists that lower reliability and shorter
fitting life is a disadvantage and so is the extra cost of the unit plus
the cost/effort of installing it.

I sense that you feel that reduced energy consumption, reduced lamp
flicker and increased lamp life outweigh the disadvantages.

Would I be right in getting the impression that, very broadly speaking,
it is a close call as to whether the pros outweigh the cons or vice
versa?

In message , Victor Roberts
writes
I'm rather surprised about your comments switch-start lamp life in
the UK. Major manufacturers are now advertising fluorescent lamps with
rated lives of 30,000 hours and greater when operated on programmed
rapid start ballasts using the 3-hour on and 20-minute off cycle. Can
a switch-start lamp in the UK really come close to that same life with
the same operating cycle?

The early instant starting ballast's in the UK really hammered the
electrodes. It's not the same now.

--
Clive Mitchell
http://www.bigclive.com

In message , Alex
writes
Hey, I thought that an electronic light fitting for a fluorescent was
the smart modern smart thing to get. You make it sound like a backward
step!

A lot of the guys and gals on this list are veterans of the lighting
industry. We had our fingers well and truly burned with the early
electronic ballasts which had a fairly short life due to thermal issues.
The modern units with more rugged, higher temperature rated components
and wiser design don't have so many issues. (Unless you get the cheapo
ones.)

I think we can safely say. "Once bitten twice shy" applies.

--
Clive Mitchell
http://www.bigclive.com

Alex wrote:

Victor, I guess you differ and are saying that you feel the value of an
electronic fitting is greater than posted by meow2222/NT.

Against that the other poster lists that lower reliability and shorter
fitting life is a disadvantage and so is the extra cost of the unit plus
the cost/effort of installing it.

I sense that you feel that reduced energy consumption, reduced lamp
flicker and increased lamp life outweigh the disadvantages.

Would I be right in getting the impression that, very broadly speaking,
it is a close call as to whether the pros outweigh the cons or vice
versa?

The differences are simply too small imho for it to be worth replacing
one for the other in a domestic situation. And as said, the differences
are not all pros, theyre a mix.

Since you've already got a nice thermal starter setup (or perhaps
something else that doesnt flash during start), you wouldnt gain the
usual one most visible advantage of going to electronic, the
elimination of flashing during starting, which one gets with most UK
glowstart fittings.

This is a bit like arguing over whether to pick white or bright white
or snow white paint. If there are differences theyre very small, and
life has much bigger fish.


NT

PS not sure what my name has to do with anything

Alex wrote:

When I switch on the tube glows orange at each end for about a full
second and then the whole tube lights up.

Is this as good as the "few flashes" you write?

My fluorescent fitting has a 65W choke. (This is a ballast, it it?).

yes

The lettering on the choke is truly ancient looking and I think it says
Thorn in the letters around a logo. The whole thing is about 5 inches
long. Hope fully this is ok.

sounds like an old thermal starter unit. They have much nicer starting
characteristics than modern glowstarts.


NT

In article .com,
writes:

The differences are simply too small imho for it to be worth replacing
one for the other in a domestic situation. And as said, the differences
are not all pros, theyre a mix.

Since you've already got a nice thermal starter setup (or perhaps

Not in a 15 year old fitting. You'd need a 45 year old fitting
which would also have B22d (bayonet cap) connections on the tube
ends ;-)

something else that doesnt flash during start), you wouldnt gain the

Might well be an electronic starter.

usual one most visible advantage of going to electronic, the
elimination of flashing during starting, which one gets with most UK
glowstart fittings.

--
Andrew Gabriel

Alex wrote:

Hey, I thought that an electronic light fitting for a fluorescent was
the smart modern smart thing to get. You make it sound like a backward
step!

What am I misunderstanding?

nothing afaics.

Newness Disease might come into it a bit though, the widespread
incorrect belief that technological progress is 10x as fast as it
really is, and that all things newer are better. Electronics does
progress, but not nearly as fast as adveritising hype, and the progress
does not always imply modern goods are any better, though it does make
them cheaper to buy.


Is there no real advantage to an electronic fitting (electronic starter
and ballast) other than instant-on and a slightly longer tube life?

as said above...

It does matter if youre equipping a whole showroom or retail complex,
as a few percent on energy consumption can add up, but for domestic use
its immaterial, and the energy involved in getting and fitting a
replacement would far outweigh the tiny savings.

There is also Victor's point about flicker, but really if a light is
flickering noticeably its replacement time anyway, so its not such an
issue in practice. It is in large lighting installations though, where
faulty fittings are liable to be left running. But as long as its
working ok, there isnt a problem.

Finally, some tronic ballasts are good and reliable, some arent, but
since you cant tell which is which easily, youre buying a reliability
issue if you get one. An old fitting of any type has higher initial
reliability, plus has proven itself.

I hope you spend your diy time solving some real problems and not
playing musical light swaps, as it wont really get you anything
noticeable or worthwhile, other than more chance of fitting failure.


NT

wrote:

There is also Victor's point about flicker, but really if a light is
flickering noticeably its replacement time anyway, so its not such an
issue in practice. It is in large lighting installations though, where
faulty fittings are liable to be left running. But as long as its
working ok, there isnt a problem.

Unless stroboscopic effects in connection with rotating machinery are a
problem.

--
Andy

In message , Andy Wade
writes
wrote:

There is also Victor's point about flicker, but really if a light is
flickering noticeably its replacement time anyway, so its not such an
issue in practice. It is in large lighting installations though, where
faulty fittings are liable to be left running. But as long as its
working ok, there isnt a problem.

Unless stroboscopic effects in connection with rotating machinery are a
problem.


I believe it's in the kitchen, so there is a high possibility of putting
ones hand into the seemingly motionless cake mixer. :P

--
Clive Mitchell
http://www.bigclive.com

On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 13:53:04 GMT, Alex
wrote:

[snip]

Victor, I guess you differ and are saying that you feel the value of an
electronic fitting is greater than posted by meow2222/NT.

We do tend to differ on a number of lighting issues :-)

Against that the other poster lists that lower reliability and shorter
fitting life is a disadvantage and so is the extra cost of the unit plus
the cost/effort of installing it.

My understanding of that other post was that older
electronic ballasts had some reliability problems and that
make him shy away from even the modern, more reliable ones.

I sense that you feel that reduced energy consumption, reduced lamp
flicker and increased lamp life outweigh the disadvantages.

Its more than that, at least in the US. The best
fluorescent lamps from an energy efficiency point of view
are linear T5 and T8 lamps operating on high quality
electronic ballasts. The best fluorescent lamps from a
color quality issue are lamps using rare earth triphosphors.
The least expensive triphosphor lamps are linear T8 lamps,
with T5 next in line and T12 triphosphor lamps many times
the cost of equivalent length T12 lamps. In the US at
least, there are few EM ballasts for T8 lamps. So, the T8
+ electronic ballast combination often has a lower initial
cost than a T12 triphosphor lamp and an EM ballast.

Would I be right in getting the impression that, very broadly speaking,
it is a close call as to whether the pros outweigh the cons or vice
versa?

As opposed to meow2222/NT I believe that we should try to
save energy whenever possible. Your one lamp fixture may
not save a lot of energy, but when multiplied by the number
of people making this decision, the impact can be large.

Plus, I expect that when you see the cost of a triphosphor
version of your current lamp that alone will start you
looking at T8 systems.

--
Vic Roberts
http://www.RobertsResearchInc.com
To reply via e-mail:
replace xxx with vdr in the Reply to: address
or use e-mail address listed at the Web site.

This information is provided for educational purposes only.
It may not be used in any publication or posted on any Web
site without written permission.

Clive Mitchell wrote:
In message , Andy Wade
writes
wrote:

There is also Victor's point about flicker, but really if a light is
flickering noticeably its replacement time anyway, so its not such an
issue in practice. It is in large lighting installations though, where
faulty fittings are liable to be left running. But as long as its
working ok, there isnt a problem.

Unless stroboscopic effects in connection with rotating machinery are a
problem.

I believe it's in the kitchen, so there is a high possibility of putting
ones hand into the seemingly motionless cake mixer. :P

machinery strobing is possible with mag ballasts, but doesnt normally
happen, and does not make it look stationary even when it does. Its not
as much of an issue as is often thought, even in workshops. In a house
its a non issue. And cake mixers are well interlocked


NT

Andrew Gabriel wrote:
In article .com,
writes:

The differences are simply too small imho for it to be worth replacing
one for the other in a domestic situation. And as said, the differences
are not all pros, theyre a mix.

Since you've already got a nice thermal starter setup (or perhaps

Not in a 15 year old fitting. You'd need a 45 year old fitting

right, forgot if age was mentioned.

which would also have B22d (bayonet cap) connections on the tube
ends ;-)

there are/were bipin thermal start fittings.

something else that doesnt flash during start), you wouldnt gain the

Might well be an electronic starter.


NT

Victor Roberts wrote:
On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 13:53:04 GMT, Alex
wrote:

My understanding of that other post was that older
electronic ballasts had some reliability problems and that
make him shy away from even the modern, more reliable ones.

indeed, but that does not imply that the new fitting will be more
reilable or as reilable as the old. On the whole it tends to be the
other way round. One only need think bathtub curve to see that. Then
theres the 2nd factor of a more price-aggressive market today. So its
no surprise new goods dont have anything like the life expectancy of
older kit.


As opposed to meow2222/NT I believe that we should try to
save energy whenever possible. Your one lamp fixture may
not save a lot of energy, but when multiplied by the number
of people making this decision, the impact can be large.

Maybe then you could explain to us how travelling out to get a new
fitting and putting it up will save more energy than the 7w the older
fitting would consume with a T12 tube. Or even more to the point, the
smaller amount of energy difference involved in using a T8 in an older
fitting.


Plus, I expect that when you see the cost of a triphosphor
version of your current lamp that alone will start you
looking at T8 systems.

The OP has a T8 compatible system already. The OP is not in America.


NT

On 1 Dec 2006 04:57:15 -0800, wrote:

Clive Mitchell wrote:
In message , Andy Wade
writes
wrote:

There is also Victor's point about flicker, but really if a light is
flickering noticeably its replacement time anyway, so its not such an
issue in practice. It is in large lighting installations though, where
faulty fittings are liable to be left running. But as long as its
working ok, there isnt a problem.

Unless stroboscopic effects in connection with rotating machinery are a
problem.

I believe it's in the kitchen, so there is a high possibility of putting
ones hand into the seemingly motionless cake mixer. :P

machinery strobing is possible with mag ballasts, but doesnt normally
happen,

actually it happens 100% of the time on single lamp
ballasts, through it is usually called flicker.

and does not make it look stationary even when it does.

Since the depth of the modulation is less than 100% and it
is unlikely that the mixer blades are rotating at a multiple
of the power line frequency I agree with you on this point.

Its not as much of an issue as is often thought, even in workshops.

I would agree about the effect of the strobing on rotating
machinery.

In a house its a non issue.

Unless you are one of the many people who get headaches from
fluorescent lamp flicker.

And cake mixers are well interlocked

And where do you find a mixer that is interlocked against a
hand in the "blades" or whatever they are called? Certainly
not mine.

--
Vic Roberts
http://www.RobertsResearchInc.com
To reply via e-mail:
replace xxx with vdr in the Reply to: address
or use e-mail address listed at the Web site.

This information is provided for educational purposes only.
It may not be used in any publication or posted on any Web
site without written permission.

In article .com,
wrote:
Victor Roberts wrote:
On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 13:53:04 GMT, Alex
wrote:

My understanding of that other post was that older
electronic ballasts had some reliability problems and that
make him shy away from even the modern, more reliable ones.

indeed, but that does not imply that the new fitting will be more
reilable or as reilable as the old. On the whole it tends to be the
other way round. One only need think bathtub curve to see that. Then
theres the 2nd factor of a more price-aggressive market today. So its
no surprise new goods dont have anything like the life expectancy of
older kit.

Electronic components are getting less expensive and sturdier, more
robust. Circuit designs are improved upon those that failed the test of
time.

Bigger iron core items of older technology have not enjoyed as much
reduction in production cost.

As opposed to meow2222/NT I believe that we should try to
save energy whenever possible. Your one lamp fixture may
not save a lot of energy, but when multiplied by the number
of people making this decision, the impact can be large.

Maybe then you could explain to us how travelling out to get a new
fitting and putting it up will save more energy than the 7w the older
fitting would consume with a T12 tube. Or even more to the point, the
smaller amount of energy difference involved in using a T8 in an older
fitting.

Modern USA 2-tube fixture with electronic ballast and two F32T8 lamps
often has the lamps receiving guesstimate 29 watts each (most fluorescent
lamps at a given current have both a slight decrease in power consumption
when frequency gets to a few KHz or more and a very slight increase in
light output when the frequency gets into the dozens of KHz), so the
fixture consumes fairly close to 64 watts.

The USA-traditional dual-F40 fixture had the lamps receiving 40 watts
each plus ballast loss that I guesstimate to be not much under 10 watts -
for power consumption in the upper 80's of watts, approaching 90 watts.

So I believe that replacing F40T12 lamps with F32T8 ones and replacing
the traditional dual-F40 ballast with an electronic one for two F32T8
lamps will reduce power consumption by somewhere around 24-25 watts.

Also, all popular F32T8 lamps made for "general lighting purpose" are
triphosphor. These do not dull/darken most red objects and green objects
the way most non-triphosphor fluorescents do. Non-triphosphor includes
even most fluorescents with color rendering index around 90-92 although
that range dulls/darkens reds/greens less than "old tech cool white and
warm white".

Plus, I expect that when you see the cost of a triphosphor
version of your current lamp that alone will start you
looking at T8 systems.

The OP has a T8 compatible system already. The OP is not in America.

1. I am speaking from and for America, the land of opportunity, including
a megatonnage of fluorescent fixtures having significant room for
improvement.

2. In a fixture having a magnetic 2-lamp rapid start ballast for two
T8 lamps, replacement of the ballast with an electronic one will
probably save more than 7 watts, since not only is the ballast loss
reduced but also the lamps can be fed a little less power. This even goes
to extent of giving the lamps only 29 or 28 or so watts each - slight
shortfall in initial lumens is partially balanced out by improvement in
lumen maintenance. Also, many lamps at same current consume 1-2 watts
less at high frequency (a few KHz or more) than at low frequency due
to reduction of a frequency-sensitive "anode fall" loss that most
fluorescent lamps have.
If the ballast output frequency is high enough for the "imprisonment
duration" of a 253.7 nm photon to get above or even into the ballpark of a
1/2-cycle of the ballast output frequency, then the RMS "electron
temperature"/"free electron kinetic energy" should be a couple/few
hundredths of an eV less than if the lamp received low frequency AC and
that can reduce the ratio of 184.9/253.7 nm radiation to an extent
sufficient to have a slightly significant impact on phosphor
deterioration.
Lamps alone can have power reduction about 7 watts per pair by replacing
a non-electronmic ballast with an electronic one, even without change of
lamps. Ballast loss redution is an additional couple to a few watts.
Savings get much bigger (typically over 20 watts per 2-"bulbs") in the
many opportunities in "The Land of Opportunity" where such a change also
includes replacing F40T12 lamps with F32T8 ones. The nominal "per bulb"
wattage is decreased by 8 watts as in 16 watts per pair, in addition to
the roughly 7-watt-per-pair underpowering that modern electronic ballasts
fairly easily afford and in addition to saving a couple to a few watts in
ballast losses from use of better higher efficiency electronic ballasts.
That sounds to me like power consumption decrease of roughly 25 watts
per pair of 4-footers from replacing T12 lamps and the iron-core ballasts
for those with T8 lamps and an electronic ballast for T8 lamps.

- Don Klipstein )

In om, meow2222 wrote:
Clive Mitchell wrote:
In message , Andy Wade
writes
wrote:

There is also Victor's point about flicker, but really if a light is
flickering noticeably its replacement time anyway, so its not such an
issue in practice. It is in large lighting installations though, where
faulty fittings are liable to be left running. But as long as its
working ok, there isnt a problem.

Unless stroboscopic effects in connection with rotating machinery are a
problem.

I believe it's in the kitchen, so there is a high possibility of putting
ones hand into the seemingly motionless cake mixer. :P

machinery strobing is possible with mag ballasts, but doesnt normally
happen, and does not make it look stationary even when it does. Its not
as much of an issue as is often thought, even in workshops. In a house
its a non issue. And cake mixers are well interlocked

Although I agree with these presented facts, I do not find majority
extent (slightly short of 100% even if hardly) of negation of some
advantages of electronic ballasts to be any argument at all against
arguments on basis of unrelated issues such as energy efficiency (reduce
power consumption anywhere from roughly 7 watts to roughly 25 watts per
pair of 4-footers, depending on who you listen to and also depending on
what you do! Replace a pair of F40T12's and a non-electronic ballast for
these with a pair of F32T8's and an electronic ballast for those and power
consumption has a good chance of being decreased by roughly 24-25 watts -
along with a majority of red and green colored objects being illuminated
more brightly!

- Don Klipstein )

In article ,
(Don Klipstein) writes:

Although I agree with these presented facts, I do not find majority
extent (slightly short of 100% even if hardly) of negation of some
advantages of electronic ballasts to be any argument at all against
arguments on basis of unrelated issues such as energy efficiency (reduce
power consumption anywhere from roughly 7 watts to roughly 25 watts per
pair of 4-footers, depending on who you listen to and also depending on
what you do! Replace a pair of F40T12's and a non-electronic ballast for
these with a pair of F32T8's and an electronic ballast for those and power
consumption has a good chance of being decreased by roughly 24-25 watts -
along with a majority of red and green colored objects being illuminated
more brightly!

Don,
bear in mind that T12 fittings mostly vanished in the UK ~25 years
ago, and also that T8 tubes outside the US/120V have different power
ratings (they are designed to be used on the former T12 series
ballasts, so 20W, 40W, 65W T12's become 18W, 36W, 58W T8's, so they
can be used in most old T12 fittings).

T12 tubes are still available in larger retail outlets, but volumes
are tiny compared with T8's, and smaller retail outlets won't stock
T12's at all. Commercially, T12's haven't been used for a long time
except for special applications.

--
Andrew Gabriel

Andrew Gabriel wrote:

[UK]
Commercially, T12's haven't been used for a long time except for
special applications.

Except of course for the 8 ft. length (now 100 W), which are still
fairly common. I've always assumed this is for reasons of mechanical
robustness - an 8 ft. T8 tube would be just too fragile - is that right?

--
Andy

In article ,
(Don Klipstein) writes:
Electronic components are getting less expensive and sturdier, more
robust. Circuit designs are improved upon those that failed the test of
time.

Bigger iron core items of older technology have not enjoyed as much
reduction in production cost.

I think there are significant differences between US and Europe here
which dramatically change the economies of electronic ballasts between
the continents.

In Europe...
o Electronic ballasts are still mostly very expensive, and special
order, and very limited selection.
(As someone who has made a number of fluorescent fittings, I wish
this wasn't the case, but it is.)
o Iron core ballasts are very cheap (possibly much cheaper than in
the US as ballasts for 230V mains operation are very much simpler).
o My impression from reading US newsgroups is that iron core ballasts
in europe are very much more reliable -- failures are pretty much
unknown, but seem more common in the US (possibly in part because
it's easier to use the wrong lamp with the wrong ballast, and
possibly because they are more complex due to low mains voltage).
Electronic ballasts just can't touch Iron core ballasts for
reliability, as Iron core ballasts effectively last forever here.
o Iron core ballasts in Europe are getting much more efficient due to
EU regs (regs which were thought to phase them out, but just forced
manufacturers to make them higher efficiency as that is still much
cheaper that switching to electronic ballasts). They probably were
in any case always more efficient than US ballasts, because they
don't need the extra complexity for 120V operation.
o Europe (at least the parts I know) moved away from T12 tubes decades
ago, so the savings you are talking about with respect to switching
to T8's we already did 25 years ago.

Also, all popular F32T8 lamps made for "general lighting purpose" are

This is a USA-only tube. See my other post.

--
Andrew Gabriel

Victor Roberts wrote:
On 1 Dec 2006 04:57:15 -0800, wrote:

machinery strobing is possible with mag ballasts, but doesnt normally
happen,

actually it happens 100% of the time on single lamp
ballasts, through it is usually called flicker.

and does not make it look stationary even when it does.

Since the depth of the modulation is less than 100% and it
is unlikely that the mixer blades are rotating at a multiple
of the power line frequency I agree with you on this point.

So a problem with strobing does not normally occur.

A high level of light is output over a large percentage of the cycle,
which is another factor.



And cake mixers are well interlocked

And where do you find a mixer that is interlocked against a
hand in the "blades" or whatever they are called? Certainly
not mine.

ok, lets get more thorough about that then. There are 2 types of cake
mixing machines:

1. high speed sharp bladed food processors that always have interlocks.
Interlocking prevents any hand contact with moving blades. There is
also the fact that in use one does not see spinning blades, but rather
a mass of moving food. And the food does not move fast enough to apear
stationary

2. low speed blunt paddle devices that are open. These move so slowly
it is not possible to encounter a strobing problem with fl lighting on
50 or 60Hz. The blades move such a small amount between each half cycle
that this simply can not be a problem.

So there is no risk at all in using mag ballasted fl lighting with cake
mixers.


NT

Don Klipstein wrote:

Although I agree with these presented facts, I do not find majority
extent (slightly short of 100% even if hardly) of negation of some
advantages of electronic ballasts to be any argument at all against
arguments on basis of unrelated issues such as energy efficiency (reduce
power consumption anywhere from roughly 7 watts to roughly 25 watts per
pair of 4-footers, depending on who you listen to and also depending on
what you do! Replace a pair of F40T12's and a non-electronic ballast for
these with a pair of F32T8's and an electronic ballast for those and power
consumption has a good chance of being decreased by roughly 24-25 watts -

Replace a 40w tube with a 36w T8 and the power use also falls, though
not as much as that, due to mag ballast losses.

However, that is not the real world comparison. The real world energy
comparison also involves:
- energy used in transport to go get a new fitting
- energy used in manufacture of new fittings
- energy used in parts/materials of new fitting
- energy used in disposal of old fitting
- energy used in manufacturing, supplying and applying a coat of paint
to the ceiling when end user notices the new fitting is not identically
sized to the old, and the resulting paint appearance is bad.

If you do a real world energy comparison, it is more than hard to
justify replacing the fitting on energy saving grounds.

It is also false to justify it on reliability grounds.

And in this case, it can not be justified on the basis of starting
performance (which is typically lousy with glowstarts).

The claim of risk resulting from strobing in domestic situations is not
valid, see above post about that.

So in short, a case for replacing the fitting just doesnt exist.


along with a majority of red and green colored objects being illuminated
more brightly!

this surely is down to the tube, not the ballast. T12 UK glowstart
fittings are T8 compatible. It is common to find T8 tubes in older T12
fittings here.


NT

wrote:
Andrew Gabriel wrote:
In article .com,
writes:

Not in a 15 year old fitting. You'd need a 45 year old fitting

something else that doesnt flash during start), you wouldnt gain the

Might well be an electronic starter.

yes, nail on head. Yet another reason it would be pointless to replace
the fitting with an electronic fitting!


NT

We don't have trouble with the strength of eight foot T8 lamps in the
US. Many eight foot lamps are made in 1 inch diameter.

Jeff Waymouth

Andy Wade wrote:
Andrew Gabriel wrote:

[UK]

Commercially, T12's haven't been used for a long time except for
special applications.


Except of course for the 8 ft. length (now 100 W), which are still
fairly common. I've always assumed this is for reasons of mechanical
robustness - an 8 ft. T8 tube would be just too fragile - is that right?

Don Klipstein wrote:
In article .com,
wrote:
Victor Roberts wrote:
On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 13:53:04 GMT, Alex
wrote:

You're a real source of expertise when it comes to lighting, so I was a
little surprised to read these mistakes. Firstly, as Andrew has now
explained, the US and UK fluorescent lighting markets are significantly
different. Andrew also addressed some other significant points, I'll
add a few comments re anything not yet covered.


indeed, but that does not imply that the new fitting will be more
reilable or as reilable as the old. On the whole it tends to be the
other way round. One only need think bathtub curve to see that. Then
theres the 2nd factor of a more price-aggressive market today. So its
no surprise new goods dont have anything like the life expectancy of
older kit.

Electronic components are getting less expensive and sturdier, more
robust. Circuit designs are improved upon those that failed the test of
time.

This is correct, but it is not the relevant fact. What is relevant is
that the market is more cost driven and aggressive than in the past,
and many electronic goods that were once reliable have become much less
reliable, some to the point of disposable. This is primarily
competition driven. Electronic reliability depends on design margins,
and design margins depend on money. hence, not surprisingly, cheap
electronic goods are not known for reliability.

To replace a mag ballast with en electronic one and expect greater
reliability would be optimism over fact.


As opposed to meow2222/NT I believe that we should try to
save energy whenever possible.

Maybe then you could explain to us how travelling out to get a new
fitting and putting it up will save more energy than the 7w the older
fitting would consume with a T12 tube. Or even more to the point, the
smaller amount of energy difference involved in using a T8 in an older
fitting.

Modern USA 2-tube fixture with electronic ballast and two F32T8 lamps
often has the lamps receiving guesstimate 29 watts each (most fluorescent
lamps at a given current have both a slight decrease in power consumption
when frequency gets to a few KHz or more and a very slight increase in
light output when the frequency gets into the dozens of KHz), so the
fixture consumes fairly close to 64 watts.

The USA-traditional dual-F40 fixture had the lamps receiving 40 watts
each plus ballast loss that I guesstimate to be not much under 10 watts -
for power consumption in the upper 80's of watts, approaching 90 watts.

So I believe that replacing F40T12 lamps with F32T8 ones and replacing
the traditional dual-F40 ballast with an electronic one for two F32T8
lamps will reduce power consumption by somewhere around 24-25 watts.

We dont have those tubes here. Nor do our standard fittings underrun
tubes. Nor are mag ballast losses as high as you say there with modern
fittings.

And lastly, the OP wanted more light output, not less, so isnt looking
for an underrunning 29w system to replace 40w.

But the biggest issue here is that you've not addressed the energy cost
of replacing the fitting. That will outweigh the trivial energy
savings, which consist of mag ballast loss minus tronic ballast loss,
which is all replacement could gain. If it even is a mag ballast at
present, and it looks like it quite likely isnt, in which case savings
of zero are as good as one could hope for.


Plus, I expect that when you see the cost of a triphosphor
version of your current lamp that alone will start you
looking at T8 systems.

The OP has a T8 compatible system already. The OP is not in America.

1. I am speaking from and for America, the land of opportunity, including
a megatonnage of fluorescent fixtures having significant room for
improvement.

this is immaterial, the options open to the OP are what counts here.


2. In a fixture having a magnetic 2-lamp rapid start ballast for two
T8 lamps, replacement of the ballast with an
long snip

Youre describing the US market there.


NT

In message . com,
writes
1. high speed sharp bladed food processors that always have interlocks.
Interlocking prevents any hand contact with moving blades. There is
also the fact that in use one does not see spinning blades, but rather
a mass of moving food. And the food does not move fast enough to apear
stationary

Not all.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UU_AJfZVnYA&NR


2. low speed blunt paddle devices that are open. These move so slowly
it is not possible to encounter a strobing problem with fl lighting on
50 or 60Hz. The blades move such a small amount between each half cycle
that this simply can not be a problem.

So there is no risk at all in using mag ballasted fl lighting with cake
mixers.

Oh I rather think not. The CakeMaster 3000 has a variable speed DC drive
with digital speed feedback and clearly has blade settings at 100 and
120 Hz. The motor is rated 3HP and the blades are barbed to facilitate
good reduction of cake batter without lumps.

Several wealthy old ladies have quite literally been pureed to death in
these kitchen monsters. In one instance the only clue to what had
happened was that the mixing bowl was fuller than normal and had a
fluffy slipper perched on it's edge.

--
Clive Mitchell
http://www.bigclive.com

On 3 Dec 2006 05:24:07 -0800, wrote:


Electronic components are getting less expensive and sturdier, more
robust. Circuit designs are improved upon those that failed the test of
time.

This is correct, but it is not the relevant fact. What is relevant is
that the market is more cost driven and aggressive than in the past,
and many electronic goods that were once reliable have become much less
reliable, some to the point of disposable. This is primarily
competition driven. Electronic reliability depends on design margins,
and design margins depend on money. hence, not surprisingly, cheap
electronic goods are not known for reliability.

To replace a mag ballast with en electronic one and expect greater
reliability would be optimism over fact.

I don't think anyone has claimed that electronic ballasts
are more reliable than EM ballasts. After all, EM ballast
have only a few parts and perhaps 20 connections, while
electronic ballasts have perhaps 30 to 50 components and
perhaps 70 to 100 connections.

EM ballasts have lives of well over 20 years, at least in
the US, and it is not necessary for electronic ballasts to
have better reliability than EM ballasts in order for them
to be a good idea. If the life of an electronic ballast is
20 years, the room will probably be renovated before the
ballasts die.

I can't quite figure out why you believe that electronic
ballasts have serious reliability issues. It sounds like
you are stuck in 1980, a few years after the introduction of
electronic ballasts. I assume you own a TV set, some sort
of music system, perhaps a DVD player, own a car with an
electronic control system, travel in airplanes that use
electronic control systems, and, yes, that computer that you
are using to post your messages. I have not seem any
mechanical computers that have newsgroup readers, so I
assume you are using an electronic computer :-)

In 2005 there were 61,269,000 electronic fluorescent lamp
ballasts sold in the US. See Current Industrial Reports -
Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts: 2001, available at
http://www.census.gov/cir/www/335/mq335c.html.

With this many ballast sold, we would have a lot of very
angry customers if the failure rate was not very low.

--
Vic Roberts
http://www.RobertsResearchInc.com
To reply via e-mail:
replace xxx with vdr in the Reply to: address
or use e-mail address listed at the Web site.

This information is provided for educational purposes only.
It may not be used in any publication or posted on any Web
site without written permission.

Clive Mitchell wrote:
In message . com,
writes

So there is no risk at all in using mag ballasted fl lighting with cake
mixers.

Oh I rather think not. The CakeMaster 3000 has a variable speed DC drive
with digital speed feedback and clearly has blade settings at 100 and
120 Hz. The motor is rated 3HP and the blades are barbed to facilitate
good reduction of cake batter without lumps.

Several wealthy old ladies have quite literally been pureed to death in
these kitchen monsters. In one instance the only clue to what had
happened was that the mixing bowl was fuller than normal and had a
fluffy slipper perched on it's edge.

lol!

NT

On Sun, 03 Dec 2006 11:45:47 -0500, Victor Roberts
wrote:


In 2005 there were 61,269,000 electronic fluorescent lamp
ballasts sold in the US. See Current Industrial Reports -
Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts: 2001, available at
http://www.census.gov/cir/www/335/mq335c.html.

This last should have read "2005" not "2001".

--
Vic Roberts
http://www.RobertsResearchInc.com
To reply via e-mail:
replace xxx with vdr in the Reply to: address
or use e-mail address listed at the Web site.

This information is provided for educational purposes only.
It may not be used in any publication or posted on any Web
site without written permission.