UK diy (uk.d-i-y) For the discussion of all topics related to diy (do-it-yourself) in the UK. All levels of experience and proficency are welcome to join in to ask questions or offer solutions.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,431
Default Fluorescent light and starter question.

Hi all,

So, I have a couple of 6' single TL-D 70W tube fittings in the kitchen
and the other day one started flickering.

I had a box of new tubes so replaced them both (they were due anyway)
but one still wasn't right. I found a spare starter and replaced the
iffy one and all was well.

I ordered a cotchel of 4-80W basic starters cheap from ebay and when
they arrived, replaced both in the fittings and initially all seemed
well.

Then a couple of evenings later the Mrs reported one was randomly
blinking off and then seemed to do so nearly constantly. Replacing
that starter with an old Philips 70-125W one had everything stable
again ... until, the other new starter fitted lamp started blinking
off. ;-(

So, I bought a small cotchel of electronic starters, replaced the
kitchen ones again and they have been fine ever since. ;-)

So, after running the situation past the eBay seller of the first
starters we have been having a discussion where he seems to think that
it could be anything but the starters ... and I think it could be that
the starters are a bit underrated ... and so the range of voltages
seen across the starters are sometimes too much for those particular
items and hence why they are re-triggering, even when the tube is
running fine?

So panel, anyone experienced anything like this before and what was
it? Is it just that 70W is on the upper end of a starter rated as
4-80W, especially a cheap one?

One of the same two starters runs a 40W tube / fitting fine.

To add a bit more fuel to the fire. I thought I'd also test the other
4 new starters on the tubes when they were cold. The first caused the
tube filaments to glow but the tube didn't even try to start. The next
two caused the tube to try to start but not actually manage it. The
last did allow the tube to fire up, as then did the previous two but
once the tube was already warm?

Putting one of the electronic or one of the old Philips 70-125W
starters back in will start the same tube from any situation.

Now, What *I* think might be happening (on the first two new starters
at least) is they initially start and run the tubes (two separate
fittings) ok until everything warms up, when the voltage across the
tube increases slightly, causing the starter to re-trigger and the
tube to blink off and back on again. This process is fairly repeatable
(it might vary between fittings) and the blinking get's worse if
left.

Is it just duff (weak) starters or *could there* be something else?

Cheers, T i m
  #2   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
ARW ARW is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,161
Default Fluorescent light and starter question.

On 20/04/2018 18:51, T i m wrote:


Now, What *I* think might be happening (on the first two new starters
at least) is they initially start and run the tubes (two separate
fittings) ok until everything warms up, when the voltage across the
tube increases slightly, causing the starter to re-trigger and the
tube to blink off and back on again. This process is fairly repeatable
(it might vary between fittings) and the blinking get's worse if
left.

Is it just duff (weak) starters or *could there* be something else?


Remove the starter after the tube is lit and see what happens. The
starter is a one shot process. Once the tube is lit it has no further use.


--
Adam
  #3   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,431
Default Fluorescent light and starter question.

On Fri, 20 Apr 2018 21:04:20 +0100, ARW
wrote:

On 20/04/2018 18:51, T i m wrote:


Now, What *I* think might be happening (on the first two new starters
at least) is they initially start and run the tubes (two separate
fittings) ok until everything warms up, when the voltage across the
tube increases slightly, causing the starter to re-trigger and the
tube to blink off and back on again. This process is fairly repeatable
(it might vary between fittings) and the blinking get's worse if
left.

Is it just duff (weak) starters or *could there* be something else?


Remove the starter after the tube is lit and see what happens.


It works fine till you turn it off again. ;-)

The
starter is a one shot process.


Agreed, it *should* be but I was wondering under what criteria it
might try to kick in again after say a couple of hours? eg, what if a
ballast was going or a tube etc (except the ballasts have been there
since I fitted the units possibly 30 years ago (could be less [1]) and
they currently have new Philips tubes).

Once the tube is lit it has no further use.


Agreed.

Cheers, T i m

[1] The diffusers yellowed and the end plastics went brittle so I may
have bought new (slimline) fittings (Fitzgerald?) somewhere along the
line.
  #4   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
ARW ARW is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,161
Default Fluorescent light and starter question.

On 20/04/2018 21:25, T i m wrote:
On Fri, 20 Apr 2018 21:04:20 +0100, ARW
wrote:

On 20/04/2018 18:51, T i m wrote:


Now, What *I* think might be happening (on the first two new starters
at least) is they initially start and run the tubes (two separate
fittings) ok until everything warms up, when the voltage across the
tube increases slightly, causing the starter to re-trigger and the
tube to blink off and back on again. This process is fairly repeatable
(it might vary between fittings) and the blinking get's worse if
left.

Is it just duff (weak) starters or *could there* be something else?


Remove the starter after the tube is lit and see what happens.


It works fine till you turn it off again. ;-)

The
starter is a one shot process.


Agreed, it *should* be but I was wondering under what criteria it
might try to kick in again after say a couple of hours? eg, what if a
ballast was going or a tube etc (except the ballasts have been there
since I fitted the units possibly 30 years ago (could be less [1]) and
they currently have new Philips tubes).

Once the tube is lit it has no further use.


Agreed.

Cheers, T i m

[1] The diffusers yellowed and the end plastics went brittle so I may
have bought new (slimline) fittings (Fitzgerald?) somewhere along the
line.


Voltage drop to the house?

--
Adam
  #5   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,431
Default Fluorescent light and starter question.

On Fri, 20 Apr 2018 21:55:35 +0100, ARW
wrote:

snip

The
starter is a one shot process.


Agreed, it *should* be but I was wondering under what criteria it
might try to kick in again after say a couple of hours? eg, what if a
ballast was going or a tube etc (except the ballasts have been there
since I fitted the units possibly 30 years ago (could be less [1]) and
they currently have new Philips tubes).

Once the tube is lit it has no further use.


Agreed.

snip

Voltage drop to the house?


Well, that's the sort of thing I am open to but if I understand it
right, the ballast and tube are in series across the mains (forming a
potential divider) and the starter is in parallel with the tube on the
other side of the filaments. The starter is a voltage / current
sensitive device so it *could* be falsely triggered if 1) the voltage
goes above it's trigger voltage [1] and / or 2) the starter is made
such that it's over sensitive (to voltage)?

I know the bottom line is that the electronic (and old Philips
70-125W) starters work, just that the new 4-80W ones don't (or not
fully).

Would you use / have you successfully used 4-80W starters on 70W tubes
do you know / remember please Adam?

I think I'll try to pick up some branded (Philips?) 4-80W starters and
see if they work reliably in my lamps.

Cheers, T i m

[1] Where the gas (Argon / Neon) in the starter switch capsule get's
hot enough to heat the bi-metallic switch and close the contacts.


  #6   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 149
Default Fluorescent light and starter question.

T i m wrote:

I ordered a cotchel of 4-80W basic starters


From Collins Dictionary:

"cotchel

New Word Suggestion:

A large meal or large portion of food.
Additional Information possibly from the days of Covent garden fruit
market when left over fruit was taken home by workers - eg. taking
home a cotchel of fruit."

Are your lights eating starters?
--
TOJ.


  #7   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,105
Default Fluorescent light and starter question.

T i m wrote:

I ordered a cotchel of 4-80W basic starters


From Collins Dictionary:

"cotchel

New Word Suggestion:

A large meal or large portion of food.
Additional Information possibly from the days of Covent garden fruit
market when left over fruit was taken home by workers - eg. taking
home a cotchel of fruit."

Are your lights eating starters?


A tranche of starters?
--

Graham.
%Profound_observation%
  #8   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,431
Default Fluorescent light and starter question.

On Fri, 20 Apr 2018 22:04:11 GMT, The Other John
wrote:

T i m wrote:

I ordered a cotchel of 4-80W basic starters


From Collins Dictionary:

"cotchel

New Word Suggestion:

A large meal or large portion of food.
Additional Information possibly from the days of Covent garden fruit
market when left over fruit was taken home by workers - eg. taking
home a cotchel of fruit."


I'd go more with:

https://www.thefreedictionary.com/Cotchel

'a small quantity'. ;-)

Are your lights eating starters?


If they are they aren't having currents for pudding. ;-)

Cheers, T i m
  #9   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,998
Default Fluorescent light and starter question.

The spread of tolerances in the starters is far too wide I think. Either
that or they are marked incorrectly for the job you put them to and all
kinds of random changes will then cause issues.
Probably knock offs made in a Chinese dodgy plant.
Brian

--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please!
"T i m" wrote in message
...
Hi all,

So, I have a couple of 6' single TL-D 70W tube fittings in the kitchen
and the other day one started flickering.

I had a box of new tubes so replaced them both (they were due anyway)
but one still wasn't right. I found a spare starter and replaced the
iffy one and all was well.

I ordered a cotchel of 4-80W basic starters cheap from ebay and when
they arrived, replaced both in the fittings and initially all seemed
well.

Then a couple of evenings later the Mrs reported one was randomly
blinking off and then seemed to do so nearly constantly. Replacing
that starter with an old Philips 70-125W one had everything stable
again ... until, the other new starter fitted lamp started blinking
off. ;-(

So, I bought a small cotchel of electronic starters, replaced the
kitchen ones again and they have been fine ever since. ;-)

So, after running the situation past the eBay seller of the first
starters we have been having a discussion where he seems to think that
it could be anything but the starters ... and I think it could be that
the starters are a bit underrated ... and so the range of voltages
seen across the starters are sometimes too much for those particular
items and hence why they are re-triggering, even when the tube is
running fine?

So panel, anyone experienced anything like this before and what was
it? Is it just that 70W is on the upper end of a starter rated as
4-80W, especially a cheap one?

One of the same two starters runs a 40W tube / fitting fine.

To add a bit more fuel to the fire. I thought I'd also test the other
4 new starters on the tubes when they were cold. The first caused the
tube filaments to glow but the tube didn't even try to start. The next
two caused the tube to try to start but not actually manage it. The
last did allow the tube to fire up, as then did the previous two but
once the tube was already warm?

Putting one of the electronic or one of the old Philips 70-125W
starters back in will start the same tube from any situation.

Now, What *I* think might be happening (on the first two new starters
at least) is they initially start and run the tubes (two separate
fittings) ok until everything warms up, when the voltage across the
tube increases slightly, causing the starter to re-trigger and the
tube to blink off and back on again. This process is fairly repeatable
(it might vary between fittings) and the blinking get's worse if
left.

Is it just duff (weak) starters or *could there* be something else?

Cheers, T i m



  #10   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 48
Default Fluorescent light and starter question.

On Saturday, 21 April 2018 07:35:03 UTC+10, T i m wrote:
On Fri, 20 Apr 2018 21:55:35 +0100, ARW
wrote:

snip

The
starter is a one shot process.

Agreed, it *should* be but I was wondering under what criteria it
might try to kick in again after say a couple of hours? eg, what if a
ballast was going or a tube etc (except the ballasts have been there
since I fitted the units possibly 30 years ago (could be less [1]) and
they currently have new Philips tubes).

Once the tube is lit it has no further use.

Agreed.

snip

Voltage drop to the house?


Well, that's the sort of thing I am open to but if I understand it
right, the ballast and tube are in series across the mains (forming a
potential divider) and the starter is in parallel with the tube on the
other side of the filaments. The starter is a voltage / current
sensitive device so it *could* be falsely triggered if 1) the voltage
goes above it's trigger voltage [1] and / or 2) the starter is made
such that it's over sensitive (to voltage)?

I know the bottom line is that the electronic (and old Philips
70-125W) starters work, just that the new 4-80W ones don't (or not
fully).

Would you use / have you successfully used 4-80W starters on 70W tubes
do you know / remember please Adam?

I think I'll try to pick up some branded (Philips?) 4-80W starters and
see if they work reliably in my lamps.

Cheers, T i m

[1] Where the gas (Argon / Neon) in the starter switch capsule get's
hot enough to heat the bi-metallic switch and close the contacts.


I would suspect things around choke. Clean and reconnect the terminals. Sometimes cobweb or cockroach muck could cause change in voltage across the choke. As a total unit, once the plasma is struck the total energy is sum of choke drop and the plasma drop. Plasma energy is generally low, hence choke is the component taking most enrgy. Choke may develope intermittency due to failing insulation.failing insulation.


  #11   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
ARW ARW is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,161
Default Fluorescent light and starter question.

On 20/04/2018 22:34, T i m wrote:

I know the bottom line is that the electronic (and old Philips
70-125W) starters work, just that the new 4-80W ones don't (or not
fully).

Would you use / have you successfully used 4-80W starters on 70W tubes
do you know / remember please Adam?

I think I'll try to pick up some branded (Philips?) 4-80W starters and
see if they work reliably in my lamps.


Just had a look on the van (I keep starters). Well the first one I
picked up was rated 4-65W and 80W!

--
Adam
  #13   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 307
Default Fluorescent light and starter question.

I wouldn't fanny about like that. Buy an led tube with dummy starter and forget the flickering.
  #15   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,431
Default Fluorescent light and starter question.

On Sat, 21 Apr 2018 08:32:33 +0100, "Brian Gaff"
wrote:

Obviously, but that is hardly an answer to the problem but might help you
keep fit if you like step exercises!


Quite.

The fact that the voltage is still enough to operate the starter still
points to the spec being incorrect for the job.


I agree Brian. I believe the spec (4-80W) should be good for my 70W
tubes so it could just be that they are weak units.

It was suggested that along with the gas used in the starter capsule,
the initial distance between the electrodes can also set the strike
voltage?

Cheers, T i m


  #16   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,431
Default Fluorescent light and starter question.

On Sat, 21 Apr 2018 08:31:30 +0100, ARW
wrote:

On 20/04/2018 22:34, T i m wrote:

I know the bottom line is that the electronic (and old Philips
70-125W) starters work, just that the new 4-80W ones don't (or not
fully).

Would you use / have you successfully used 4-80W starters on 70W tubes
do you know / remember please Adam?

I think I'll try to pick up some branded (Philips?) 4-80W starters and
see if they work reliably in my lamps.


Just had a look on the van (I keep starters).


I thought you might (and thanks for looking). ;-)

Well the first one I
picked up was rated 4-65W and 80W!


Oooerr!

No use for my 70W tubes then. ;-(

Cheers, T i m
  #17   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,175
Default Fluorescent light and starter question.

In article ,
T i m writes:
On Fri, 20 Apr 2018 21:55:35 +0100, ARW
wrote:

snip

The
starter is a one shot process.

Agreed, it *should* be but I was wondering under what criteria it
might try to kick in again after say a couple of hours? eg, what if a
ballast was going or a tube etc (except the ballasts have been there
since I fitted the units possibly 30 years ago (could be less [1]) and
they currently have new Philips tubes).

Once the tube is lit it has no further use.

Agreed.

snip

Voltage drop to the house?


Well, that's the sort of thing I am open to but if I understand it
right, the ballast and tube are in series across the mains (forming a
potential divider) and the starter is in parallel with the tube on the


It's not really a potential divider because the tube is far from a
resistor. To a first approximation, it's a constant voltage device,
and to a second approximation, the voltage across it varies inversely
with the current flow. So a reduction in mains voltage will drop the
voltage across the inductor, which will drop the current in the circuit,
and the second order approximation will raise the tube voltage because
of the lower current. This could trigger a marginal starter.

other side of the filaments. The starter is a voltage / current
sensitive device so it *could* be falsely triggered if 1) the voltage
goes above it's trigger voltage [1] and / or 2) the starter is made
such that it's over sensitive (to voltage)?


I know the bottom line is that the electronic (and old Philips
70-125W) starters work, just that the new 4-80W ones don't (or not
fully).

Would you use / have you successfully used 4-80W starters on 70W tubes
do you know / remember please Adam?


Tubes changed their ratings, whereas starters didn't. The 4-80W
starters were originally for tubes up to 5'. 5' tubes dropped from
80W to 65W to 58W over time. 6' tubes dropped from 85W to 70W, with
the 70W tube having a higher tube voltage than the original 85W tube
(so it runs at 70W on original 85W ballasts).

So a starter for an old 80W tube might not work on a current 70W tube.
It would have been more accurate to rate them by tube length where the
original 4-80W starter would have been tubes up to 5', although even
that's not perfect. There was generally enough leaway they worked
outside their ratings, but you hit one that doesn't.

I notice that starters nowadays seem to be 4-65W (which is probably
exactly the same as the old 4-80W starter), 70W is a separate starter,
also a 70-100W starter (which is probably exactly same as old 125W
starter for old 8' tubes).

I think I'll try to pick up some branded (Philips?) 4-80W starters and
see if they work reliably in my lamps.


I would look for a 70W starter or 70-100W starter.

Cheers, T i m

[1] Where the gas (Argon / Neon) in the starter switch capsule get's
hot enough to heat the bi-metallic switch and close the contacts.


--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]
  #18   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,431
Default Fluorescent light and starter question.

On Sat, 21 Apr 2018 08:30:32 +0100, "Brian Gaff"
wrote:

The spread of tolerances in the starters is far too wide I think.


That could be more the case with these 4-80W jobbies than the 70-125W
version.

Either
that or they are marked incorrectly for the job you put them to and all
kinds of random changes will then cause issues.


I think is the right answer.

Probably knock offs made in a Chinese dodgy plant.


And you could be right with that as well as they were less than a
pound each, delivered (from the UK though).

Cheers, T i m
  #19   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,066
Default Fluorescent light and starter question.

On Friday, 20 April 2018 18:51:25 UTC+1, T i m wrote:
Hi all,

So, I have a couple of 6' single TL-D 70W tube fittings in the kitchen
and the other day one started flickering.

I had a box of new tubes so replaced them both (they were due anyway)
but one still wasn't right. I found a spare starter and replaced the
iffy one and all was well.

The resistance between the filiments is near infinity when "Off" and near zero when the tube is running.
This the basic problem.

The "choke"/inductors provide the high voltage jolt to establish the "arc" between the filiments and then limits the current when running (hence "choke").

Chokes are very reliable. If it goes wrong, you'll probably be able to smell it. (They can also go open circuit)
As someone else has said switch the thing on and remove the starter and observe. If it starts to flicker, the tube is at fault (may take some time).

Both tube and starter have sub-atmospheric gas filled glass bulbs. (Plus mercury in the tube) The common fault is for air to leak in.
The other fault is for a filiment in the tube to go open circuit.

A fluorescent tube with electronic "choke" is as efficient as an LED bulb.
  #20   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,431
Default Fluorescent light and starter question.

On Sat, 21 Apr 2018 07:49:08 -0000 (UTC),
(Andrew Gabriel) wrote:

snip

Well, that's the sort of thing I am open to but if I understand it
right, the ballast and tube are in series across the mains (forming a
potential divider) and the starter is in parallel with the tube on the


It's not really a potential divider because the tube is far from a
resistor.


Ok ... but can you not have a potential divider (in crude function) on
AC and using a choke and a tube? (Genuine question).

To a first approximation, it's a constant voltage device,
and to a second approximation, the voltage across it varies inversely
with the current flow. So a reduction in mains voltage will drop the
voltage across the inductor, which will drop the current in the circuit,
and the second order approximation will raise the tube voltage because
of the lower current. This could trigger a marginal starter.


Cool, so I was asking the right sort of question at least. ;-)

snip

I know the bottom line is that the electronic (and old Philips
70-125W) starters work, just that the new 4-80W ones don't (or not
fully).

Would you use / have you successfully used 4-80W starters on 70W tubes
do you know / remember please Adam?


Tubes changed their ratings, whereas starters didn't. The 4-80W
starters were originally for tubes up to 5'. 5' tubes dropped from
80W to 65W to 58W over time.


Interesting, thanks.

6' tubes dropped from 85W to 70W, with
the 70W tube having a higher tube voltage than the original 85W tube
(so it runs at 70W on original 85W ballasts).


Ahhhh ...

FWIW, the sticker on the actual fitting says '1 x 70W' but the choke
could be the 85W as you say (I'll check when I get a mo).

So a starter for an old 80W tube might not work on a current 70W tube.
It would have been more accurate to rate them by tube length where the
original 4-80W starter would have been tubes up to 5', although even
that's not perfect. There was generally enough leaway they worked
outside their ratings, but you hit one that doesn't.


Well I seem to have hit at least 2 (of the 6 I bought) that cause the
lamps to flick off (possibly when they get warm or after running for a
couple of hours or some other external influence, like incoming supply
lower voltage etc) but does it explain why another three don't
actually start a tube at all (till it's already been warmed up via
another starter)?

I notice that starters nowadays seem to be 4-65W (which is probably
exactly the same as the old 4-80W starter), 70W is a separate starter,
also a 70-100W starter (which is probably exactly same as old 125W
starter for old 8' tubes).


LOL ... crazy eh, as you say.

I think I'll try to pick up some branded (Philips?) 4-80W starters and
see if they work reliably in my lamps.


I would look for a 70W starter or 70-100W starter.


Because of the 'discussion' I'm having with this eBay seller I think
(just for the S&G's etc) I'd like to try a 'branded' 4-80W starter,
just to see if they can do the job.

OOI, the starters I have that are playing up are branded 'Star' (with
red writing)

Cheers, T i m


  #21   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,431
Default Fluorescent light and starter question.

On Sat, 21 Apr 2018 01:10:10 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:

On Friday, 20 April 2018 18:51:25 UTC+1, T i m wrote:
Hi all,

So, I have a couple of 6' single TL-D 70W tube fittings in the kitchen
and the other day one started flickering.

I had a box of new tubes so replaced them both (they were due anyway)
but one still wasn't right. I found a spare starter and replaced the
iffy one and all was well.

The resistance between the filiments is near infinity when "Off" and near zero when the tube is running.


Check.

This the basic problem.


Problem?

The "choke"/inductors provide the high voltage jolt to establish the "arc" between the filiments and then limits the current when running (hence "choke").


Understood.

Chokes are very reliable. If it goes wrong, you'll probably be able to smell it. (They can also go open circuit)


Check.

As someone else has said switch the thing on and remove the starter and observe. If it starts to flicker, the tube is at fault (may take some time).


Nope, everything solid with the starter out (and that was my first
action when the Mrs reported the kitchen light flashing and needed a
'quick fix').

Both tube and starter have sub-atmospheric gas filled glass bulbs. (Plus mercury in the tube)


Check. Argon or Neon (and possibly others) in the starter I
understand?

The common fault is for air to leak in.


Oh?

The other fault is for a filiment in the tube to go open circuit.


Ok.

A fluorescent tube with electronic "choke" is as efficient as an LED bulb.


Hmm. If I had to change these then I'd look at LED but I'm yet to be
convinced that it would be worth (electricity savings over outlay) or
be able to fully equal the light range of fluorescent tubes?

A mate swapped 4 x 6' fluorescent (and fairly old even) tubes in his
shop with the brightest LED replacements he could afford but it was
noticeably darker in there (but at least he didn't get the migraines).
Maybe things have improved since then (~1 year ago)?

Cheers, T i m


  #22   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,364
Default Fluorescent light and starter question.

On Friday, 20 April 2018 21:25:10 UTC+1, T i m wrote:
On Fri, 20 Apr 2018 21:04:20 +0100, ARW
wrote:

On 20/04/2018 18:51, T i m wrote:


Now, What *I* think might be happening (on the first two new starters
at least) is they initially start and run the tubes (two separate
fittings) ok until everything warms up, when the voltage across the
tube increases slightly, causing the starter to re-trigger and the
tube to blink off and back on again. This process is fairly repeatable
(it might vary between fittings) and the blinking get's worse if
left.

Is it just duff (weak) starters or *could there* be something else?


Remove the starter after the tube is lit and see what happens.


It works fine till you turn it off again. ;-)

The
starter is a one shot process.


Agreed, it *should* be but I was wondering under what criteria it
might try to kick in again after say a couple of hours? eg, what if a
ballast was going or a tube etc (except the ballasts have been there
since I fitted the units possibly 30 years ago (could be less [1]) and
they currently have new Philips tubes).

Once the tube is lit it has no further use.


Agreed.

Cheers, T i m

[1] The diffusers yellowed and the end plastics went brittle so I may
have bought new (slimline) fittings (Fitzgerald?) somewhere along the
line.


the starter is faulty. It should never interfere once the tube is lit, at least after the first 2 seconds or so. Unless the tube is absolutely on its last legs, which you'd see by increasinly severe flicker every so often then the starter kicks in. Then it runs ok for a bit then goes into flicker again.


NT
  #23   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,364
Default Fluorescent light and starter question.

On Friday, 20 April 2018 22:35:03 UTC+1, T i m wrote:
On Fri, 20 Apr 2018 21:55:35 +0100, ARW
wrote:

snip

The
starter is a one shot process.

Agreed, it *should* be but I was wondering under what criteria it
might try to kick in again after say a couple of hours? eg, what if a
ballast was going or a tube etc (except the ballasts have been there
since I fitted the units possibly 30 years ago (could be less [1]) and
they currently have new Philips tubes).

Once the tube is lit it has no further use.

Agreed.

snip

Voltage drop to the house?


Well, that's the sort of thing I am open to but if I understand it
right, the ballast and tube are in series across the mains (forming a
potential divider) and the starter is in parallel with the tube on the
other side of the filaments. The starter is a voltage / current
sensitive device so it *could* be falsely triggered if 1) the voltage
goes above it's trigger voltage [1] and / or 2) the starter is made
such that it's over sensitive (to voltage)?


no. There's far too much margin for that.

I know the bottom line is that the electronic (and old Philips
70-125W) starters work, just that the new 4-80W ones don't (or not
fully).

Would you use / have you successfully used 4-80W starters on 70W tubes
do you know / remember please Adam?

I think I'll try to pick up some branded (Philips?) 4-80W starters and
see if they work reliably in my lamps.

Cheers, T i m

[1] Where the gas (Argon / Neon) in the starter switch capsule get's
hot enough to heat the bi-metallic switch and close the contacts.

  #24   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,431
Default Fluorescent light and starter question.

On Sat, 21 Apr 2018 03:02:11 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

snip

the starter is faulty.


Well, 3 of the 6 could be considered so as they fail to even start the
tubes from cold but the first two that caused the tubes to flick off
now and again, may just be considered 'under spec' ?

It should never interfere once the tube is lit, at least after the first 2 seconds or so.


Agreed.

Unless the tube is absolutely on its last legs, which you'd see by increasinly severe flicker every so often then the starter kicks in.


Ok.

Then it runs ok for a bit then goes into flicker again.


New tubes (now) so not that in this case.

And that's the ting ... I've been installing and maintaining such
fittings for many years now and it's not the first time in the 20
years (or whatever) those fittings have been in the kitchen that one
has started to misbehave and I've had to sort them.

The first and obvious trick is to swap stuff about between the two
fittings, and / or just pull the starter once the tube is on etc.

It was just I was interested to find out what could cause a
potentially good / new starter to start to misbehave but only after
(it seemed) a few hours.

Now I'm a little clearer how the system works (thanks Andrew) I can
see how a 70W tube could be 'pushing' a starter marked 4-80W (as it's
actually likely to be rated as a 4-65W).

I'll put them back in and note the supply voltage when they are
working fine and when they aren't and see if there is any correlation
(when I believe there is more chance of them misbehaving if the input
voltage is low).

All for the S&G's etc.

Cheers, T i m
  #25   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,175
Default Fluorescent light and starter question.

In article ,
harry writes:

Both tube and starter have sub-atmospheric gas filled glass bulbs. (Plus mercury in the tube) The common fault is for air to leak in.
The other fault is for a filiment in the tube to go open circuit.


The three most common failure modes for tubes at end of life a

1) Loss of the electron emission coating on the filament.

This was pretty much the only failure mode in all tubes until about
about 10 years ago. With switch-start control gear, it shows as a
blackened tube end which only glows orange and not white as the
starter repeatedly tries and fails to start the tube. No white is
because the filament is not emitting electrons when heated red-hot
(no thermionic emission), so there's no conduction into the gas-fill,
and the discharge can't start.
Electronic control gear detects this by seeing the tube start
to act as a rectifier and shuts down the tube to prevent it changing
to operate as a cold-cathode tube which has a number of dangers.

2) Run out of mercury in the gas.

Environmental regulations now require minimum mercury dosing of tubes
for the expected life (typically 1/10th of what older T12 tubes used).
Mercury is slowly absorbed into the electrodes and glass and lost from
the gas fill. This causes tubes to dim with age, and eventually to
run a dim pink when all the mercury has gone.

3) Phosphor worn out.

Tubes last much longer than they did and the phosphor efficiency drop
causes them to dim and become unviable.

Air doesn't leak into tubes, even ones which are very many decades old.

A fluorescent tube with electronic "choke" is as efficient as an LED bulb.


Not any more.
If you take into account losses in the fluorescent luminare (getting the
light from the wrong side of the tube to where you want it, or losing it),
they never were.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]


  #27   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,364
Default Fluorescent light and starter question.

On Saturday, 21 April 2018 12:35:14 UTC+1, Andrew Gabriel wrote:
In article ,
harry writes:

Both tube and starter have sub-atmospheric gas filled glass bulbs. (Plus mercury in the tube) The common fault is for air to leak in.
The other fault is for a filiment in the tube to go open circuit.


The three most common failure modes for tubes at end of life a

1) Loss of the electron emission coating on the filament.

This was pretty much the only failure mode in all tubes until about
about 10 years ago. With switch-start control gear, it shows as a
blackened tube end which only glows orange and not white as the
starter repeatedly tries and fails to start the tube. No white is
because the filament is not emitting electrons when heated red-hot
(no thermionic emission), so there's no conduction into the gas-fill,
and the discharge can't start.
Electronic control gear detects this by seeing the tube start
to act as a rectifier and shuts down the tube to prevent it changing
to operate as a cold-cathode tube which has a number of dangers.

2) Run out of mercury in the gas.

Environmental regulations now require minimum mercury dosing of tubes
for the expected life (typically 1/10th of what older T12 tubes used).
Mercury is slowly absorbed into the electrodes and glass and lost from
the gas fill. This causes tubes to dim with age, and eventually to
run a dim pink when all the mercury has gone.

3) Phosphor worn out.

Tubes last much longer than they did and the phosphor efficiency drop
causes them to dim and become unviable.

Air doesn't leak into tubes, even ones which are very many decades old.

A fluorescent tube with electronic "choke" is as efficient as an LED bulb.


Not any more.
If you take into account losses in the fluorescent luminare (getting the
light from the wrong side of the tube to where you want it, or losing it),
they never were.


FWIW there are thinner ones with better efficacy than T8 or T12 but their ouput v temp dependance is horrible


NT
  #28   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
ARW ARW is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,161
Default Fluorescent light and starter question.

On 21/04/2018 08:33, Cynic wrote:
I wouldn't fanny about like that. Buy an led tube with dummy starter and forget the flickering.


+1

--
Adam
  #29   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
ARW ARW is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,161
Default Fluorescent light and starter question.

On 21/04/2018 12:35, Andrew Gabriel wrote:
In article ,
harry writes:

Both tube and starter have sub-atmospheric gas filled glass bulbs. (Plus mercury in the tube) The common fault is for air to leak in.
The other fault is for a filiment in the tube to go open circuit.


The three most common failure modes for tubes at end of life a

1) Loss of the electron emission coating on the filament.

This was pretty much the only failure mode in all tubes until about
about 10 years ago. With switch-start control gear, it shows as a
blackened tube end which only glows orange and not white as the
starter repeatedly tries and fails to start the tube. No white is
because the filament is not emitting electrons when heated red-hot
(no thermionic emission), so there's no conduction into the gas-fill,
and the discharge can't start.
Electronic control gear detects this by seeing the tube start
to act as a rectifier and shuts down the tube to prevent it changing
to operate as a cold-cathode tube which has a number of dangers.

2) Run out of mercury in the gas.

Environmental regulations now require minimum mercury dosing of tubes
for the expected life (typically 1/10th of what older T12 tubes used).
Mercury is slowly absorbed into the electrodes and glass and lost from
the gas fill. This causes tubes to dim with age, and eventually to
run a dim pink when all the mercury has gone.

3) Phosphor worn out.

Tubes last much longer than they did and the phosphor efficiency drop
causes them to dim and become unviable.

Air doesn't leak into tubes, even ones which are very many decades old.

A fluorescent tube with electronic "choke" is as efficient as an LED bulb.


Not any more.
If you take into account losses in the fluorescent luminare (getting the
light from the wrong side of the tube to where you want it, or losing it),
they never were.


Yes but that only goes to show that is you do the opposite of what harry
says then there is a good chance you are correct.

--
Adam
  #30   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,431
Default Fluorescent light and starter question.

On Sat, 21 Apr 2018 15:26:23 +0100, ARW
wrote:

On 21/04/2018 08:33, Cynic wrote:
I wouldn't fanny about like that. Buy an led tube with dummy starter and forget the flickering.


+1


Or just buy electronic starters and get the same result. ;-)

Cheers, T i m


  #31   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,175
Default Fluorescent light and starter question.

In article ,
writes:
FWIW there are thinner ones with better efficacy than T8 or T12 but their ouput v temp dependance is horrible


You are talking of T5 tubes.
T5 tubes are only rated for running on electronic control gear.

There are two ranges:
T5HE (High Efficiency) are exactly the same efficiency as T8, when
compared with T8 running on electronic control gear (although for
historic reasons, I think T8 efficiency still has to be quoted for
when running on magnetic ballasts, which is why it looks lower).*

T5HO (High Output) are lower efficiency than T5HE or T8 on electronic
ballasts, but significantly higher light output for when that's
required.

(There is also the old T5 tube range, 4,6,8,13W, but these are
separate from T5HE and T5HO ranges.)

Also, as I hinted before, there's an important difference between
fluorescent tube efficiency, and flourescent luminare efficiency.
Fluorescent tubes emit light all around the tube (excluding in-line
with the tube). That's not usually how you want light distributed,
so refectors are used (that can be part of the luminare, or
something like the ceiling - it doesn't matter). Reflectors are
inefficient, and even with reflectors, much of the light is lost,
typically 50% in the luminare and external reflectors such as
ceiling, although it can be much worse.

T5 tubes do make it possible to design slightly higher efficiency
luminares, because the smaller light source (thinner tube) makes
it possible to focus more of the light output in the required
direction than is possible with a T8 tube.

LED's on the other hand are by nature directional, so they start
off avoiding the problem of light leaving the source in the wrong
direction. They are (or can be) smaller sources too, which again
helps with any focussing optics to get the light in the required
direction.

* Also note that all T8 electronic control gear in the EU underruns
the T8 tubes, as is rerquired by EU directives, so that power is
saved rather than generating additional the light output which
would be achieved if they ran at high frequency at full power.
This doesn't significantly change their efficiency though.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]
  #32   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,491
Default Fluorescent light and starter question.

On Fri, 20 Apr 2018 21:04:20 +0100, ARW wrote:

On 20/04/2018 18:51, T i m wrote:


Now, What *I* think might be happening (on the first two new starters
at least) is they initially start and run the tubes (two separate
fittings) ok until everything warms up, when the voltage across the
tube increases slightly, causing the starter to re-trigger and the tube
to blink off and back on again. This process is fairly repeatable (it
might vary between fittings) and the blinking get's worse if left.

Is it just duff (weak) starters or *could there* be something else?


Remove the starter after the tube is lit and see what happens. The
starter is a one shot process. Once the tube is lit it has no further
use.


Until the time you need to switch the light back on again. :-(

I've had the same sort of trouble with the last remaining fluorescent
fitting that I couldn't upgrade to a "Quickstart"(tm) transformer ballast
on account I couldn't get the older style compatible T12 tubes for this 5
foot fitting[1]. The problem is clearly down to ****e quality starter
switches and I eventually sorted it out by buying enough of them from
which to choose a working one (about 4 or so 'new' ones to add to my
existing collection of two or three).

Even so, it takes some 5 to 10 seconds before the tube will strike,
strangely, sans the disco strobe effect - it just sits there with the
ends glowing (or not) before suddenly striking to full uninterrupted
brightness. As a consequence, it tends to be left switched on for the
whole evening.

[1] One of these days, when we finally start seeing 200LPW LED
equivalents to the 150W incandescent GLS light bulb, I'll revert it back
to the ceiling pendant fitting it had before this 'spare bedroom' became
my office/workshop some 20 years ago.

The unavailability of Quickstart compatible tubes hit home over a decade
ago with the shorter 4 foot variety so the last remaining 4 foot
Quickstart fitting (in the basement) is now relying on the very last
working compatible tube until it too finally expires (they last a bloody
sight longer in Quickstart fittings - 16000 hours versus 7000 hours or so
in a switch start fitting).

Fluorescent luminaires are the only sane choice in some locations such
as kitchens (and my basement) for their non-glare, shadowless
illumination properties. Until recently, they were still top dog for
energy efficient lighting (still are compared to the older stock of LED
Tubes being foisted on the great unwashed consumer in most retail stores).

However, once I start to see 125LPW (or better) 300 to 360 deg LED tube
replacements, I'll upgrade the last of my fluorescent fittings. Until
then, I don't see much point in wasting time and money on a mediocre
'upgrade'. Alternatively, large area ceiling panel luminaires might make
a more suitable substitute for the humble fluorescent tube fitting. At
the end of the day, it all boils down to their cost effectiveness.

--
Johnny B Good
  #33   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,491
Default Fluorescent light and starter question.

On Sat, 21 Apr 2018 15:26:23 +0100, ARW wrote:

On 21/04/2018 08:33, Cynic wrote:
I wouldn't fanny about like that. Buy an led tube with dummy starter
and forget the flickering.


+1


-10 !

Unless you buy from a lighting specialist that can supply the latest
120LPW LED tube substitutes, you might be better off upgrading to a
microprocessor controlled electronic ballast.

I was considering an LED tube upgrade for our 4 foot 36W cheap
electronically ballasted B&Q fitting bought about two years ago now, when
the 2nd tube in 18 months (replacement to the original, presumed low
quality tube) started to give trouble. Switching the tube, end over end
in the fitting gave less than a week's relief from the starting failure,
culminating in the fitting 'going quietly Pop!'.

I wasn't impressed with either alternative of new ballast or a complete
re-lamp with the unimpressively inefficient and over-priced LED tube
options. However, persistence paid off and I bought a high quality Helvar
ballast for just under a fiver delivered postage free[1]. At that price,
it was the no brainer choice of repair.

However, the second tube had been so shagged by the Chinese ballast, the
Helvar ballast refused to even try starting it. I had slightly better
luck with the original but only in that it would light it up briefly
before aborting further starting attempts (fussy microprocessor
controller - I assumed).

My assumption proved to be correct but I did have to chance buying yet
another tube, from Toolstation this time rather than my local lighting
specialist from whom I'd bought the last one. In fact, I landed up buying
yet another, cool white this time rather than warm white - I'd forgotten
to take account of the kitchen's pale yellow colour scheme. At least I
have a working spare, even if it is a little on the warm side for the
kitchen's current colour scheme.

[1] https://www.amazon.co.uk/Helvar-EL1x...le-Electronic-
Ballast/dp/B07217Q8FF/ref=sr_1_5?
s=lighting&ie=UTF8&qid=1524354946&sr=1-5&keywords=helvar+ballast

Would seem to be the very same item but a penny cheaper! :-)

If your fluorescent light fitting is a single 36W T8 tubed 4 foot
luminaire, that should suit your needs nicely. It doesn't strike the
modern T8 tubes as slickly as the ancient but very effective Quickstart
ballasts did with the original T12 compatible tubes (250ms versus 900ms
of the modern life enhancing microprocessor controlled electronic high
frequency ballasts) but that's the price paid for a reduction from 52W
consumption down to the 36W exactly of an electronically ballasted 4 foot
T8 tube (I'd measured exactly 36W with both ballasts).

--
Johnny B Good
  #34   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,491
Default Fluorescent light and starter question.

On Sat, 21 Apr 2018 11:35:12 +0000, Andrew Gabriel wrote:

In article ,
harry writes:

Both tube and starter have sub-atmospheric gas filled glass bulbs.
(Plus mercury in the tube) The common fault is for air to leak in.
The other fault is for a filiment in the tube to go open circuit.


The three most common failure modes for tubes at end of life a

1) Loss of the electron emission coating on the filament.

This was pretty much the only failure mode in all tubes until about
about 10 years ago. With switch-start control gear, it shows as a
blackened tube end which only glows orange and not white as the
starter repeatedly tries and fails to start the tube. No white is
because the filament is not emitting electrons when heated red-hot
(no thermionic emission), so there's no conduction into the gas-fill,
and the discharge can't start.
Electronic control gear detects this by seeing the tube start to act
as a rectifier and shuts down the tube to prevent it changing to
operate as a cold-cathode tube which has a number of dangers.


This was an issue aggravated by the use of cheap bi-pin switch started
lamps in domestic service (kitchens, basements, sheds and the circular
tubes used in hallways and landings). Each switch start attempt would
sputter some of the thoriated coating off the cathodes/cum anodes,
shortening the service life when used in such frequently switched
applications.

The older (half century older!) Quickstart transformer technology not
only gave an almost instant flicker free startup (200 to 300ms) but
significantly reduced this sputtering effect which could double or even
triple the service life of a tube used in a domestic kitchen over that
using the cheap bi-pin switch start circuit, especially useful since it
encouraged the occupiers to treat it as an instant start incandescent
(but with a service life around an order of magnitude longer).


2) Run out of mercury in the gas.

Environmental regulations now require minimum mercury dosing of tubes
for the expected life (typically 1/10th of what older T12 tubes
used).
Mercury is slowly absorbed into the electrodes and glass and lost
from the gas fill. This causes tubes to dim with age, and eventually
to run a dim pink when all the mercury has gone.


I lament the parsimonious mercury dosing of modern T8 lamps since it
lends an unwanted "run up" characteristic, especially noticeable in the
winter months, more associated with the mercury amalgam variants used in
CFLs. The earlier fully dosed T12 tubes only showed the slightest hint of
this with really low temperatures not usually seen in a domestic
environment even in the winter other than for outhouse lighting.

In regard of both startup and run up time, modern electronically
ballasted fluorescent luminaires(sp?) have taken a backwards step over
the ancient Quickstart fittings. I guess that's the price you pay to save
some 16 watt's of consumption on a 4 foot fluorescent fitting.


3) Phosphor worn out.

Tubes last much longer than they did and the phosphor efficiency drop
causes them to dim and become unviable.

Air doesn't leak into tubes, even ones which are very many decades old.


True enough, the phosphors have to deal with mercury poisoning as well
as the degradation from UV radiation - the phosphor coating on LEDs
doesn't have to contend with this so they last a lot longer (but
nevertheless still slowly degrade over time).

In office and factory environments, fluorescent lamps were replaced en
masse after clocking up the rated hours for the 80% of design lumens
point, thousands of hours before the more gross and obvious failures
would start showing other than for defectively manufactured lamps.

This was simply because changing out lamps by the gross was far cheaper
both in electricity consumption to meet the minimum lighting standard
required by regulations and the labour costs involved in relamping on an
ad hoc basis as each individual lamp failed to produce its design lumens
output one way or another.

A fluorescent tube with electronic "choke" is as efficient as an LED
bulb.


Not any more.


For the general public, that's a fairly recent development, I first saw
125LPW samples just over a year ago and I think prior to that, most of
the retail outlets were (and still are) offering 81 or 90 LPW lamps. You
can still see plenty of 60LPW lamps in the smaller wattages on sale even
today (about the same efficiency as the best CFLs of recent years).

The best efficiency tubes maxed out around the 90 to 100LPW mark.

If you take into account losses in the fluorescent luminare (getting the
light from the wrong side of the tube to where you want it, or losing
it),
they never were.


For situations where a nice diffuse, shadowless lighting effect is
desired, such as a kitchen or a shed come DIY workshop or a low ceilinged
basement, that's not quite the deficiency it would seem. However, these
days when such a lighting characteristic is deemed desirable, a better
solution would be the use of ceiling mounted LED flat panels with a
suitable diffusing cover to mute the horrendous glare typical of naked
LEDs.

--
Johnny B Good
  #36   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,431
Default Fluorescent light and starter question.

On Sat, 21 Apr 2018 22:41:11 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Saturday, April 21, 2018 at 5:43:15 PM UTC+10, T i m wrote:
On Sat, 21 Apr 2018 00:31:21 -0700 (PDT),

wrote:
snip

I would suspect things around choke. Clean and reconnect the terminals. Sometimes cobweb or cockroach muck could cause change in voltage across the choke.


I did have a look in one of the two units (that are behaving
similarly) and it was as clean in there as when I installed it from
new (you don't live in a seedy restaurant in Thailand do you)? ;-)

As a total unit, once the plasma is struck the total energy is sum of choke drop and the plasma drop. Plasma energy is generally low, hence choke is the component taking most enrgy. Choke may develope intermittency due to failing insulation.failing insulation.


That would have to be on two independent units then? Not impossible of
course but at the same time after maybe 20 years?

Cheers, T i m


Just to make it clear to you-


Ok ...

the plasma breaks due to high voltage induced due to choke in series with the starter which breaks the circuit to cause it; before plasma breaks tube a high resitance in series with the choke.


Ok?

For your info I am not in Thailand or some stinking Thames river country,


So no roaches there either then?

I am in Australia a clean intelligent country where early convict arrivals have long been dead!


Ah, hence the thought re spiders living in your lights, interfering
with the inductance. ;-)

Cheers, T i m
  #38   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,364
Default Fluorescent light and starter question.

On Sunday, 22 April 2018 00:23:26 UTC+1, Johnny B Good wrote:
On Fri, 20 Apr 2018 21:04:20 +0100, ARW wrote:


Remove the starter after the tube is lit and see what happens. The
starter is a one shot process. Once the tube is lit it has no further
use.


Until the time you need to switch the light back on again. :-(


I think anyone with a working brain would put it back don't you?
Even without it thought one can still fire a light up. Just arc the switch.


NT
  #39   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 48
Default Fluorescent light and starter question.

On Sunday, April 22, 2018 at 5:35:35 PM UTC+10, T i m wrote:
On Sat, 21 Apr 2018 22:41:11 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Saturday, April 21, 2018 at 5:43:15 PM UTC+10, T i m wrote:
On Sat, 21 Apr 2018 00:31:21 -0700 (PDT),

wrote:
snip

I would suspect things around choke. Clean and reconnect the terminals. Sometimes cobweb or cockroach muck could cause change in voltage across the choke.

I did have a look in one of the two units (that are behaving
similarly) and it was as clean in there as when I installed it from
new (you don't live in a seedy restaurant in Thailand do you)? ;-)

As a total unit, once the plasma is struck the total energy is sum of choke drop and the plasma drop. Plasma energy is generally low, hence choke is the component taking most enrgy. Choke may develope intermittency due to failing insulation.failing insulation.

That would have to be on two independent units then? Not impossible of
course but at the same time after maybe 20 years?

Cheers, T i m


Just to make it clear to you-


Ok ...

the plasma breaks due to high voltage induced due to choke in series with the starter which breaks the circuit to cause it; before plasma breaks tube a high resitance in series with the choke.


Ok?

For your info I am not in Thailand or some stinking Thames river country,


So no roaches there either then?

I am in Australia a clean intelligent country where early convict arrivals have long been dead!


Ah, hence the thought re spiders living in your lights, interfering
with the inductance. ;-)

Cheers, T i m


Ah, hence the thought re spiders living in your lights, interfering
with the inductance. ;-)

Matey! one can survive with spider stings but has no such chance with plague from rats in Thames bank;-)
Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
fluorescent tube and starter question Stephen[_6_] UK diy 19 October 8th 09 01:24 PM
Cost of gas starter fuel vs. starter logs Paul Home Repair 1 November 27th 06 04:22 AM
Another starter's topic - best starter video Max63 Woodturning 2 September 21st 06 06:19 PM
FLUORESCENT LIGHT WITHOUT TRANFORMER AND STARTER ? mowhoong Electronics Repair 2 May 7th 04 11:13 PM
Fluorescent light tube starter Mark UK diy 6 November 15th 03 12:09 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:20 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 DIYbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about DIY & home improvement"