58w fluorescent on a PIR, with mag-ballast in a utility room.

The tube finally refused to strike up last week, so I installed a
replacement tube, all back to normal now, but I am wondering whether to
adapt it to LED tube or fit an E-ballast. It is a room we often walk in
or out of with hands full, so I replaced the switch with an occupancy
switch (PIR). Once triggered, it remains lit for maybe ten minutes and
maybe comes on three to five times a day - so economy is not a high
priority, so much as tube life. It has gone through maybe three tubes,
in around 20 years.

I am not keen to replace the complete fitting, but I have a small stock
of 3.5w BC LED's. I could perhaps cheaply DIY adapt the fitting, with
4x BC lamp holders.

In article ,
Harry Bloomfield writes:
58w fluorescent on a PIR, with mag-ballast in a utility room.

The tube finally refused to strike up last week, so I installed a
replacement tube, all back to normal now, but I am wondering whether to
adapt it to LED tube or fit an E-ballast. It is a room we often walk in
or out of with hands full, so I replaced the switch with an occupancy
switch (PIR). Once triggered, it remains lit for maybe ten minutes and
maybe comes on three to five times a day - so economy is not a high
priority, so much as tube life. It has gone through maybe three tubes,
in around 20 years.

I am not keen to replace the complete fitting, but I have a small stock
of 3.5w BC LED's. I could perhaps cheaply DIY adapt the fitting, with
4x BC lamp holders.

Occupancy sensors driving flouresents is not ideal, but if you just
accept you'll get shorter tube life, and they won't have run up to
final output before you finish using the room, then it can be done.
I have 3 x 58W fluorescents in my internal garage where the freezer
is on occupancy sensor. I replaced the ballasts with electronic
instant start (that's real instant start, not even a few milliseconds
preheat), and they're on a 20 min timer. I think they're on their
second tubes in 15 years, although the total 'on' duration wouldn't
come close to merit that. If I was doing it now, I would use LEDs
of course.

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

In article ,
Harry Bloomfield wrote:
58w fluorescent on a PIR, with mag-ballast in a utility room.

The tube finally refused to strike up last week, so I installed a
replacement tube, all back to normal now, but I am wondering whether to
adapt it to LED tube or fit an E-ballast. It is a room we often walk in
or out of with hands full, so I replaced the switch with an occupancy
switch (PIR). Once triggered, it remains lit for maybe ten minutes and
maybe comes on three to five times a day - so economy is not a high
priority, so much as tube life. It has gone through maybe three tubes,
in around 20 years.

A decent electronic ballast will not only give longer tube life, but
faster start up too.

I am not keen to replace the complete fitting, but I have a small stock
of 3.5w BC LED's. I could perhaps cheaply DIY adapt the fitting, with
4x BC lamp holders.

Despite the claims for long life, I'm not convinced replacement LED bulbs
with built in electronics do all last the claimed life except under lab
conditions.

--
*I tried to catch some fog, but I mist.*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 21/04/2018 12:44, Andrew Gabriel wrote:

Occupancy sensors driving flouresents is not ideal, but if you just
accept you'll get shorter tube life, and they won't have run up to
final output before you finish using the room, then it can be done.
I have 3 x 58W fluorescents in my internal garage where the freezer
is on occupancy sensor. I replaced the ballasts with electronic
instant start (that's real instant start, not even a few milliseconds
preheat), and they're on a 20 min timer. I think they're on their
second tubes in 15 years, although the total 'on' duration wouldn't
come close to merit that. If I was doing it now, I would use LEDs
of course.


How long would you set the timer for if they were LED?

--
Adam

On 21/04/2018 13:41, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Despite the claims for long life, I'm not convinced replacement LED bulbs
with built in electronics do all last the claimed life except under lab
conditions.


They are getting better. I now only fit LED (unless the spec says
different).

--
Adam

In article ,
ARW wrote:
On 21/04/2018 13:41, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Despite the claims for long life, I'm not convinced replacement LED bulbs
with built in electronics do all last the claimed life except under lab
conditions.


They are getting better. I now only fit LED (unless the spec says
different).

I'd hope they are. But in this case with an existing fitting, I'd bet a
decent electronic ballast and tube will last longer. Added benefit is you
already know how much light it gives (and the quality of that light),
unlike with LEDs where you have to guess until you've fitted them.

--
*Everyone has a photographic memory. Some just don't have film*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
ARW writes:
On 21/04/2018 12:44, Andrew Gabriel wrote:

Occupancy sensors driving flouresents is not ideal, but if you just
accept you'll get shorter tube life, and they won't have run up to
final output before you finish using the room, then it can be done.
I have 3 x 58W fluorescents in my internal garage where the freezer
is on occupancy sensor. I replaced the ballasts with electronic
instant start (that's real instant start, not even a few milliseconds
preheat), and they're on a 20 min timer. I think they're on their
second tubes in 15 years, although the total 'on' duration wouldn't
come close to merit that. If I was doing it now, I would use LEDs
of course.

How long would you set the timer for if they were LED?

Long enough not to go off while you are in the room, and add
a bit for good measure. The power rating would only be around
half, so any wasted 'on' time costs correspondingly less anyway.
Frequency of switching has no effect on LED life, and probably
just a tiny amount on the driver, which you can ignore.

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

On 21/04/2018 17:39, Andrew Gabriel wrote:
In article ,
ARW writes:
On 21/04/2018 12:44, Andrew Gabriel wrote:

Occupancy sensors driving flouresents is not ideal, but if you just
accept you'll get shorter tube life, and they won't have run up to
final output before you finish using the room, then it can be done.
I have 3 x 58W fluorescents in my internal garage where the freezer
is on occupancy sensor. I replaced the ballasts with electronic
instant start (that's real instant start, not even a few milliseconds
preheat), and they're on a 20 min timer. I think they're on their
second tubes in 15 years, although the total 'on' duration wouldn't
come close to merit that. If I was doing it now, I would use LEDs
of course.

How long would you set the timer for if they were LED?

Long enough not to go off while you are in the room, and add
a bit for good measure. The power rating would only be around
half, so any wasted 'on' time costs correspondingly less anyway.
Frequency of switching has no effect on LED life, and probably
just a tiny amount on the driver, which you can ignore.


I always used to set the 2D CFL communal light in flats etc to 15
minutes even if they only needed two minutes worth of light. My
reasoning was that the cost of paying for relamping was more than the
cost of the electricity.

--
Adam

On 21/04/2018 16:24, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
ARW wrote:
On 21/04/2018 13:41, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Despite the claims for long life, I'm not convinced replacement LED bulbs
with built in electronics do all last the claimed life except under lab
conditions.


They are getting better. I now only fit LED (unless the spec says
different).

I'd hope they are. But in this case with an existing fitting, I'd bet a
decent electronic ballast and tube will last longer. Added benefit is you
already know how much light it gives (and the quality of that light),
unlike with LEDs where you have to guess until you've fitted them.


Some of the better manufactures do have proper spec sheets for their
LEDs. Most of what I fit in NHS, schools offices etc have already been
designed by the manufacturer to meet a certain lighting level.

That brings us back to the quality of light over time. The LEDs I have
fitted do not dim as time passes like fluorescents do. Mind you a bit of
a wipe with a cloth could help out some of the lights.

Now if only street light LEDs were yellow............

--
Adam

On Saturday, 21 April 2018 18:30:35 UTC+1, ARW wrote:
On 21/04/2018 17:39, Andrew Gabriel wrote:
In article ,
ARW writes:
On 21/04/2018 12:44, Andrew Gabriel wrote:

Occupancy sensors driving flouresents is not ideal, but if you just
accept you'll get shorter tube life, and they won't have run up to
final output before you finish using the room, then it can be done.
I have 3 x 58W fluorescents in my internal garage where the freezer
is on occupancy sensor. I replaced the ballasts with electronic
instant start (that's real instant start, not even a few milliseconds
preheat), and they're on a 20 min timer. I think they're on their
second tubes in 15 years, although the total 'on' duration wouldn't
come close to merit that. If I was doing it now, I would use LEDs
of course.

How long would you set the timer for if they were LED?

Long enough not to go off while you are in the room, and add
a bit for good measure. The power rating would only be around
half, so any wasted 'on' time costs correspondingly less anyway.
Frequency of switching has no effect on LED life, and probably
just a tiny amount on the driver, which you can ignore.


I always used to set the 2D CFL communal light in flats etc to 15
minutes even if they only needed two minutes worth of light. My
reasoning was that the cost of paying for relamping was more than the
cost of the electricity.

running it for 15 minutes does not reverse its wear-out mechanisms, it just wastes a litle electricity.


NT

In article ,
writes:
On Saturday, 21 April 2018 18:30:35 UTC+1, ARW wrote:
On 21/04/2018 17:39, Andrew Gabriel wrote:
In article ,
ARW writes:
On 21/04/2018 12:44, Andrew Gabriel wrote:

Occupancy sensors driving flouresents is not ideal, but if you just
accept you'll get shorter tube life, and they won't have run up to
final output before you finish using the room, then it can be done.
I have 3 x 58W fluorescents in my internal garage where the freezer
is on occupancy sensor. I replaced the ballasts with electronic
instant start (that's real instant start, not even a few milliseconds
preheat), and they're on a 20 min timer. I think they're on their
second tubes in 15 years, although the total 'on' duration wouldn't
come close to merit that. If I was doing it now, I would use LEDs
of course.

How long would you set the timer for if they were LED?

Long enough not to go off while you are in the room, and add
a bit for good measure. The power rating would only be around
half, so any wasted 'on' time costs correspondingly less anyway.
Frequency of switching has no effect on LED life, and probably
just a tiny amount on the driver, which you can ignore.


I always used to set the 2D CFL communal light in flats etc to 15
minutes even if they only needed two minutes worth of light. My
reasoning was that the cost of paying for relamping was more than the
cost of the electricity.

running it for 15 minutes does not reverse its wear-out mechanisms, it just wastes a litle electricity.

It avoids another switch-on if needed again within 15 mins.
Ball-park figure, each switch-on reduces lamp life by about
an hour.

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

In article ,
ARW writes:
On 21/04/2018 16:24, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
ARW wrote:
On 21/04/2018 13:41, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Despite the claims for long life, I'm not convinced replacement LED bulbs
with built in electronics do all last the claimed life except under lab
conditions.


They are getting better. I now only fit LED (unless the spec says
different).

I'd hope they are. But in this case with an existing fitting, I'd bet a
decent electronic ballast and tube will last longer. Added benefit is you
already know how much light it gives (and the quality of that light),
unlike with LEDs where you have to guess until you've fitted them.


Some of the better manufactures do have proper spec sheets for their
LEDs. Most of what I fit in NHS, schools offices etc have already been
designed by the manufacturer to meet a certain lighting level.

That brings us back to the quality of light over time. The LEDs I have
fitted do not dim as time passes like fluorescents do. Mind you a bit of
a wipe with a cloth could help out some of the lights.

Now if only street light LEDs were yellow............

There is an LED chip which is a very close match for low pressure
sodium lights. Some years back, I made a model streetlamp for my
nephew, so I searched through the spectra of yellow LEDs to find
a good match for low pressure sodium and came up with an almost
perfect match in a power LED. Also used a red LED to similate the
LPS run up, with the yellow LED coming on slowly (but speeded up
as real ones take 9 minutes which is beyond the attention span
of a 4 year old).

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

Now really at that usage, why bother?
Brian

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

Blind user, so no pictures please!
"Harry Bloomfield" wrote in message
news
58w fluorescent on a PIR, with mag-ballast in a utility room.

The tube finally refused to strike up last week, so I installed a
replacement tube, all back to normal now, but I am wondering whether to
adapt it to LED tube or fit an E-ballast. It is a room we often walk in or
out of with hands full, so I replaced the switch with an occupancy switch
(PIR). Once triggered, it remains lit for maybe ten minutes and maybe
comes on three to five times a day - so economy is not a high priority, so
much as tube life. It has gone through maybe three tubes, in around 20
years.

I am not keen to replace the complete fitting, but I have a small stock of
3.5w BC LED's. I could perhaps cheaply DIY adapt the fitting, with 4x BC
lamp holders.

After serious thinking Brian Gaff wrote :
Now really at that usage, why bother?
Brian

An E-ballast is around the same cost as a replacing it with LED 58w
tube.

In article ,
ARW wrote:
I'd hope they are. But in this case with an existing fitting, I'd bet a
decent electronic ballast and tube will last longer. Added benefit is you
already know how much light it gives (and the quality of that light),
unlike with LEDs where you have to guess until you've fitted them.


Some of the better manufactures do have proper spec sheets for their
LEDs. Most of what I fit in NHS, schools offices etc have already been
designed by the manufacturer to meet a certain lighting level.

Yes - but I'd guess those are all proper LED fittings. Not a LED designed
to replace a tungsten bulb directly. To me, those are in the same class as
CFL. A very badly engineered idea.

--
*I never drink water because of the disgusting things that fish do in it..

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Saturday, 21 April 2018 22:07:54 UTC+1, Harry Bloomfield wrote:
After serious thinking Brian Gaff wrote :
Now really at that usage, why bother?
Brian

An E-ballast is around the same cost as a replacing it with LED 58w
tube.

and a carbon arc light even cheaper

On Sat, 21 Apr 2018 13:41:49 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
Harry Bloomfield wrote:
58w fluorescent on a PIR, with mag-ballast in a utility room.

The tube finally refused to strike up last week, so I installed a
replacement tube, all back to normal now, but I am wondering whether to
adapt it to LED tube or fit an E-ballast. It is a room we often walk in
or out of with hands full, so I replaced the switch with an occupancy
switch (PIR). Once triggered, it remains lit for maybe ten minutes and
maybe comes on three to five times a day - so economy is not a high
priority, so much as tube life. It has gone through maybe three tubes,
in around 20 years.

A decent electronic ballast will not only give longer tube life, but
faster start up too.

Not true with the T8 tubes and microprocessor controlled HF ballasts
compared to the ancient Quickstart ballasts used with the, now sadly,
obsolete T12 tubes (250ms versus the 900ms of the electronic ballast).

I guess the T8 tubes need a hell of a lot more Baby like care over their
startup phase than their more rugged T12 ancestors which lasted two or
three times longer on a Quickstart ballast than with a simple switch
start one, typical of most domestic kitchen lighting.


I am not keen to replace the complete fitting, but I have a small stock
of 3.5w BC LED's. I could perhaps cheaply DIY adapt the fitting, with
4x BC lamp holders.

Despite the claims for long life, I'm not convinced replacement LED
bulbs with built in electronics do all last the claimed life except
under lab conditions.

The problem is that for a given LPW lamp design, their cooling
requirements become ever more demanding with higher lumen ratings. They
can't shed their waste heat at 200 odd degrees C like an incandescent
can, it's more like an 80 deg C limit tops. The higher lumens output
lamps of any given LPW generation are likely to overheat if fitted in a
less than fully ventilated fitting designed to cope with 100/150W
incandescent lamps.

The older 81LPW lamps were usually ok up to 810Lm in most open shades
any higher lumens output lamps of this generation needed really good
ventilation to avoid death by overheating. Today's 125LPW 1500Lm "100W
incandescent equivalent" BC light bulb as sold by Home Bargains and other
retail outlets can now be safely used in standard luminaires that were
previously unsuitable for the earlier generation of LED lamps.

My interest in LPW improvements is less to do with electricity savings
and more to do with lamp savings in locations that are crying out for a
decent 100 or 150 watt incandescent's worth of lighting power. At the
moment, with those 125LPW lamps, we seem to be at the stage where we can
now fit a "100W incandescent equivalent" in a standard fitting with
little fear of premature failure.

--
Johnny B Good

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Despite the claims for long life, I'm not convinced replacement LED bulbs
with built in electronics do all last the claimed life except under lab
conditions.

In my kitchen I have a movement detector controlling 8 LED GU10
lamps. I have so far had a couple of them replaced free (but
costing me postage).

I have a feeling that it may well be the frequent switching that
is the issue.

Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham UK


Plant amazing Acers.

In article ,
Johnny B Good wrote:
My interest in LPW improvements is less to do with electricity savings
and more to do with lamp savings in locations that are crying out for a
decent 100 or 150 watt incandescent's worth of lighting power. At the
moment, with those 125LPW lamps, we seem to be at the stage where we can
now fit a "100W incandescent equivalent" in a standard fitting with
little fear of premature failure.

Which is the problem. I must be unusual in wanting a decent lighting level
when actually needed. And here, that would mean a minimum of old 100w
tungsten or larger, if a single light.

--
*Beauty is in the eye of the beer holder...

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Sun, 22 Apr 2018 00:07:51 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
ARW wrote:
I'd hope they are. But in this case with an existing fitting, I'd bet
a decent electronic ballast and tube will last longer. Added benefit
is you already know how much light it gives (and the quality of that
light), unlike with LEDs where you have to guess until you've fitted
them.


Some of the better manufactures do have proper spec sheets for their
LEDs. Most of what I fit in NHS, schools offices etc have already been
designed by the manufacturer to meet a certain lighting level.

Yes - but I'd guess those are all proper LED fittings. Not a LED
designed to replace a tungsten bulb directly. To me, those are in the
same class as CFL. A very badly engineered idea.

A complete LED luminair with non-user replaceable LED lamp is not always
a badly engineered idea (provided it's reasonably well engineered). A
classic example being a 30W LED floodlight alternative to the 'standard'
300W linear halogen bulbed floodlight that more or less demands a trip up
a ladder once or twice a year to fiddle about replacing a blown bulb
until the PIR switch itself blows up leaving you thinking you might as
well make do with a 60W porch light until decently efficient LED
equivalents to the 300/500W security flood lights finally materialise at
a less than eye watering price. One of those is likely to outlast a new
build house! No more repeat trips up that damned ladder in the depths of
winter any more. :-)

--
Johnny B Good

On Sunday, 22 April 2018 17:30:45 UTC+1, Johnny B Good wrote:
On Sun, 22 Apr 2018 00:07:51 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
ARW wrote:

I'd hope they are. But in this case with an existing fitting, I'd bet
a decent electronic ballast and tube will last longer. Added benefit
is you already know how much light it gives (and the quality of that
light), unlike with LEDs where you have to guess until you've fitted
them.


Some of the better manufactures do have proper spec sheets for their
LEDs. Most of what I fit in NHS, schools offices etc have already been
designed by the manufacturer to meet a certain lighting level.

Yes - but I'd guess those are all proper LED fittings. Not a LED
designed to replace a tungsten bulb directly. To me, those are in the
same class as CFL. A very badly engineered idea.

A complete LED luminair with non-user replaceable LED lamp is not always
a badly engineered idea (provided it's reasonably well engineered). A
classic example being a 30W LED floodlight alternative to the 'standard'
300W linear halogen bulbed floodlight that more or less demands a trip up
a ladder once or twice a year to fiddle about replacing a blown bulb
until the PIR switch itself blows up leaving you thinking you might as
well make do with a 60W porch light until decently efficient LED
equivalents to the 300/500W security flood lights finally materialise at
a less than eye watering price. One of those is likely to outlast a new
build house! No more repeat trips up that damned ladder in the depths of
winter any more. :-)

So instead of replacing a bulb you've got to replace the fitting, and for many people that means an electrician. Crazy.

I can't imagine many mfrs running their LEDs so conservatively that they outlast a house. The less time they spend on the harder they can hammer them & still get tolerable life expectancy. Businesses are there to profit, not to go under.


NT

In article ,
Johnny B Good wrote:
Yes - but I'd guess those are all proper LED fittings. Not a LED
designed to replace a tungsten bulb directly. To me, those are in the
same class as CFL. A very badly engineered idea.

A complete LED luminair with non-user replaceable LED lamp is not
always a badly engineered idea (provided it's reasonably well
engineered). A classic example being a 30W LED floodlight alternative
to the 'standard' 300W linear halogen bulbed floodlight that more or
less demands a trip up a ladder once or twice a year to fiddle about
replacing a blown bulb until the PIR switch itself blows up leaving you
thinking you might as well make do with a 60W porch light until
decently efficient LED equivalents to the 300/500W security flood
lights finally materialise at a less than eye watering price. One of
those is likely to outlast a new build house! No more repeat trips up
that damned ladder in the depths of winter any more. :-)

I just replaced the entire fittings with LED ones. Of course they are
nothing like as bright as the old 300w tungsten. But just about adequate.

--
*A snooze button is a poor substitute for no alarm clock at all *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
wrote:
So instead of replacing a bulb you've got to replace the fitting, and
for many people that means an electrician. Crazy.

If it means you are going to get a decent light from it and a long life
I'd be happy.

Others seem perfectly happy with much less light than they had before.

I've yet to find any say 100w equivalent that actually is.

--
*I used to be a banker, but then I lost interest.*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Mon, 23 Apr 2018 10:55:20 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
wrote:
So instead of replacing a bulb you've got to replace the fitting, and
for many people that means an electrician. Crazy.

If it means you are going to get a decent light from it and a long life
I'd be happy.

Others seem perfectly happy with much less light than they had before.

I've yet to find any say 100w equivalent that actually is.

If you're referring to GLS 'bulbs', check out the 3 quid 12W 1500Lm LES
and BC 2700K/6500K offerings in Home Bargains or else the 1521Lm 14W
versions sold for 8 quid a box of two in Asda (I think they're warm
white). Be prepared to see a 10 to 15% higher reading on your digital
watt meter (plug in energy consumption meter) than what's marked on the
lamp though.

Ever the optimist, I'm assuming those wattage and light output figures
are a minimum consumption and light output obligation when run at the
bottom end of the mains supply voltage tolerance range (207vac) and the
higher wattage (and resulting light output) is merely the consequence of
our *actual* 240vac mains supply. :-) If I'm wrong then the manufacturers/
suppliers will have a lot of explaining to do when the ASA are called
upon to investigate yet another case of 'False Advertising'.

--
Johnny B Good

On Monday, 23 April 2018 18:08:10 UTC+1, Johnny B Good wrote:

our *actual* 240vac mains supply. :-) If I'm wrong then the manufacturers/
suppliers will have a lot of explaining to do when the ASA are called
upon to investigate yet another case of 'False Advertising'.

if so they'll be joining a very long queue.


NT