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  
Old September 16th 18, 05:11 PM posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by DIYBanter: Mar 2015
Posts: 2,250
Default Them new-fangled flourescent lights

Gentlemen,

Back in the 1960s, when tubes were coming into service more and more, it
was a widely held belief that they were more expensive to run than
tungsten filament bulbs if turned on for short periods. It was said that
most of the power they consumed was drawn during the 'strike-up' phase so
if they weren't on for at *least* an hour, you might as well be using TF
bulbs.
Well, here we are 50+ years on and tubes are now very much old tech.
What, with the benefit of hindsight, have the Panel to say about those
old efficiency claims of the day?

Just curious.....



--
This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via
the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other
protocols, whether for profit or not, is conditional upon a charge of
GBP10.00 per reproduction. Publication in this manner via non-Usenet
protocols constitutes acceptance of this condition.

  #2   Report Post  
Old September 16th 18, 06:38 PM posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by DIYBanter: Jan 2008
Posts: 5,848
Default Them new-fangled flourescent lights

Cursitor Doom explained :
Back in the 1960s, when tubes were coming into service more and more, it
was a widely held belief that they were more expensive to run than
tungsten filament bulbs if turned on for short periods. It was said that
most of the power they consumed was drawn during the 'strike-up' phase so
if they weren't on for at *least* an hour, you might as well be using TF
bulbs.


That is what I was taught, but the calculation also involved wear and
tear on the tube/starter/choke. I still will not install any sort of
discharge lamp where it is liable to constant switching though.
  #3   Report Post  
Old September 16th 18, 06:48 PM posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by DIYBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 11,037
Default Them new-fangled flourescent lights

In article ,
Cursitor Doom writes:
Gentlemen,

Back in the 1960s, when tubes were coming into service more and more, it
was a widely held belief that they were more expensive to run than
tungsten filament bulbs if turned on for short periods. It was said that
most of the power they consumed was drawn during the 'strike-up' phase so
if they weren't on for at *least* an hour, you might as well be using TF
bulbs.
Well, here we are 50+ years on and tubes are now very much old tech.
What, with the benefit of hindsight, have the Panel to say about those
old efficiency claims of the day?

Just curious.....


They were never true.
What was the case was that each switch-on wore the tube out by the
equivalent of some hours running. The instant-start fittings which
were common in the US suffered from this particularly badly. The
switch-start used in most 220-240V countries much less so, but it
was still a significant effect.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]
  #4   Report Post  
Old September 16th 18, 07:50 PM posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by DIYBanter: Sep 2018
Posts: 71
Default Them new-fangled flourescent lights

On Sun, 16 Sep 2018 16:11:54 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
wrote:

Gentlemen,

Back in the 1960s, when tubes were coming into service more and more, it
was a widely held belief that they were more expensive to run than


Yes of course they are more expensive. The light output is of a
frequency that resonates with the thought patterns of muslim child
molesters boosting their desires and leading to increased rumpy pumpy
with our fine British schoolgirls.

The wavelength of the light could with the oscillatory nature means
that peoples eyesight can be damaged and our poor British heroic
houswives will not see rapidly moving kitchen equipment due to the
"strobe" effect. This will lead to increased work for the NHS and if
foreigners are subjected to the same risks, they will have an unfair
advantage over white people as their fingers are darker and easily
found amongst the ingredients for dinner.

If I were you, I would vote to get them all scrapped in favour of
going back to incandescent lighting.

Importing whale oil and candle wax will be a tremendous boost for
Britains economy, we could have trade deals with Japan in almost no
time and the need for lamplighters would give employment to UK
citizens once they have spent a year or so being trained.

By putting Whale oil lamps in operating theaters, the NHS would save
£1,256.43P a week.

AB
  #5   Report Post  
Old September 16th 18, 08:20 PM posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by DIYBanter: Jan 2015
Posts: 8,329
Default Them new-fangled flourescent lights

On Sunday, 16 September 2018 17:11:57 UTC+1, Cursitor Doom wrote:
Gentlemen,

Back in the 1960s, when tubes were coming into service more and more, it
was a widely held belief that they were more expensive to run than
tungsten filament bulbs if turned on for short periods. It was said that
most of the power they consumed was drawn during the 'strike-up' phase so
if they weren't on for at *least* an hour, you might as well be using TF
bulbs.
Well, here we are 50+ years on and tubes are now very much old tech.
What, with the benefit of hindsight, have the Panel to say about those
old efficiency claims of the day?

Just curious.....


it was a misunderstanding. They used around 3x the current for the 1st 1-2 seconds during starting, but not 3x power. Starting added wear & tear to the tube filaments. That's all. ISTR calculating the break even point many years ago at somewere vaguely around a minute.


NT


  #6   Report Post  
Old September 16th 18, 08:41 PM posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by DIYBanter: Aug 2018
Posts: 101
Default Them new-fangled flourescent lights



"Cursitor Doom" wrote in message
news
Gentlemen,


What about us animals, boy ?

Back in the 1960s, when tubes were coming into service more and more, it
was a widely held belief that they were more expensive to run than
tungsten filament bulbs if turned on for short periods. It was said that
most of the power they consumed was drawn during the 'strike-up' phase so
if they weren't on for at *least* an hour, you might as well be using TF
bulbs.
Well, here we are 50+ years on and tubes are now very much old tech.
What, with the benefit of hindsight, have the Panel to say about those
old efficiency claims of the day?


Not so true anyone with modern electronic starters.

But the whole world has changed now with leds much more efficient again.

Just curious.....


Don’t forget what the did to the cat.

  #7   Report Post  
Old September 16th 18, 08:59 PM posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by DIYBanter: Jan 2016
Posts: 199
Default Them new-fangled flourescent lights

On Mon, 17 Sep 2018 05:41:27 +1000, Josh Nack wrote:

Don’t forget what the did to the cat.


You're Rod Speed and ICTFP.


  #8   Report Post  
Old September 16th 18, 10:14 PM posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by DIYBanter: Aug 2017
Posts: 7,521
Default More Heavy Trolling by Nym-Shifting Rot Speed! BG

On Mon, 17 Sep 2018 05:41:27 +1000, Josh Nack, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rot Speed, wrote:


Just curious.....


Don¢t forget what the did to the cat.


Don't forget that you are nothing but trolling forsaken senile idiot who,
for very obvious reasons, got nobody in RL to talk to!

--
Richard addressing Rot Speed:
"**** you're thick/pathetic excuse for a troll."
MID:
  #9   Report Post  
Old September 17th 18, 01:25 AM posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by DIYBanter: Apr 2015
Posts: 1,400
Default Them new-fangled flourescent lights

On Sun, 16 Sep 2018 16:11:54 +0000, Cursitor Doom wrote:

Gentlemen,

Back in the 1960s, when tubes were coming into service more and more, it
was a widely held belief that they were more expensive to run than
tungsten filament bulbs if turned on for short periods. It was said that
most of the power they consumed was drawn during the 'strike-up' phase
so if they weren't on for at *least* an hour, you might as well be using
TF bulbs.
Well, here we are 50+ years on and tubes are now very much old tech.
What, with the benefit of hindsight, have the Panel to say about those
old efficiency claims of the day?

Just curious.....


There was *some* justification for that belief but it wasn't electricity
costs, it was premature wear of the thoriated cathode filaments due to
the use of the cheap 'n' nasty switch starter.

Fluorescent lamps are discharge lamps which, in common with all lamps of
that class, have a negative impedance characteristic which needs to be
swamped out with a positive impedance wired in series. Their efficiency
was so much better than the incandescent filament lamps they replaced
that even with the losses of a resistive ballast on a 230vdc supply, they
still gave off two or three times more light of a tungsten filament lamp.

However on AC supplies, it became possible to replace the ballast
resistor with a ballast choke to provide a much less lossy positive
impedance. The only downside being the inductive (lagging) current
component this added to the load on the mains supply which increased the
wattless amperage which, as far as the PSUs were concerned weren't
wattless when it came to the I squared R losses in their transmission
lines.

The solution was to mandate that a power factor correction capacitor be
wired across the mains input of each light fitting using a tube with a
rating higher than 20W in order to reduce this inductive loading to an
acceptable level.

The filaments in fluorescent tubes were designed to run at full heat
from the short circuit current of the ballast choke so that a simple neon
heated bi-metallic switch could be used across the lamp as a crude
starter. It worked but at great cost to tube life when used in frequently
switched service.

When such lamps were only switched once or twice a day, there was no
point in upgrading to a "Quickstart"(tm) transformer to give flicker free
almost instant reliable wear free starting that would let you treat it
like an ordinary filament lamp and still get the 7 to 12 thousand rated
hours of life before it dropped to the 80% of design lumens point deemed
to be the most economic point at which to replace it (generally several
thousands of hours before it would actually fail to fire up properly).

Rather annoyingly, the newer T8 reduced mercury fill lamps will no
longer fire up on a Quickstart ballast. For me, that meant shelling out
on an electronically ballasted fitting from B&Q when the missus insisted
on my replacing the older fluorescent fitting in our kitchen after we'd
had the ceiling repaired post flat roof leak.

Unfortunately the B&Q fitting turned out to have been cursed with a
'Dumb' Chinese made ballast which caused the T8 lamps to fail faster than
the old fashioned switch started units used to, simply on account of the
fragility of "modern" inadequately dosed with mercury T8 "high
efficiency" tubes due to the aggressive 'instant start' characteristic of
the 'dumb' electronic ballast.

Luckily, the ballast failed about 18 months and two lamps later, forcing
me to buy a proper microprocessor controlled replacement (about £4.70
delivered) which finally put paid to the problem of short tube life.
Although I'm resigned to the unimpressive 900ms start up time (flicker
free mind!), it seems we've paid a high price for our high efficiency,
inadequately mercury dosed fluorescent tubes when I recall the 300ms
startup and extremely long life of the older adequately mercury dosed T12
tubes of yesteryear running on Quickstart ballasts.

I know that fluorescent lighting is obsolescent technology biding its
time for decent (and cost effective) LED based linear tubes to become
worth investing in as an upgrade in areas where a diffuse source of
bright lighting is required without having to go to the expense and faff
of fitting LED ceiling panel luminaires, hence my replacing the ballast
to carry on using the existing fluorescent lamp fitting in our kitchen.

Eventually, we might finally start to see 200LPW (more reliable) LED
ceiling panels making an appearance in the next 5 to 7 years. I reckon I
will have finally made my ROI on the existing light fitting just about
then. :-)

--
Johnny B Good
  #10   Report Post  
Old September 17th 18, 03:08 AM posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by DIYBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,361
Default Them new-fangled flourescent lights

On 16/09/2018 17:11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
Gentlemen,

Back in the 1960s, when tubes were coming into service more and more, it
was a widely held belief that they were more expensive to run than
tungsten filament bulbs if turned on for short periods. It was said that
most of the power they consumed was drawn during the 'strike-up' phase so
if they weren't on for at *least* an hour, you might as well be using TF
bulbs.


Yup, from an electrical point of view was a load of nonsense at the time
and still is...

If you think about it, say your tube draws 0.25A once lit, if you want
to draw an hours worth of energy in (say) 5 secs, you will need to pull
3600/5 or 720 times the current. That'a 180A - or enough to trip a 32A
circuit breaker instantly, let alone a 6A MCB or 5 amp fuse.

There is some truth in that there is extra cost to start the lamp but,
that is down to accelerated wear on the starting filaments which will
reduce the total lamp life (or at least the available number of
"starts"). Since they were quite expensive at the time, there was a
financial cost associated with that reduced life. So there was some
sense in not turning them off for very short durations.

Well, here we are 50+ years on and tubes are now very much old tech.
What, with the benefit of hindsight, have the Panel to say about those
old efficiency claims of the day?


Probably more wrong now than then since modern tubes are far cheaper,
and probably survive more starts anyway due to better control gear.

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/


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
Christmas Lights Los Angeles 310-925-1720 christmaslightinginstall.blogs… — Christmas Lights Los Angeles 310-925-1720 We sale christmas lights and install them for you, house lights, holiday lights, trees lights, christmas lights Now You Know Home Repair 0 November 24th 08 07:02 PM
New-fangled boiler question - Part 1 ... Arfa Daily UK diy 14 August 4th 08 12:42 PM
new-fangled "thermal stores" [email protected] UK diy 3 September 16th 06 04:38 PM
New fangled loft insulation.. r.p.mcmurphy UK diy 5 August 24th 05 11:44 AM
New fangled electric screws... andrewpreece UK diy 19 November 14th 04 10:52 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:43 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2018 DIYbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about DIY & home improvement"

 

Copyright © 2017