I'm considering replacing the ballast with an electronic one in a 6 ft
70W fitting but wondering what sort of interconnecting wire to use if
the lengths of the existing wiring isn't sufficient. I appreciate that
the wire needs heat resistant insulation when running beside the
magnetic ballast but would normal PVC singles be OK with an electronic
ballast?

On 27/04/2019 17:10, Mike Clarke wrote:
I'm considering replacing the ballast with an electronic one in a 6 ft
70W fitting but wondering what sort of interconnecting wire to use if
the lengths of the existing wiring isn't sufficient. I appreciate that
the wire needs heat resistant insulation when running beside the
magnetic ballast but would normal PVC singles be OK with an electronic
ballast?
You should not need high temp wire as the whole object of an EB is
better efficiency.
But if you want you could buy a couple of metres of 3183TQ 0.75mm2 and
strip out the cores.

On Saturday, 27 April 2019 17:10:58 UTC+1, Mike Clarke wrote:

I'm considering replacing the ballast with an electronic one in a 6 ft
70W fitting but wondering what sort of interconnecting wire to use if
the lengths of the existing wiring isn't sufficient. I appreciate that
the wire needs heat resistant insulation when running beside the
magnetic ballast but would normal PVC singles be OK with an electronic
ballast?

anything mains rated.


NT

On Sat, 27 Apr 2019 17:10:56 +0100, Mike Clarke wrote:

I'm considering replacing the ballast with an electronic one in a 6 ft
70W fitting but wondering what sort of interconnecting wire to use if
the lengths of the existing wiring isn't sufficient. I appreciate that
the wire needs heat resistant insulation when running beside the
magnetic ballast but would normal PVC singles be OK with an electronic
ballast?

I wouldnt bother, just buy a LED tube and modify the internal wiring as
necessary. They are really cheap now.

To be honest the other week when cleaning out the muck from an old Thorne
fitting it seems to me that the wiring was nothing special at all. If the
ballast gets hot then its not working properly.
Of course this is just common sense talking here, and we all know that
standards are written with a completely different ethos!
Brian

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

Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"Mike Clarke" wrote in message
...
I'm considering replacing the ballast with an electronic one in a 6 ft 70W
fitting but wondering what sort of interconnecting wire to use if the
lengths of the existing wiring isn't sufficient. I appreciate that the
wire needs heat resistant insulation when running beside the magnetic
ballast but would normal PVC singles be OK with an electronic ballast?

On 27/04/2019 20:45, Alan wrote:

I wouldnt bother, just buy a LED tube and modify the internal wiring as
necessary. They are really cheap now.

That's what I'd originally considered but a 6ft LED only gives 2600
lumens compared to 6200 for a fluo.

But I'm having second thoughts on changing the ballast anyway. A new
Thorn 6ft PopPack batten with HF ballast and tube costs a couple of quid
less than an electronic ballast and tube - and I need a new tube anyway.

On 28/04/2019 11:08, Mike Clarke wrote:
On 27/04/2019 20:45, Alan wrote:

I wouldnt bother, just buy a LED tube and modify the internal wiring as
necessary. They are really cheap now.

That's what I'd originally considered but a 6ft LED only gives 2600
lumens compared to 6200 for a fluo.

That's a large difference and staying with fluorescent seems sensible.
Although a quick search returns 6ft LEDs with over 3000 lumens and a
more in-depth search may find better still.

Also remember that LEDs don't have to produce as many lumens as
fluorescents for the same effect - because LEDs usually produce over
180°, while fluorescents produce over 360° and only a proportion of the
upwards lighting gets reflected back from the fitting and the ceiling,
with some being absorbed.

I must admit that I am interested in replacing some 4ft flurescents with
LEDs, but because of these differences, I don't know what ratio of
lumens output will give the same level of lighting.

But I'm having second thoughts on changing the ballast anyway. A new
Thorn 6ft PopPack batten with HF ballast and tube costs a couple of quid
less than an electronic ballast and tube - and I need a new tube anyway.

Probably the best option.

SteveW

In article ,
Mike Clarke wrote:
On 27/04/2019 20:45, Alan wrote:

I wouldnt bother, just buy a LED tube and modify the internal wiring as
necessary. They are really cheap now.

That's what I'd originally considered but a 6ft LED only gives 2600
lumens compared to 6200 for a fluo.

But having a nice dim LED gives you that warm 'I'm saving the planet'
feeling. Also decent tri-phosphor tubes can give far better light quality
than many LEDs. Which can matter in a work area.

But I'm having second thoughts on changing the ballast anyway. A new
Thorn 6ft PopPack batten with HF ballast and tube costs a couple of quid
less than an electronic ballast and tube - and I need a new tube anyway.

Often the case. Have you looked on Ebay for best value ballasts?

--
*If at first you don't succeed, redefine success.

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

On 28/04/2019 14:03, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Mike Clarke wrote:

[snip]

But I'm having second thoughts on changing the ballast anyway. A new
Thorn 6ft PopPack batten with HF ballast and tube costs a couple of quid
less than an electronic ballast and tube - and I need a new tube anyway.

Often the case. Have you looked on Ebay for best value ballasts?

Thanks for reminding me about Ebay which I hadn't considered at that
stage. On searching Ebay I found a Tridonic electronic ballast for my
70W tube at only £9.40 delivered which sounded too good to be true
considering the best I'd found online for the same ballast was £23.40
plus delivery. It was a small scale Ebay seller but reviews were all
100% positive and included feedback on a number of similar devices so it
looked like worth taking a gamble.

The ballast arrived yesterday, I ripped out the guts of the old fitting
and installed the ballast using cores pulled out of some 1.0mm T&E which
fitted fine in the Wago type terminals. The light is now up and running
fine, and according to my cheapo power meter using considerably less
power now that I've ditched the choke.

The spec sheet for the ballast
https://www.tridonic.com/com/en/download/data_sheets/PC_T8_PRO_36-70W_xitec_en.pdf
stated that the leads for the tube ends should have a capacitance of
less than 100pF for one pair and 200pF for the other (corresponding to
max lengths of 1 metre and 2 metres). This is no problem, they were well
within the limits but I'm curious why an electronic ballast should have
these different requirements - it's not as though there's any difference
between the filaments at each end of the tube. Do any electronics
experts here know why this is?

In article ,
Mike Clarke wrote:
The spec sheet for the ballast
https://www.tridonic.com/com/en/download/data_sheets/PC_T8_PRO_36-70W_xitec_en.pdf
stated that the leads for the tube ends should have a capacitance of
less than 100pF for one pair and 200pF for the other (corresponding to
max lengths of 1 metre and 2 metres). This is no problem, they were well
within the limits but I'm curious why an electronic ballast should have
these different requirements - it's not as though there's any difference
between the filaments at each end of the tube. Do any electronics
experts here know why this is?

I'd guess because of the high frequencies involved?

--
*Who are these kids and why are they calling me Mom?

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

"Mike Clarke" wrote in message
...
On 28/04/2019 14:03, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Mike Clarke wrote:

[snip]

But I'm having second thoughts on changing the ballast anyway. A new
Thorn 6ft PopPack batten with HF ballast and tube costs a couple of quid
less than an electronic ballast and tube - and I need a new tube anyway.

Often the case. Have you looked on Ebay for best value ballasts?

Thanks for reminding me about Ebay which I hadn't considered at that
stage. On searching Ebay I found a Tridonic electronic ballast for my 70W
tube at only £9.40 delivered which sounded too good to be true considering
the best I'd found online for the same ballast was £23.40 plus delivery.
It was a small scale Ebay seller but reviews were all 100% positive and
included feedback on a number of similar devices so it looked like worth
taking a gamble.

The ballast arrived yesterday, I ripped out the guts of the old fitting
and installed the ballast using cores pulled out of some 1.0mm T&E which
fitted fine in the Wago type terminals. The light is now up and running
fine, and according to my cheapo power meter using considerably less power
now that I've ditched the choke.

The spec sheet for the ballast
https://www.tridonic.com/com/en/download/data_sheets/PC_T8_PRO_36-70W_xitec_en.pdf
stated that the leads for the tube ends should have a capacitance of less
than 100pF for one pair and 200pF for the other (corresponding to max
lengths of 1 metre and 2 metres). This is no problem, they were well
within the limits but I'm curious why an electronic ballast should have
these different requirements - it's not as though there's any difference
between the filaments at each end of the tube. Do any electronics experts
here know why this is?

Because a higher capacitance will see not enough of the high
frequency getting to the tube to work as well as it should.

On Sun, 5 May 2019 16:34:50 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:


within the limits but I'm curious why an electronic ballast should have
these different requirements - it's not as though there's any difference
between the filaments at each end of the tube. Do any electronics experts
here know why this is?

Because a higher capacitance will see not enough of the high
frequency getting to the tube to work as well as it should.

So why did you HAVE to **** in this thread after it was already "closed" and
the questions had been answered, you senile dog? Is it a case of you marking
your territory, senile Rodent?

--
"Anonymous" to trolling senile Rot Speed:
"You can **** off as you know less than pig **** you sad
little ignorant ****."
MID:

On 05/05/2019 07:34, Rod Speed wrote:


"Mike Clarke" wrote in message ...

[snip]

The spec sheet for the ballast https://www.tridonic.com/com/en/download/data_sheets/PC_T8_PRO_36-70W_xitec_en.pdf stated that the leads for the tube ends should have a capacitance of less than 100pF for one pair and 200pF for the other (corresponding to max lengths of 1 metre and 2 metres). This is no problem, they were well within the limits but I'm curious why an electronic ballast should have these different requirements - it's not as though there's any difference between the filaments at each end of the tube. Do any electronics experts here know why this is?

Because a higher capacitance will see not enough of the high
frequency getting to the tube to work as well as it should.

Yes, I appreciate that but I was curious why there should be different
limits for the two ends of a (symmetrical) tube.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1oyd...ew?usp=sharing
or
https://preview.tinyurl.com/yyx7fuj9

In article ,
Mike Clarke wrote:
On 05/05/2019 07:34, Rod Speed wrote:


"Mike Clarke" wrote in message ...

[snip]

The spec sheet for the ballast https://www.tridonic.com/com/en/download/data_sheets/PC_T8_PRO_36-70W_xitec_en.pdf stated that the leads for the tube ends should have a capacitance of less than 100pF for one pair and 200pF for the other (corresponding to max lengths of 1 metre and 2 metres). This is no problem, they were well within the limits but I'm curious why an electronic ballast should have these different requirements - it's not as though there's any difference between the filaments at each end of the tube. Do any electronics experts here know why this is?

Because a higher capacitance will see not enough of the high
frequency getting to the tube to work as well as it should.

Yes, I appreciate that but I was curious why there should be different
limits for the two ends of a (symmetrical) tube.

Because the capacitance is the cable? And the ballast may not be central?

--
*Acupuncture is a jab well done*

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

On 05/05/2019 13:47, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
Mike Clarke wrote:

[snip]

Yes, I appreciate that but I was curious why there should be different
limits for the two ends of a (symmetrical) tube.

Because the capacitance is the cable? And the ballast may not be central?

But they seem to imply that the maximum acceptable capacitance of one
lead is less than the other.

In other words, capacitances of 100pF and 200pF and lengths of 1 metre
and 2 metres is fine but equal length leads of 150pF and 1.5 metres long
would not be acceptable.

It's a bit of an academic point anyway, you'd be hard pushed to exceed
those length limits on a 6ft tube.

"Mike Clarke" wrote in message
...
On 05/05/2019 13:47, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
Mike Clarke wrote:

[snip]

Yes, I appreciate that but I was curious why there should be different
limits for the two ends of a (symmetrical) tube.

Because the capacitance is the cable? And the ballast may not be central?

But they seem to imply that the maximum acceptable capacitance of one lead
is less than the other.

In other words, capacitances of 100pF and 200pF and lengths of 1 metre and
2 metres is fine but equal length leads of 150pF and 1.5 metres long would
not be acceptable.

Presumably the electronic ballast is more sensitive to
capacitance on those two pins than on the other two.

It isnt surprising that the ballast itself isnt symmetric with its outputs.

It's a bit of an academic point anyway, you'd be hard pushed to exceed
those length limits on a 6ft tube.

On Mon, 6 May 2019 12:40:19 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

But they seem to imply that the maximum acceptable capacitance of one lead
is less than the other.

In other words, capacitances of 100pF and 200pF and lengths of 1 metre and
2 metres is fine but equal length leads of 150pF and 1.5 metres long would
not be acceptable.

Presumably the electronic ballast is more sensitive to
capacitance on those two pins than on the other two.

IOW, you haven't the foggiest as usual, but you will keep driveling away
anyway! BG

--
Richard addressing Rot Speed:
"**** you're thick/pathetic excuse for a troll."
MID: