Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > aus.computers > #55310

Re: The Victorian lighting scam.

Cross-posted to 3 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

"Daniel" <nidan.danny@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:2d8985ec-9327-4040-a75d-96e98a9f769b@googlegroups.com...
> On Friday, 16 September 2016 18:27:29 UTC+10, F Murtz  wrote:
>> Pete wrote:
>> > Peter Jason wrote:
>> >
>> >> It seems the power saving is nil unless the "container" is
>> >> replaced/altered to bypass the ballast & starters.
>> >
>> > Doesn't taking the starter out remove the ballast from the circuit?
>> >
>> > Peter
>> >
>> >
>> With the ones I have you put a short in place of the starter, so no.

> if you do that then you will get almost the whole of your mains supply
> voltage across your ballast... hear a big bang on energisation... your 
> circuit
> protection operating... and you will probably be the owner of an 
> ex-ballast.

Nope. That’s the way plenty of LED tube replacements do it.

> i would suggest it's just left open circuit.... the ballast is basically 
> there to provide
> the inductive back emf high voltage kick to get the gas to ionise inside 
> the tube...

Its actually there to provide a choke to limit the current thru the tube 
once it fires.

> once it's struck the starter stays open and the ballast remains in the 
> circuit
> (most of the voltage falls across the lamp) but doesn't do much except to
> stabilise fluctuations in the operating point of the circuit

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you
have never had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.

> and as a safety component to limit the current prior to the fuse/circuit 
> breaker
> operating in case of the unlikely possibility of a short occurring across 
> the lamp itself.

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you
have never had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.

> i would also suggest that fluoros are pretty energy efficient and my gut
> feeling (based on experience) is that the cost saving wouldn't be worth 
> it.
> i'd have to do the calcs to be sure of that tho. a significant factor is 
> the number
> of times you turn them on in a day... as on start up they consume the most 
> energy... 

Back to aus.computers | Previous | Next | Find similar

Thread

Re: The Victorian lighting scam. "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-09-18 06:17 +1000

csiph-web