Re: electronic ballast

Sorry, in my haste, I misspelled a word, instead of "an uninitiated" I wrote "an initiated". sorry for the slip-up guys.

Re: electronic ballast

anyone here has experience using electronic ballast in their fluorescent lighting fixtures?

i bought one last time (wheeler brand) and used it in our 32W circular fluorescent but it conked out (wouldn't turn on) after 2 weeks.

it supposedly would pay for itself after a few years of use as it does not use starters, less heat generated (more efficient), brighter light output and instant start resulting in longer lamp life.

do you know where we can purchase a reliable electronic ballast?

thanks in advance...

I've bought a Wheeler ballast too, as the start of a still-ongoing experiment. I used it to revive a dead super el-cheapo fixture (those 2ft Php100 foldable ones) in the maid's room (a CFL was installed in it's place). Failed in two weeks. The lamp does start, but the tube glows very faintly making it practically useless.

Frankly, this Wheeler brand is just plain rubbish. It's expensive, too big to fit most fixtures, and worst of all UNRELIABLE.

As for other ballasts I've tried, I've bought three Econo-Watd ballasts for two 2ft. 20w fixtures (18w T8 lamps) and a 4ft 40w fixture (36w T8 lamp). More expensive than the Wheeler ballast, but they've been going for two months now no problems whatsoever. It's also a lot smaller than the Wheeler ballasts, which makes for more flexible installations. "18w" (20w), "36w" (40w), and 32w circline versions available at Ace Hardware for P480. There are also high-power factor, dual lamp "industrial" versions for a lot more (~P900). Made in Thailand.

I've also bought three "Ikhea" ballasts from Ace Hardware at P120 each. Two of them are running in my grandma's house for as long as the Econo-Watds are, both in 32w circline fixtures. The last one I used to replace the dead Wheeler. So far, so good. Build quality seems crap (just wires sticking out of it, no punch-through or screw terminals like on the Econo-Watd and the Wheeler) but they're still going. Incidentally, they seem to be available only in Circline versions, but I've found that you can simply remove the connector and follow the wiring diagram for traditional straight-tube fluorescents.

I can't personally guarantee the reliability of these things though, as the experiment is still ongoing. Any time now grandma could be calling me up about lights refusing to come on. But that's my experience so far.

It's also possible to salvage the ballast from a dead CFL, given that it's the tube that died and not the ballast. I've tried powering a 20w 2ft T12 lamp using a ballast from a dead "Xin Mey" (one of those extremly cheap bangketa variety lamps, I got from the dorm). (WARNING: Beware of those Big Capacitors, they can carry enough charge to kill!!) It worked, the lamp started like a cheap CFL (as in flick switch, glow dimly for a second, transition to full brightness), but the full brightness was noticeably dimmer than normal. There are people, however, who have successfully retrofitted ballasts from 11w CFL's into 40w conventional fixtures. Actually, if the ballast can provide the initial striking voltage for your lamp of choice (longer, higher wattage lamps = more voltage), it'll generally work - ballasts work by regulating the current, and if your Frankenstein's Ballast manages to provide that voltage, it'll probably be able to supply the power. Remember that these ballasts came from the hot bases of CFLs, being separated from the lamp in your conventional fixture is a lot easier on them, probably more than compensating for the bigger lamp they'll be powering. Of course, YMMV. I'll surely try this again - who knows what sort of wonders lie inside those Osrams scattered in various places around our house. ;D

Re: electronic ballast

yes, Vtec is correct. the only advantage of electronic starter over the ballast-starter is that the former is almost instantaneous while the latter takes some time, due to the action of the ballast. The ballast is actually a transformer that works like a step-up transformer that generates sufficient voltage while the tube-like starter interrupts that voltages to appear as spikes in igniting the florescent gas inside the bulb. The voltage spikes works like lighting a match. Once ignited the flourescent gas starts to become luminous which must be sustained by a fixed voltage.
Perceptions of brightness is always subjective as the luminance of flourecent gas is the same for all types, size, or shapes per given volume. As in all incandecent, florescent bulbs has fix "burning" hours so that it lasts only for a fix period of usage. You will notice that a blankened ends of the tube when the florescent gas has completely burned out. The starter, of whatever type/make, can and will never lenghten its usable life. Though I have not encounter any research or study to prove that florescent lifespan can be increased. Other lamps such as those made from mercury vapor, argon, halogen, etc., burns as easily as that of florescent gas.

Actually, quick starting is not the only advantage of electronic ballasts. There's the lack of a starter, lower ballast losses (=*slightly* less power consumption), high power factor (the utility company will LOVE this), and complete lack of noise, among other things. But the BIGGEST advantage, by far, is the lack of that infamous fluorescent flicker.

Traditional magnetic ballasts run the lamp at line frequency (in the Philippines, 60Hz). This causes the current in the lamp to cross zero twice per cycle, resulting in a 120Hz flicker. Normally this isn't a big deal, but some people are particularly sensitive to this subconscious flicker and they ain't all epileptics. A less common hazard might be around big things rotating at a multiple of the line frequency - the stroboscopic effect presented by this flicker might cause motors and whatnot to appear to be rotating slower than they actually are.

Electronic ballasts, on the other hand, being switching power supplies, can (if not must) power the lamp at 20Khz-60Khz (that's tens of thousands of cycles per second), much quicker than the lamp's phosphor persistence, eliminating the flicker completely.

This flicker can be measured using an optical tachometer - the ones where you attach brightly colored tape to a motor's shaft and aim it's light at it. The tach measures the frequency of the pulses of light reflected by the tape and displays the speed of the motor (the shaft, actually) in RPM. I found that by aiming at an "old-school" fluorescent fixture, a reading of about 7200 RPM could be obtained. If we divide 7200 by 60 (# of seconds in a minute), we get 120 in Hz (cycles or "revolutions" per second). The flicker's there. And we're talking about a device used to measure rotational speed, not state-of-the-art specialized lab equipment.

On a magnetic ballast, a lamp with one end's cathodes dead might start but flicker dimly at 60Hz (quite perceptible). I've run a lamp in such a condition on an electronic ballast, and it glowed at normal brightness, albeit with one end with that dead cathode glowing purple and overheating. An electronic ballast may show to be "brighter" because of its operating frequency. Or perhaps, your new ballast has a higher "ballast factor" than your old one. Ballast factor is a measure of brightness delivered by a ballast relative to a standard reference. Most ballasts have normal ballast factors (close to 1.0). While a ballast factor of 1.0 is the best "bang-for-the-buck" when you consider lumen efficacy, lamp life and power consumption, there are low ballast factor and high ballast factor ballasts for more specialized applications. The relatively common "lamp overdrive" mod is an example of a DIY high ballast factor setup.

As for me, the primary reason I've been experimenting on the electronic ballast varieties is because of the lack of flicker from the lamps driven by such ballasts.

Re: electronic ballast

a while ago, i checked the resistance of a dead (non-lighting) 40W flourescent lamp. i measured a little over 2 ohms at both ends of the lamp. after this, i did the same with a working lamp and also got the same readings (2 ohms). anyway, filament or no filament, for now, i think we should be discussing more on the electronic ballast (e.b.) 🙂

like Alpha_One, i still am going to try using the e. b. as i believe this would eventually replace the magnetic ballast in the future...

there are several advantages of using the e.b. as discussed by Alpha_One but for me the bottom line is, will i save more money in using this product. at this time, quality and reliability seems shaky and at the back of your mind, there is doubt that the e.b. might fail anytime no matter what brand or make. but as technology gets better and more reliable everyday, i am sure in the future, e.b. reliability will be at par with the old magnetic ballast.

Alpha_One, kindly give us a feedback on your experiments. i will surely look for the Econo_Watd ballast when i get the chance. no more Wheeler brand for me though 🙂

i hope to get a chance to do a failure analysis on the Wheeler e.b. once i return to our home 🙂

thanks to Raisedroof and Alpha_One for the detailed response...everyone's opinion and feedback counts here. i believe that's what this forum is all about 🙂

Re: electronic ballast

I found out about the very high operating frequency of CFLs the hard way. I'm into audio and I was adjusting the running speed of my turntable which I had converted from using a synchronous motor to a dc motor with speed control via a variable voltage IC regulator. I couldn't get the lines on my stroboscopic disc to stay steady, in fact there were no lines at all.

I had to replace the CFL in my listening room to a ballasted type CFL, so I can always check the speed of my turntable.

Re: electronic ballast

i got the chance to visit Deeco in Raon. i saw the other brand of electronic ballast they are selling. it is the Unix brand. i suggest you stay away fom this and the Wheeler brand. they last only for 2 weeks based on my and other user's experience. they are also expensive selling for Php380.

i also took a quick look at the failed Wheeler ballast i have. i didn't see any burned part or foil pattern in the pcb. i suspect it's either the
power FETs that failed or the ic controller.

didn't get the chance to buy the Econo-Watd ballast due to time constraints. but i plan to buy one and compare power consumption between this and the magnetic ballast.

Re: electronic ballast

a while ago, i checked the resistance of a dead (non-lighting) 40W flourescent lamp. i measured a little over 2 ohms at both ends of the lamp. after this, i did the same with a working lamp and also got the same readings (2 ohms). anyway, filament or no filament, for now, i think we should be discussing more on the electronic ballast (e.b.) 🙂

Siguro mas maganda tagalugin na lang natin para maintindihan ng iba, as I still maintain, na walang resistence sa pagitan ng dalawang magkabilang dulo ng flourescent bulb kasi puro flourescent gas sa loob in between. Admittedly, maari ka ngang makakuha ng resistance sa pagitan ng dalawang pole ng isang dulo, bagamat ang resistance na ito ay hindi ito matuturing na bunga ng filament na nagpapailaw sa flourescent bulb, kasi magkadugtong ito upang ang exciter voltage, high potential sa isang dulo at low potential sa kabila ang tumtulak (excites) sa gas upang mag-ilaw ito. "Filament or no filament" is the issue between a flourescent bulb and an incandescent bulb, as this is a major distinction between the two.

At kung pag-uusapan naman ang pagkakaiba ng electronic ballast at magnetic ballasts, talagang marami tayong pwedeng banggitin, at masabi. Unang una na nga, ay yung isa ay electronic, gumagamit ng semiconductor, at isa naman ay electromagnetic type, na gumagamit ng transformer at starter. Pwede ring sabihin ang issue ng heat tolerance, humidity, voltage fluctuations, weight, color, noise, etc.etc. ng semiconductor kaysa sa electromagnet. At napakarami pang technical (engineering) issues affecting semiconductors and electromagnets pero importante sa ordinaryong gumagamit ay malaman ang perceptible advantage ng isang ballast sa isa, na major consideration for electing to use the other.

On the other hand, the line frequency of 220v line ay 60hz and only 60hz in the Philippines. Of course it has harmonics in geometric proportions. But the flicker is always based on the 60hz frequency. Flickering more than 30 times per second is no longer perceptible to the human eye, as pictures of 30 frames per second is almost as fluid as it can be. Ang napapansin nating pag kurapkurap during start-up sa florescent bulb, never in incandescent bulb, ay ang aksyon ng exciter voltage na ginawa ng starter na once or twice in a second or even less. At ang vibrations ng ballasts na nadidinig (audible) sa atin ay frequencies na 60hz and its harmonics. 20-20khz ay audible frequencies, while 20khz-up are considered radio frequencies.

Ito ay para sa kalinawan ng lahat dahil this is, I agree, the essence of this forum. And I have nothing further..... unless there be honest inquiries.

Re: electronic ballast

it's been quite a while since the last post was made 🙂

i got the chance to buy a Singapore-made Elbiru Electronic Ballast (model EB36W, 36 watts rated). i installed it in the 32 watts Circline lamp fixture in my room. but before doing so, i measured the input current of the magnetic ballast (40W rated). i got 0.512 amps.

next, i measured the input current of the electronic ballast and i got 0.138 amps. AC voltage here in Singapore is 244 volts, 50Hz (actual measurement using Fluke DMM).

computing for wattage (P = VI), magnetic ballast = 124.93W,
electronic ballast = 33.67W.

from the figures above, we can see that the magnetic ballast's power consumption is 3.71 times the electronic ballast.

perhaps other members here can help with the power savings computation (with actual peso value to make it more interesting :)).

Re: electronic ballast

I don't have the figures regarding energy savings of E.B. against magnetic, but feeling the heat generated by magnetic ballast should give us enough clue as to the power wastage already.

Have used the Everlux brand 2x40W @280 pesos for over a year, no problems whatsoever.

Have used Ikhea brands on my 32W circline for over a year also with no problems.

Econo-watd Eballast are warrantied for 3-5 years, which in my opinion is worth the price.

Re: electronic ballast

Has anyone done an unbiased economic study of the compact lamps that contain their own electronic ballast as compared to the regular lamps with an external electronic ballast?

Re: electronic ballast

in most cfls being sold in the market right now, you would notice a current rating (in amperes) printed on the base along with the power and voltage rating. i'm not very sure what this is but i assume that this is the current consumption of the cfl when operating at the rated voltage. if you multiply this current rating with the rated voltage of the lamp, i believe you'll get the power consumption of the lamp (do correct me if i am wrong in my assumption). it will surprise you that this computed power consumption is much higher than the lamp's rated power.

just for curiosity, i measured the current consumption of 4 different brands of cfls using a digital multimeter. i don't have the figures with me right now but what i remember is that the current readings i got were quite close to the current ratings printed on the lamps' base. again computing for power (P=VI), the figures i got were much higher than the lamp's rated power. i particularly remember a 5 watt rated cfl having an actual power consumption of 9 watts! this would, i believe, pose questions on this cfl's efficiency.

i only have data for the electronic ballast i used in the 32 watts circline lamp in my previous post but if i use this as a reference it would appear that ordinary flourescent lamp with an electronic ballast is more efficient, power consumption-wise, compared with cfls.

i don't have the means to measure the other parameters for comparison between ordinary flourescent with an e.b. vs. cfl such as brightness (i.e. 32 watts circline vs. 18 or 20 watts cfl), lamp life (i.e. which would last longer, a 32 watts circline with an e.b. or a 20 watts cfl) and reliability but perhaps other members here could share their experience and knowledge on using electronic ballast and cfls in their home.

i am very much interested in this topic as i want to save on electricity cost given that lighting contributes to around 5% to 10% of the total monthly electric bill.

Re: electronic ballast

i'll try to do the cost savings calculation:

from previous post, 32 watts circline lamp with magnetic ballast power consumption = 124.93 watts ~ rounding to 125 watts (for simpler calculation)

computing for electricity cost per month at 4 hours a day usage and Php 8.00 per kw-hr:

125 watts /1000 = 0.125 kw/hr

0.125 kw/hr x 4 hours per day usage = 0.5kw per day

0.5 kw/day x 30 days = 15 kw per month

15 kw x Php 8.00 per kw-hr = Php 120 per month

Doing the same for the 32 watts circline lamp with electronic ballast, power consumption = 33.67 watts ~ rounding to 34 watts (for simpler calculation),

we have Php 32.64 per month

computing for monthly cost savings: Php 120 - Php 32.64

monthly cost savings of Php 87.36

Re: electronic ballast

Hello people. I represent my company Ecolight Systems Technologies Corporation. We supply electronic ballasted luminaires and Electronic Ballasts for Tubular Fluorescent Lamps directly from the manufacturer of South Korea. Kindly visit our website: ecolighttechnogies Or if you have questions, you can directly reach me at 0915.6032841. Our products are guaranteed durable,bright, energy efficient and has a very considerable price and warranty.

Re: electronic ballast

i have 2 flourecent lamps using electronic ballasts. the ballast for both lamps didn't last long. it didn't even reach a year of use.

when i'm looking for a replacement, the guy at the store told me to just use a good quality magnetic ballast because this is more durable. the only disadvantage is that magnetic ballast will have a flicker or 2 before it lights the lamp. unlike the electronic ballast where it's just one click.

Re: electronic ballast

We have a panaflex signage that has been running for 8 months now. and the ballast that we used was our own product.
For magnetic ballasts
Besides the flicker, it consumes 70% take note, 70% more than the actual bulb wattage.
And when it flickers, the consumption goes up to 140% or double the consumption of a magnetic ballast installed.
This has proven by our tests.