Recently people talk about energy saving in the elecrticial home
appliance.such as the use of electronic ballast to substitude the
conventional ballast.
I checked out some source. states that only 20% reduction in energy
consumption is saved. When you compare the product price,the
electronic ballast cost atleast 6 time more than the conventional
ballast. moreover there is no assurance that the electronic ballast
can last longer than the conventional ballast. My conventional ballast
havebeen in use for 28 years with daily 12 hours orperation .

On Aug 26, 7:48 pm, mowhoong <mowho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Recently people talk about energy saving in the elecrticial home
> appliance.such as the use of electronic ballast to substitude the
> conventional ballast.
> I checked out some source. states that only 20% reduction in energy
> consumption is saved. When you compare the product price,the
> electronic ballast cost atleast 6 time more than the conventional
> ballast. moreover there is no assurance that the electronic ballast
> can last longer than the conventional ballast. My conventional ballast
> havebeen in use for 28 years with daily 12 hours orperation .

My conventional ballast gave me a lot of hum, so I replaced it with an
electronic one. Didnt know that it is going to save me some
electricity, but I like its instant operation when you switch it on.

We get them here for about $3 a piece from the 100% discount stores
and super save stores which sell goods from China. And so far I have
replaced 2 of my flourence fittings. Worked for few months and still
ok so far.

Allen

mowhoong wrote:

> Recently people talk about energy saving in the elecrticial home
> appliance.such as the use of electronic ballast to substitude the
> conventional ballast.
> I checked out some source. states that only 20% reduction in energy
> consumption is saved. When you compare the product price,the
> electronic ballast cost atleast 6 time more than the conventional
> ballast. moreover there is no assurance that the electronic ballast
> can last longer than the conventional ballast. My conventional ballast
> havebeen in use for 28 years with daily 12 hours orperation .

So how much is 20% of the money that you have spent on electric power for
the fluorescent lighting over the last 28 years?

Chris

"mowhoong"

> Recently people talk about energy saving in the elecrticial home
> appliance.such as the use of electronic ballast to substitude the
> conventional ballast.
> I checked out some source. states that only 20% reduction in energy
> consumption is saved. When you compare the product price,the
> electronic ballast cost atleast 6 time more than the conventional
> ballast. moreover there is no assurance that the electronic ballast
> can last longer than the conventional ballast.


** Do the math.

If an electronic ballast saves only 5 watts and has a life of 50,000 hours
that means 250 kWh

Saves around $ 30 in electricity.

Then there is the saving in starters, say another $ 10.

Then there is the additional light output from running fluoro tubes at high
frequency.

Plus longer tube life, as the start up process is not near so harsh as a
bi-metal stater.


> My conventional ballast
> have been in use for 28 years with daily 12 hours operation .


** Bet you have replaced a good few starters.



....... Phil

On Aug 26, 5:42 pm, "Phil Allison" <philalli...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
> "mowhoong"
>
> > Recently people talk about energy saving in the elecrticial home
> > appliance.such as the use of electronic ballast to substitude the
> > conventional ballast.
> > I checked out some source. states that only 20% reduction in energy
> > consumption is saved. When you compare the product price,the
> > electronic ballast cost atleast 6 time more than the conventional
> > ballast. moreover there is no assurance that the electronic ballast
> > can last longer than the conventional ballast.
>
> ** Do the math.
>
> If an electronic ballast saves only 5 watts and has a life of 50,000 hours
> that means 250 kWh
>
> Saves around $ 30 in electricity.
>
> Then there is the saving in starters, say another $ 10.
>
> Then there is the additional light output from running fluoro tubes at high
> frequency.
>
> Plus longer tube life, as the start up process is not near so harsh as a
> bi-metal stater.
>
> > My conventional ballast
> > have been in use for 28 years with daily 12 hours operation .
>
> ** Bet you have replaced a good few starters.
>
> ...... Phil

Hi Phil,
thanks to members's reply. Some bought it at only $3/- it could be
simple circuit without noise filter.etc. But additional
light output may result your end terminal get blacken easily.

On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 04:48:07 -0700, mowhoong <mowhoong@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>Recently people talk about energy saving in the elecrticial home
>appliance.such as the use of electronic ballast to substitude the
>conventional ballast.
>I checked out some source. states that only 20% reduction in energy
>consumption is saved. When you compare the product price,the
>electronic ballast cost atleast 6 time more than the conventional
>ballast. moreover there is no assurance that the electronic ballast
>can last longer than the conventional ballast. My conventional ballast
>havebeen in use for 28 years with daily 12 hours orperation .
>

As it happens, I spent yesterday installing a custom noise
exposure booth at a Major Metropoitan University. The
booth had to fit into a former single-stall shower room, but the
overhead light needed to be repositioned to do this.

The "industrial" light appeared to be 3 compact fluorescent U-tubes
in a cluster; don't know what watt rating, but they were
pretty hot to touch when running. The surprising thing was
that they had tiny conventional ballast transformers, one for each
tube, that were *very* hot.

Surely, if this light had been installed to save energy,
the ballasts weren't doing their share!



Bob Masta

D A Q A R T A
Data AcQuisition And Real-Time Analysis
http://www.daqarta.com
Scope, Spectrum, Spectrogram, Signal Generator
Science with your sound card!