58w utility room tube

I recently sought opinion on what I should do about the 5 foot 58w T8 magnetic ballast type fitting in my utility room. The problem was that it was switched by an occupancy switch (PIR), to allow hands free switching when walking in and out of the room with hands full.
The options were - leave as is (the tube's heaters were being hammered, by regular starting), change to an LED strip, or change the magnetic ballast for an electronic one. When it is on, t is not on for long, so no big advantage for LED. I decided on the latter option (E-Ballast)and managed to find an electronic ballast for £7.60 delivered and fitted yesterday.
I was half expecting the series connected PIR not to work and having to modify the light to allow it to charge up, but it worked fine without any changes. Light comes on instantly, but with a slight strobing, which clears within seconds.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 28/04/2018 10:12, Harry Bloomfield wrote:

For £12 quid you could have had a 23W LED tube,
--
Adam

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
But that would probably have had its problems driven with the mains, ie radio interference and also maybe pir issues. Brian
--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 28/04/2018 10:12, Harry Bloomfield wrote:

I think I would have paid the extra £5 and bought a LED tube from toolstation and just removed the ballast. You can just leave the ballast in and use the shorting starter supplied but you don't need a ballast with a led tube.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
dennis@home pretended :

I wasn't convinced - The LED was only a little more than half the lumen output of the 58w tube. Power economy was not a consideration, rather the problem was tube life with all the on/offs. I have already swapped all of the regularly in use lights over to LED and been happy with them, but this wasn't a place where the consumption saving would be worthwhile. The £5 extra cost, would have needed many years to repay its investment.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 28/04/2018 11:28, Harry Bloomfield wrote:

With half the lumens wasted.
--
Adam

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
ARW has brought this to us :

In many cases perhaps, but not really here - the location needed direct output from around 300 degrees of the diameter of tube, rather than just down at the floor.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 28 Apr 2018 11:46:34 +0100, Harry Bloomfield wrote:

Well said! :-)
Folk who keep advocating the "advantage" of downward only lighting of the cheaper LED tube substitutes to compensate for their lower total output, do so at the risk of neglecting the other excellent reasons why a fluorescent tube offers a better lighting solution, lower glare index and less self shadowing of the work area.
That's not to say that reasonably sized LED lighting panels can't offer the same benefits but such an upgrade is an even costlier alternative to simply upgrading the magnetic ballast of an existing fitting to an HF ballast. The only troubling thing about that 7 quid *instant* start (with brief flickery ramp up period) ballast is that it might be a simple HF ballast without any form of lamp fault detection/protection to save the more 'delicate' modern T8 tubes from premature wear.
The startup description echoes that of the cheap and nasty Chinese electronic ballast that I replaced with a microprocessor controlled Helvar ballast I'd bought for just under a fiver when I found myself having to replace the 36W T8 tube for the second time in 18 months in a cheap B&Q 4 foot slimline batten fitting.
The Helvar ballast refused to run the failed replacement and only attempted a single start on the original, leaving me to take a chance on buying a new tube in the hope that my new fancy ballast was doing what it was doing by design rather than by fault. As it happened, the former proved to be the case and I note it applies some 900ms of pre-heat before it strikes the tube into life with no flicker.
Unfortunately, because of the minimal mercury dosing, these tubes which used to ramp straight up to full brightness, now have a similar run up time to that of the mercury amalgam lamps used in CFLs. I guess that's the price of "progress" in the world of linear fluorescent lamp technology development that allows you to achieve the same lighting levels as a 4 foot "40W" T12 tube in a magnetically ballasted fitting (which actually used a total of 52W) from just the 36 watts consumed by an electronically ballasted T8 tubed fitting. :-(
That 7 quid electronic ballast bargain might not be quite the bargain you thought it was if you find yourself having to replace tubes on a yearly basis. :-(
--
Johnny B Good

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 28/04/2018 21:36, Johnny B Good wrote:

Would it surprise you if I said that one of the apprentices just mounted a load of LEDS tubes randomly so that half of them were lighting upwards?
--
Adam

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 29 Apr 2018 20:46:29 +0100, ARW wrote:

Not any longer, it won't. :-)
--
Johnny B Good

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 28/04/2018 11:46, Harry Bloomfield wrote:

You can get LED tubes with a 300 degree spread eg https://www.tlc-direct.co.uk/Products/LTT524W.html
The ones I usually fit (as a retro tube fit not a new fitting) have a 140 deg spread.
And it is, as you know, horses for courses. It's nice to see someone actually think about what they want/need with their lighting.
But I would still try to sell you LED:-)
--
Adam

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
ARW wrote on 29/04/2018 :

Thanks. I wasn't aware that they were made with such a wide spread. The ceiling is quite low, around 7 foot and as the only light in the room I needed the spread.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
pretended :

Sure, but its only £5, are you that poor ?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
It happens that Rod Speed formulated :

No, I am not that poor, but why spend an extra £5 you don't need to and on a lesser product?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I was commenting on the payback time, not the product quality.
And what matters is whether its and adequate product, not which is best.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 28 Apr 2018 11:28:21 +0100, Harry Bloomfield wrote:

You're forgeting the log response of your eyes, halving the power is only just perecptable. As I've mentioned before and the Aldi 5' 22W 2000 lm LED tubes I could barely tell the difference in light level between the LED and previous 58W 5' florry.
The spread is as near as damn it identical to a florry as well.

With a light that isn't on for long (total) per day that's sensible, but with a occpancy switched light the total on time per day can be higher than one might expect. But with only a 20 W saving pay back via power saving will still be long.

This is the gamble, if the LED costs three times the price of a tube but last 4 times longer...
--
Cheers
Dave.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Care to take some bets? Under cupboard florries in my kitchen get a lot of use and must be over 20 years old. ;-)
--
*How does Moses make his tea? Hebrews it.*

Dave Plowman snipped-for-privacy@davenoise.co.uk London SW
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 30 Apr 2018 16:06:47 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

tube

Use as in hours continously on or use as in switched on for 5 minutes then off, maybe several times an hour for 10 hours/day. The tubes of this thread were being killed by many switching cycles and use of a switch starter.
--
Cheers
Dave.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

They get switched on an off a lot. And left on for long periods too. Possibly the most used lights in the house.
--
*Sherlock Holmes never said "Elementary, my dear Watson" *

Dave Plowman snipped-for-privacy@davenoise.co.uk London SW
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That is certainly a low cost. The ones I have for my under cupboard lighting in the kitchen are Osram, and cost several times that. But must be about 20 years old now. And still the original tubes.
So if it is well made, should have a long life. Unlike LEDs which may promise that, but not give it in practice. And of course the actual light quality hasn't changed from what you're used to.
--
wife.

Dave Plowman snipped-for-privacy@davenoise.co.uk London SW
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.