Other way around. The extra losses in a CFL are caused by folding the tube, so there's always one bit of tube blocking the light from another bit of tube, and the tubes are quite opaque so that this light is almost completely lost. Some effort went into working out ways of folding the tube so as to lose least light (and give a reasonably uniform light distribution). An open coil/spiral is generally the winner, but results in lamps which are too big for many purposes (and I believe there are patent issues with it too). Trying to make a small compact light source from a tube is always the loser.
With a linear tube, there is no self shielding of the tube.
In both cases, the luminare also plays a big part -- i.e. how well it directs the light where it is wanted and avoids losing/wasting it elsewhere, and in the case of luminares of a certain age, the efficiency of external control gear. (There's a period, probably from around 1985 to 2000, when control gear efficiencies got lower and lower until EU stepped in and set minimum legal standards.)
I had assumed the OP wouldn't want to modify the UPS's electronics, but just plug it in. If he's willing to mod it then sure. If not, a switch won't solve the problem.
no theyre not.
Looks like we agree than. I mentioned that several posts back, but ISTR you called it madness.
Its always an option.
Beware of adding batteries to UPSes though, since the UPS heatsink may be unable to keep output device temp acceptable for long enough.
The system is needless from the start, so all of this is needless. Each person's choice how much they think is useful or not, and I don't see any special basis for your view on that, its just your view.
I have a UPS that has the ability to start from the battery even when the mains input has gone. It would be quite easy to charge the battery from a solar source and use the switch to turn on the inverter. I think its an APC one with cold start.
But, from reading around my old(ish) 6 x 5' fluro's in the garage aren't as energy efficient as the later stuff, but what would it cost me to upgrade and therefore how long to recoup the upgrade cost (considering I'm not in there very often, especially in the winter)?
I guess they are cheap and nasty 'electronic' inverter so could they still be more efficient than the older ballasted jobbies?
That's what I want then, especially in the kitchen! ;-) T i m
It depends when they were bought. Around the mid-80's manufacturers started making conventional ballasts less efficient to reduce costs. By the late 1990's this had got really bad, and the EU legislated to mandate specific ballast efficiencies in about 3 steps. The legislation was intenteded to outlaw conventional ballasts, but actually the manufacturers of them have got them as efficient as the electronic ballast category, and hence they are still around. So, if you have a very recent fitting, or a fitting from the
1970's or earlier, these tend to be quite efficient. In the gap inbetween, you'll find they use ballasts which get too hot to touch due to their inefficiency. (One slight fly in the oitment is that the mandated efficiency ratings don't apply to domestic fittings in the UK, so you might find a set of budget fittings from a DIY shed are still not particularly efficient.) The ratings have been required to be marked on ballasts for last decade or so. They go D, C, B, A, AA in increasing efficiency. I think commercial users are only permitted to use A and AA now (at least, there's a date when that becomes the case). "A" was intended to be electronic control gear, but like I said, manufacturers managed to get conventional gear into this range, and now AA is intended to be electronic control gear.
Electronic control gear always adds around 10% efficiency, which is due to high frequency operation. Above about 5kHz, the way the gas discharge works changes, and all electronic control gear operates well above 5kHz (15-50kHz is the normal range).
Probably never. I bought a 4-pack of dirt cheap 5-footers, and then changed the control gear to electronic. However, the main reason for this was that they're in the garage where the freezer is, and people nip in and out in a few seconds, by which time about half of them would have finished coming on if they were switch-start.
The inverters in these are actually very efficient. They operate in a hot environment due to the tube, and they can't afford to generate any significant extra heat themselves or they'd die. If you distance them from the tube, you will find they barely get warm. If they weren't cheap, you wouldn't be able to afford them. They don't have to last very long -- 20,000 hours would see off all tubes, and that's a very short lifetime for a piece of simple electronics.
There are rather a lot of sweeping generalisations here which can't possibly apply across the wide ranging marketplace that exists.
And not cheap either? Also not sure how one system would be good for solar charging two motorbikes. ;-)
The idea was to have a simple (as in not having to run mains or LV cables to the outside of the house) that would add *something* to a charged battery to stop it self discharging or being discharged by any onboard electronics (one bike has a clock, external temp gauge and immobiliser).
At a price. I have the batteries, I have the cable / switches, I have inverters (150W), ex PC UPS's in varying sizes etc etc but it's all taking it too far, at_the_moment. If I stick two of the several solar panels in the south facing windows of my garage and hook them in parallel to one of my best ex-telephone exchange calcium batteries (possibly via a charge controller to minimize the risk of over discharging) I reckon I could get enough light in there the odd time I need it to be able to safely see myself around. And that's all I really need to be able to do. As you say, I could also give the battery a boost on mains when it's available (and the solar might stop the battery self discharging in-between)?
Isn't this the on-line / off-line thing? An online UPS having the charger > battery > inverter 'on' all the time whereas an offline UPS has the battery under charge but the mains normally switched through to the output via a relay and only switched to the battery > inverter when the mains fails?
I actually have one UPS that has a separate battery box that holds 4 x
17AH seal lead acid batteries. It would be quite easy to supplement that setup with 4 x solar panels etc.
Hmm, couldn't that actually mean the one with some constant load on it (like the alarm) / the lowest voltage. That might be ok if the battery was just flat but what when it's getting old and the voltage doesn't pick up properly (I have such a battery here that generally works ok but an Optimate never stops trying to charge it). :-(
No, I don't want 'mains' anywhere near this project and just need something simple / free / idiot proof and self sufficient. The panels were cheap (£18 delivered the pair) so in total half the cost of one Optimate charger. I see no reason why these panels wouldn't provide the same function as two mains powered chargers (and cheaper than even the 4 x Aldi jobbies I've already got but need to be manually 'reset' every time they are re-connected to a battery, something I'm bound to forget to do). I'm not looking to charge, just float / maintain.
Well, good point and one I'd considered but I guess these things are relative. Also, I considered that 'several' cheap / (potentially not the best efficiency in the world) lights might just do the intended job better than something less 'affordable'?
I've got a few of such LED lights already but more designed for portable / car use (they have a magnet on the back) and yesterday I tried one in the darkened kitchen. As expected the LED's are fairly directional giving me a bright downlighter / spot but still the one lamp was more than sufficient to take a dangerous dark hole into somewhere you could safely make a cuppa. ;-)
Given that this lamp has so far lasted *ages* of 3 x cheapo AAA cells I think it would be ok as part of my experiment. [1]
Cheers, T i m
[1] I will first get 3 off these and run them from 12V and measure the current. I will then compare those with one fluro inspection strip lamp, a 12V cfl and a 'caravan' type fluro.
The LEDs shouldn't take much. If they were the big 1 watt ones they would need about 300 mA but your batteries would be flat in a couple of hours so they aren't that big. I would guess at 50 mA. You then need to look for a LED constant current PSU to drive them all in series. Or maybe something like
The best/brightest CFLs we have are described as being 'trumpet' style. An open spiral similar in shape to a trumpet mute. On that basis, my experience agrees absolutely. (Also happen to have excellent colour.)
Ok and when I find what I'm looking for I'll stick my DMM in there on one lamp first (I'm talking the cheap pack of 3 LED lights you often see on the markets).
Would I though? I'm not sure what voltage range 3 x AAA's would offer but I guess it might be no worse than the load dip I might get on a decently sized solar charged leisure battery?
I was thinking 3 x 4.5V = 13.5V, not far off the float voltage of a
12V battery and as the solar panel isn't going to be dumping 5A in there it may not pick up much above say 14V. I was thinking these lights may well deal with that as-is and if not a series diode or two might just take the edge off it?
time (and probably would had they had one in stock). ;-)
Whilst nice they are a bit too expensive for this particular project, based on the idea that I need light at fairly frequent and regular intervals along most of the 20' of this garage.
Yeah, that might even work if I had some translucent roofing panels on this garage (and something I'm also considering). ;-)
Duno. I got three cheapo striplights for my loft. I was surprised how cheap the were. But I cant remember how much it was..
In about 1955 my father installed a striplight in our garage. I remember fitting a new starter in about 1968, and IIRC a new tube in the 80's after I had left home.
It was still going in 2004 when the house was finally sold.
I would say not a lot of difference. Inductor ballasts are more innefficient by virtue of using too little iron, than inherently bad. I believe the electronic ballasts that presumably contain 'starter' circuitry are preferred because the starters don't go! And are in fact cheaper.
The extra efficiency is a small bonus.
YUP.
Ultimaletely LED/OLED will beat them, but not yet.
All my CFLs have died long before the tubes ran out.
The generalisation is correct though..we have sodium lamps for efficiency, not for color.
The natural spectrum of a fluorescent is UV. The phosphors are what produce the light. The efficient ones are in the green part of the spectrum. You can correct that, with other phosphors, but only at an efficiency penalty.
HomeOwnersHub website 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.