Fluorescent Light Failed - Is It the Ballast or Lamp?

[Gigagator]

Afternoon all,

When I popped out to my shed a couple nights ago I switched the light on, which is a fluorescent single lamp batten, and I heard a pop sound but it failed to come on.
The MCB hasn't tripped and there is power to the fitting as checked with multimeter. All the connections on the terminals inside the batten are tight and sound.

The fitting is only about two years old.

My question is, how can I determine what component has failed?

I am thinking it's most likely the ballast as I don't believe fluorescent tubes fail with a 'pop' sound? Please correct me if I am wrong.

Either way, is there a way to test if the ballast is at fault before ordering a replacement?

Many thanks

 

[flameport]

Most likely the ballast, particularly if its an electronic one. Some internal component probably exploded.

There is no replacement ballast, fluorescent tubes will not be available for much longer.
Buy a new LED batten.

 

[ericmark]

As said modern ballasts have to be the HF type, so they can go pop, why fluorescent are being phased out I don't know, but the LED tube has dropped in price now around £9 for a 5 foot tube, and fluorescent tubes and ballasts have gone up in price, so cheapest option is to rewire lamp for a LED tube.

Likely a whole new fitting would be best way, I hate the integral fitting, as if it fails you need to replace the whole thing, however the LED's face the correct way, I have two 10 watt outside lights, one integral and one with bulb, the integral one the light shines down, the bulb the light shines up, so the integral one works far better, simply because the old bulb lamp was never designed to work with an LED bulb.

 

[winston1]

As said modern ballasts have to be the HF type, so they can go pop, why fluorescent are being phased out I don't know,

Because those in charge don’t know what they are doing.

 

[winston1]

but the LED tube has dropped in price now around £9 for a 5 foot tube, and fluorescent tubes and ballasts have gone up in price, so cheapest option is to rewire lamp for a LED tube.

The cheapest option is not the best or even correct option. LED replacement tubes have less output than florescents of the same size so it is possible you may need more fittings to get the same light level.

 

[Gigagator]

Thanks for the input all.

I might crack the ballast housing open if possible and see if anything obvious has failed like a capacitor, if so I will swap it out.
If that avenue yields no result I'll probably opt for an LED tube.

I will admit I'm not the biggest fan of LEDs. While I can't argue with the energy saving benefits of LED, there is something appealing about the old technology of fluorescent.

I work in a large high school built in the late 50's and added to over the decades and most of our fluorescent battens in classrooms have been converted to LED tubes.
Our 600x600 ceiling fluorescent fittings are left as they are until they die and then an LED 600x600 panel is dropped in as a replacement.

For the most part, the LED tubes that have been dropped in to the existing fluorescent battens have been very reliable, but there seems to be a high attrition rate for the 600x600 panels.
I'm not sure whether it's heat that is killing them or the fact they are doing long hours, but it seems ridiculously wasteful that the whole panel has to be chucked when there is a failure.

That is one of the reasons why I have always preferred fluorescent as components generally could always be swapped out when they eventually did fail and the fitting could be kept going.

 

[JohnW2]

The cheapest option is not the best or even correct option. LED replacement tubes have less output than florescents of the same size so it is possible you may need more fittings to get the same light level.

A theoretical possibility but, as I've often said, and 'for what it's worth', I've replaced a lot of fluorescent tubes with (lower light output) LED ones and, every time so far, what it has demonstrated is than I previously has much more light (going in the direction of interest) than i actually needed - hence 'energy wastage). That was at least in part due to the fact that fluoro tubes of a given length did not offer a range of powers/output.

The fact that LED tubes emit light largely 'in oe direction' (rather than all round their circumference, with a Fluorescent tube) makes an appreciable difference.

Whatever, as flameport has said, the powers-that-be have effectively trumped any arguments, whatever one may think about that.

 

[ericmark]

The problem with an LED replacement for a fluorescent is an electronic ballast needs removing. It can directly replace with a magnetic ballast.

It does have a lower light output in the main and lower wattage to match.

You seem to know what you are doing, so LED tube seems good option, but one end is feed and other end shorted pins, so wire each end in series so does not matter which way around the tube goes.

 

[FrodoOne]

The cheapest option is not the best or even correct option. LED replacement tubes have less output than florescents (sic) of the same size so it is possible you may need more fittings to get the same light level.

While this may be true, the light from such LED tubes is not output over 360 degrees but is output in (mainly) a downwards - or outwards.
Most fittings do not reflect much of the upward light downwards.
Hence at least 30% of a normal fluorescent's light is "wasted".

 

[ericmark]

Hence at least 30% of a normal fluorescent's light is "wasted".

I seem to remember there are tubes which do direct the light inside the tube, and the coating in the tubes also varies, the problem is the control gear changes how efficient a tube is, and how long it will last, also what voltage window they will work in.

So they tend to have the lumen output, wattage, and life based on magnetic ballasts even though you can't get lamps with magnetic ballasts any more. So a 58 watt tube is often rated at around 5200 lumen and 20,000 hours when used with a magnetic ballast, but with an electronic ballast it is more like 55 watt, 5500 lumen and 30,000 hours, which means it is on par with LED.

Where the LED gains on fluorescent is you can buy a 5 foot tube, with only 2200 lumen output, so you get the spread of light, without the output, but all the control gear is built into the tube, so far more waste with LED lights than fluorescent.

Personally I find the LED a pain trying to select a replacement. Look at this advert

There is no way that LED tube is equivalent to a 100 watt fluorescent, it is under ½ the output of even the 58 watt fluorescent, also three times the price, I know fluorescent with the correct running gear can be dimmed, we have seen it for years in theatres, but not with normal running gear, and the LED may if the running gear is removed give 100 lumen per watt, but the the magnetic running gear is left in place, this reduces the voltage to the LED who's built in running gear compensates for the volt drop, but then energy in the form of heat is wasted from the ballast, so in real terms it is only producing some thing like 85 lumen per watt.

It seems the LED is a big con? OK I like the LED over the CFL which were never really much good, and with built in "Smart" features they can do many things the proceeding lighting units could not do, I have display cabinet lights which can look good, and also supplement the rooms lighting, changed a bit since picture now cover all 5 units, and at full output around 60 watt, although in the main turned down to minimum. But the point is I could not have done that with tungsten or fluorescent, it doubles as both wall lights and display lights.

But it means the whole way of lighting the home has changed, it is not as simple as unplug one type of lamp and replace with another type, the LED is directional, and so how it is used depends on the direction the light comes out of the unit.

 

[JohnW2]

There is no way that LED tube is equivalent to a 100 watt fluorescent, it is under ½ the output of even the 58 watt fluorescent ...

That may well be true but, as I've said, if one wants/needs a 5' tube (because of 'length' of room), then one had no choice as regards power, so the 58W (or whatever) one may well have had far more output than one actually needed.

.... it is not as simple as unplug one type of lamp and replace with another type, the LED is directional, and so how it is used depends on the direction the light comes out of the unit.

I think you probably make more of that 'difference' than is necessarily appropriate, since both incandescent bulbs and fluorescent tubes could (depending on how they were used) be fairly 'directional' -about the only thing which was almost 'omnidirectional' was a GLS incandescent bulb (without shade) dangling from the ceiling.

Kind Regards, John

 

[Harry Bloomfield]

While this may be true, the light from such LED tubes is not output over 360 degrees but is output in (mainly) a downwards - or outwards.
Most fittings do not reflect much of the upward light downwards.
Hence at least 30% of a normal fluorescent's light is "wasted".

An LED, replacement for a florescent, is the one thing I have not tried yet, simply because all of my needs are for light emitted radially, around at least 270 degrees of the tube - besides which, I have simply not had a florescent fail, since these became available. Most do seem to agree that LED's emit their light in a downward direction.

However, I have numerous LED replacements for ordinary lamps and all do emit light in a fairly similar directions to the tungsten lamps they replaced.

 

[JohnW2]

An LED, replacement for a florescent, is the one thing I have not tried yet, simply because all of my needs are for light emitted radially, around at least 270 degrees of the tube - besides which, I have simply not had a florescent fail, since these became available. Most do seem to agree that LED's emit their light in a downward direction.

Indeed - and, quite apart from the tubes themselves, many/most of the fittings for fluorescent tubes hve the effect of concentrating most of the light 'downwards'.

However, I have numerous LED replacements for ordinary lamps and all do emit light in a fairly similar directions to the tungsten lamps they replaced.

I have to agree. The (usual) existence of an opaque bit at the bottom of an LED lamp/bulb (to house the 'electronics') means that, in comparison with a GLS incandescent, they don't send quite so much light 'upwards' (so, if used 'dangling from ceiling', don't illuminate the ceiling as much - but, even that does not seem to be a particularly noticeable difference in practice.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ericmark]

I have three outside lights at the front of my house, they are all the same size wattage wise, this one is integral LED and the LED's are in the top, shining down through the defuse glass and works very well, but this one clearly a lot older has an LED bulb in it, which shines up into the lamp, and it rather poor, the last one has an old compact fluorescent lamp in it, not as good as the integral lamp, but better than the LED bulb, as the light is going out in around the right direction. This shows the basic problem, when using fittings not designed for the LED, since the lights are all used together the poor ones don't matter that much.

But in the main it is better to swap the whole lamp rather than try using LED tubes and bulbs in lamps designed for CFL, tungsten, or gas.

 

[333rocky333]

Often when the ballast blows, once removed you see a black burn mark at the back, personally I would get a new ballast, loads new on ebay for under a tenner.
As for tubes a new one could last a couple of years, worry about led then when it fails.