I wondered how long it would be...

[Harry Bloomfield]

The power used by a fluorescent tube is not linear to voltage, the tube would without the ballast run away and allow a huge discharge.

The same with a non switch mode power supply, a 12 volt output from a transformer, diode, and capacitor into a 7812 voltage regulator would produce no heat from the 7812, but increase the voltage to 14 volt and the regulator starts to produce heat, depending on the load, so again power used not linear to voltage.

Eric, there is a major difference between a series regulator and a tube ballast. The series regulator acts exactly like a dropper resistance, deliberately wasting the surplus energy.

 

[JohnW2]

Florescent tubes exhibit negative resistance. Reduce the current and the voltage across them increases (that is why a ballast is required). Over a small range the power tends to remain the same which is why you didn’t see a noticeable drop in light output.

I'm actually not convinced that light output changes much with changing voltage. I would imagine that, provided only that the tube is able to strike, it will produce much the same output regardless of voltage/current. I also imagine that the tubes, themselves are probably very efficient (they don't get very hot).

So, yes, one could probably reduce voltage without much loss of light output (until one got to the point at which it didn't work at all).

However, we're talking about energy saving and, as I've said, I think the only appreciable 'wastage' of energy is due to the resistance of the ballast. As I've said, if, as I suspect, that resistance is pretty low, then so will be energy dissipation in it - hence leaving relatively little scope for anything to reduce that energy wastage appreciably.

 

[JohnW2]

Eric, there is a major difference between a series regulator and a tube ballast. The series regulator acts exactly like a dropper resistance, deliberately wasting the surplus energy.

Indeed - and as I keep saying, the only wastage of surplus energy in an inductive ballast will be that due to the resistance of the ballast (which I suspect is pretty low). The current-limiting functionality of the ballast is due to its reactance, which will not consume any energy.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ericmark]

I also imagine that the tubes, themselves are probably very efficient (they don't get very hot).

I also take this attitude, if no heat likely all output is light, OK may not be useful radio spectrum output, but near enough for most items. But the heat from the wire wound ballast does vary a lot with voltage, and the fluorescent tube has such a large surface area hard to be sure on if there is any heat.

It's all academic anyway, as wire wound ballasts are no longer sold, so today no point in the optimiser, in fact it could be dangerous, as items like solar panels and EV charging points use the 207 to 253 volt as a trigger to switch off if the PEN is lost, so any item which masks this could prevent the disconnection, or at least slow it down.

From memory the device replaced the fuse box/consumer unit, and it stopped working when the current exceeded the amount the auto transformer could handle. There was a concern they could overheat if they failed to disconnect in time, and I would think they would not comply with today's regulations?

Seem to remember made in Capenhurst in Cheshire, one of the many units from old nuclear days, left empty, but they were tested down south, not sure why, and at the time had glowing reports, but today just a memory.

 

[JohnW2]

I also take this attitude, if no heat likely all output is light, OK may not be useful radio spectrum output, but near enough for most items.

Quite.

But the heat from the wire wound ballast does vary a lot with voltage, ...

I've never experimented but, as I said, would have expected the resistance (hence power dissipated, hence heat) woud be pretty low. Maybe I'm wrong.

and the fluorescent tube has such a large surface area hard to be sure on if there is any heat.

They get an awful lot less hot than did incandescent 'tubes'

It's all academic anyway, as wire wound ballasts are no longer sold ....

From TLC ...

Kind Regards, John

 

[ericmark]

Interesting I thought wire wound ballasts were no longer permitted, but can't remember where I read it.

 

[JohnW2]

Interesting I thought wire wound ballasts were no longer permitted, but can't remember where I read it.

"Not permitted" by whom? 'Everyone' is still selling them.

[ I'm gratified to see it described as a "choke" (which is what it is!), rather than this silly word "ballast" ]

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

[ I'm gratified to see it described as a "choke" (which is what it is!), rather than this silly word "ballast" ]

Tut tut. Pedant. Language evolution.

 

[Harry Bloomfield]

[ I'm gratified to see it described as a "choke" (which is what it is!), rather than this silly word "ballast" ]

From an electronic point of view, it would be called a choke. I've never understood where 'ballast' came from.

 

[JohnW2]

From an electronic point of view, it would be called a choke. I've never understood where 'ballast' came from.

Quite so. Nor have I !

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

Tut tut. Pedant. Language evolution.

I'm not sure I'd call that 'evolution'. Do you have any idea of how this word 'ballast' came to be used to refer to a choke?

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

I'm not sure I'd call that 'evolution'. Do you have any idea of how this word 'ballast' came to be used to refer to a choke?

No more than any other word.

In the dictionary it states what it does. Is anything else required?

Its synonyms include 'equilibrium', 'balance' and 'stabiliser'.


Why would 'choke' be any more logical or understandable?

 

[Harry Bloomfield]

Why would 'choke' be any more logical or understandable?

Because it was the original name, which was gradually replaced by ballast. Some of these words cross the Atlantic, perhaps that was the source?

 

[ericmark]

I have a problem with many words and phrases, where the wrong one can mean some misunderstanding. Low voltage instead of extra low voltage, but fuse box instead of consumer unit does not really matter, like hover, vacuum cleaner or air velocity cleaner, even if latter is correct, the former two are more well known.

As to choke, this would be in Henry's but not quite that easy, it throttles back how much can flow, chokes it, but also provides a volt boost so not sure I could select a choke but ballast shows fluorescent tube to be with it, rather than electrical properties.

 

[JohnW2]

No more than any other word.

Is that true? One doesn't usually see a word which has had accepted meanings for decades/centuries starting to be used to refer to something totally different, particularly when there is already perfectly good and well-established word for the 'something totally different'

Why would 'choke' be any more logical or understandable?

The point is that it is a choke. The capacitor(s) within a fluorescent fitting are called capacitor(s), the terminal block within it is called a terminal block, the screws within it are called screws etc. etc. - so why is the choke within it called a "ballast"?

Kind Regards, John