Return to the thumbnail page Display/hide file information See previous file See next file

Click to view full size image
IMG_3596.JPG IMG_3260.JPG IMG_3045.JPG IMG_3049.JPG

File information

File information

Download: Download this File
Filename:IMG_3045.JPG
Album name:Alights / Ballasts
Keywords:Gear
File Size:138 KB
Date added:Apr 08, 2010
Dimensions:1024 x 768 pixels
Displayed:266 times
URL:https://www.lighting-gallery.net/gallery/displayimage.php?pos=-43611
Favorites:Add to Favorites
Comments
rjluna2
Sr. Member
****
Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 303
View Gallery

Robert


GoL
View Profile Personal Message (Offline)
Apr 09, 2010 at 04:21 AM Author: rjluna2
Is there a date stamp under the ballast?

Pretty, please no more Chinese failure.

nogden
Sr. Member
****
Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 382
View Gallery

Nelson Ogden


View Profile Personal Message (Offline)
Apr 09, 2010 at 06:02 AM Author: nogden
Looks pretty new, it says "for replacement use only". Still, it's a nice magnetic ballast. I just ordered some of those to have on hand since they will be banned after June 30, 2010.
Alights
Full Member
***
Offline

Posts: 129
View Gallery

USA (120V 60HZ)


View Profile Personal Message (Offline)
Apr 09, 2010 at 10:59 AM Author: Alights
I already installed it so i cant look at the date stamp on the other side sorry. I will have to remember that for next time, this one looks to be from some time after 2006.
rjluna2
Sr. Member
****
Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 303
View Gallery

Robert


GoL
View Profile Personal Message (Offline)
Apr 09, 2010 at 12:11 PM Author: rjluna2
Oh well

Pretty, please no more Chinese failure.

Foxtronix
Sr. Member
****
Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 419
View Gallery

Formerly "TiCoune66". Also known here as Vince.


GoL UCs4tSgJSCoCIMGThBuaePhA
View Profile WWW Personal Message (Offline)
Apr 09, 2010 at 03:01 PM Author: Foxtronix
I heard that Mark III ballasts were particularly bad... Is yours dim compared to a normal brightness ballast?

Alights
Full Member
***
Offline

Posts: 129
View Gallery

USA (120V 60HZ)


View Profile Personal Message (Offline)
Apr 09, 2010 at 03:07 PM Author: Alights
Mine works very nicely so far a little btighter than the universal magnetek 1 lamp F40 ballast and brighter then the bonus line ballast running 2 u- bent lamps
nogden
Sr. Member
****
Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 382
View Gallery

Nelson Ogden


View Profile Personal Message (Offline)
Apr 09, 2010 at 03:29 PM Author: nogden
I have 50+ Advance Mark II and Mark III ballasts in service. I have never noticed any difference in light output compared to Universals. I have Universals in service right next to Advances in many fixtures. The only thing about the Mark II's and to some extent the Mark III's is that they flicker and are dim on startup. Oddly enough, this is worse with 40 watt lamps compared to 34 watt. Once they warm up, though, they are fine. I also think the Mark II's are the quietest rapid start ballasts I have.

In general, I prefer Advance (now Philips) over Universal (now GE).

-Nelson
DieselNut
Hero Member
*****
Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 780
View Gallery

John


jonathon.graves johng917 GeorgiaJohn
View Profile Personal Message (Offline)
Apr 12, 2010 at 06:01 AM Author: DieselNut
I have never been a fan of the "energy saver" ballasts, whether by Universal, Advance. General Electric or anyone else. They do not seem to properly "drive" 40 watt lamps. I still have dozens of salvaged full power 40 watt rapid start ballasts I have kept for spares. I have several Mark III ballasts, only because they still work or I removed them from a fixture to install something better. So these are banned later this year? I wish the damn government would quit dictating everything in our lives. Where is our freedom of choice? We will now be forced to buy electronic ballasts that will fail every couple years? Disgusting!

Preheat Fluorescents forever!
I love diesel engines, rural/farm life and vintage lighting!

nogden
Sr. Member
****
Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 382
View Gallery

Nelson Ogden


View Profile Personal Message (Offline)
Apr 12, 2010 at 06:57 AM Author: nogden
Yes, I don't think that any magnetic 1 or 2 lamp 4' ballast will meet the new federal regulations. I completely agree that the government is regulating something they don't understand and should not be messing with. Same with incandescent lamps. There are just some places where incandescent lamps either must be used or make more sense than any other light source. Unless our legislators all spent a few years in the lighting or electrical industry, they should not be regulating what they don't fully understand.

No, it does not make sense to force us to use electronic ballasts when they are less reliable. The savings in electricity are offset by poor lifespan.

-Nelson
DieselNut
Hero Member
*****
Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 780
View Gallery

John


jonathon.graves johng917 GeorgiaJohn
View Profile Personal Message (Offline)
Apr 12, 2010 at 07:48 AM Author: DieselNut
I agree about the incandescent ban also. I personally do not like incandescent lighting, but I also am not a fan of the electronic CFL lamps or the LED lights for general lighting. The best lighting for general lighting is linear fluorescent. This is my OPINION and other people's opinion may be different. That is why we need freedom of choice! Yes, there are uses for incandescent that fluorescent cannot replace. I have a 60 and a 100 watt incandescent bulb I use for keeping baby chickens warm after hatch. Other lights will not work for this use. The fact is, there are different types of lights because of different applications and personal preference. The government needs to leave us alone in our personal lives and allow manufacturers to make what the consumer desires.

Preheat Fluorescents forever!
I love diesel engines, rural/farm life and vintage lighting!

DaveMan
Administrator
Full Member
*****
Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 191
View Gallery

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)
Apr 12, 2010 at 11:03 AM Author: DaveMan
@Vince: The Advance Mark 3 energy savers are infamous for underdriving lamps. They actually seem to drive the lamps at a lower current than even any other recent brand of magnetic ballast.

@Nelson and John: I agree with you guys 100%. I'm pretty sure that almost no one in Congress has any experience working in the lighting industry, though I could be wrong on that. One thing you could try doing is starting a petition or two. I wrote one up to save mercury vapor lamps, so if you could gather enough facts to write a good article, you could probably put one together for magnetic ballasts and incandescent lamps. I mean, who's to say? It could work.

David L.
Administrator, Lighting-Gallery.net

joseph_125
Sr. Member
****
Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 363
View Gallery


GoL
View Profile Personal Message (Offline)
Apr 12, 2010 at 12:13 PM Author: joseph_125
The Canadian government also has a similar ballast ban that started on April 1st of this year. I myself, disagree with this because I like using both electronic and magnetic ballasts and different light sources depending on the room I'm lighting and/or the mood I want to create. I disagree with having some of the choices available for lighting being eliminated because they don't meet a certain standard.


I guess I should stockup some more on magnetic ballasts now since they're already up here in Canada.
Luminaire
Full Member
***
Offline

Posts: 212
View Gallery

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)
Jun 09, 2010 at 12:38 AM Author: Luminaire
I believe the Energy Saver magnetic ballasts are made using all copper coil and less lossy iron core.
http://tristate.apogee.net/lite/lflsmag.asp

That Advance is about the highest output F40 ballast you can get. When the lamp is sold as "3300 lumens" it is based on operating on a 1.0BF reference ballast.

F40T12 120v 0.73A 87W 0.95BF

F34T12 120v 0.63A 72W 0.90BF
© 2005-2019 Lighting-Gallery.net | Powered by: Coppermine Photo Gallery