Here look at this!! They've bought out Magnetic Ballasts for the Long T5 tubes!, This is just what we need!!!


http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/login.jsp?tp=&arnumber=5524038&url=http%3A%2F%2Fieeexplore.ieee.org%2Fiel5%2F63%2F4359240%2F05524038.pdf%3Farnumber%3D5524038

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/articleDetails.jsp?reload=true&arnumber=5729819&contentType=Journals+%26+Magazines

http://www.enlux.com/en/index.asp

 

http://www.enlux.com/en/index.asp

This link looks to me as a fraud and misleading. Magnetic ballast can not achieves EEI=A2. Also, these ballasts looks like made of plastic packages, and have the same terminals of electronic ballasts (Which will melt and burn from the heat of the coil), and are coloured green instead of white/black (The normal colouring of magnetic ballasts.
Also, they are self-starting (Flicker free starting, despite there is no room for an electronic starter), meaning that they aren't preheat/switchstart. And they have an EOL detection, as like they have an electronic starter.
Also, many fake german standard marks appears, despite this is a generic product.
This looks to me like a consumer misleading and a fraudulence website, as magnetic ballasts can't achieve EEI=A2.

Does not look fake to me. Beides, many companies plan to make those including VS/Panasonic

Magnetic ballasts can be made up to any desired efficiency - just use better materials for the coil (thicker wire) and core (better metal, more plates and each one thinner etc). Want 99% ? No problem - mage good big core and wind it with 10AWG. Only limitd by cost (size and weight i dont count since there is plenty of space in any fixture, so its not issue)

Does not look fake to me. Beides, many companies plan to make those including VS/Panasonic

Magnetic ballasts can be made up to any desired efficiency - just use better materials for the coil (thicker wire) and core (better metal, more plates and each one thinner etc). Want 99% ? No problem - mage good big core and wind it with 10AWG. Only limitd by cost (size and weight i dont count since there is plenty of space in any fixture, so its not issue)

The "Energy efficiency label" is not supposed to compare the efficiency (as per engineering/technical/scientific definition), but take into account other features potentially affecting the overall energy usage.
With fluorescent ballasts it is the high frequency operation (based on the definition, the standard count 15% lamp efficacy improvement for the HF drive compare to the mains frequency) or the capability to reduce the lamp power to actual need, so it is supposed (according to the standard operation) does not have to be at full power at all times, so save the power there.

(And e.g. with cloth tumble dryers the difference between "C" and "B" is the "B" requiring a single-push-button mode for low load, even when the same effect you may get by proper setting of the simpler control of the "C" dryers - it is not single push button, so it can not be "B", adding the ice making capability into freezer mean it belong to different appliance category, so although the ice maker is unusable in the central Europe and further to nord and only consume extra power, such appliance could usually shift one degree to better grade)

Well, this make the "energy efficiency" label system a true practically unusable mess, good enough to only fool potential customers...
With fluorescent ballasts A1 is less efficient than A2 and A2 is actually less efficient than B1 (speaking of energy efficiency in converting mains power to the power for the lamp, not about system efficacy in converting mains power into useful light).

The "B2" stand for mains frequency ballast of standard efficiency (~20% of losses)

The "B1" stand for mains frequency ballast of high efficiency (<10% losses). When you don't mind the heavy and expensive control gear, there are the most reliable solution: It is still robust coil and core, while the low losses and large size ensure very cold operation.

The "A2" stand for a HF (so electronic) ballast without dimming, losses up to ~15% range (I don't remember exactly; they are about 10% on most ballasts, better for the simple instant start ones, worse for the fully protected programmed start models, the high PF ones have higher losses than normal PF ones, but with the large installation the extra losses in the wiring system could be actually higher than losses of the PFC). Because of the high frequency drive the lamps are expected to be ~10..15% more efficient than on magnetic ballasts, what allow energy saving even (with higher losses) than "B".
But the "extra losses" could be sometimes so high, than the system actually become on par with more efficient (<5% losses) models of the "B1". Well, in real life with many tubes (mainly the thin, high current density ones) the high frequency does not improve the lamp efficacy as much, so the lower B1 losses could actually mean ~10% better system efficacy than A2...

The "A1" require a dimming feature capable to lower the power usage when only partial output is required. The extra net energy saving against A2 is expected from the use of this feature, even when the incorporation of dimming feature mean extra losses in the system (so lower efficiency compare to A2). Again in real life are not as many places, where the dimming feature could really be efficiently used to save power (against e.g. switching half of lamps OFF in an installations with two lamps per fixture or when no light reduction is possible at all), so in most cases the extra losses of the dimming circuitry in A1 mean actually higher energy usage compare to A2 (and sometimes even B1)


So if the cited ballasts are really magnetic ballasts, they are B1, because with the hypothetical reference lamp it won't utilize the hypothetical 15% gain in efficacy.
And the high voltage nature of the T5HE mean, than regular glowbottles won't work. The ballast may stabilize the arc by using the serial capacitor, so the arc voltage could be as high as 80% of the mains (the resonance effect between the L and C make sure, the tube have up to 2x the mains voltage for reignition after zero cross), but when there is not yet any current, the OCV is still equal to the mains. So the voltage across the tube is not usable anymore to determine if the lamp had started (so the starter have to "step away") or not yet (so the starter have to kick in). What remain is the time (where the starter change actions purely based on the time since power ON, without sensing what the lamp actually does; 80W T5HO worked in this setup well with the S10E electronic starter with "F36T8" ballast and 3uF/500VAC in series, the starter changed modes "Preheat" for 2.5seconds->"Ignition attempt" for 1 second->"Fail Shut Down", where the lamp in fact remained lit after that). Other option is to use the circuit current as a signature of running/not started lamp (e.g. like Perfect Start thermal starter system).

well all I can say is have a look at this http://www.allthingslighting.co.uk/atl/albums/userpics/10056/VS_KVG-Starter-System_2012_GB.pdf 

Those differences will be negligible

What bothers me more here is tht there re no proposed such ballasts for 18w T8 and most PL lamps (well besides PL-L36 and 55 that can run on the T8 ballasts)

The 18w T8 is generally used alone (ie not in series pair) in low light applications where the energy use is low due to the small power lamps used anyway, so i dont see why they are even a concern for energgy saving on ballast losses

Those differences will be negligible

What bothers me more here is tht there re no proposed such ballasts for 18w T8 and most PL lamps (well besides PL-L36 and 55 that can run on the T8 ballasts)

The 18w T8 is generally used alone (ie not in series pair) in low light applications where the energy use is low due to the small power lamps used anyway, so i dont see why they are even a concern for energgy saving on ballast losses

The p[roblem is, than the losses of the magnetic ballast of a reasonable size are linked mainly to the lamp current.
So as the single 18W T8 have very low arc voltages (~70V), it require 0.37A, so the ballast would have the same losses as with any 0.36A lamp - so same absolute losses as with e.g. 36W lamp, while with the 36W lamp it transfer twice as much usable power. So any magnetic ballast would become inefficient on 230V.
The PL-L36 and 55W are ~100..110V lamps, what yield to rather standard efficiency.

But where you have quite high chance of making really efficient magnetic ballasts are the T5HE: With losses of ordinary "B2" PL-S 7..11W choke ballast (~3W losses) and 1.35uF (<0.3W losses) series capacitor and S10e starter you get ~90% efficient magnetic (so "B1") ballast for the F35T5HE consuming 39W, about the same as the "A2" high frequency ones for the same light output...
Or what I used: A double-circular 80W T5 lamp (0.43A, 180V) I managed to run at 70W using the 0.37A "F18T8" choke with 2.7uF/450VAC in series, while the choke run at even lower temperature than with F18T8 (so 18W of useful power)...

Make ballast with bigger core, thicker wire, and you can get as close as you want to the 18w actual lamp power

Besides, 18w lamp is just 18w. It is only used alone (and not in series pair on 36w ballast) in places with relatively low lighting, which due to this are not a concern for country wide electricity use. Why care about its ballast losses at all ?

I'll be interested in getting a few of the VS chokes!

Make ballast with bigger core, thicker wire, and you can get as close as you want to the 18w actual lamp power

Well, if you don't care about 10kg ballast for a single F18T8, maybe yes. But by using higher voltage lamp of the same output (so e.g. F14T5HE), you end up with few 100's gram ballast for same system efficacy...

18W is just 18W

Wrong, you forget realistic ballast losses.
Single 18W (F18T8) on it's regular B2 ballast consume about 28..30W.
Operating two F18T8 in series pair on a single 36W ballast mean about 46W power input.
Operating it on an electronic mean about 18W power input for the same output (assume the lamp suffice with 16W due to the high frequency drive and ballast would have about 2W losses).
Operating F14T5HE on a "PL-S 7..11W" choke would mean about 18W (the lamp would be slightly underpowered) consumption, but nearly the same output.

Why care about its ballast losses at all ?

Two reasons:
1) The ballast losses heat up the ballast compartment and so need the foxture to be ventilated or thermally conductive. Both are a problem, when it is supposed to be sealed and plastic (e.g. to make it salt water proof)
2) Even when used in low level installation, but such installations are frequently quite large, with many fixtures on long distances. And there become quite important to make sure the voltage drops are under control, otherwise the lamps would interfere with each other. And because lower power mean lower current, it mean less problems with the voltage drops as well.

Proper ballasts for these lamps should address the reliability problems with these new T5 installations. Pity they only go up to 35W though, I don't know the different T5 sizes apart from the traditional 4, 6, 8 and 13W sizes plus the 21W .. I'll have to look into this as it's a gap in my knowledge of fluorescent lighting.

I've read somewhere that the 21W will run on a 13W ballast? I'll have to experiment.


BG

The F21T5HE ask for higher arc voltage (125V), so the current would become quite low in the classical circuit, so it would run underpowered, my guess is at about 0.14A (so run at ~15..16W). But the lower current would mean way lower ballast losses (so about 2.5..3W from the original 4W only), so the setup would become quite efficient.

With the series capacitor (1.35uF/500VAC) it would still run full power, however with "full power" ballast losses.

And what is most important, the 125V of arc voltage is not as high for the regular "4..125W" (S10,...) starters to still work with that lamp...

Why care about its ballast losses at all ?

I mean, to the point of enforcing unreachable efficiency requirements for this size of ballast. There are not much massive single F18T8 installatins being made to justify this, their impact on the grid is negligible. Same for all 7/9/11/10/13W PL, 4/6/8 T5 and so on. They are rare enough and low power enough to not care about them from the new efficiency requirements point of view

In contrast to series pairs F18, and F36/F58 which are very common in big quantities

I it is only about F18T8, then indeed, the main way to lower losses is the use of another lamp, more suitable to 230V single operation.

The wide spread of F18T8 pairs is supported by the more practical length of the F18T8 (compare to F36T8), while the series connection make the ballast reasonably efficient (with the same 10W losses it power two lamps).

One of these chokes c/w an EFS600 starter = better then ANY HF ballast...