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

Is the Arlen EFS600 electronic retrofit starter, an universal starter, and can start all types and wattage of fluorescent lamps reliably (Both 4W T5, 58W T8 and 2x18W T8s connected in series)?
This is a 4-125W starter.

great.an alternative to throwaway chinese trash hf.

The weight suggests these really are magnetic ballasts, unless it's an electronic one with a huge heatsink!

Dor, EFS600 starters are for single lamp operation; there are electronic series-starters and I have four of these which I'll dig out and post here. These struggle with 8ft 100W T12s and I recently swapped one for a standard glowbottle starter for 8ft tubes.


BG

I found the EFS120 , which is a single starter for 4-22W T8/T12 lamps and 18W TC-L and 22W circular and a series starter for 15-20W T8/T12 and 18W TC-L.
This is the only starter in the list, that allows series operation.
Is it suitable also for 4-8W T5 and 20W T8 series operation (If I would have a bug zapper)?

Yep

If these are the same as mine (will have to dig out the original outside light gear tray and check) they will work fine with all the small T5-T12 tubes in series operation. I didn't have any problems using them with 2x6W tubes on 13W ballasts.


BG

WOW!  That link that Bulb Freak posted is AWESOME!!!! I hope some of this stuff makes it to 120v/60hz country!!!

I hope too but i see a problem : The US will have to use autotransformers for those lamps to step up the line voltage, then efficiency goes down since autotransformers are less efficient than chokes

They may be made as 240v/60Hz or 277v/60Hz versions though

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 

AWSOME  AWSOME

On ballast for 35W T5, is an autotransformer that steps up the voltage from 230V to 400V. I don't understand why that the 35W T5 lamp would need a 400V circuit, so that an autotransformer ballast is needed even for 230V? 400? operation is more normal to >1000W MH/HPS lamps for 3PH operation.

I think that these ballasts, are just B1/B2/C/D ballasts, that were rerated at A2, to dodge from the ban of the magnetic ballasts at 2017, and that Vossloh-Schwabe sells them with an electronic starter, to have all of the adventage of magnetic and programmed start electronic ballasts (Flicker free starting, very long lamp life by smart starting, EOL shut down, very long ballast life).

becose a 35W T5 has a arc V of 200V so thats y u need 400V

For series choke only you need the ballast OCV to be at least twice (little less could be acceptable, but only little) the arc voltage. So 200V lamp need the 400V.

 The 208V of F35T5HE could be already too much even for the series LC, it would five very little margin for the mains fluctuation and all losses.

Why would autotransformers be inefficient, unless made with very thin windings? Unless the off-load leakage current is high?


BG

Every piece of magnetic stuff add it's losses proportional to the VA's all the winding have to handle. Cheaper and lighter designs have higher percentage, worse lower.
So when using autotransformer AND ballast choke mean you have two things (with almost the same VA's) to dissipate power.
When you manage to get rid of one of them, you cut the losses by half, as well as the mass. And because this save you some money, you may use this budget to push the losses of the remaining component even further down, so you could end up with ~1/3..2/5 losses for the same cost (both financial, as well as total mass). Integrating two components into one (e.g. HX autotransformer vs transformer plus choke) you do save some of the losses (as there are not as much "conversions" between magnetic and electrical domains), but these are still higher than the simple choke.

That is the main reason, why in the US the 35W .. 150W HPS lamps are using so low arc voltage, so the lamp efficacy become worse than their counterparts from the other side of the Atlantic: The lower arc voltage make the lamp to suffice with only series choke as a ballast, what make the ballast way more efficient, what more than compensate the efficacy loss in the lamp alone.
The similar things for high wattage lamps: In the US they would have to use the transformer anyway (because the low voltage version would be really too inefficient), the lamps are optimized for maximum efficacy. European mains allow the arc voltage to be in the 70..90V range with simple series choke, so the lamp efficacy loss from non optimal arc voltage for the power is more than offset by not needing more than the simple choke.

And the same is valid for fluorescents. When they were designed for only magnetic, their arc voltage was limited to ~120..130V for Europe. As electronic have way lower losses associated with the voltage conversion, lamps designed for HF were optimized for efficacy, even when it mean arc voltage going above the 130V limit.

Thanks for that explanation Medved, the differing lamp specs make sense to me now


BG

....
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.
....

The new EU directive has changed, the new EEI (Energy Efficiency Index) is no more based on the system power, but on the ballast efficiency; so lamp power divided by system power. There are now three different power values of lamps: a nominal power, which is, so to say, only the name of the respective lamp, a rated power for mains frequency operation and a rated power for HF operation.  Thereby an impartial treatment of both magnetic and electronic ballasts is now granted.

I've written a thread some time ago to discuss this here:
http://www.lighting-gallery.net/index.php?topic=2744.0