Re: Integrated vs non-integrated

On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 13:18:10 GMT, "TKM" <nomail@xxxxxx>
wrote:


"Thomas Paterson" <t_p_paterson@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1153876734.072835.252440@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Dear All,

We're putting together an analysis of a client's existing lighting
techniques. They're using a lot of integrated fluorescents in E26 base
luminaires. They like working this way as the up-front cost is very
low compared to non-integrated options. On the other hand, I regard it
as somewhat environmental vandalism to be throwing out lots of control
gears unnecessarily and it restricts the ability to dim. I'd like to
encourage them to use non-integrated lamps throughout, but there is no
point in going half cocked and doing some but not all in this way.

Has anyone done comparative work on this? Perhaps there are
spreadsheets floating around for such analysis? The cost of
electricity is a major issue as we're operating on islands with extreme
costs of electricity so we'll need to redo the analysis ourselves to
incorporate this.

Thanks,

Thomas.

You might check out the work that's going on to develop the GU-24 base
system as a standard for energy-efficient lighting. The GU-24 (2-pin twist
and lock) is being established as a 120 volt alternative to the standard
Edison screw. There's some talk of a 240 volt version too. What this
development does is make the ballast very easy to buy and replace. Changing
lamp wattages is easy too. Costs are coming down because of the
standardization and because residential lighting manufacturers seem to like
the idea and are adding products to their lines. The system is compact
enough even for chandeliers.

Into the GU-24 you can plug a variety of simple cartridge ballasts for CFLs
and then a similar variety of 4-pin CFL lamps. Dimming ballasts are an
option too. The particular system being considered was developed by Viva
Lighting.

See: http://www.lrc.rpi.edu/resources/newsroom/pdf/2005/lvsocket.pdf

But, it's been licensed to the industry at no cost because of the efforts of
EPA/Energy Star to settle on a standard for energy-efficient residential
lighting.

See:
http://www.northwestenergystar.com/files/4424GU24_Line_Voltage_Socket.pdf

CFL manufacturers (TCP is one) have already listed integrated lamp/ballast
products with GU-24 bases, so it doesn't much matter which approach you
choose once the GU-24 is installed in the fixture. Which is cheaper
integrated or non integrated could change, I suppose, depending upon the
competitive situation; but, a separate lamp and ballast is certainly the
more environmental approach.

Terry McGowan

This is basically just a way of making the very old plug-in
lamp + ballast adapter system BUT also prevent the customer
from substituting an incandescent lamp once the CFL fails.
(As required by Energy Star.) The problem I have with this
is that the ballast is still in the hottest part of the
fixture (when used in track or recessed can fixtures) and
that leads to much shorter ballast life than a separate
ballast outside the portion of the fixture that holds the
lamp. A few months ago I purchased four Philips CFL
reflector lamps and installed them in cans on a track light
system. Two have already failed, most likely due to the
high ballast temperature. This is a great idea for portable
fixtures (table and floor lamps) but not for cans or any
other type of enclosed or semi-enclosed fixture.

--
Vic Roberts
http://www.RobertsResearchInc.com
To reply via e-mail:
replace xxx with vdr in the Reply to: address
or use e-mail address listed at the Web site.

This information is provided for educational purposes only.
It may not be used in any publication or posted on any Web
site without written permission.

.

Loading