Home Page link

Fluorescent tubes and fixtures.

Home| Search | About
Login Password
Register Now! Lost Password?

Home Repair - - If it ain't broken, don't fix it. Otherwise look here. 

Page 2 of 2       << first < 1 2 Bookmark this page:  YahooMyWeb Yahoo!  Google Google  Windows Live Favorites Windows Live  del.icio.us del.icio.us  digg digg  Add to Netscape Netscape
Subject Author Date
Fluorescent tubes and fixtures. terry 09-22-2006
If you were  Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
Posted by Bennett Price on September 23, 2006, 12:33 pm
Is it possible that the fixtures (ballasts) are designed for 277 volts,
not 120?

terry wrote:
> Have just been given some fluorescent light fixtures from a school.
>
> Each four tube fixture has a single 'electronic' ballast. The fixtures
> use the skinnier/newer type tubes. I also received some of the newer
> type tubes about one inch diameter.
>
> All fluorescent tubes referred to here are the 48 inch style. (Yes I
> ran into a few 'metric' ones a few years ago, which are a couple of
> inches shorter)!
>
> I also have older type fixtures. These have non-electronic ballasts and
> two tubes per fixture.
> Also a generous supply of the older style 40 and 34 watt fluorescent
> tubes and spare new and used (non electronic ballasts).
>
> I put a two of the the newer tubes into an old style fixture just to
> test them out and they worked but after a while the non-electronic
> ballast appeared to overheat and then operated intermittently (probably
> due to thermal protection inside it cutting in and out?).
>
> Q1: So it appears that it is NOT possible/safe/advisable to use the
> 'newer' tubes in 'older' fixtures?
>
> I also put four of the older style tubes into one of the newer
> (electronic ballast equipped) fixtures and they worked, fine it seemed.
>
>
> Q2: So is it OK/possible/safe to use the older style tubes in an
> electronic ballast equipped fixture?
>
> Mechanically everything fits fine. Advice appreciated. Terry
>

AppliancePartsPros.com, Inc.
Posted by terry on September 23, 2006, 11:00 pm

Bennett Price wrote:
> Is it possible that the fixtures (ballasts) are designed for 277 volts,
> not 120?
>
No they are all 120 V AC 60hz etc. No doubt whatever. In fact the
fixtures I obtained seem to have been retrofitted with new (electronic)
ballasts/tubes and some new wiring during the last say ten years? See
last para.
.
Now you've mentioned it I do have some 8 foot 347 volt fixtures. From a
supermarket that must have had 3 phase system? And to buy replaceent
120 volt ballasts for them would be expensive.

Until I got these newer 117 volt ones with electronic ballasts,
discussed above, I was going to feed the eight footers with a 115 to
230 (step up; voltage aiding) transformer. So that 115 + 230 = 345
volts. The total wattage not counting transformer losses would have
been about 4 x 160 = 640 with the transformer (I have a couple
suitable) handling about two thirds of that

It could have been wired in a somewhat standard manner with a
continuous non switched neutral, a single pole switch in the live 117
volt lead and red labels on everything to warn future 'electricians' of
the 345 volts!

It would also be possible to use 230 volts with a step down, but
voltage aiding transformer; 230 + 115 = 345 volts. But that most likley
would require two pole switching of the the two 230 volt legs to remove
all voltage in the 'switch off' state to puzzle future electricians
even more! In that case the transformer would handle about one third of
the total wattage.

Any way thanks for the information regarding which tubes to use with
which ballasts/fixtures. Makes sense.

Some of our schools must have spent large amounts for the installation
of the electronic ballasts and new tubes! Whether the
justification/rationale was better illumination or reduced electrical
consumption???? I know in on case at least they not only installed the
newer tubes but also shiny reflector strips behind them.

Thanks.


Posted by Robert Gammon on September 24, 2006, 5:09 am
terry wrote:
> Bennett Price wrote:
>
>> Is it possible that the fixtures (ballasts) are designed for 277 volts,
>> not 120?
>>
>>
> No they are all 120 V AC 60hz etc. No doubt whatever. In fact the
> fixtures I obtained seem to have been retrofitted with new (electronic)
> ballasts/tubes and some new wiring during the last say ten years? See
> last para.
> .
> Now you've mentioned it I do have some 8 foot 347 volt fixtures. From a
> supermarket that must have had 3 phase system? And to buy replaceent
> 120 volt ballasts for them would be expensive.
>
> Until I got these newer 117 volt ones with electronic ballasts,
> discussed above, I was going to feed the eight footers with a 115 to
> 230 (step up; voltage aiding) transformer. So that 115 + 230 = 345
> volts. The total wattage not counting transformer losses would have
> been about 4 x 160 = 640 with the transformer (I have a couple
> suitable) handling about two thirds of that
>
> It could have been wired in a somewhat standard manner with a
> continuous non switched neutral, a single pole switch in the live 117
> volt lead and red labels on everything to warn future 'electricians' of
> the 345 volts!
>
> It would also be possible to use 230 volts with a step down, but
> voltage aiding transformer; 230 + 115 = 345 volts. But that most likley
> would require two pole switching of the the two 230 volt legs to remove
> all voltage in the 'switch off' state to puzzle future electricians
> even more! In that case the transformer would handle about one third of
> the total wattage.
>
> Any way thanks for the information regarding which tubes to use with
> which ballasts/fixtures. Makes sense.
>
> Some of our schools must have spent large amounts for the installation
> of the electronic ballasts and new tubes! Whether the
> justification/rationale was better illumination or reduced electrical
> consumption???? I know in on case at least they not only installed the
> newer tubes but also shiny reflector strips behind them.
>
> Thanks.
>
>
Electronic ballasts cut the total power consumption of the fixture by
33%. Lighting costs drop, HVAC costs drop, at least in summer. STRONG
economic justification for the change to electronic ballasts when the
ballast cost drops to the right price.


Posted by CJT on September 24, 2006, 1:52 pm
Robert Gammon wrote:
> terry wrote:
>
>> Bennett Price wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Is it possible that the fixtures (ballasts) are designed for 277 volts,
>>> not 120?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> No they are all 120 V AC 60hz etc. No doubt whatever. In fact the
>> fixtures I obtained seem to have been retrofitted with new (electronic)
>> ballasts/tubes and some new wiring during the last say ten years? See
>> last para.
>> .
>> Now you've mentioned it I do have some 8 foot 347 volt fixtures. From a
>> supermarket that must have had 3 phase system? And to buy replaceent
>> 120 volt ballasts for them would be expensive.
>>
>> Until I got these newer 117 volt ones with electronic ballasts,
>> discussed above, I was going to feed the eight footers with a 115 to
>> 230 (step up; voltage aiding) transformer. So that 115 + 230 = 345
>> volts. The total wattage not counting transformer losses would have
>> been about 4 x 160 = 640 with the transformer (I have a couple
>> suitable) handling about two thirds of that
>>
>> It could have been wired in a somewhat standard manner with a
>> continuous non switched neutral, a single pole switch in the live 117
>> volt lead and red labels on everything to warn future 'electricians' of
>> the 345 volts!
>>
>> It would also be possible to use 230 volts with a step down, but
>> voltage aiding transformer; 230 + 115 = 345 volts. But that most likley
>> would require two pole switching of the the two 230 volt legs to remove
>> all voltage in the 'switch off' state to puzzle future electricians
>> even more! In that case the transformer would handle about one third of
>> the total wattage.
>>
>> Any way thanks for the information regarding which tubes to use with
>> which ballasts/fixtures. Makes sense.
>>
>> Some of our schools must have spent large amounts for the installation
>> of the electronic ballasts and new tubes! Whether the
>> justification/rationale was better illumination or reduced electrical
>> consumption???? I know in on case at least they not only installed the
>> newer tubes but also shiny reflector strips behind them.
>> Thanks.
>>
>>
>
> Electronic ballasts cut the total power consumption of the fixture by
> 33%. Lighting costs drop, HVAC costs drop, at least in summer. STRONG
> economic justification for the change to electronic ballasts when the
> ballast cost drops to the right price.
>
... and the bulbs last almost forever.

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.

Posted by RickR on September 28, 2006, 2:04 pm
For you and anyone else with the same problem.

The ballast should state on the lable what kind/number of lamps it can
run!
Some are very "universal" some are not. If it's so old you can't read
the lable, throw it out!

RickR

terry wrote:
> Bennett Price wrote:
> > Is it possible that the fixtures (ballasts) are designed for 277 volts,
> > not 120?
> >
> No they are all 120 V AC 60hz etc. No doubt whatever. In fact the
> fixtures I obtained seem to have been retrofitted with new (electronic)
> ballasts/tubes and some new wiring during the last say ten years? See
> last para.
> .
> Now you've mentioned it I do have some 8 foot 347 volt fixtures. From a
> supermarket that must have had 3 phase system? And to buy replaceent
> 120 volt ballasts for them would be expensive.
>
> Until I got these newer 117 volt ones with electronic ballasts,
> discussed above, I was going to feed the eight footers with a 115 to
> 230 (step up; voltage aiding) transformer. So that 115 + 230 = 345
> volts. The total wattage not counting transformer losses would have
> been about 4 x 160 = 640 with the transformer (I have a couple
> suitable) handling about two thirds of that
>
> It could have been wired in a somewhat standard manner with a
> continuous non switched neutral, a single pole switch in the live 117
> volt lead and red labels on everything to warn future 'electricians' of
> the 345 volts!
>
> It would also be possible to use 230 volts with a step down, but
> voltage aiding transformer; 230 + 115 = 345 volts. But that most likley
> would require two pole switching of the the two 230 volt legs to remove
> all voltage in the 'switch off' state to puzzle future electricians
> even more! In that case the transformer would handle about one third of
> the total wattage.
>
> Any way thanks for the information regarding which tubes to use with
> which ballasts/fixtures. Makes sense.
>
> Some of our schools must have spent large amounts for the installation
> of the electronic ballasts and new tubes! Whether the
> justification/rationale was better illumination or reduced electrical
> consumption???? I know in on case at least they not only installed the
> newer tubes but also shiny reflector strips behind them.
>
> Thanks.


Page 2 of 2       << first < 1 2
Similar ThreadsPosted
Fast start fluorescent tubes March 26, 2007, 1:59 pm
8-foot fluorescent fixtures??? February 27, 2006, 10:06 pm
can you recommend fluorescent fixtures June 18, 2006, 12:28 pm
Re: How many fluorescent light fixtures? February 17, 2008, 2:24 pm
Electronic Fluorescent Cold Weather Fixtures October 20, 2006, 7:48 pm
compact fluorescent in power limited fixtures March 26, 2006, 8:18 pm
Radiant tubes in a concrete/mud slab vs mounting the tubes under the sub floor. June 3, 2007, 11:38 pm
Touch-n-Glow touch activation adapter for fluorescent fixtures. December 1, 2005, 8:51 pm
Incandescent Bulb Ban -- Motion Detector Fixtures, Poto cell fixtures and other exotic applications January 18, 2008, 11:44 am
Re-Using Caulking Tubes January 27, 2007, 9:44 pm

Contact Us | Privacy Policy

XML SitemapXML Sitemap