Help me read the markings on these FL ballasts - Ballast performance shootout

[kaon]

These are ballasts for common 4ft T8 36W tubes, (230VAC here in Singapore).

"Magnetek"

"Osram Quicktronic"

What do the lowercase lambda mean?
Could it be 0.45 power factor for the magnetic (i.e. conventional) ballast, and 0.98 power factor for the electronic?

Current measurements (voltage was 227 V):
Electronic ballast (for 2 tubes): 0.28 A
Magnetic ballast (for 1 tube): 0.22 A
Magnetic ballast (for 2 tubes): 0.48 A
All 5 tubes were on, side-by-side, all with identical new tubes, and by my eyeball, they were equally bright.

If I assume power factors 0.98 and 0.45, then the each tube consumes these:
On electronic ballast: 31W per tube
On magnetic ballast: 24W per tube

Which is opposite of what we expect, that electronic ballasts are about 10% more efficient than magnetic.

I must have done something wrongly, yes?

EDIT:
And why don't I see the output frequency stated on the Osram Quicktronic?

 

[ponygt65]

I'm not familiar with export ballasts so bare with me, but I believe what you have referring to as .45 and .98 not power factor. THey are indeed Ballast Factor.

Ballast factor refers to the ballasts ability to produce lumen output of the lamp.

For example. The inital Lumen rating of a 36W Dulux L lamps is : 2900. The "low ballast Factor" ballast at .45 will force that lamp to produce a maximum of 1305 lumens on inital lumen output.
THe Sylvania ballast has a .98 BF so the lamp will be able to produce 2842 initial lumens.

Assuming that nomenclature is the BF, that's what it would mean. However, I'd be surprised if the naken human eye couldnt' pick up on 1500 lumen difference. Only way to tell for sure is to have two different fixtures with one each ballast, and do a FC reading underneath both individually.

Hope this helps.

 

[kaon]

Assuming that nomenclature is the BF, that's what it would mean. However, I'd be surprised if the naken human eye couldnt' pick up on 1500 lumen difference.

Thanks I have read up about ballast factor.
Because of the similarity in brightness, I suspect that the lambda does indicate some kind of power factor (there are two types of power factor, I just gathered...)
http://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=229502&page=3

FYI, there are two power factors in use. The W/VA and the displacement power factor. The W/VA is also called lambda while the displacement power factor is called cos(phi1), where 1 stands for fundamental (first harmonic). There can be a big difference between the two. Cos(phi1) is usually close to unity while lambda can be very low.

However, the reversed consumption comparison from my original calculations remain unexplained.

 

[ponygt65]

Thanks I have read up about ballast factor.
Because of the similarity in brightness, I suspect that the lambda does indicate some kind of power factor (there are two types of power factor, I just gathered...)
http://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=229502&page=3

However, the reversed consumption comparison from my original calculations remain unexplained.

I 'kind of' get what you are saying. The one thing that I think you may be confused on is the word 'effecient' The term efficient is losely used and really isn't a common term in lighting specs and design. Reason being, in creates confusion.

You see that as inefficient by comparison. however, that calcs for Lumen output with BF have not been looked at. That is 'another' thing that enters into overall 'efficiency' in lighting among other things. Another part wouldn't be the simple numerical output of Lumen, but the efficacy as well.

"Consumption" does not equal efficiency in lighting. Efficiency is a 'society' term that cuts to the chaise of 'energy efficient'.

In short (too late, I know), There is no simply 'efficient' when it comes to lighting. To answer the question of simply "what is efficient?", you would need to look at the entire overall package, including design.

As a whole, yes electronic ballasts consume less energy for the same BF and PF by comparison of a magnetic Ballast. I have numerous books at work to prove it. :thumbsup:

EDIT: the best way for you to get the answer of 'efficiency' in regards to consumption of the PL-L36 between those two ballasts would be to look up the manufacturers listed 'system' specs. Unfortuntely, Magnatek was bought out by Universal Lighting technologies and I'm not sure you'll be able to find them for that magnetic ballast. But, again I'm not familiar with export ballasts, so ULT may be exporting under the Magnatek name.


DBL EDIT (LOL): I think you should also keep in mind that you are comparing apples to oranges.

 

[kaon]

The one thing that I think you may be confused on is the word 'effecient'

That's not a problem. I am aware of the multiple informal usages that this word has in the field of lighting.
I am simply concerned about (total or "system") efficacy, i.e. lumens per real watt at the wall socket.

As a whole, yes electronic ballasts consume less energy for the same BF and PF by comparison of a magnetic Ballast. I have numerous books at work to prove it.

Yes I am aware that this is generally accepted. That electronic ballasts give rough 10% (ok, ballpark) bonus in system efficacy. (e.g. from 70% efficacy to 77% efficacy)

Which is why I am wondering why my measurements suggest that the old mag. ballasts are outperforming the OsramQuicktronic's.

the best way for you to get the answer of 'efficiency' in regards to consumption of the PL-L36 between those two ballasts would be to look up the manufacturers listed 'system' specs.

Yeah, but I was hoping to verify independently.

The only possible explanations I can think of for my surprising results:
- The Magnetek understated its W/VA power factor.
- The Osram QTP overstated its W/VA power factor.
- the Osram electronic ballast is faulty
- The tubes on mag. ballast were dimmer, but I could not perceive the difference by eyeballing.
- Maybe the current flows were too non-sinusoidal for my basic clamp ammeter.

 

[ponygt65]

That's not a problem. I am aware of the multiple informal usages that this word has in the field of lighting.
I am simply concerned about (total or "system") efficacy, i.e. lumens per real watt at the wall socket.

Yes I am aware that this is generally accepted. That electronic ballasts give rough 10% (ok, ballpark) bonus in system efficacy. (e.g. from 70% efficacy to 77% efficacy)

Which is why I am wondering why my measurements suggest that the old mag. ballasts are outperforming the OsramQuicktronic's.

Yeah, but I was hoping to verify independently.

The only possible explanations I can think of for my surprising results:
- The Magnetek understated its W/VA power factor.
- The Osram QTP overstated its W/VA power factor.
- the Osram electronic ballast is faulty
- The tubes on mag. ballast were dimmer, but I could not perceive the difference by eyeballing.
- Maybe the current flows were too non-sinusoidal for my basic clamp ammeter.

There is a definite confusion barrier between us. This would be alot easier if you were infront of me with the ballasts. LOL

I can give you a TON of literature spec's that will show magnetics are more inefficient (power consumption) than electronics by apples to apples comparison. I understand that youa re trying to research that on your own, however, it appears (and again, i may be missing something) that you are only doing 'one portion' of the over all testing that needs to be done. You'd have to look at the PF in relation to the BF, and you should get a light meter to verify FC. You only are looking at PF.

An Electronic ballast could EASILY consume more energy than a magnetic, IF it's a HPF and HBF ballast AND the mag. is not. Where I think the confusion/mix up is, you are trying to compare apples to oranges, and that will never work out. You need to compare identical BF and PF ratings on one each Mag and Ele. ballast to know for certain. That's not what you are doing though.

 

[kaon]

You need to compare identical BF and PF ratings on one each Mag and Ele. ballast to know for certain. That's not what you are doing though.

Even if it is not clear what the BF and PF of both ballasts are, I think a meaningful comparison can be made like this:
Lux meter, dark room, identical light position, identical tube, or use the same tube. Use one ballast, measure lux and power readings, then repeat with the other ballast, repeat for experimental error.
And if both gave equal lux readings, that would be easiest to analyze.
If they had equal light output, then whichever consumed less power is the one with better efficacy. Assuming that I have a competent power analyzer meter.

I claim that if I had (1) a proper real-power analyzer and had (2) a good handle on the light output, then I can compare total efficacy of the two ballasts. I don't have to care that they have different BF and PF.
Agree with this?

 

[ponygt65]

Even if it is not clear what the BF and PF of both ballasts are, I think a meaningful comparison can be made like this:
Lux meter, dark room, identical light position, identical tube, or use the same tube. Use one ballast, measure lux and power readings, then repeat with the other ballast, repeat for experimental error.
And if both gave equal lux readings, that would be easiest to analyze.
If they had equal light output, then whichever consumed less power is the one with better efficacy. Assuming that I have a competent power analyzer meter.

I claim that if I had (1) a proper real-power analyzer and had (2) a good handle on the light output, then I can compare total efficacy of the two ballasts. I don't have to care that they have different BF and PF.
Agree with this?

Yes I do.

Because FC readings and power consumption is what 'most' people consider of primary importance.

however, don't confuse the test example you give with efficacy. Efficacy is Lumen per watt. You can't find true efficacy as difned by lumen/watt because that test won't tell you the lumens. However, it will give you usable FC to compare with the power consumption.

IDk of an analyzer that will give you total system consumption though. :thinking: (by system, I mean lamp and ballast combined.