Cree LED fluorescent lighting

[josh88]

Just saw this posted a moment ago and thought it might be relevant. They boast a 17 year life span, 2100 lumen output and a CRI of 90 or around 4k color temp. At a cost of $30 each and don't require any changes to the fixture. It's a direct replacement that can be dropped right in.


LED Tubes Will Make Fluorescents Seem Old-Fashioned


Via tapatalk

 

[StradivariusBone]

Do these still require the ballast?

EDIT:

Guess I should read better....

...are designed to fit into existing ballasts so, unlike other LED fluorescent replacements, you won't have to get up into the ceiling and rewire anything, just plug the LED tube in the same way the older flourescents do.

 

[BillESC]

Seems dumb to me. When the ballast goes bad, what happens? Does it take the lamp? Need to be replaced?

I installed four single tube LED fixtures in my 450 Sq Ft shop six years ago and haven't touched them since.

 

[StradivariusBone]

It isn't terribly difficult to bypass a ballast and it is one less point of failure. Looks like they're targeting the econo market that wants LED without hiring the electrician to remove the ballasts.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[BillESC]

I understand what you're saying, but what happens to the lamp's driver when the ballast starts to go? Can't be good for it.

 

[StradivariusBone]

No, no! I'm agreeing with you. I'd rather dump the ballast and be done with it, I was just supposing how they're marketing this.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[techieman33]

It isn't terribly difficult to bypass a ballast and it is one less point of failure. Looks like they're targeting the econo market that wants LED without hiring the electrician to remove the ballasts.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Agreed, if someone has to hire an electrician to come in and remove a bunch of ballasts it could get expensive pretty fast. This way the maintenance guy can just swap them out and save them a ton of money. And by the time the ballasts start to die it could very well be someone elses problem. Another thing is maybe these retrofit's are a lot easier on a ballast than a fluorescent tube and ballast life isn't an issue?

 

[Les]

Thing is, does the continuation of using that ballast really help the energy consumption in the grand scheme of things? I understand the ballast would probably be way under-loaded (is that a good thing?) but I can still imagine it being an energy vampire that might offset any real benefit.

I guess someone has surely metered a fixture before-and-after and found benefits.

 

[MarshallPope]

I guess someone has surely metered a fixture before-and-after and found benefits.

Call me cynical, but I feel like the "green marketing" benefit is all that is needed nowadays.

 

[josh88]

Apparently Phillips is making one like this too, and some others come with a jumper kit that make cutting the ballast out of the equation easier.


Via tapatalk

 

[techieman33]

Call my cynical, but I feel like the "green marketing" benefit is all that is needed nowadays.

Yep, most people won't be able to tell if they new lights are really saving energy, or how much. So long as they think they are is all that's needed to get people to spend money on new stuff.

 

[StradivariusBone]

I got curious so I found this from another manufacturer's site:

...removing the ballast does not make your LED conversion consume less electricity. The ballast is an essential component which converts and regulates power delivered to a fluorescent tube. LEDs also require this power conversion and regulation; it can not be avoided. While it is true that the ballast is not 100% efficient (nothing is), the LED Tube Lights which require removing the ballast have, simply put, a ballast inside the tube itself. As a result, those products suffer from the exact same inefficiencies as the existing ballast.

LED Tube Lights FAQs | EverLED

They also claim to be the first to make a ballast-compatible LED tube light. In any event, I think the greater cost-savings come from not having to replace as frequently and not having to deal with the mercury vapor problem in disposal and breaking one of those tubes. The EPA protocol for cleaning up a CFL broken on a rug is intense. It's almost easier to burn the house down and start over.

 

[Les]

I got curious so I found this from another manufacturer's site:

"...removing the ballast does not make your LED conversion consume less electricity. The ballast is an essential component which converts and regulates power delivered to a fluorescent tube. LEDs also require this power conversion and regulation; it can not be avoided. While it is true that the ballast is not 100% efficient (nothing is), the LED Tube Lights which require removing the ballast have, simply put, a ballast inside the tube itself. As a result, those products suffer from the exact same inefficiencies as the existing ballast."

I'm not quite sure I buy it. I'm sure the electronic driver circuitry in a self-contained LED tube is much more efficient than the magnetic ballasts in many troffers these are designed to go in.

The EPA protocol for cleaning up a CFL broken on a rug is intense. It's almost easier to burn the house down and start over.

Kind of skeptical of this as well. I believe you when you say the EPA protocol is intense, but it has to be in order to cover all bases. In actuality, the amount of mercury vapor in the common CFL is extremely miniscule.

 

[Jay Ashworth]

A reminder, though: if you modify a fluorescent fixture by removing the ballast to permit the installation of this sort of lamp, you are violating the contract between that connector and a potential bulb replacer later. If they put in a real fluorescent tube things will not go well.

Sent from my SPH-L720

 

[StradivariusBone]

I'm not quite sure I buy it. I'm sure the electronic driver circuitry in a self-contained LED tube is much more efficient than the magnetic ballasts in many troffers these are designed to go in.
Kind of skeptical of this as well. I believe you when you say the EPA protocol is intense, but it has to be in order to cover all bases. In actuality, the amount of mercury vapor in the common CFL is extremely miniscule.

I agree mostly, I'm sure there is some measurable difference between straight up flourescent and LED, but you're probably right on the trade off between the original ballast and the LED ballast. Same device, different design purpose for sure. Also, there is a pretty big spike in airborne mercury immediately after you crack a bulb, but in reality you probably ingest more from eating a fish you caught.

A reminder, though: if you modify a fluorescent fixture by removing the ballast to permit the installation of this sort of lamp, you are violating the contract between that connector and a potential bulb replacer later. If they put in a real fluorescent tube things will not go well.

Sent from my SPH-L720

Light with negative resistance eventually go boom. Or breaker. Don't want to find out which one.

 

[techieman33]

I'm not quite sure I buy it. I'm sure the electronic driver circuitry in a self-contained LED tube is much more efficient than the magnetic ballasts in many troffers these are designed to go in.

I'm torn on this. On one had the transmformer in an LED tube could be more efficient. On the other hand there is a good chance that one in a $30 fixture is cheap inefficient piece of junk just waiting to catch on fire.

 

[Les]

I'm torn on this. On one had the transmformer in an LED tube could be more efficient. On the other hand there is a good chance that one in a $30 fixture is cheap inefficient piece of junk just waiting to catch on fire.

Valid point!