Consumption lamps with ampoules G23 G24 * GX24 * and 2G *!

[delnoram]

er ... say 1 € for the 0.047nf 400v and 4 € for the 4.5µf.
But these are prices from a catalog for electronic handyman (even if the prices I give are the lowest I found)
Compared to the price of the support + tube + condo0.047µf which is 9.9 € (bought yesterday)
That (9a to please Targol) must mean that for the industry that manufactures condo prices are much lower (if that's where you wanted to come to this question).

[pluesy]

0.2 euro for a 47nf / 400v (1 euro if you take a rolls )

7 euros for a 5 uf / 400v plastic (a chemical is cheaper but it does not hold up over time)

I think it's more a problem of space than of price a 4.7uf / 400v is larger (30mm in diameter x 60mm long) than a 47nf / 400v which occupies a volume of 0.2 to 0.3 cm3 ...

[delnoram]

0.2 euro for a 47nf / 400v (1 euro if you take a rolls )

7 euros for a 5 uf / 400v plastic (a chemical is cheaper but it does not hold up over time)

I think it's more a problem of space than of price a 4.7uf / 400v is larger (30mm in diameter x 60mm long) than a 47nf / 400v which occupies a volume of 0.2 to 0.3 cm3 ...

For the 47nf (= 0.047µf) I took the one that is in the holder
1 MKP condo (polypropylene) since it is the one we are transferring
For the other I typed in my stock
I'm talking about a 1.2meter tube with a waterproof case, if you knew the space there is in it. (but you know it don't you).

[Targol]

Ca (9a to please Targol) (...)

9a it's nice to think of me

[elephant]

Guys, well done for the hare you are lifting!

For TL tubes (therefore, the good old fluos 18ex 20 W, 36 ex 40 W, 58 ex 65 W) it was already a long time that the lighting designers knew the problem and mounted batteries of cos phi correction capacitors in the lighting of offices and department stores: it must be said that it is worth it: 44 to 34 Watts, that's still 20%, right?

it is generally considered that the TL tubes in question deliver 5 to 6 times the flux of the equivalent incandescent power

but therefore, what about this coefficient for eco lamps when we consider their real consumption?

because if we consider the flux / consumption ratio of "all in one" eco lamps (E14 - E27), I believe that we are far from this coefficient of 5 or 6.

[delnoram]

Guys, well done for the hare you are lifting!

For TL tubes (therefore, the good old fluos 18ex 20 W, 36 ex 40 W, 58 ex 65 W) it was already a long time that the lighting designers knew the problem and mounted batteries of cos phi correction capacitors in the lighting of offices and department stores: it must be said that it is worth it: 44 to 34 Watts, that's still 20%, right?

it is generally considered that the TL tubes in question deliver 5 to 6 times the flux of the equivalent incandescent power

but therefore, what about this coefficient for eco lamps when we consider their real consumption?

Because if we consider the flux / consumption ratio of "all in one" eco lamps (E14 - E27), I believe that we are far from this coefficient of 5 or 6.

I have no doubt for a second that the lighting designers are up to date and overcome the problem, but what about the average citizen who like me until now trusted what is marked on the tube
The goal is not necessarily to invent but already to make known ...... no?
And yes I think it's worth 20% as much as we lighten the electrical wiring and the circuit breaker.

Regarding eco bulbs what is given as consumption is fair and even a bit overrated, but for the report facing
classic light bulbs you're right and wrong.
If you take globe bulbs it is clear that the ratio is only 3 at the maximum, bulbs with bent tubes are not so sure, an example: (measurements in identical condition goes without saying)
a given bulb for 15W => consumes less than 12W and the lighting is identical to a classic 60W so a ratio of 5.

[elephant]

well, you reassure me, but I'm still going to try to find my luxmeter (I think I lent it, but I know to whom)

[elephant]

Youpi!

I found my luxmeter! Thank you, oh honest friend who gave it back to me!

[delnoram]

oooooops you will discover everything then

[delnoram]

Here I have just made 2 transformations on "neon" ring type, the first of "22 Watts" measured at 32 Watts and the second of "32 Watts" measured at 36.5 Watts.

The modification consists in replacing the ballast and the starter by the electronic assembly of a fluorescent bulb.
It is necessary for that to choose a bulb of 18w or more, the best being to know the amperage supported by the assembly.


The result :
First of all, a drop in brightness that must be taken into account before finalizing the assembly. (for my part I did not find the difference very important)
In consumption for the tube of "22 W" (32 W "real) fell to 15 Watts.
That of "32 W" (36.5 W), it is only 16 Watts.
For an energy decrease, a division by 2 already seems to me a step in the right direction.

Now it remains to be seen how long the assembly will last!
But in most fluorescent bulbs that have failed, it is the heating filament, not the assembly.