|
Home > Archive > Alternative Power sources > December 2005 > Converting to DC ligthing.
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Converting to DC ligthing.
|
|
| Johnny 2005-11-20, 12:21 am |
| Rather than invest in inverters wouldn't be easy to power lighting circuits
with DC where AC appliances are not in the circuit?
Was wondering if this could more cost effective than a full power system for
the entire home which uses inverters.
| |
| Anthony Matonak 2005-11-20, 4:21 am |
| Johnny wrote:
> Rather than invest in inverters wouldn't be easy to power lighting circuits
> with DC where AC appliances are not in the circuit?
> Was wondering if this could more cost effective than a full power system for
> the entire home which uses inverters.
Going completely AC has the advantage that you can use regular
appliances, including lights, and you do not need two different
wiring systems. DC appliances, wiring, switches and breakers
are often more expensive than their AC counterparts.
That said, I can see a use for a few runs of low amperage DC
for emergency lighting and to replace wall warts for answering
machines and the like.
Anthony
| |
|
|
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote in message
news:a0Sff.7494$i7.3280@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
> Rather than invest in inverters wouldn't be easy to power lighting
circuits
> with DC where AC appliances are not in the circuit?
> Was wondering if this could more cost effective than a full power system
for
> the entire home which uses inverters.
I did a home for a guy that had 2 complete electrical systems in it. 120v
for the kitchen, bathrooms and laundry. There was a complete 12-24v set up
so he could come off his batteries. It was a little confusing when we were
doing the finish work. Side by side switches in every room. One worked the
120v lighting which there was very little. and the other worked all of the
12v stuff.
Sure was nice sitting on the porch at night with the lights on and music
playing and not a sound except the woods.
Good planning like this guy did was the key. Cost was almost double what a
120v system would have been. Then again there was 2 complete wiring
systems. He spent well over 60K on the PV set up so I am pretty sure that a
couple of grand extra did not phase him.
| |
| Johnny 2005-11-20, 6:21 pm |
|
--
X-No-archive: yes
"SQLit" <sqlit@qwest.net> wrote in message
news:225gf.34$SA4.2701@news.uswest.net...
>
> "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote in message
> news:a0Sff.7494$i7.3280@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
> circuits
> for
>
> I did a home for a guy that had 2 complete electrical systems in it. 120v
> for the kitchen, bathrooms and laundry. There was a complete 12-24v set up
> so he could come off his batteries. It was a little confusing when we
> were
> doing the finish work. Side by side switches in every room. One worked
> the
> 120v lighting which there was very little. and the other worked all of the
> 12v stuff.
>
> Sure was nice sitting on the porch at night with the lights on and music
> playing and not a sound except the woods.
>
> Good planning like this guy did was the key. Cost was almost double what a
> 120v system would have been. Then again there was 2 complete wiring
> systems. He spent well over 60K on the PV set up so I am pretty sure that
> a
> couple of grand extra did not phase him.
Seems like a very nice setup.
I was just thinking of doing lighting/outlets with dc from the panel on
circuits that have no ac appliances on them, (lower load circuits).
It seems that DC provides brighter light at lower power levels since there
is no cycling of the power.
Am I right to think this?
| |
| Johnny 2005-11-20, 6:21 pm |
|
--
X-No-archive: yes
"Anthony Matonak" <anthonym40@nothing.like.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:rf-dnYcfHuiIuB3enZ2dnUVZ_sSdnZ2d@comcast.com...
> Johnny wrote:
>
> Going completely AC has the advantage that you can use regular
> appliances, including lights, and you do not need two different
> wiring systems. DC appliances, wiring, switches and breakers
> are often more expensive than their AC counterparts.
>
> That said, I can see a use for a few runs of low amperage DC
> for emergency lighting and to replace wall warts for answering
> machines and the like.
>
> Anthony
Thanks. I wasn't wanting to buy a dc refrigerator yet.
I thought that DC would provide more power since it doesn't cycle and I
could run lighting etc without using as much energy.
| |
|
|
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote in message
news:la6gf.9872$Y82.5399@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
>
>
> --
> X-No-archive: yes
> "SQLit" <sqlit@qwest.net> wrote in message
> news:225gf.34$SA4.2701@news.uswest.net...
system[color=darkred]
120v[color=darkred]
up[color=darkred]
the[color=darkred]
a[color=darkred]
that[color=darkred]
>
>
> Seems like a very nice setup.
> I was just thinking of doing lighting/outlets with dc from the panel on
> circuits that have no ac appliances on them, (lower load circuits).
> It seems that DC provides brighter light at lower power levels since there
> is no cycling of the power.
> Am I right to think this?
I do not follow your idea that dc is a brighter light. Light is measured in
Lumens. A give bulb of X wattage is Y lumens. (look up at the manufacture)
The operating voltage has little to do with it in my experience.
The idea of having dc outlets sorta eludes me. Most of my equipment that
needs wall warts to DC power they are like 3,7, or 9 volts. Based on a 12
v system then I would still need a wall wart to cover 12 to the equipment.
Kinda defeats the purpose.
We ran a dc circuit out from the PV building with heavy wire. Then fed a SQD
NQO panel with the DC power. The SQD breakers used to have a DC rating. Have
not needed to check for a while. He also speced out that we use stranded
wire for all of the DC powered boxes. We ran #10 stranded in ENT the blue
plastic smurf tube for the DC power. Drove the other trades semi crazy with
all of the wiring. I think his planning helped a lot.
I know that all the circuits are so lightly used that if he decided to start
adding load there would not be a problem.
Oh ya the house had a full CAT 5 and not one telephone outlet. Cell phones
did not even work out there, back then. Pretty close to my dream house,,,,
if I had the money.
| |
|
|
Johnny wrote:
> Rather than invest in inverters wouldn't be easy to power lighting circuits
> with DC where AC appliances are not in the circuit?
> Was wondering if this could more cost effective than a full power system for
> the entire home which uses inverters.
If you want to use flourescent lighting, Advance Transformer Co. Mark V
electronic ballasts will work with both 144 vdc or 120 vac with no
wiring changes. They are a little pricy compared to the cheep ones but
they are a very efficient, quiet, and a long life ballast. I've been
using them for about 12 years and very satisfied with them. Also some
compact flourescent bulbs also work with both voltages. I've heard that
some computer switching power supplies also work but no guarantees as I
haven't been brave enough to try it yet.
| |
| Steve Spence 2005-11-21, 11:21 am |
| Jake wrote:
> Johnny wrote:
>
>
> If you want to use flourescent lighting, Advance Transformer Co. Mark V
> electronic ballasts will work with both 144 vdc or 120 vac with no
> wiring changes. They are a little pricy compared to the cheep ones but
> they are a very efficient, quiet, and a long life ballast. I've been
> using them for about 12 years and very satisfied with them. Also some
> compact flourescent bulbs also work with both voltages. I've heard that
> some computer switching power supplies also work but no guarantees as I
> haven't been brave enough to try it yet.
>
Home Depot carries 12vdc fluorescents for about $12 or so.
--
Steve Spence
Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html
| |
| nospam.clare.nce@sny.der.on.ca 2005-11-22, 12:21 am |
| On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 16:50:08 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
wrote:
>It seems that DC provides brighter light at lower power levels since there
>is no cycling of the power.
>Am I right to think this?
No, you are not - but LOW VOLTTAGE lighting gives more lumens per watt
because the heavier fillament can be allowed to run hotter and
brighter without failing.
| |
| danny burstein 2005-11-22, 12:21 am |
| >On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 16:50:08 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
>wrote:
[color=darkred]
You would be, except that the 120V AC (common
US voltage) is the _root mean square_ voltage.
The actual "peak" number going across
the wire is roughly 160 volts, but then it cucles
down through zero.
By definition, the figure of 120VAC is
(in a straight resistance load like an incandescent
lamp) directly 1:1 equivalent to the
situation you'd see with a 120V DC circuit.
(there are some special tricks that DC
allows you, since the wiring insulation
is rated for the peak RMS voltage. This lets
you push a higher DC voltage onto
a wire. But that's not something of
relevance in standard residential use)
--
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dannyb@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
| |
| Nick Hull 2005-11-22, 10:21 am |
| In article <4381e13f_3@newsfeed.slurp.net>,
Steve Spence <sspence@green-trust.org> wrote:
> Home Depot carries 12vdc fluorescents for about $12 or so.
My experience has been that 12 vdc flourescents are expensive, dim and
short lived compared to 120 vac CFs.
--
Free men own guns, slaves don't
www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5357/
| |
| Steve Spence 2005-11-22, 10:21 am |
| Nick Hull wrote:
> In article <4381e13f_3@newsfeed.slurp.net>,
> Steve Spence <sspence@green-trust.org> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> My experience has been that 12 vdc flourescents are expensive, dim and
> short lived compared to 120 vac CFs.
>
I wouldn't call $12 expensive, and it's definitely not dim. I've had it
running about 8 months with no failures yet.
--
Steve Spence
Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html
| |
| Johnny 2005-11-22, 12:21 pm |
|
--
X-No-archive: yes
"Steve Spence" <sspence@green-trust.org> wrote in message
news:43831ba7_4@newsfeed.slurp.net...
> Nick Hull wrote:
>
> I wouldn't call $12 expensive, and it's definitely not dim. I've had it
> running about 8 months with no failures yet.
Well, the big utilities wouldn't want to lose any business now would they?
I wonder how much better it would be if they would issue the multi-billion
dollar bonds for homeowners to install green energy systems instead of
adding capacity in centralized generation stations.
The line losses in our current grid are huge.
> --
> Steve Spence
> Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
> Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
> http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html
| |
| Vaughn Simon 2005-11-22, 2:21 pm |
|
"Nick Hull" <nhull@access4less.net> wrote in message
news:nhull-1D9CCE.08170822112005@news1.east.earthlink.net...
> In article <4381e13f_3@newsfeed.slurp.net>,
> Steve Spence <sspence@green-trust.org> wrote:
>
>
> My experience has been that 12 vdc flourescents are expensive, dim and
> short lived compared to 120 vac CFs.
Expensive yes. But not dim or short-lived in my experience. I have
been using two 12 volt CFs for yard lighting for the last 3 (or so) years.
Lots of light and no problems. I may well run a few circuits into the
house.
Vaughn
| |
| Glen MacGillivray 2005-11-22, 4:21 pm |
| There is quite a lot of DC lighting now available on the market--compact
fluorescent and linear fluorescent, along with LEDs. The advantage in a
solar home of using DC lighting is the reduced load on or need for
inverters. At night, with no appliances on, an inverter may be running just
for a few lights--so the overhead consumption of the inverter represents a
pretty large fraction of the actual consumption.
Lighting, overall, is a small enough load that, as a system, it can be
separated from the rest that may need to be done in AC. Since many
inverters, especially inexpensive modified sine-wave inverters, have fairly
low efficiencies (some as low as 65%!!) there is a potential
energy-consumption advantage in pulling loads off the inverter...
Glen
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote in message
news:a0Sff.7494$i7.3280@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
> Rather than invest in inverters wouldn't be easy to power lighting
circuits
> with DC where AC appliances are not in the circuit?
> Was wondering if this could more cost effective than a full power system
for
> the entire home which uses inverters.
>
>
| |
| ronwagn 2005-11-22, 4:21 pm |
| What about flourescent lighting? I plan to convert to all flourescent.
I think it would save a lot of power.
Ron Wagner
Anthony Matonak wrote:
> Johnny wrote:
>
> Going completely AC has the advantage that you can use regular
> appliances, including lights, and you do not need two different
> wiring systems. DC appliances, wiring, switches and breakers
> are often more expensive than their AC counterparts.
>
> That said, I can see a use for a few runs of low amperage DC
> for emergency lighting and to replace wall warts for answering
> machines and the like.
>
> Anthony
| |
| Solar Flare 2005-11-22, 6:21 pm |
| Are these 12V flourescents not just bulbs with step up
inverters inside them?
The solar run ones I saw in Home Depot neded to come
with a box of spare bulbs (sarc) as the demo units had
the ends of the bulbs all black already from low
voltage running.
"Vaughn Simon" <vaughnsimonHATESSPAM@att.net> wrote in
message
news:agJgf.148555$zb5.68504@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> "Nick Hull" <nhull@access4less.net> wrote in message
>
news:nhull-1D9CCE.08170822112005@news1.east.earthlink.net...
$12 or so.[color=darkred]
expensive, dim and[color=darkred]
>
> Expensive yes. But not dim or short-lived in my
experience. I have
> been using two 12 volt CFs for yard lighting for the
last 3 (or so) years.
> Lots of light and no problems. I may well run a few
circuits into the
> house.
>
> Vaughn
>
>
>
>
| |
| Vaughn 2005-11-22, 7:21 pm |
|
" Solar Flare" <s.flare@hotmail.invalid> wrote in message
news:Ea6dnckP1diPDB7eRVn-rA@golden.net...
> Are these 12V flourescents not just bulbs with step up
> inverters inside them?
They are fluorescent CF bulbs that contain 12VDC ballasts rather than the
120VAC type. They give you the equivalent of 60 watts of lighting for about one
amp of 12VDC.
You can also buy nice (but expensive) 12V fixtures at any RV store or marine
supply. The only Home Depot fixtures I am familiar with are tiny things that
run off of a bunch of AA batteries and have a plug for external 12V.
Vaughn
| |
| Ulysses 2005-11-22, 9:21 pm |
|
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote in message
news:la6gf.9872$Y82.5399@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
>
>
> --
> X-No-archive: yes
> "SQLit" <sqlit@qwest.net> wrote in message
> news:225gf.34$SA4.2701@news.uswest.net...
system[color=darkred]
120v[color=darkred]
up[color=darkred]
the[color=darkred]
a[color=darkred]
that[color=darkred]
>
>
> Seems like a very nice setup.
> I was just thinking of doing lighting/outlets with dc from the panel on
> circuits that have no ac appliances on them, (lower load circuits).
> It seems that DC provides brighter light at lower power levels since there
> is no cycling of the power.
> Am I right to think this?
I think everyone is not understanding what you are asking. You want to use
the existing AC wiring for DC? If so you will only be able to power very
low current appliances with it. You really need to run some very heavy
gauge wire (#10 for short distances and perhaps #6 or bigger for longer
distances). You will get a voltage drop with 12VDC that is greater than
with 120VAC. This is what stops a lot of folks from going DC. It's simpler
to use inverters.
You could probably run some lights such as 12 VDC CCFL lights without very
big wiring. I have some and I think they are great.
www.elwirecheap.com has some 12 volt CCFL lights for a very reasonable
price. I like the double white tubes. Two tubes only draw about .85 amps
and the tubes will last for a very long time unlike standard fluorescnet
tubes. One 12" tube puts out a very usable amount of light. Their wire
looks like it would be fun to play with too ;-)
>
>
| |
| Solar Flare 2005-11-22, 9:21 pm |
| I thought fourescent technology took higher volatge to
keep it lit.
"Vaughn" <vaughnsimonHATESSPAM@att.fake.net> wrote in
message
news:%zNgf.82137$qk4.25791@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> " Solar Flare" <s.flare@hotmail.invalid> wrote in
message
> news:Ea6dnckP1diPDB7eRVn-rA@golden.net...
up[color=darkred]
>
> They are fluorescent CF bulbs that contain 12VDC
ballasts rather than the
> 120VAC type. They give you the equivalent of 60
watts of lighting for about one
> amp of 12VDC.
>
> You can also buy nice (but expensive) 12V
fixtures at any RV store or marine
> supply. The only Home Depot fixtures I am familiar
with are tiny things that
> run off of a bunch of AA batteries and have a plug
for external 12V.
>
> Vaughn
>
>
| |
| Anthony Matonak 2005-11-22, 10:21 pm |
| ronwagn wrote:
> What about flourescent lighting? I plan to convert to all flourescent.
> I think it would save a lot of power.
....
What about fluorescent lighting? They make 12V fluorescent lights,
including compact fluorescent. Lights are probably the main reason
why anyone would want to run DC wiring.
As I said before, I can see some value to having emergency lighting
(say 14W or so per room) running direct DC. It's a pain to be in
the dark when something goes wrong.
Anthony
| |
| Anthony Matonak 2005-11-22, 10:21 pm |
| Fluorescent tubes require more than 120V to light up.
This is what the ballast does. It converts the incoming
120V (or 12V) to whatever voltage the tube needs. This
is why it's just about as cheap to make the ballast work
from 12V as it is from any other voltage.
Anthony
Solar Flare wrote:[color=darkred]
> I thought fourescent technology took higher volatge to
> keep it lit.
>
> "Vaughn" <vaughnsimonHATESSPAM@att.fake.net> wrote in
| |
| Solar Flare 2005-11-22, 11:21 pm |
| Yes, I know aboiut the ballast to make a high voltage
to ionize the gases but what is the actual running
voltage of the lamp?
If it is running on a cheap (inefficient) inverter
there may be no gain over a 12V incandescent or LEDs
"Anthony Matonak" <anthonym40@nothing.like.comcast.net>
wrote in message
news:6cCdnchna9rnUh7eRVn-sA@comcast.com...
> Fluorescent tubes require more than 120V to light up.
> This is what the ballast does. It converts the
incoming
> 120V (or 12V) to whatever voltage the tube needs.
This
> is why it's just about as cheap to make the ballast
work[color=darkred]
> from 12V as it is from any other voltage.
>
> Anthony
>
> Solar Flare wrote:
to[color=darkred]
in[color=darkred]
step up[color=darkred]
12VDC ballasts rather than the[color=darkred]
watts of lighting for about one[color=darkred]
| |
| Johnny 2005-11-22, 11:21 pm |
| "ronwagn" <psychrn7n@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1132688592.501775.155080@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> What about flourescent lighting? I plan to convert to all flourescent.
> I think it would save a lot of power.
If I may interject, I got to where I prefer incandescent lighting or these
newer energy saver bulbs (you know the ones with the spiral shape? I think
they are called compact fluorescent) to tubular fluorescent lighting because
it seems as if tubular fluorescent lights caused more eye strain, especially
if the fluorescent bulbs began to flicker.
| |
| Johnny 2005-11-22, 11:21 pm |
| Thanks to everyone who responded to this post.
I did not expect so many excellent responses.
| |
| Johnny 2005-11-23, 12:21 am |
|
--
X-No-archive: yes
"Ulysses" <therealulysses@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:11o7d91bh6dljdb@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote in message
> news:la6gf.9872$Y82.5399@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
> system
> 120v
> up
> the
> a
> that
>
> I think everyone is not understanding what you are asking. You want to
> use
> the existing AC wiring for DC? If so you will only be able to power very
> low current appliances with it. You really need to run some very heavy
> gauge wire (#10 for short distances and perhaps #6 or bigger for longer
> distances). You will get a voltage drop with 12VDC that is greater than
> with 120VAC. This is what stops a lot of folks from going DC. It's
> simpler
> to use inverters.
>
> You could probably run some lights such as 12 VDC CCFL lights without very
> big wiring. I have some and I think they are great.
>
> www.elwirecheap.com has some 12 volt CCFL lights for a very reasonable
> price. I like the double white tubes. Two tubes only draw about .85 amps
> and the tubes will last for a very long time unlike standard fluorescnet
> tubes. One 12" tube puts out a very usable amount of light. Their wire
> looks like it would be fun to play with too ;-)
Thanks.
One thing I'm not way up on is electrical knowledge.
I can see that 12vdc wouldn't have enough EMF to power a large light maybe
now since you mentioned all that.
Maybe I could still get a power savings with the existing wiring and use a
higher voltage.
AC Compact fluorescent bulbs operate at about one fourth the wattage of
normal incandescent bulbs and they emit a nice light.
I wonder if they make any DC compact florescent bulbs yet.
Is that the CCFL you mentioned?
| |
| Johnny 2005-11-23, 12:21 am |
|
--
X-No-archive: yes
"Glen MacGillivray" <glen@nospam.glenergy.ca> wrote in message
news:43837438$1_2@news.cybersurf.net...
> There is quite a lot of DC lighting now available on the market--compact
> fluorescent and linear fluorescent, along with LEDs. The advantage in a
> solar home of using DC lighting is the reduced load on or need for
> inverters.
Pretty much what I was getting at.
DC seems easier to me.
So all I need to do is build a battery bank and get something to maintain
the float charge and then wire it into the breaker panel?
I could hook up a stationary bicycle or some other exercise machine to
charge the batteries in the morning somehow.
Not sure if I can afford the solar panels to generate enough power at this
point.
> At night, with no appliances on, an inverter may be running just
> for a few lights--so the overhead consumption of the inverter represents a
> pretty large fraction of the actual consumption.
>
> Lighting, overall, is a small enough load that, as a system, it can be
> separated from the rest that may need to be done in AC. Since many
> inverters, especially inexpensive modified sine-wave inverters, have
> fairly
> low efficiencies (some as low as 65%!!) there is a potential
> energy-consumption advantage in pulling loads off the inverter...
Thanks.
>
> Glen
>
>
> "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote in message
> news:a0Sff.7494$i7.3280@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
> circuits
> for
>
>
| |
| nospam.clare.nce@sny.der.on.ca 2005-11-23, 12:21 am |
| On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 22:23:47 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
wrote:
>Pretty much what I was getting at.
>DC seems easier to me.
>So all I need to do is build a battery bank and get something to maintain
>the float charge and then wire it into the breaker panel?
>I could hook up a stationary bicycle or some other exercise machine to
>charge the batteries in the morning somehow.
>Not sure if I can afford the solar panels to generate enough power at this
>point.
You can NOT run low voltage and high voltage, or AC and DC inside the
same box or conduit. You need a COMPLETELY SEPARATE wiring system. As
for charging the batteries with an excercise bike, good luck.
| |
| Steve Spence 2005-11-23, 11:21 am |
| Solar Flare wrote:
> Yes, I know aboiut the ballast to make a high voltage
> to ionize the gases but what is the actual running
> voltage of the lamp?
>
> If it is running on a cheap (inefficient) inverter
> there may be no gain over a 12V incandescent or LEDs
>
400 to 800 volts for some.
--
Steve Spence
Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html
| |
| Derek Broughton 2005-11-23, 11:21 am |
| Glen MacGillivray wrote:
> There is quite a lot of DC lighting now available on the market--compact
> fluorescent and linear fluorescent, along with LEDs. The advantage in a
> solar home of using DC lighting is the reduced load on or need for
> inverters. At night, with no appliances on
How many people actually have such a situation? Almost everybody has _some_
appliance that runs through the night. In our case, just the freezer.
I think if you want to go this route you need to plan for a situation in
which you can be certain you _don't_ have AC appliances running at night,
to make it worthwhile.
--
derek
| |
| Solar Flare 2005-11-23, 6:21 pm |
| If the bulb runs at a high voltage,and uses a
disposable inverter (cheap and inefficient is my guess)
then who says the total unit is any more efficient than
an incandescent bulb?
Anybody have cites or sites to confirm any of this?
"Steve Spence" <sspence@green-trust.org> wrote in
message news:43847fc6$1_4@newsfeed.slurp.net...
> Solar Flare wrote:
voltage[color=darkred]
LEDs[color=darkred]
>
> 400 to 800 volts for some.
>
>
> --
> Steve Spence
> Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
> Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
> http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html
| |
| Steve Spence 2005-11-23, 9:21 pm |
| Derek Broughton wrote:
> Glen MacGillivray wrote:
>
>
>
>
> How many people actually have such a situation? Almost everybody has _some_
> appliance that runs through the night. In our case, just the freezer.
>
> I think if you want to go this route you need to plan for a situation in
> which you can be certain you _don't_ have AC appliances running at night,
> to make it worthwhile.
We have no appliances on at night, just some LED nightlights.
--
Steve Spence
Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html
| |
| Vaughn 2005-11-23, 9:21 pm |
|
" Solar Flare" <s.flare@hotmail.invalid> wrote in message
news:6sednW0Um8VLdBneRVn-hQ@golden.net...
> If the bulb runs at a high voltage,and uses a
> disposable inverter (cheap and inefficient is my guess)
> then who says the total unit is any more efficient than
> an incandescent bulb?
>
> Anybody have cites or sites to confirm any of this?
Just look at the watts in and the lumens out. Figure out the rest for
yourself.
Vaughn
| |
| Steve Spence 2005-11-23, 9:21 pm |
| Solar Flare wrote:
> If the bulb runs at a high voltage,and uses a
> disposable inverter (cheap and inefficient is my guess)
> then who says the total unit is any more efficient than
> an incandescent bulb?
>
> Anybody have cites or sites to confirm any of this?
>
efficiency is based on watts used to produce x number of lumens.
fluorescents produce similar lumens for 1/4 the watts. The voltage the
tube runs at is immaterial.
--
Steve Spence
Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html
| |
| Solar Flare 2005-11-24, 12:21 am |
| We are not talking ordinary flourescents here and I do
not care or want the fficiency of a plain flourescent
tube!!!
We are talking about a low voltage complex unit with an
ignitor, ballast, a high voltage inverter and a
flourescent tube.
Are these unit rated in watts (or VAs) in or in just
the power size of the bulb alone.?
Are these unit efficient at all compared to an
incandescent or is this information even available?
"Steve Spence" <sspence@green-trust.org> wrote in
message news:43850a69$1_2@newsfeed.slurp.net...
> Solar Flare wrote:
guess)[color=darkred]
than[color=darkred]
>
>
> efficiency is based on watts used to produce x number
of lumens.
> fluorescents produce similar lumens for 1/4 the
watts. The voltage the
> tube runs at is immaterial.
>
>
> --
> Steve Spence
> Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
> Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
> http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html
| |
| Ulysses 2005-11-24, 12:21 am |
|
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote in message
news:H9Rgf.81885$ty1.22008@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
>
>
> --
> X-No-archive: yes
> "Ulysses" <therealulysses@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:11o7d91bh6dljdb@corp.supernews.com...
set[color=darkred]
we[color=darkred]
worked[color=darkred]
of[color=darkred]
very[color=darkred]
very[color=darkred]
amps[color=darkred]
>
> Thanks.
> One thing I'm not way up on is electrical knowledge.
> I can see that 12vdc wouldn't have enough EMF to power a large light maybe
> now since you mentioned all that.
> Maybe I could still get a power savings with the existing wiring and use a
> higher voltage.
> AC Compact fluorescent bulbs operate at about one fourth the wattage of
> normal incandescent bulbs and they emit a nice light.
> I wonder if they make any DC compact florescent bulbs yet.
> Is that the CCFL you mentioned?
>
>
Many people in this NG are very happy with their compact fluorescent bulbs.
I bought one when they first came out and it didn't last anywhere near long
enough to realize any energy savings. In fact I thought it was a waste of
money. I gather that the newer ones are better.
CCFL stands for cold cathode fluorescent lamp. I have some flashlights that
operate from 4XAA batteries and I think they are the greatest flashlights
made. Of course LED flashlights are pretty damn good too ;-) I have used
these flashlights daily (nightly) for a few years and the tubes are still
bright with no dead spots on the ends. I also have a couple of fixtures in
my RV that I made from the kits at elwirecheap.com and aside from one
inverter failure they have been very reliable and produce a substantial
amount of light using about 1/5 the amount of power that 12 volt
incandescent lamps use. I suspect the inverter failure was due to
overvoltage from the DC converter in the RV. Now I only use them while on
battery power.
| |
| Ulysses 2005-11-24, 1:21 am |
|
" Solar Flare" <s.flare@hotmail.invalid> wrote in message
news:6sednW0Um8VLdBneRVn-hQ@golden.net...
> If the bulb runs at a high voltage,and uses a
> disposable inverter (cheap and inefficient is my guess)
> then who says the total unit is any more efficient than
> an incandescent bulb?
>
> Anybody have cites or sites to confirm any of this?
I have measured the current draw of a standard 12 volt RV type incandescent
bulb at about 2.4 amps and a single CCFL 12 inch tube and inverter and it
measured about .45 amps. Overvoltage seems to be the killer for the
inverters but otherwise they seem to last for years. I have laptops that
use CCFL for backlights that are several years old and the inverters still
work. And as someone else said the voltage that operates the tube is
between 600 and 800.
>
> "Steve Spence" <sspence@green-trust.org> wrote in
> message news:43847fc6$1_4@newsfeed.slurp.net...
> voltage
> LEDs
>
>
| |
| Anthony Matonak 2005-11-24, 1:21 am |
| Solar Flare wrote:
> We are talking about a low voltage complex unit with an
> ignitor, ballast, a high voltage inverter and a
> flourescent tube.
This is commonly called a compact fluorescent. Often
the bulbs are twisted in a spiral or are U shaped.
> Are these unit rated in watts (or VAs) in or in just
> the power size of the bulb alone.?
They are rated in Watts for the entire unit.
They are often also labeled with Volts and Amps.
For instance, I have a small one here on my desk
that reads "120V-60Hz 5W 95mA". It was sold as
being as bright as a 20W incandescent.
> Are these unit efficient at all compared to an
> incandescent or is this information even available?
All fluorescent lights are around 4 times more efficient
than incandescents that produce the same amount of light.
Some of them, of course, are slightly better than others
but they are all in the same ballpark.
DC compact fluorescents are just as efficient as AC
versions and produce the same light with the same wattage.
Anthony
| |
|
| > Yes, I know aboiut the ballast to make a high voltage
> to ionize the gases but what is the actual running
> voltage of the lamp?
Once the gas is ionized, it's conductivity increases dramatically, and it
takes much lower voltage to keep operating. Which brings us to the second
and most important function of the fluorescent ballast - keeping the
current flow under control - without a ballast, the current would increase
until either the tube exploded or the fuse blew out.
> If it is running on a cheap (inefficient) inverter
> there may be no gain over a 12V incandescent or LEDs
To begin with, 12V DC fluorescents don't run on a "cheap inverter", they
use an electronic starter & ballast system which starts the light with a
high voltage pulse, then adjusts the voltage to provide a fairly constant
current.
But even a combination of cheap inverter and fluorescent would still be
more efficient than a 12v incandescent bulb.
CM
| |
| Derek Broughton 2005-11-24, 11:21 am |
| Steve Spence wrote:
> Derek Broughton wrote:
>
> We have no appliances on at night, just some LED nightlights.
Er, Steve, you may not have noticed, but your lifestyle is a little
off-average :-)
I suspect that my last sentence applies very directly to your case.
--
derek
| |
| Johnny 2005-11-24, 12:21 pm |
|
"Ulysses" <therealulysses@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:11oafg22543hfd@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote in message
> news:H9Rgf.81885$ty1.22008@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
> set
> we
> worked
> of
> very
> very
> amps
>
> Many people in this NG are very happy with their compact fluorescent
> bulbs.
> I bought one when they first came out and it didn't last anywhere near
> long
> enough to realize any energy savings. In fact I thought it was a waste of
> money. I gather that the newer ones are better.
Well, I bought maybe ten of them and maybe two of them went out quite a bit
sooner than the advertised lifetime.
Maybe the quality control on them isn't quite up there yet, but I still have
most of them operating, and I like the light they emit.
Kmart had them for maybe a dollar less than anywhere else so I stocked on
them.
Did the math and it looked like I would recoup the total cost within one
year of usage, that is considering enough watthours of usage, etc.
Matter of fact, my total power bill isn't much less, but the heat pump and
water heater and refrigerator probably are the main reasons.
> CCFL stands for cold cathode fluorescent lamp. I have some flashlights
> that
> operate from 4XAA batteries and I think they are the greatest flashlights
> made. Of course LED flashlights are pretty damn good too ;-) I have used
> these flashlights daily (nightly) for a few years and the tubes are still
> bright with no dead spots on the ends. I also have a couple of fixtures
> in
> my RV that I made from the kits at elwirecheap.com and aside from one
> inverter failure they have been very reliable and produce a substantial
> amount of light using about 1/5 the amount of power that 12 volt
> incandescent lamps use. I suspect the inverter failure was due to
> overvoltage from the DC converter in the RV. Now I only use them while on
> battery power.
RVs show a good bit of how to incorporate these ideas, imo.
| |
| Solar Flare 2005-11-24, 9:21 pm |
| Thanx
"Anthony Matonak" <anthonym40@nothing.like.comcast.net>
wrote in message
news:EM2dnfgFJ-QL3RjeRVn-rA@comcast.com...
> Solar Flare wrote:
with an[color=darkred]
>
> This is commonly called a compact fluorescent. Often
> the bulbs are twisted in a spiral or are U shaped.
>
just[color=darkred]
>
> They are rated in Watts for the entire unit.
> They are often also labeled with Volts and Amps.
>
> For instance, I have a small one here on my desk
> that reads "120V-60Hz 5W 95mA". It was sold as
> being as bright as a 20W incandescent.
>
>
> All fluorescent lights are around 4 times more
efficient
> than incandescents that produce the same amount of
light.
> Some of them, of course, are slightly better than
others
> but they are all in the same ballpark.
>
> DC compact fluorescents are just as efficient as AC
> versions and produce the same light with the same
wattage.
>
> Anthony
| |
| Daniel Armstrong 2005-11-25, 6:21 pm |
| >> Many people in this NG are very happy with their compact fluorescent
>
> Well, I bought maybe ten of them and maybe two of them went out quite a
> bit sooner than the advertised lifetime.
> Maybe the quality control on them isn't quite up there yet, but I still
> have most of them operating, and I like the light they emit.
> Kmart had them for maybe a dollar less than anywhere else so I stocked on
> them.
> Did the math and it looked like I would recoup the total cost within one
> year of usage, that is considering enough watthours of usage, etc.
> Matter of fact, my total power bill isn't much less, but the heat pump and
> water heater and refrigerator probably are the main reasons.
>
I have a GE helical (spiral) CFL model# FLE17HLX/8/SW (17 watts 120v AC)
that has been on 24/7/365 mostly (it has been turned off a few times for
various reasons
and when I moved) since early 2001 and is still going strong. My only
problem
with it has been that about 9 months after we got it the glass bulb broke
loose from the
cement that holds it in the base (due to the high heat of using it in a
range hood) and
consequently it can now only be used base-down applications. I should
mention that
the first thing most CFLs do with the AC power is rectify it to 340VDC via a
diode
bridge and voltage doubler so they will not operate on DC input unless you
modify the circuitry.
I would also advise to not buy "Lights Of America" brand CFLs because both
of them I have
had died after less than 1 year. 1 was a 200w replacement that uses 42watts
and the other was a
100w model.
I personally only recommend GE first and Sylvania second.
| |
| Steve Spence 2005-11-30, 10:21 am |
| Solar Flare wrote:
> We are not talking ordinary flourescents here and I do
> not care or want the fficiency of a plain flourescent
> tube!!!
>
> We are talking about a low voltage complex unit with an
> ignitor, ballast, a high voltage inverter and a
> flourescent tube.
>
> Are these unit rated in watts (or VAs) in or in just
> the power size of the bulb alone.?
>
> Are these unit efficient at all compared to an
> incandescent or is this information even available?
>
a compact fluorescent is similar in concept and performance to a big
tube fluorescent, just a smaller package. Older fluorescents used
magnetic ballasts instead of today's electronic ones. They were a tad
less efficient. We are talking about modern electronic ones. They are
rated in watts and lumens, and use about 1/4 the watts that a
incandescent uses per lumen.
--
Steve Spence
Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html
| |
| Steve Spence 2005-11-30, 10:21 am |
| Ulysses wrote:
> I have measured the current draw of a standard 12 volt RV type incandescent
> bulb at about 2.4 amps and a single CCFL 12 inch tube and inverter and it
> measured about .45 amps. Overvoltage seems to be the killer for the
> inverters but otherwise they seem to last for years. I have laptops that
> use CCFL for backlights that are several years old and the inverters still
> work. And as someone else said the voltage that operates the tube is
> between 600 and 800.
>
2.4 amps at 12vdc = 28 watts
..45 amps at 120vac = 54 watts
You didn't give the wattage or lumen rating of each, so a comparison
cannot be made. Length of bulb is not a good comparitor.
--
Steve Spence
Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html
| |
| Solar Flare 2005-11-30, 7:21 pm |
| Have you ever measure the load of such a unit? and/or
compared it with a normal one?
"Steve Spence" <sspence@green-trust.org> wrote in
message news:438da874$1_3@newsfeed.slurp.net...
> Solar Flare wrote:
do[color=darkred]
flourescent[color=darkred]
with an[color=darkred]
just[color=darkred]
>
>
> a compact fluorescent is similar in concept and
performance to a big
> tube fluorescent, just a smaller package. Older
fluorescents used
> magnetic ballasts instead of today's electronic ones.
They were a tad
> less efficient. We are talking about modern
electronic ones. They are
> rated in watts and lumens, and use about 1/4 the
watts that a
> incandescent uses per lumen.
>
> --
> Steve Spence
> Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
> Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
> http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html
| |
| Duane C. Johnson 2005-11-30, 10:21 pm |
| Hi Solarl
Solar Flare wrote:
> Have you ever measure the load of such a unit?
> and/or compared it with a normal one?
Yes, and they are.
Duane
--
Home of the $35 Solar Tracker Receiver
http://www.redrok.com/led3xassm.htm [*]
Powered by \ \ \ //|
Thermonuclear Solar Energy from the Sun / |
Energy (the SUN) \ \ \ / / |
Red Rock Energy \ \ / / |
Duane C. Johnson Designer \ \ / \ / |
1825 Florence St Heliostat,Control,& Mounts |
White Bear Lake, Minnesota === \ / \ |
USA 55110-3364 === \ |
(651)426-4766 use Courier New Font \ |
redrok@redrok.com (my email: address) \ |
http://www.redrok.com (Web site) ===
| |
|
|
| Solar Flare 2005-12-01, 10:21 pm |
| What voltage input?
Now we will see if you were paying attention...LOL
"Steve Spence" <sspence@green-trust.org> wrote in
message news:438f1d85$1_1@newsfeed.slurp.net...
> Solar Flare wrote:
and/or[color=darkred]
>
>
> you mean testing a 40 watt fluorescent to see if it
actually draws 40
> watts? Yes, the current draw is pretty much on
rating.
>
> --
> Steve Spence
> Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
> Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
> http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html
| |
| George Ghio 2005-12-02, 5:21 am |
|
Johnny wrote:
> "ronwagn" <psychrn7n@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1132688592.501775.155080@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> If I may interject, I got to where I prefer incandescent lighting or these
> newer energy saver bulbs (you know the ones with the spiral shape? I think
> they are called compact fluorescent) to tubular fluorescent lighting because
> it seems as if tubular fluorescent lights caused more eye strain, especially
> if the fluorescent bulbs began to flicker.
>
>
All my lighting is DC.
Tubular fluorescent run on small inverters do not flicker. The flicker
is usually associated with the frequency of the AC power used.
Still I don't really like tubular fluorescent lamps except for indirect
lighting.
I do use a large number of QH and Dichroic lamps in 5 and 10 Watt.
Pay attention to the light angle of Dichroic lamps, spots are good for
window displays but not work spaces. Avoid buying from supermarkets as
they have no idea about lights or lighting
Lamp placement is important. Light work spaces. Not rooms.
I have also started to use LED lights for some applications.
| |
| Steve Spence 2005-12-06, 3:21 pm |
| Solar Flare wrote:
> What voltage input?
>
> Now we will see if you were paying attention...LOL
>
The input voltage has little bearing on the wattage drawn. A 12vdc 40
watt unit draws 40 watts, as does a 120vac 40 watt unit. What are you
trying to say?
--
Steve Spence
Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html
| |
|
|
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote in message
news:la6gf.9872$Y82.5399@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
>
>
> --
> X-No-archive: yes
> "SQLit" <sqlit@qwest.net> wrote in message
> news:225gf.34$SA4.2701@news.uswest.net...
>
>
> Seems like a very nice setup.
> I was just thinking of doing lighting/outlets with dc from the panel on
> circuits that have no ac appliances on them, (lower load circuits).
> It seems that DC provides brighter light at lower power levels since there
> is no cycling of the power.
> Am I right to think this?
No. Incandescent bulbs have the same efficiency on dc as on ac.
Fluorescent lamps typically operate on ac (even on dc-powered systems) and
they
become more efficient as the ac frequency is increased. The frequency range
now used to drive fluorescent lamps that use electronic ballasts is
25-45 kHz. Compared to 60 Hz systems, lamp efficiency increases about
10%.
Electrical systems operating on 120 volts ac are significantly more
efficient and less costly than 12/24 volt dc systems -- assuming both
deliver the same amount of power -- because wire losses are greater in low
voltage/high current systems (the so-called I squared R losses). But
starting
with a battery/PV system, lightly loaded with just fluorescent lighting
powered
with well-designed inverter ballasts, you can match the efficiency
of ac systems.
This is the same question that Thomas Edison, George Westinghouse and Nikola
Tesla debated in the early days of electric lighting. Edison invented and
supported dc systems while Westinghouse and Tesla proved that ac was more
efficient especially where power had to be sent miles rather than feet and
where different voltages were needed for lights, motors, heating, etc. The
book, "Empires of Light" by Jill Jonnes tells the story and it reads like a
mystery novel -- great background.
By the way, a wiring fault leading to a fire can burn down a house just as
fast at 12 volts as at 120 volts. It's important to use wiring devices and
other hardware approved for low voltage. The wiring techniques are somewhat
different too since larger gauge wire is typically involved. Mixing 12 volt
and 120 volt wiring
devices on the same system, running both voltages in the same conduit or
junction box
or ignoring the National Electrical Code gives insurance companies a
hard-to-
beat reason for denying a claim in case of a fire.
TKM
| |
|
|
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote in message
news:la6gf.9872$Y82.5399@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
>
>
> --
> X-No-archive: yes
> "SQLit" <sqlit@qwest.net> wrote in message
> news:225gf.34$SA4.2701@news.uswest.net...
>
>
> Seems like a very nice setup.
> I was just thinking of doing lighting/outlets with dc from the panel on
> circuits that have no ac appliances on them, (lower load circuits).
> It seems that DC provides brighter light at lower power levels since there
> is no cycling of the power.
> Am I right to think this?
No. Incandescent bulbs have the same efficiency on dc as on ac.
Fluorescent lamps typically operate on ac (even on dc-powered systems) and
they
become more efficient as the ac frequency is increased. The frequency range
now used to drive fluorescent lamps that use electronic ballasts is
25-45 kHz. Compared to 60 Hz systems, lamp efficiency increases about
10%.
Electrical systems operating on 120 volts ac are significantly more
efficient and less costly than 12/24 volt dc systems -- assuming both
deliver the same amount of power -- because wire losses are greater in low
voltage/high current systems (the so-called I squared R losses). But
starting
with a battery/PV system, lightly loaded with just fluorescent lighting
powered
with well-designed inverter ballasts, you can match the efficiency
of ac systems.
This is the same question that Thomas Edison, George Westinghouse and Nikola
Tesla debated in the early days of electric lighting. Edison invented and
supported dc systems while Westinghouse and Tesla proved that ac was more
efficient especially where power had to be sent miles rather than feet and
where different voltages were needed for lights, motors, heating, etc. The
book, "Empires of Light" by Jill Jonnes tells the story and it reads like a
mystery novel -- great background.
By the way, a wiring fault leading to a fire can burn down a house just as
fast at 12 volts as at 120 volts. It's important to use wiring devices and
other hardware approved for low voltage. The wiring techniques are somewhat
different too since larger gauge wire is typically involved. Mixing 12 volt
and 120 volt wiring
devices on the same system, running both voltages in the same conduit or
junction box
or ignoring the National Electrical Code gives insurance companies a
hard-to-
beat reason for denying a claim in case of a fire.
TKM
| |
|
|
"Vaughn Simon" <vaughnsimonHATESSPAM@att.net> wrote in message
news:agJgf.148555$zb5.68504@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> "Nick Hull" <nhull@access4less.net> wrote in message
> news:nhull-1D9CCE.08170822112005@news1.east.earthlink.net...
>
> Expensive yes. But not dim or short-lived in my experience. I have
> been using two 12 volt CFs for yard lighting for the last 3 (or so) years.
> Lots of light and no problems. I may well run a few circuits into the
> house.
>
> Vaughn
Fluorescent bulbs don't care if the ballast that drives them is powered by
12 volts dc or 120 volts ac. Both systems can be equally efficient, and
provide the same lamp life and light output. The ballast design is the key
factor. The cheap ballasts in portable lanterns and similar lighting
devices usually don't drive the lamp at its rated power, so the lamp is dim.
The power wave to the lamp may be distorted and that causes short lamp life.
But good equipment is available and has been used for years in emergency
power systems and transportation (boats, buses and airplanes).
TKM
| |
|
|
"Steve Spence" <sspence@green-trust.org> wrote in message
news:43847fc6$1_4@newsfeed.slurp.net...
> Solar Flare wrote:
>
> 400 to 800 volts for some.
>
>
> --
> Steve Spence
> Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
> Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
> http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html
Each fluorescent lamp has its own starting and running voltage that depends
upon the tube length and diameter. Longer tubes and smaller diameters
require more voltage to start and to run. A 4-foot tube 1 inch in diameter
needs about 180 volts to start, but operates at about 100 volts. But those
values are usually of little interest except to the engineer who designs the
ballast for that particular lamp.
TKM
|
|
|
|
|