Thread: Turning fluros off or leaving on.

it would vary from circuit to circuit with things like wattage, number of tubes/fittings, type of starter

if it was just an hour you're talking about you're really only talking about a few cents saving either way, but there is probably more power saved than cash.

Due to the amount of fluros I have, I leave them on all day once I have turned them on. I have 9 double fluros.

I actually did a test using some gear borrowed of a elec mate and the start up draw was equal to about 2 or 3 hrs running time.

It really depends on how many fluros you have

I leave mine on all day......and all night when I forget......no economic reason, but its just easier.
There used to be a considerable saving in large factories, where they would calculate a strange figure called "power factor", and adjust the phase angle of the circuit until the power factor approached a certain amount (can't remember if it was 1 or 0) at which level the cost of running the flouros was zilch..
Head full of useless information!
Regards,
Noel

This week, on The Discovery Channel show Mythbusters, this exact thing was tested and deMythified...

The measured energy to start fluros was equal to 23 seconds of operation. I believe that a rapid start or instant on fluro was the test device.

Originally Posted by watson

I leave mine on all day......and all night when I forget......no economic reason, but its just easier.
There used to be a considerable saving in large factories, where they would calculate a strange figure called "power factor", and adjust the phase angle of the circuit until the power factor approached a certain amount (can't remember if it was 1 or 0) at which level the cost of running the flouros was zilch..
Head full of useless information!
Regards,
Noel

you try get power factor as close to 1 as possible. off the top of my head, a lower power factor is "better" for the consumer as they are paying for less wattage but still drwaing the same current.

the difference between a power factor of .9 and .5 is that there is more wastage of current [heat losses, back emf's] in a .5 circuit. it doesn't do any actual work for you.

there are difficulties with supply with lower power factor, so places with low power factor have to spend heaps to rectify this, or they get hit with an extra tariff.

For the ordinary sheddie, there is only one answer to the question.

Turn them off.

A few thousand sheddies leaving their fluoros on when not required are:
contributing unnecessarily to global warming;
contributing unnecessarily to power company profits;
reducing the life of their tubes;
and,
wasting their own money.

I used to have a budget for over $2mill (NZ) at work for energy. The only answer is turn an item off, whatever it is, especially including computers.

If you have any doubt about the energy used by a fluoro, put your hand near to ballast (but don't touch for obvious safety reasons). There is a tremendous amount of heat generated by them.
The latest tubes (Tri-phosphorous) are very energy efficient, and give much better light than the equiv. incandescent, but regular cleaning is essential for maximum light especially in a dusty shed. The exterior static charge which is generated attracts dust which absorbs light.
Unless your installation is a few hundred fluroros don't get worried (and side-tracked) by power factor correction.

Wishing you all a bright New Year.

Cheers,
ROB NZ

Leaving fluoros on to save money/energy is a total myth. And it doesn't make any difference as to how many fittings are involved.
Leaving them on costs you money.

Originally Posted by ROB NZ

For the ordinary sheddie, there is only one answer to the question.

Turn them off.

A few thousand sheddies leaving their fluoros on when not required are:
contributing unnecessarily to global warming;
contributing unnecessarily to power company profits;
reducing the life of their tubes;
and,
wasting their own money.

I used to have a budget for over $2mill (NZ) at work for energy. The only answer is turn an item off, whatever it is, especially including computers.

If you have any doubt about the energy used by a fluoro, put your hand near to ballast (but don't touch for obvious safety reasons). There is a tremendous amount of heat generated by them.
The latest tubes (Tri-phosphorous) are very energy efficient, and give much better light than the equiv. incandescent, but regular cleaning is essential for maximum light especially in a dusty shed. The exterior static charge which is generated attracts dust which absorbs light.
Unless your installation is a few hundred fluroros don't get worried (and side-tracked) by power factor correction.

Wishing you all a bright New Year.

Cheers,
ROB NZ

wonder how much farting sheep contribute to global warming???

Originally Posted by rrich

This week, on The Discovery Channel show Mythbusters, this exact thing was tested and deMythified...

The measured energy to start fluros was equal to 23 seconds of operation. I believe that a rapid start or instant on fluro was the test device.

Yep; saw it too. IIRC, several years ago, US Navy, or NASA, or some such gang, did similar research and got the same result: 23 seconds for break-even.

Joe

Originally Posted by NCArcher

Leaving fluoros on to save money/energy is a total myth. And it doesn't make any difference as to how many fittings are involved.
Leaving them on costs you money.

I agree just as global warming ie a myth