In reply to a post by MHC:

In reply to a post by baby_frogmella:

In reply to a post by PaulKirby:

... nested quotes trimmed ...

Oh, the last time I checked it required new fittings and transformer.

Not any more...
http://www.ledbulbs.co.uk/LED+Tubes+%26+Striplights

Oh yes they do.

The Aurora LED tubes with a G5 base require a 24v constant voltage driver and are NOT suitable for connection to a coventional ballast.

I stand corrected

That's what I thought.

In reply to a post by GrahamM242:

In reply to a post by billford:

When you turn a fluorescent light on, the starter and choke combine to generate a high voltage (several kV) spike to "strike" the tube. This is what will be causing the errors and, along with a high current initially supplied to the cathode heaters, is what causes eventual failure of the tube and/or starter.

Sadly, good linear fluorescents are still one of the most efficient way of generating light - more efficient than "energy saving" CFLs, and on a par with LEDs. On the other hand, the old wire-wound ballast and starter should have been sent to the scrap heap years ago. Electronic control units are (in my opinon) much better, more efficient, produce less RF hash and extend the life of the tube by preventing cathode sputtering.

None of this helps with the original problem though!

Electronic ballast are certainly better and more efficient from the lighting perspective, however a badly or cheaply designed/built one will still create a lot of noise.

But its good to know though, I might buy the complete unit as a whole for my shack )

T5 needing a driver: http://gb.auroralighting.com/Products/Lamps/LED-Tube... and states: Replacement for conventional T5 fluorescent tubes with G5 base. 24V DC Constant Voltage LED driver required. Must not be used with high frequency T5 fluorescent ballasts.


T8 - with 100-260 supply: http://assets1.auroralighting.com/web/sku/14354/gene...

Yeah I think that's the one I saw a while back where you had to also replace the starter with one that is shorted out along with changing other stuff, was a while back so I may of got something wrong LOL.

In reply to a post by eckiedoo:

Morning Kasg

What surprised me with CFLs and their green credentials, is that if you open up the (bulky) base, you'll find about two dozen components, eg coils, capacitors, resistors, semin-conductors etc, so the manufacturing costs must be relatively high, also including the oil-to-plastic bulky base; thus I guestimate that even with a deliberate effort, at most about 25% would be recyclable, where-as for the "traditional" incandescent lamp, it is probably around 75% - acknowledging in both cases that collection in to the bulk quantities needed for recycling would also be expensive.

CFL's are nowhere near as green as many think.
They are not as green to produce as TF bulbs.
They are not as green to dispose of as TF bulbs.
And consider this, the main 'wastage' of a TF bulb is said to be the heat produced, in summer fair enough, but at other times of years this contributes to the general background heat in a building, so very little is actualy wasted in the average house.

Afternoon Burble

Yes, I agree that incidental heat from various items such as TVs on standby etc, does add to the general background heating of buildings; and is effectively taken account of where the main heating is thermostatically controlled.

Thus as you say, very little if any is wasted, particularly the further north that one lives.

I have concentrated on insulation and draughts to reduce the main obvious heat loss aspects; and comparing the Average Energy Bill for the UK, which must be "concentrated" on South-East England, our Bill is slightly less than 10% higher, in an all-electric house, "no fines" walls, exposed end wall to prevailing South-Westerly wind (over 1 KM of open ground for the wind to gallop across; and significantly exposed in the North quadrant) and decidedly north of the above average, being in the Kingdom of Fife.

Three Bedrooms, Two Public Rooms, One Kitchen, Two Toilets etc.

As it is an "Average Energy Bill for the UK", it must include much gas consumption - which is generally cheaper on a KWH basis.

And also doing a lot of extra laundry for family!.(My lady-wife's prerogative.)

Replace the starter with an electronic one and you don't get the voltage spikes.

In reply to a post by simon194:

Replace the starter with an electronic one and you don't get the voltage spikes.

Yes you do, it's the only (practical) way to ionise the mercury vapour in the lamp to get it started.

But it will probably be "cleaner" from the RF interference point of view and if the tube doesn't strike first time you won't get repeated spikes- the electronic ones only try once.