Timeline for what is the likely cause of a single fluorescent tube not working in a light fixture with a ballast that supports two tubes?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 6, 2020 at 3:48 | comment | added | Harper - Reinstate Monica | @Daniel Yeah, the amount of mercury is pretty negligible these days... they had a lot of government pressure to reduce it to nil, at least for modern tubes, but we can't do anything about That 70's Tube except dispose of it carefully. Tube recycling is also a thing in many markets. I agree, the dog's breakfast of rare earth metals and solder in LED drivers probably makes the issue a wash. | |
| Oct 6, 2020 at 3:44 | comment | added | Daniel | @Harper In terms of 5. you also have to look at quantity of disposed materials when talking about environmental impacts. I'm sure LEDs probably have some nasty stuff in them too, but over the lifetime of a workspace, how many more fluorescents are you going to dispose of into the landfill before the LEDs finally bite the dust? Also, the fragility of fluorescents means they are most likely to break down and leach into the environment (though I'm not sure the durability of LEDs is necessarily a positive when it comes to disposal). | |
| Dec 13, 2018 at 1:58 | comment | added | Daniel | @Harper 2. and 4. The LED tubes we are procuring are rated at 6600lm for 44W. 5. No mercury is still better than very little mercury. I appreciate your pov and info though. | |
| Dec 12, 2018 at 21:14 | comment | added | Harper - Reinstate Monica | @Daniel 1 and 6 conceded. 2 and 4 My tubes give 4900lm for 62W. 3 actually the win is to Fluorescent, since 90+ CRI tubes are readily available and they don't flicker. LED light is too notchy even if the technical CRI score is good. 5 the mercury has been dramatically reduced. That said, there's certainly nothing wrong with LED, and your rollout is 100% reasonable IMO. I use it some places (archival: avoid UV), but right now I'm enjoying the quality surge and cost crash of Fluorescent's last gasps. | |
| Dec 12, 2018 at 20:47 | comment | added | Daniel | I'm on a budget with a mission to rid our business of fluorescents: 1. They require more maintenance - changing tubes more frequently, and changing ballasts requires a moderate amount of time and skill. 2. They provide less light. 3. They provide more depressing light. 4. They use more energy. 5. They're more harmful for the environment in terms of disposal. 6. They're easier to break and more dangerous when broken. The only advantage I see for fluorescents is, of course, the upfront cost being substantially less. | |
| Dec 7, 2018 at 18:19 | comment | added | Harper - Reinstate Monica | @Daniel just in the other answer you say you are on a budget. I pay about $4 a ballast after shipping (bulk buy), so with tubes it costs me about $8 a fixture for top-shelf stuff. I believe buying quality works, and what I see in the LED market at this price tier does not give me warm fuzzies. | |
| Dec 7, 2018 at 14:42 | comment | added | Daniel | I appreciate most of the info, but I'm not interested in buying more ballasts :D | |
| Dec 6, 2018 at 15:37 | comment | added | manassehkatz-Moving 2 Codidact | "Shopping off limits" but a definite +1 for 1000bulbs - I've bought various things from them over the years - good prices, excellent support. | |
| Dec 6, 2018 at 15:33 | history | answered | Harper - Reinstate Monica | CC BY-SA 4.0 |