Looking at the PL lamps here
http://www.osram.com/osram_com/products/lamps/compact-fluorescent-lamps/osram-dulux-s/osram-dulux-s/index.jsp
It appears that allmost all of the lamps are NON-EU

Did the bans really go that far ? O_o

If they were really banned you should not be able to buy those either.....

Looking at the PL lamps here
http://www.osram.com/osram_com/products/lamps/compact-fluorescent-lamps/osram-dulux-s/osram-dulux-s/index.jsp
It appears that allmost all of the lamps are NON-EU

Did the bans really go that far ? O_o

Ash: What do you mean "NON-EU" PL lamps? I understand that there are 13W GX23 PL-S in Osram catalog as well, which considered american PL-Ss. But otherwise, the rest PL-S are the usual EU PL-S.
All of the EU PL-S wattages from 5W to 11W appears.

They have a NON EU with crossed incandescent sign on some of the lamps (in all categories, that include T8 etc too) - i guess this sign means which lamps are banned in EU ?

In the PL's, ALL 7/11/13W are NON EU as well as all 8xx colors of 9W (only some weird colors 6x are EU for 9W)

Don't see this sign at all when looking at this homepage!?
Allthrough all the 2pin lamps and specified magnetic ballasts are going to be banned in the EU after 2017 so far I know...!?

I understood what Ash means!!!!! Look at my attachment below carefully!!!!

If they were really banned you should not be able to buy those either.....

The "banned" mean here not introduced to the market, so manufactured (= leaving the production line) or imported (= crossing the EU border). What pieces already exist inside EU (in warehouses, manufacturer's storage,...),  they could be still sold forever.

But whats the point with even messing with PL's ? They are about the same efficiency as any other triphosphor fluorescent and come on, 4W for a PL ballast does not make any difference anyway

I don't find any reason for these PL-Ss to be banned. They are still more efficient than the majority of the CFLs and last much longer.
I think that the bans are mainly to produce money.
I see that even the Dulux S/E for use with electronic ballasts, have this NON EU symbol.

The rule definition is "all fluorescent lamps not possible to operate on a HF gear", so 2pin CFL's rated as present become banned.

And when you add the ~4W ballast losses, the efficacy of the 11W is about 60lm/W, about the same as of the 15W selfballasted CFL, the only one "on par". All others are performing way worse...
The "9W" consume 13W with 600lm output (46lm/W), in series pair it consume about 20W and give about 1000lm (50lm/W), "7W" consume 11W with only 400lm output (36lm/W) and in pair it is about 16W/750lm (47lm/W)

The only remaining advantage is the reliability,but that is nothing the legislators care about at all...

But I would see way better solution: Standardize the value of the capacitor parallel to the starter and it could be even officially rated for a HF ballast as well... In my experience the starter's presence make the electronic way more reliable than the standard configuration with only resonant capacitor...

Can't the HF ballasts be made to interact with the glowbottle ?

Think of ordinary current-source HF ballast, with addition of superimposed ignitor which is triggered by the rise of voltage across the lamp when the glowbottle opens

HF ballasts normally use "resonant start":
- When the lamp have no discharge, the ballasting coil (in series with the lamp towards the inverter) form a series resonant circuit with the capacitor connected across the lamp. With this the filaments are in series with the LC. At the same time the inverter operate close to the resonance, so the series LC have low impedance, so pass large current, what heat up the series connected filaments.
- At the same time the voltage across the capacitor is high (= the resonance boost the voltage from the ~160V inverter output up to nearly a kV), what ionize the lamp, so it ignite.
- When the lamp ignite, the arc form rather low impedance, damping the resonant circuit way below the unity quality factor, so in fact the circuit become series inductor with the lamp arc, the capacitor lead away only small fraction of the current, so it could be neglected.
(For simplicity I omit the programmed start frequency sweep now...)

The fluorescent need no extra ignition source (ignitor, starter action,...), the resonance is by far sufficient. In fact for normal operation the starter in the PL-S lamps is rather disturbing this resonant starting.

Mostly the lamp ignite way before the starter heat up and close, what mean the starter actually does never close during normal operation of the simplest, instant (without electrode preheating) resonant start inverter. But where the starter really interfere, would be an attempt to preheat the filaments using higher frequency for preheating. With standard programmed start ballasts this is so far off-resonance, there is way insufficient voltage to ignite the lamp, so only filaments heat up. But such voltage would be sufficient to heat up the starter and so it would close. It won't harm the inverter, as the inductor impedance still remain in series to limit the current, but it does interfere with the starting lamp (it lower the circuit current, so the lamp won't get proper preheat). So the only option is to use the instant start.

But even there the ballast inductance, inverter frequency and resonant capacitor value would have to match together (to form the correct resonance for startup and ballasting impedance for operation), so that's why the capacitor value is so important (unlike in the mains frequency preheat circuit, where the only capacitor's function is to suppress RF oscillations, so it's value is not critical at all)

I mean somewhat more complex working. to allow a programmed start with 2pin PL or 2D

Ballast output low voltage which is suffiient only to light the starter

Starter closes and the lamp is preheated. The ballast can wait a while (for maybe few times the starter close) untill the lamp is preheated well

Starter opens. A circuit in the ballast detect the rise of voltage across the lamp and activate superimposed ignitor to "instant start" the allready preheated lamp

Then the "ignition" does not need an extra ignitor, but only shift the frequency more towards the resonance, the resonance effect then take care of the ignition, so a slow frequency sweep style could work well there. So before the starter close, he frequency is too high off the resonance, so the voltage is insufficient to ignite the lamp, while after it open again, it is very close or at the resonance (locked in by a phase feedback to cover up the component tolerances), so generate enough voltage for the ignition.
But something like that sometimes happen with the simple (selfoscillating inverter based) ballasts, when the lamp ages a bit: The time before the starter close become insufficient for the electrodes to warm up, so the starter close, let the electrodes heat up and when it opens afterwards, electrodes are already hot, so the lamp ignite. But through most of the lamp life the lamp ignite and warm up the electrodes (by the glow discharge and an elevated resonance current in that mode - so exactly like the instant starts without the starter) before the starter closes on first time.
The starter is rather unreliable device for programmed start. The timing is not well under control, as it depend on welds forming and breaking between the contacts. It is capable to start the lamp on the series choke (so preheat a bit and cause the HV kick), but the filament temperature is frequently rather low for sputter free ignition. The resulting starting wear is nearly the same as for the instant start, so it does not make as much sense to complicate the inverter (so make it more prone to failures) with that