Author Topic: Older lamps = more dangerous?  (Read 9787 times)
Cavannus
Member
***
Offline

Gender: Male
View Posts
View Gallery


WWW
Re: Older lamps = more dangerous? « Reply #15 on: August 05, 2013, 02:40:44 PM » Author: Cavannus
A lot of manufacturers now make those transparent-blue starters, i sen a lot of them but they all have polyester capacitor (the standard clear plastic one). [...]
What brand are the ones you seen and what shape of glow lamp in them ?
I've also seen transparent electronic starters.

The ones I'm talking about are Leviton: see the photo attached, you can see the glow bulb (which is not centered at all) and there's nothing else in the starter.
« Last Edit: August 05, 2013, 02:43:10 PM by Cavannus » Logged
Medved
Member
*****
Offline

Gender: Male
View Posts
View Gallery

Re: Older lamps = more dangerous? « Reply #16 on: August 05, 2013, 03:26:22 PM » Author: Medved
@Leviton starters: From your picture I could not tell, if there is only the glass bulb, or a film capacitor as well. The film capacitor usually uses a transparent film without any marking, so it is usually silvery (reflection from the metal foils inside).

@exploding incandescent: When the mains impedance is really low, the arc could become so fat, the glass would never hold that. I have some doubts the short circuit current in such installation is within the code limits for a household installations (3kA)... But it had it's plus side: Before moving to my own home, I didn't knew the voltage could ever change, when switching ON or OFF even heavy loads, I was used to the voltage staying within 1V all the time...

Logged

No more selfballasted c***

Ash
Member
*****
Offline

View Posts
View Gallery


Re: Older lamps = more dangerous? « Reply #17 on: August 05, 2013, 04:42:06 PM » Author: Ash
Here (a home built in 1989 along with the grid supplying it so pretty thick conductors, and within 300M distance to the transformer), incandescnets would usually take down L16A and L32A breakers but not explode

The cases of explosion which i seen are usually with cheaply made lamps where the stem fuses (exposed wires not the sealed sand tube) are bent close to each other, and in the moment of blowing they flash to each other - this often ends up in a hole burning throgh the lamps screw base, lamp shooting out of the base, stem exploding into the bigger lamp's envelope (sometimes contained and sometimes not), or similar stuff, or even cheaper made lamps that dont have fuses at all
Logged
joseph_125
Member
*****
Offline

Gender: Male
View Posts
View Gallery


GoL
Re: Older lamps = more dangerous? « Reply #18 on: August 05, 2013, 07:24:08 PM » Author: joseph_125
I also have the Leviton starters and mine do have caps inside. The Super Starter brand starters don't have caps in them though.
Logged
Ash
Member
*****
Offline

View Posts
View Gallery


Re: Older lamps = more dangerous? « Reply #19 on: August 06, 2013, 12:42:39 AM » Author: Ash
Maybe some bad batch. Even the cheapest ones i see usually come with capaacitors except for a batch once in a few years
Logged
icefoglights
Member
*****
Offline

Gender: Male
View Posts
View Gallery

ITT Low Pressure Sodium NEMA


GoL
Re: Older lamps = more dangerous? « Reply #20 on: August 09, 2013, 09:09:14 PM » Author: icefoglights
As far as PCBs in ballasts are concerned, the PCBs are in the capacitors of high power factor ballasts.  Simple chokes (potted or not) or LPF ballasts lack PCBs, and therefor don't contain PCBs.

Most modern starters I see either contain mylar or ceramic capacitors.  They aren't required, and it's common for starters to not have capacitors in them.  Some were even sold in capacitor-less and capacitor versions, like my On-Guard FS-2 (no cap) and FS-2C (cap) starters.

As for beryllium and larger doses of mercury in vintage fluorescent tubes, if you break one, life might just not be worth living anyway  ;)
Logged

01010010 01101111 01100010 01100101 01110010 01110100

Roi_hartmann
Member
*****
Offline

Gender: Male
View Posts
View Gallery


Re: Older lamps = more dangerous? « Reply #21 on: September 24, 2013, 12:46:16 PM » Author: Roi_hartmann
If not mentioned already, some old fixtures could also have asbestos insulated wiring so you dont want to breath that dust.
Logged

Aamulla aurinko, illalla AIRAM

DieselNut
Member
*****
Offline

Gender: Male
View Posts
View Gallery

John


jonathon.graves johng917 GeorgiaJohn
Re: Older lamps = more dangerous? « Reply #22 on: September 25, 2013, 12:00:15 PM » Author: DieselNut
Every starter I have seen that has a wax paper capacitor also says "Spec No 6" on it. Personally, I dont worry too much about my old lights. Once installed, I leave them in place and nothing is disturbed. I have had a few ballasts crap out for no reason (dang what an awful smell) and occasionally a wax cap to toast for no reason. It usually acts like a stuck starter. If they aint broke, I dont mess with them. There is no telling how much "bad" stuff I have absorbed and inhaled before I knew better.
Logged

Preheat Fluorescents forever!
I love diesel engines, rural/farm life and vintage lighting!

TheUniversalDave1
Member
*****
Offline

Gender: Male
View Posts
View Gallery


Re: Older lamps = more dangerous? « Reply #23 on: December 04, 2013, 12:04:03 AM » Author: TheUniversalDave1
This past summer, when I learned all about lighting technology, I also learned about PCB's. Unfourtunately, I 'freaked out" and bagged up all my vintage ballasts. Foutunately, they had not yet made it to the dumpster.
Logged
ace100w120v
Member
*****
Offline

Gender: Male
View Posts
View Gallery


Re: Older lamps = more dangerous? « Reply #24 on: December 06, 2013, 08:15:52 PM » Author: ace100w120v
As far as PCBs I have several HPF rapid start ballasts that more than likely have them.  I have a partially-cooked GE Bonusline ballast in a 1970s Sears shoplight in my garage that has a tar/PCB leak from it's previous life with some 34 watt energy savers...but it still works.  There's sticky tar (So PCB-laden most likely) on the ballast and a little drip on the reflector below it but the ballast still works so I'll just use 40w lamps with it for the rest of it's life until it dies...then I'll replace it with a 2-lamp F40T12 electronic one when that eventuallity comes.
Logged
DieselNut
Member
*****
Offline

Gender: Male
View Posts
View Gallery

John


jonathon.graves johng917 GeorgiaJohn
Re: Older lamps = more dangerous? « Reply #25 on: December 13, 2013, 12:40:09 PM » Author: DieselNut
@ace, you can still find plenty of full power, .8 amp magnetic rapid start ballasts, so you do not have to settle for electronic to replace it. Get a spare while they are plentiful.  There are even some NOS PCB era ones on E Bay sometimes.
Logged

Preheat Fluorescents forever!
I love diesel engines, rural/farm life and vintage lighting!

ace100w120v
Member
*****
Offline

Gender: Male
View Posts
View Gallery


Re: Older lamps = more dangerous? « Reply #26 on: December 18, 2013, 09:01:16 PM » Author: ace100w120v
A .8 amp magnetic rapid start would be perfect and ideally that's what I'd use but if it dies I'll just stick in whatever I have laying around or is on store shelves until I find a "real" one...
I really dislike those LPF magnetic rapid start ballasts...they're pretty dim and are terrible in cold.  My old Sears shoplight (With that GE Bonusline ballast) fires right up even in subfreezing temperatures in the garage.  The lamps (Sylvania Cool White Plus) struggle even on hot 80 degree summer days for a few minutes but there's none of that nasty flicker till they warm up...they're just dim and flicker in an almost-rectifying way.  I'm sure other full-wattage, full-mercury lamps would perform even better but that light is on for long periods so I'm not going to complain. Although I'd love to find a tulamp F40 preheater I think the best 4' ballast is a post-PCB .8 amp magnetic rapid start one.  PCB ones are just as good. 
Logged
Print 
© 2005-2024 Lighting-Gallery.net | SMF 2.0.19 | SMF © 2021, Simple Machines | Terms and Policies