[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
First post: Fluorescent lighting
Hello everyone. I am new to this group and thought I should add a few
bits of information for your assessment. After communicating with Chip
via email, he thought this information would be of interest to readers.
This first posting may be a bit lengthy, but bear with me and you may
find it worthwhile reading. First, a little of my background:
I am an electronic engineer by profession (BSEE, Cal Poly, 1971),
employed by Hewlett Packard, and have long been interested in Nikola
Tesla and his accomplishments. During the years, I have given much
consideration to Tesla coils and the phenomenon associated with high
frequencies and high voltages. This led me some years ago to develop a
means for reducing the power consumption in fluorescent lighting systems.
In fact, in 1991, I constructed a device, actually a miniature Tesla
coil, to accomplish this end. Being unsuccessful in obtaining funding
to further develop, produce and market this device, I decided to see
if my employer was intersted in the technology. They were not. So,
I decided instead to release this information via the internet in the
hopes that someone will put it to good use, or perhaps ask more questions.
Now for a few facts: During the process of doing research for my
invention, I found that 50% of the energy consumed in the U.S. is
for fluorescent lighting (data from PG&E via telephone conversation).
A mid sized business in Silicon Valley would pay about $35,000 per month
for electricity, and larger companies paying as much as $1.2 million per
month at a single facility! Considering that about half of this is for
fluorescent lighting, it is obvious that reducing energy consumption in
this area is of significant economic value. In addition, the associated
reduction of heat losses would reduce the need for air conditioning.
If a significant energy reduction were realized, we would not need to
construct any more nuclear, coal or hydroelectric generating plants for
probably two decades.
Also during my research, I found that the efficiency of fluorescent
lamps increases with the applied frequency. Running these lamps at
60Hz is therefore very inefficient, especially considering that the
60Hz ballasts dissipates significant heat due to eddy current losses.
New "state of the art" electronic ballasts drive the fluorescent lamps at
20 to 30kHz. This is how increased efficiency is obtained. However,
if you happen to have one of these types of lamps, you will notice
that there is considerable heat generated by the device. The heat
associated with these methods is wasted energy. What has not been
publicized is that the efficiency of fluorescent lamps also increases
with the applied voltage. So, why stop at 30kHz and 300 to 400 volts?
This is where my miniature Tesla coil comes in.
I constructed a simple prototype coil using 28 guage wire, approximately
1-1/4 inches in diameter and about 1/2 inches in height. The turns ratio
was about 10 to 1. At resonance, this yields a voltage transformation
ratio of about 100 to 1. The resonant frequency was about 6MHz. When
the primary was excited with an RF generator and the secondary connected
to a 40 watt fluorescent tube with a single wire (return path through
the air), the lamp could be fully illuminated with less than 6 watts.
By adjusting the input voltage, the lamp could easily be dimmed for
lower light output. At low light output, the lamp could be illuminated
with as little as 1.5 watts. What is most significant, is that the lamp
produced no heat. In fact, I was able to fully illuminate a fluorescent
lamp that was "burned out" and would not work in a conventional fixture
that used a 60Hz ballast transformer.
It doesn't take much imagination to see the potential savings in energy.
Considering that in conventional systems, both the lamp and the ballast
transformer will dissipate considerable heat loss, this method will
produce light with no detectable heat loss, and at improved efficiency.
If we were to consider that a typical ballast transformer wasted no
energy in the form of heat, lighting a fluorescent lamp using only 6
watts as compared to 40 watts is an 85% reduction is power consumption.
If this technique were applied nationwide, the U.S. could reduce total
power consumption by about 42.5%.
So, that is what I have in a nutshell. Any comments?
Phil Gantt