[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
RE: First post: Fluorescent lighting
On 10/17/96 11:15:17 you wrote:
>
>Subject: First post: Fluorescent lighting
>
>From pgantt-at-ix-dot-netcom-dot-comMon Oct 14 21:22:41 1996
>Date: Mon, 14 Oct 1996 17:04:42 -0700
>From: pgantt-at-ix-dot-netcom-dot-com
>To: tesla-at-poodle.pupman-dot-com
>Subject: 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
>
>
>
>Phil,
> Do you have any more data we could chew on. I make no promisses,
>but NIST has some R&D grants for stuff like this. Please send me more
information.
>A white paper with pictures(gifs) and maybe charts showing test results.
I'll try to
>pass it along.
>
>D. Gowin
>
>
Thanks for your reply. I tried responding to gowin-at-epic-
1.nwscc.sea06.navy.mil, but the mail bounced back. So, I am instead posting
my reply to the listserver.
I have a wealth of information on this subject and would very much like to
see the technology implemented nationwide. That is my ultimate objective.
When I tried to secure private funding to produce a marketable product, I
calculated about $500,000 for the first year of funding. We considered
looking for government funding for this project, but I was advised by my
attorney (now out of the picture) that the government would retain most of
the rights to the invention, or stifle the invention in the interests of
national security. Do you have any opinions on this?
At one point, we had filed for patent on the transformer design, but due to
delays caused by my attorney, the patent app took about 2 years to complete.
In the meantime, someone else filed for patent on a very similar transformer
only 6 months prior to our filing. Their transformer patent was intended
for an entirely different purpose. Our application was then denied due to
prior art. I still, however, perceive that several other design patent
applications are possible for this technology.
If you think you can help secure funding for a project to develop this
technology further, it may be more appropriate for me to mail you the
information via snail mail (U.S. Postal Service). Please advise. I can
send you a copy of my patent app, lab notebook, etc. I would however, like
to know more about your position and capacity in working for the military.
Are you truly in a position to help implement this technology, or is it
simply a matter of curiosity?
Quite frankly, I think this "invention" could have great benefit in the
space program (where energy is of great concern), and perhaps in other areas
to benefit military endeavors (submarines, emergency field lighting, etc.).
I will eagerly look forward to your response.
One other question... Should I continue to divulge information on the
internet? Or, would it be best to consider this information proprietary
until we have further opportunity to discuss the matter?
Philip R. Gantt