Maker Pro
Maker Pro

New control chip for compact fluorescent lamps

P

petrus bitbyter

Jan 1, 1970
0
John Popelish said:
http://www.irf.com/product-info/datasheets/data/irs2168d.pdf

I wonder what lamps will cost when made with these, and what their
reliability will be. They certainly look like they could improve lots of
performance details.

Nice chip indeed, though it still requires a lot of external components
compared to the current discrate designs. The latter lack PFC but
nevertheless.

petrus bitbyter
 
B

Bob Eld

Jan 1, 1970
0
John Popelish said:
http://www.irf.com/product-info/datasheets/data/irs2168d.pdf

I wonder what lamps will cost when made with these, and what
their reliability will be. They certainly look like they
could improve lots of performance details.

Way too complicated with a way too high parts count including three FETS and
transformer/inductor for a single 40 or 80 Watt tube. An integrated solution
has to reduce the parts count plus eliminate expensive parts to be viable.
Secondly it has to operate two or more tubes in a typical lighting assembly.
 
D

D from BC

Jan 1, 1970
0
Way too complicated with a way too high parts count including three FETS and
transformer/inductor for a single 40 or 80 Watt tube. An integrated solution
has to reduce the parts count plus eliminate expensive parts to be viable.
Secondly it has to operate two or more tubes in a typical lighting assembly.

I don't understand why more parts and more complexity can make a
solution ugly.
My designs tend to grow in size to increase performance and
reliability.
D from BC
 
J

Joerg

Jan 1, 1970
0
D said:
I don't understand why more parts and more complexity can make a
solution ugly.
My designs tend to grow in size to increase performance and
reliability.


So do mine but then it's all jelly-bean parts. Often to avoid an
expensive chip or a single source situation for my clients. Transistors
for 1.5c, BAV99 diodes for 1c, resistors for 0.5c, opamps for 10c a
four-pack and so on. This ballast chip is over a buck! Not a chance IMHO
unless they sharpen their pencils again.

Also, what rode them to call the chip IRS? :)))
 
P

Phil Allison

Jan 1, 1970
0
"Bob Eld"
Way too complicated with a way too high parts count including three FETS
and
transformer/inductor for a single 40 or 80 Watt tube.


** Right on - Bob.

Lets all go back to using iron ballasts and a bi-metal starter.

That's only two parts.

An integrated solution
has to reduce the parts count plus eliminate expensive parts to be viable.


** Right - so combine an iron ballast and the starter in one unit.

Voila !!

What fucking macaroon.




....... Phil
 
M

MooseFET

Jan 1, 1970
0
Way too complicated with a way too high parts count including three FETS and

IRF has unloaded their MOSFET line. This chip sure isn't going to be
the new direction of the company. There is no good reason the chip
needs so many added parts to do its job. A couple of logic lines
could tell it what tube is connected.
 
J

John Popelish

Jan 1, 1970
0
MooseFET said:
IRF has unloaded their MOSFET line. This chip sure isn't going to be
the new direction of the company. There is no good reason the chip
needs so many added parts to do its job. A couple of logic lines
could tell it what tube is connected.

I'm guessing that I.R. have an inside line on a future
government regulation that all CFLs will have to have a
power factor higher than 0.9 that will make all the simple
designs obsolete.
 
J

Jim Thompson

Jan 1, 1970
0
I'm guessing that I.R. have an inside line on a future
government regulation that all CFLs will have to have a
power factor higher than 0.9 that will make all the simple
designs obsolete.

Your and MooseFET's idea of "simple" may not quite fit with us pros'
definition where "working" means "properly, as specified, for a period
longer than the warranty".

And parts count and simplicity do not correlate.

...Jim Thompson
 
J

John Popelish

Jan 1, 1970
0
Jim said:
Your and MooseFET's idea of "simple" may not quite fit with us pros'
definition where "working" means "properly, as specified, for a period
longer than the warranty".

And parts count and simplicity do not correlate.

All I'm saying is that if the specified operation changes,
the designs in production, now might not meet those
specifications. This controller is pretty obviously not
intended to compete with the discrete designs now in
production, but to replace them when the requirements have
been redefined. I think this controller anticipates law.
 
P

Phil Allison

Jan 1, 1970
0
"John Popelish"
All I'm saying is that if the specified operation changes, the designs in
production, now might not meet those specifications. This controller is
pretty obviously not intended to compete with the discrete designs now in
production, but to replace them when the requirements have been redefined.
I think this controller anticipates law.


** BOLLOCKS.

Nothing in the data says the IC is particularly intended for CFLs at all.

Cleary it is meant for commercial lighting, where long tube fluoros are
used.

In that application, PFC has long been one of the essential requirements.

You are barking up the wrong tree with no paddle here.



........ Phil
 
J

John Popelish

Jan 1, 1970
0
Phil said:
"John Popelish"



** BOLLOCKS.

Nothing in the data says the IC is particularly intended for CFLs at all.

Cleary it is meant for commercial lighting, where long tube fluoros are
used.

In that application, PFC has long been one of the essential requirements.

You are barking up the wrong tree with no paddle here.

I see.

Oh well, it isn't the first time I have been out on the
shitty end of a limb without a clue.
 
J

Jeff L

Jan 1, 1970
0
petrus bitbyter said:
Nice chip indeed, though it still requires a lot of external components
compared to the current discrate designs.

The transformer is almost always needed, and something to switch the current
(typ 2 for the tube, one for the PFC), so that leaves a bunch of cheap
passives (at a cost as low as 0.1 cent each + mounting) and a controller IC
(which is necessary if doing anything other then abusively making the tube
light up). This design is cheap in production, and very cheap considering
the potential performance. It is not designed as a low cost CFL driver
solution - note the wattage rating.

If I made ballasts for larger florescent tubes (eg 4 foot T12's, T8's etc),
I would have this design into consideration.

Something to consider - Industrial and commercial power is paid by the kWh
used, and by the demand, usually in kVA. The kVA demand meter is reset on a
monthly basis (it typically takes 15 minutes to register 90% of a kVA for a
1 kVA load), and each kVA is charged around $5 to $8 (sometimes more) per
kVA drawn, per month.

Now say you have 10 kW worth of lighting (a mere 60 to 70 x 4 foot 4 tube
ceiling lights). Perfect PF gives a kVA load of 10 kVA (neglecting a small
loss from electronic ballasts), which with active PFC is almost achievable.
Now say you have an older/cheaper ballast type that draws 12 kVA per 10 kW
of light output. that's 2 extra kVA's per month, totaling $120 to $192 per
year, not including the likely lower efficiency losses resulting in higher
kWh used. Assuming a cheap ballast is $1 or $2 cheaper (which is realistic),
I'd make my initial investment back in buying the better ballasts in the
first place in under a year. A pretty good return in my books. Another
factor is tube life - a well controlled ballast keeps the tube going much
longer then a cheap ballast, as it abuses the tube less. Add the cost of
labor to change a bunch of overhead tubes with lots of stuff on the floor,
and it can be demonstrated that the tube cost is not that significant
anymore. Don't forget the disposal fees from the hazardous material.
Cheaping out rarely wins.
 
G

Gary Tait

Jan 1, 1970
0
The bulbs could cost the same as or less than current CF bulbs, given
time. They could be priced similar to Philips Iron type bi-pin
replaceable mini-flourescents.
Nice chip indeed, though it still requires a lot of external
components compared to the current discrate designs. The latter lack
PFC but nevertheless.

petrus bitbyter

Not to mention a socket and pins on the bulb.

But you need to buy the electronics once and throw them out once.
with current electronic CF bulbs, you buy new electronics each time, and
throw out the electronics when the bulb is gone.
 
Top