Jump to navigation Jump to search For induction lamps with integrated ballast, the lifespan is in the 15, to 50, hours range. A reference or a fact from the outside that supports your argument would be helpful. Atlant , 16 Jun UTC My search of the web seems to indicate that the term "induction lighting" applies only to fluorescent bulbs. And sulfur lamps are NOT fluorescent. The opening line of this article states: "Induction lighting or inductive lighting is a means of fluorescent lighting". Both technologies are electrodeless and make use of microwaves, but the light-generating parts are completely different.
|Published (Last):||22 April 2009|
|PDF File Size:||2.32 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||10.47 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Jump to navigation Jump to search For induction lamps with integrated ballast, the lifespan is in the 15, to 50, hours range. A reference or a fact from the outside that supports your argument would be helpful. Atlant , 16 Jun UTC My search of the web seems to indicate that the term "induction lighting" applies only to fluorescent bulbs. And sulfur lamps are NOT fluorescent. The opening line of this article states: "Induction lighting or inductive lighting is a means of fluorescent lighting".
Both technologies are electrodeless and make use of microwaves, but the light-generating parts are completely different. It seems to me the two technologies should be kept separate unless you can find a reference where "induction lighting" is used to describe sulfur lamps. They are merely a bulb filled with a little S and Ar gas which is irradiated by microwaves from a magnetron.
The plasma does not act as the "second loop" in a transformer as does the plasma in the induction lamp. Further, how do induction lamps produce high power 2. Frankly, the only beef I think you have is the frequency used to excite the fluorescent lamps and I too wondered about this. Are you just disappointed that the Sulfur lamp article was merged here? If so, argue that point explicitly. Are you arguing that the title of the article ought to be "RF lamp"? If so, argue that point. I might even agree with you.
But these two families have enough similarities that I still think merging them into one article no matter what its name is still a good idea. The corrections you have made greatly improve it.
But I still have to disagree, and the article you cite just proves my point. Read it carefully. In that article, the other systems are referred to as induction lamps, but NOT sulfur lamps.
Therefore, your article supports my point that sulfur lamps are not correctly described as induction lamps. And let that be enough of the nasty comments; they have no place here. If you can find a reference where sulfur lamps are labeled as induction lamps, please point it out. You could rename the article RF lighting and that would be accurate. The quality of the light is what the end user sees. That should be our primary sort. In that case, Genura and QL are most importantly fluorescent lamps.
Sulfur lamps are in a category of their own. From what I understand, induction lighting takes its name, because a current is induced in mercury vapor lamps. Sulfur lamps use RF in a very different way. So I propose that we sort lamps firstly based on the light. Induction lamps can be included with fluorescent, since the light-generating part of both is the same. Separately, how about having an article on RF lighting and state that the desire to use RF is to replace the cathodes which wear out?
Then list all the ways that RF is being used to generate light. That is worthy of its own article. Is this a compromise we can all live with? And do you agree with my point that sulfur lamps can be described as "RF lamps" but not "RF induction lamps"? Once we work this out we should remove it, not until then. Also, a little less attitude would be greatly appreciated. I have read the article you cite and fully concur with the above assessment of SDC. Renaming the article to RF lighting and having 2 or more sections would be suitable here.
But you never have an electric wave without a magnetic wave coming right along with it andvice-versa. Also, you could consider either the low-frequency signal that excites the phosphor-based lamp or the microwave signal that excites the sulfur lamp as a stream of photons; they simply differ in wavelength energy. Not very nice. I think there IS a difference in the theory of operation! In the conventional induction lamp design which operates in the KHz or MHz range the plasma is fully within the nearfield of the RF radiator, in the S lamp the source of radiation is in the GHz range and this is certainly no longer true.
The S lamp is fundamentally different. Tell me if this is correct: The term "induction" refers to an induced electrical current inside the mercury vapor lamp. The current is caused by a magnetic field emanating from an induction coil.
A magnetic field is created by electricity flowing in a coil, similar to an electromagnet. Is this correct? From what I have read about sulfur lamps, radio waves excites the argon gas which heats the sulfur in the bulb.
Is this right? And does that mean that the sulfur is incandescing? If that is not the correct term, what is? Also, what do you make of the article I cited below which explicity states that induction is not involved in the sulfur lamp?
Except for the incandescence bit. The method of light production in the S lamp is really like no other. As I stated before, it seems to me that the light-generating part of the system should be of primary importance here. Bulbs like Genura are most importantly fluorescent bulbs, and that is what the general public will see. So it seems odd to me to remove fluorescent induction lamps from the article on fluorescent lighting and lump them in with sulfur lamps, which to the outside observer will seem very different.
The distinction of using RF rather than an electric current is a significant one, but it seems secondary to the actual light-generating part. So why not group fluorescent induction lamps with fluorescent lights and then a separate article on RF Lighting?
Electrodeless Induction Lamps
Induction lighting is now being recognized as a truly long life lamp with real world energy saving potentials higher than LED. Its tested lifespan of over 30, hours makes it a reliable solution for hard-to-maintain areas. With a rated lifespan of 60, hours, it is also a very environmentally friendly solution that symbolizes reduction, recycle, and reuse. At Amko, we continue to offer high performance induction lamps and fixtures with greater stability and consistency than our competition. Our luminaires are redesigned to bring out the best of induction lighting and they are manufactured either in Taiwan for high performance or in China for cost efficiency. We offer 5 year warranties on our lamp and fixture, 3 years on our ballasts, though we will extend that warranty at a fee for 2 additional years, basically sending you replacement units for those that have reached its end of life.
History[ edit ] In , Philip Diehl inventor was awarded a patent for a kind of induction incandescent lamp. Matsushita had induction light systems available in Intersource Technologies also announced one in , called the E-lamp. Operating at In , Michael Ury, Charles Wood and colleagues formulated the concept of the sulphur lamp. Its origins are in microwave discharge light sources used for ultraviolet curing in the semiconductor and printing industries.
induction lighting and electrodeless lamps
Garden, park, plaza, workshop, warehouse; 3. Supermarket, shoping mall, exhibition hall; 4. Gas station, Highway toll, Station, Dock etc. We deliveried abroad many pieces.