TECHNOLOGICAL INSTITUTE OF THE PHILIPPINES

QUEZON CITY

ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirement for the Degree of Bachelor of Science in Electronics
Engineering/Computer Engineering Program and for the Completion of the course EE 003/Electrical Circuits 2
through the Design Experiment entitled: Difference between an Electronic and Magnetic Ballast in Fluorescent
Lamps in Lux or Lumens

Submitted by:

Alinea, Arns Vhinzy

Alejo, Alvijhen John

Corpin, Ray

Torres, Christina Yna Luisa

Vitor, John Kennedy

Enabe, Richielda

Submitted to:

Engr. Gerard C. Rizardo

Instructor

Engr. Ferdinand D. Milan

Program Chair

October 9, 2019
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Background of the Design of Experiment ……………………………………………………………………… 3

Statement of the Purpose …………………………………………………………………………………………. 4

Discussion of Methodology/Strategy …………………………………………………………………………… 4

Presentation of Data and Test Results …………………………………………………………………………. 4

Computation …………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 6

Conclusion …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 7

Synthesis …………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 7

Bibliography …………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 8

Curriculum Vitae ……………………………………………………………………………………………………. 9

Rubrics ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 11

Background of the Design

 An electronic ballast (or electrical ballast) is a device that controls the starting voltage and the operating
currents of lighting devices. It accomplishes this task through the principle known as electrical gas discharge. An
electronic ballast will convert power frequency to a very high frequency to initialize the gas discharge process in
Fluorescent Lamps – by controlling voltage across the lamp and current through the lamp.
An electronic ballast uses solid state electronic circuitry to provide the proper starting and operating
electrical conditions to power discharge lamps. An electronic ballast can be smaller and lighter than a comparably-
rated magnetic one. An electronic ballast is usually quieter than a magnetic one, which produces a line-frequency
hum by vibration of the transformer laminations. Electronic ballasts are often based on SMPS topology, first
rectifying the input power and then chopping it at a high frequency. Advanced electronic ballasts may allow
dimming via pulse-width modulation or via changing the frequency to a higher value.
Electronic ballasts usually supply power to the lamp at a frequency of 20,000 Hz or higher, rather than
the mains frequency of 50 – 60 Hz; this substantially eliminates the stroboscopic effect of flicker, a product of the
line frequency associated with fluorescent lighting (see photosensitive epilepsy). The high output frequency of an
electronic ballast refreshes the phosphors in a fluorescent lamp so rapidly that there is no perceptible flicker. The
flicker index, used for measuring perceptible light modulation, has a range from 0.00 to 1.00, with 0 indicating the
lowest possibility of flickering and 1 indicating the highest. Lamps operated on magnetic ballasts have a flicker
index between 0.04–0.07 while digital ballasts have a flicker index of below 0.01.

Magnetic ballasts (also referred to as electromagnetic ballasts) fall into one of the following categories:
standard core-oil, high-efficiency core-coil, and cathode cut-out or hybrid magnetic ballasts. For the purpose of this
experiment, hybrid magnetic ballasts were used.

"Cathode cut-out" (or "hybrid") ballasts are high-efficiency core-coil ballasts that incorporate electronic
components that cut off power to the lamp cathodes (filaments) after the lamps are lit, resulting in an additional 2-
watt savings per standard lamp. Also, many partial-output T12 hybrid ballasts provide up to 10% less light output
while consuming up to 17% less energy than energy-efficient magnetic ballasts.

The lux (symbol: lx) is the SI derived unit of illuminance and luminous emittance, measuring luminous
flux per unit area. It is equal to one lumen per square meter. In photometry, this is used as a measure of the
intensity, as perceived by the human eye, of light that hits or passes through a surface. It is analogous to
the radiometric unit watt per square meter, but with the power at each wavelength weighted according to
the luminosity function, a standardized model of human visual brightness perception. In English, "lux" is used as
both the singular and plural form.

The lumen (symbol: lm) is the SI derived unit of luminous flux, a measure of the total quantity of visible
light emitted by a source per unit of time. Luminous flux differs from power (radiant flux) in that radiant flux
includes all electromagnetic waves emitted, while luminous flux is weighted according to a model (a "luminosity
function") of the human eye's sensitivity to various wavelengths. Lumens are related to lux in that one lux is one
lumen per square meter.

Statement of the Purpose

 The purpose of the design of this experiment is to accurately and completely verify which of the two
ballasts; magnetic and electric ballasts are more proficient in producing light. The metrics in which the ballasts will
be arbitrated are its luminosity; in lux or lumens, and its power consumption, which is measured in watts. The
other intended purpose of the design of the experiment is to correctly show which of the two ballasts are more
efficient, which in turn will confirm which of the two is more suitable for practical use (i.e. for homes and offices).

Specific Objectives:

1. Design an Experiment that can accurately depict the performance of both ballasts

2. Acquire relevant data from both ballasts.

3. Compare acquired data with calculated measurements.

4. Determine which of the two ballasts is more efficient.

Discussion of Methodology/Strategy

Magnetic ballast. In our procedure we used 20watts 1100lx/m CFL bulb, 18 to 26 watts ballast, and 26-40
watts magnetic ballast. First, we connect the clamp meter and multimeter to the power supply of the ballast to test
the inrush current of the ballast in the bulb and we can also see the input voltage of the device. This results with
the magnetic ballast having a delay in the turn on point of 1 to 2 seconds. We first test how many current the
magnetic ballast used and tried to continue the cfl turned on until 1 to 2 mins and after that we read at the
equipment having a current of .26 amperes and rise to .28 amperes. We kept it until 2 mins pass and still
continued until the current has he's peak current. We time it took was 10mins mark. we measured its peak which
is .34 amps of pull out current from the ballast. We tried another run with a 40 watts ballast and did the same
procedure with similar results, but we recognized that the ballast from the first 20 watts was not hot enough and
there was a distinct lukewarm feeling at the 10 minute mark but in the 40 watts magnetic ballast was too hot that
we can't hold till more than 10 seconds but the light continues and we recognized that I think the problem was the
dissipated power because of the bulb we choose I think if we used a much powerful light maybe it will not heat I
think we need a parallel 1 more 20 watts to make the light run more finesse and after that we continued again the
experiment for the magnetic ballast we do extra experimentation We test current from the exactly the ballast but
we see that they pulled .65amps of power and we do clamp a meter from the bulb that same at the starting
droving current .34 amps and and after we try the Luxness of the the magnetic ballast we used lux meter and In
the experience that the range was 900-1100 to max peak of 1200 and no more no less about that point and we
move forward to the next experiment. Electronic ballast.

In our experience on magnetic ballast we used Qusun 22watts Model QS-YZ22D. Phillips to 20w/54-765
YL daylight 1100lm,55lm/W fluorescent bulb and at this point we repeatedly performed the same experiment in the
magnetic ballast, we discovered that the electronic ballast is much. Better that magnetic ballast we see that the
inrush current was half of current from magnetic ballast at .14 amps and much brighter than magnetic ballast and
fast preheat and starting point the problem was the bulb was heat much that the magnetic ballast and we timed at
30 seconds the light way hotter than magnetic ones but magnetic ballast is way cooler than the electronic ballast
and the another we see that there has a problem in the ballast was out equipment like clamp meter got a
interference from the ballast we see that not only the equipment got interfered one of our phone got the same
interference from our ballast we think that there was something happens on the ballast we think that electronic
ballast was emit Some radiation because of one thing hi frequency because the only thing. Can do that is in hi
voltage low current hi frequency generator I think the design of the electronic ballast is the principle of tesla circuit
from Nikola tesla himself from he's tower and we see that the problem we think that it can cause cancer to
generate and although is good in luminosity the safety standard we think is the issue himself because of the emits
some radiation of radio frequency.

The materials and equipment used for this experiment are as follows:

Materials:

Phillips to 20w/54-765 YL daylight 1100 lm

55lm/W fluorescent bulb Delta T8(T12) lamp/cfl 18-26 watts Magnetic ballast

Delta 26-40watts Magnetic ballast

Equipment:

Clampmeter "ampmeter" (1)

Multimeter (1)

Power plug w/fuse (1)

Lux meter (1)

Alligator clip (8)

Glass type fuse .5A (3)

It should also be noted that no simulations were used for this experiment, as there was no need to do so,
and the nature of the experiment was fairly straightforward in its execution and data collection.

Presentation of Data and Test Results

 Table 1.1 Measured Values

Measured Values Luminosity Amperage (Amperes) Average Power (Watt)

(Lumens) Amperage
(Amperes)

Magnetic Ballast 1697 0.63 0.29 0.46 0.46 30.8545

Electronic Ballast 1291 0.34 0.13 0.14 0.203 23.4727

Table 1.2 Calculated Values

Calculated Values Luminosity Lumens/Watt Power (Watt)

(Lumens)

Magnetic Ballast 1430 55.00 26

Electronic Ballast 1250 48.08 26

Figure 1. Magnetic and Electronic Ballast Setup
Computation

The calculations used to verify the values of power consumption are as follows:

Power (in watts) = Lumens/Lumen per watt

It should also be noted that both electric and magnetic ballasts already have a set number of Lumens per
watt, which are both set at 55 lm/W. Knowing these values, we can then calculate their respective power
consumption values. The values are also shown in the table above.

Figure 2. Electronic vs Magnetic Ballast Graph

The graph above shows the comparison of values between the electronic and magnetic ballasts. The
magnetic ballast has shown itself to have higher values in both its luminosity and power. It should also be noted
that the difference in both luminosity and power between the ballasts are significant enough to warrant the
observation that the magnetic ballast consumes more power and produces more light than the electronic ballast.
The magnetic ballast has also been shown to have a consistently higher amperage than that of the electronic
ballast, which correlates to a higher average amperage of the magnetic ballast versus the electronic ballast.

On average, an electronic ballast normally functions at 26 watts, while a magnetic ballast operates at 26
watts. These values will be treated as the calculated values of the corresponding ballasts. Using both the
experimental and the calculated values of each ballast we can calculate their respective percent errors. Percent
error calculations are used to determine the proximity of the experimental values to the true values, which in this
case are the calculated values. The percent error formula is shown as:

Percent error (%) = [((True Value) – (Calculated Value))/(True Value)] * 100

Using this calculation, the respective percent error values are: 18.67% for the magnetic ballast, and
9.72% for the electronic ballast. The results show how unstable both ballasts are in terms of consistent power
usage, with the electronic ballast being more consistent of the two ballasts.
Conclusion

The data corroborates with the notion that the Electronic ballast is the more efficient ballast of the two
ballasts, by comparing the values that were recorded from the experiment; namely its luminosity and its power
consumption. The Magnetic ballast vastly outperforms the Electronic ballast in both aspects, which also gives
credence to its inefficiency as a ballast. The experiment has shown that the use of electronic ballasts is much
more practical for general use.

Synthesis

Magnetic ballasts have a higher luminosity and power consumption compared to the electronic ballast.
This also means that the electronic ballast is much more efficient in producing light, and as such is recommended
for general use between the two ballasts. The experiment could be improved by using a different fluorescent lamp
with different parameters, and replicating the same experiment with other kinds of ballasts to compare efficiency.
Bibliography

"Understanding Transformer Noise" (PDF). federalpacific.com. Federal Pacific. Archived from the
original (PDF) on 15 March 2015. Retrieved 4 October 2019.

Specifier Reports: Electronic Ballasts p.18, National Lighting Product Information Program, Volume 8 Number 1,
May 2000. Retrieved 4 October 2019.

Commercial Lighting Efficiency Resource Book, EPRI, CU-7427, September 1991.

SI Derived Units, National Institute of Standards and Technology.

NIST Guide to SI Units. Chapter 9 – Rules and Style Conventions for Spelling Unit Names, National Institute of
Standards and Technology.

Bryant, Robert H. "Lumens, Illuminance, Foot-candles and bright shiny beads…". The LED Light. Retrieved Oct
4, 2019.
Ronaldo Lodor

Pastor

Word of Life Philippines r_enabe@gmail.com

09228317579