|
||||
| FILE 22/9046 | ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|||
|
| File information | |
| Filename: | 1000085882.jpg |
| Album name: | Flurofan96 / Fluroescent |
| Filesize: | 4721 KiB |
| Date added: | 09 May, 2026 |
| Dimensions: | 1536 x 2048 pixels |
| Displayed: | 154 times |
| URL: | http://80.229.24.59:9232/gallery/displayimage.php?pid=24906 |
| Favourites: | Add to Favourites |
Comment 1 to 4 of 4 Page: 1 |
|
|||
|
These Chinese made Tridonics are junk...
|
|
|||
|
Yeah these are not much better than a CFL ballast really, I'd change these for a late 2000's Tridonic or a Philips/Osram etc. Good fittings though, they made these for a long time as they were about in the early 90's (and maybe even earlier too) with SB/Thorn gear & tubes
|
|
|||
|
@Slyspark: I will only use one of these Tamlite fixtures wired up to a plug in my shed and if I do want to use one of these in the house - then I will get it changed to a better OSRAM or Philips electronic ballast. Good job I have the switchstart version of these (under the Ring name) in 58W @Beta 5: They are good fixtures for sure and to see them being made for electronic ballasts despite the use of the rubbish Tridonic CFL type of ballasts, as you say I would go for a late 2000s era Tridonic or any decent HF ballast
- it seems Tamlite tends to go for Tridonic ballasts
|
|
|||
|
These must be quite recently made too as it seems these cheap square Tridonics mainly appeared towards the end of production. To be fair at home you could use it with this ballast until it pops (you might not have to wait long!) and then just change it after that, but they are no good for anywhere else you need them to last.
|
Comment 1 to 4 of 4 Page: 1 |