# 277 dimmer



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

What kind of light?


----------



## user438 (Jun 6, 2007)

Here is a pdf showing wiring for a 277 fluorescent dimmer

http://www.smarthome.com/manuals/45056.pdf


----------



## Voltech (Nov 30, 2009)

480sparky said:


> What kind of light?


Sorry that would help, its a 6 inch can florescent


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

AFAIK, the fluorescent ballast must be designed to be dimmed. You can't just dim an ordinary ballast.


----------



## Voltech (Nov 30, 2009)

480sparky said:


> AFAIK, the fluorescent ballast must be designed to be dimmed. You can't just dim an ordinary ballast.


Yes I understand that thanks, the cust ordered the the light and its being shipped. All the info I was given was that the was able to be dimmed. I didnt get any other info for wiring.


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

Can you get the make & model, then go to the manufacturer's website for more info?


----------



## Bob Badger (Apr 19, 2009)

Voltech said:


> Yes I understand that thanks, the cust ordered the the light and its being shipped. All the info I was given was that the was able to be dimmed. I didnt get any other info for wiring.


It could need a third line or not, if you ran a 3 wire you would cover yourself .......... unless it also needs a two wire LV connection.

Like 480 mentioned I would try to get the info from the maker.


----------



## danickstr (Mar 21, 2010)

I would like to know how you like it. The last dimmer I installed for fluorescent lights was good for about a 20-30% reduction of light, but nowhere near the full range of an ordinary or even LED dimmed light system. After you went to 50% it flickered.

In other words, I thought it sucked. But maybe they are better now.


----------



## Electric_Light (Apr 6, 2010)

danickstr said:


> I would like to know how you like it. The last dimmer I installed for fluorescent lights was good for about a 20-30% reduction of light, but nowhere near the full range of an ordinary or even LED dimmed light system. After you went to 50% it flickered.
> 
> In other words, I thought it sucked. But maybe they are better now.


To get a good dimming range, the ballast needs a full control of electrode heaters. 

In an AC circuit, the voltage always go back to zero at zero crossing. A normal dimmer works by staying off after zero crossing, then determining when to fire after zero crossing. It works fine for incandescent, but it makes it harder for the ballast control circuit to work. Because the current carrying conductor is actually phase controlled, harmonics and poor power factor is inevitable while dimmed. 

http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/dimmer-switch-diagram-6.gif

Three wire dimming is basically providing two hots. One that's on/off, and one that is dimmed. The dimmed wire isn't meant to carry current and the ballast just compares the phase difference for control purpose. 

www.lutron.org/CMS400/WorkArea/downloadasset.aspx?id=25427

3-wire and 0-10v both work well providing dimming down to anywhere between 1 to 10% lumen output depending on each ballast. 

10% only dims to 30% or so "perceived" brightness, while 1% dims to 10% "perceived" brightness. 1% dimming is for aesthetics. The power needed for cathode heaters makes it useless to dim below 10% for energy conservation purpose. Actual lumen and perceived brightness are different, because eyes dilate the pupils as light level is reduced.

The 3-wire is a Lutron cult thing (neutral, switched hot, dimmed hot). 0-10v is more industry standard, which uses a pair of thermostat wires. Sylvania, Advance and Universal all make 0-10v controlled ballasts and the 0-10v wires can be used for DALI control if the facility is retrofitted later.


----------



## Voltech (Nov 30, 2009)

danickstr said:


> I would like to know how you like it. The last dimmer I installed for fluorescent lights was good for about a 20-30% reduction of light, but nowhere near the full range of an ordinary or even LED dimmed light system. After you went to 50% it flickered.
> 
> In other words, I thought it sucked. But maybe they are better now.



Installed my dimmers today. They Suck for the design. It s a conference room with a projector. they dont dim enough for what is needed. 

Per the specs, it did require a neutral t the switch.


----------



## danickstr (Mar 21, 2010)

with LED's on the horizon it seems futile to pursue tricks with fluorescents.


----------



## Electric_Light (Apr 6, 2010)

Voltech said:


> Installed my dimmers today. They Suck for the design. It s a conference room with a projector. they dont dim enough for what is needed.
> 
> Per the specs, it did require a neutral t the switch.


Which ballast did you use? 5 or 10% minimum means it dims to 5-10% measured output. If you needed something that dims to 10% of perceived output, then you should have specified a 1% dimmer like Lutron Hi-Lume. 

See attached



danickstr said:


> with LED's on the horizon it seems futile to pursue tricks with fluorescents.


I don't get the hard-on about LEDs.

3,000 lumen F32T8 lamp is like $3 for the high-end 800 series, and able to be dimmed from 1-125% or so with more or less near perfect output maintenance throughout its life. 

How much does such an output LED lamp cost and how well does it maintain the output? 

There are two meanings of life.
The 50% survival rate, which is the hours before 50% of samples fail, then the lumen maintenance. 
Under 12/hr day, the long life T8 is rated at 40,000 hours to 50% failure, but only loses 6% of output over the lifetime. 

So, LEDs may last 50,000 hours before they stop working entirely, but most LEDs today are not competitive in maintaining performance over the useful life. In applications where LEDs are replacing fluorescent, the useful life should be defined as the hours it takes for luminous output to drop below 90%. The 70% cut-off currently proposed is horsesh!t. Thats the standards used for older halophosphor fluorescent. So, this means that once LEDs lose 10% of initial output, they're done, and you'll find most of them would not be breaking 6,000 hours. 

Soo... T8 = $3 for a 3000lm lamp Dimmable from 1-127% (or this could be rewritten as 0.78-100% to define the dynamic range instead of using spec 100% as 1.00). How much for a 3,000 lumen LED? I'm guessing over $500. 

LEDs are way over-rated. They don't come anywhere close to providing output comparable to fluorescent, maintaining the same output, and having efficacy high enough to offset outrageously high lamp cost.


----------



## Voltech (Nov 30, 2009)

Electric_Light said:


> Which ballast did you use? 5 or 10% minimum means it dims to 5-10% measured output. If you needed something that dims to 10% of perceived output, then you should have specified a 1% dimmer like Lutron Hi-Lume.
> 
> See attached


Thanks for the info, This was actually the first time I have installed dimmers on 277. Come to find out today from the customer he wanted remote controlled dimmers, to dim the room to off. If I had to guess, I would say these are 5%


----------



## Electric_Light (Apr 6, 2010)

Voltech said:


> Thanks for the info, This was actually the first time I have installed dimmers on 277. Come to find out today from the customer he wanted remote controlled dimmers, to dim the room to off. If I had to guess, I would say these are 5%


The wiring for Lutron 3-wire type is exactly the same for 120 and 277. As shown by the graph, 5% will only get down to about 25% dimming, because our pupils dilate to accommodate for reduced light level. It's not really the problem with supplies. The problem is the lack of understanding by whoever specified the ballast, or inadequate understanding of the intended purpose.


----------



## danickstr (Mar 21, 2010)

Electric_Light said:


> I don't get the hard-on about LEDs.


You need to see the shrink about that or something.  

LED's are simply dimmable and over 90% efficient. Nothing to arouse you sexually, mind you, but better in all ways than CFL's, which contain mercury, flicker pathetically when turned on, and emit annoying light. Not to mention they are not acceptably dimmable.


----------



## Voltech (Nov 30, 2009)

Electric_Light said:


> The wiring for Lutron 3-wire type is exactly the same for 120 and 277. As shown by the graph, 5% will only get down to about 25% dimming, because our pupils dilate to accommodate for reduced light level. It's not really the problem with supplies. The problem is the lack of understanding by whoever specified the ballast, or inadequate understanding of the intended purpose.


Yeah, there has been a lot of " lack of understanding" about half way into the job the EE/architect fired the PM over this job...It has really been a mess.

I guess I meant I have never installed a ballast dimmer.


----------



## Electric_Light (Apr 6, 2010)

Voltech said:


> Yeah, there has been a lot of " lack of understanding" about half way into the job the EE/architect fired the PM over this job...It has really been a mess.
> 
> I guess I meant I have never installed a ballast dimmer.


Well, what did the original requirement specs say? This isn't too bad to correct. Just have to order the Hi Lume ballast and change out the ballasts.


----------



## Voltech (Nov 30, 2009)

Electric_Light said:


> Well, what did the original requirement specs say? This isn't too bad to correct. Just have to order the Hi Lume ballast and change out the ballasts.


We installed what was spec'ed.


----------



## Electric_Light (Apr 6, 2010)

Voltech said:


> We installed what was spec'ed.


If it meets the specs, go there with a light meter, explain what was specified was done. If they want a change, charge $$


----------



## Voltech (Nov 30, 2009)

Electric_Light said:


> If it meets the specs, go there with a light meter, explain what was specified was done. If they want a change, charge $$


 Hard ceiling cans are a pain in the a$$:thumbsup:


----------



## Electric_Light (Apr 6, 2010)

danickstr said:


> You need to see the shrink about that or something.
> 
> LED's are *simply dimmable* and over *90% efficient*.


1.) So are fluorescent lamps. FL and LEDs dim well without much loss in efficacy 

2.) No, they're not. Neither are fluorescents. 



> better in all ways than CFL's


No they're not. Not only are they much more expensive, they're not up to par with fluorescent in performance for general lighting. LM-79 & LM-80 standards for LED lighting should be interesting. LED output specs isn't based on actual use. It's based on 25°C junction temperature. 




> which contain mercury, flicker pathetically when turned on, and emit annoying light. Not to mention they are not acceptably dimmable.


1.) Yes they do. Something like 2mg on new T8 lamps, and offsetting more than 2mg from reduction in coal burning based mercury emissions compared to incandescent. Let's not exclude that LEDs contain things like arsenic in gallium arsenide and such. 

2.) what exactly do you mean? 

3.) This is subjective. Fluorescent lamps are available from 2700K to 6500K. Chromaticity is quite stable from lamp to lamp. Let's talk "color binning". A fixture with many LEDs and a wide variation in chromaticity. Now that's an annoying light. 

4.) What is considered "acceptably dimmable" ?

A 30 pack of 85CRI, 2,900 lumen 26,000 hour fluorescent lamp goes for like $100 for high-quality T8s. You want how much for 87,000 lumens of LED lighting? 

LED luminaire and retrofit sales people might tell you all that, but what you've been told are mostly incorrect.


----------



## danickstr (Mar 21, 2010)

There is a magnitude of at least hundreds of times difference in the amount of poison put in the groundwater by a lazy CFL bulb user throwing it in the street and having the mercury run into lakes and streams.

A LED would have to be smashed by a hammer to release the trace micro-amounts of arsenic (and LEDs are currently made or developed without any arsenic) which are in a more inert form combined with the gallium.

gallium arsenide in the stable form of an led component can actually be ingested safely as a crystal. Try that with as many times the quantity of Mercury in a CFL.

The argument about coal use assumes that dirty coal will continue to be a power source. Many areas are switching from this unpleasant form of energy. Here in the Northwest its hydro and dirty coal is on its way out.

You and I will not see eye to eye. I see CFL's as mercury filled, ballast burning flickering tech that has run its course, and I have NEVER seen a dimming setup that worked to my expectations.

organic LED's and purple wire LED's are the future. Clean arsenic free and becoming ever more efficient and color stable.

IF I had to install 70 thousand feet of lighting tomorrow, I would give the office folk the cold harsh reality of undimmable T8 tech.

But to say that CFL or T8 is a good dimming choice is to me stretching the truth. Tell me one good example of a CFL system with a dimmer that actually works. I will try to find it and examine it myself. part and model numbers if you have them would be great.


----------



## Electric_Light (Apr 6, 2010)

First, do you happen to be in business of selling LED lighting products? 




danickstr said:


> There is a magnitude of at least hundreds of times difference in the amount of poison put in the groundwater by a lazy CFL bulb user throwing it in the street and having the mercury run into lakes and streams.


Let's not limit fluorescent lamps to consumer big box store CFLs. That's like limiting LED lamps to those made with cheapest 5mm LEDs out there. Commercial users ship spent lamps back to places like Bethelehem company to have the mercury reclaimed. Huge volume users use a lamp crusher on site, then sent the lamps for mercury and aluminum end cap reclamation in crushed form. 



> The argument about coal use assumes that dirty coal will continue to be a power source. Many areas are switching from this unpleasant form of energy. Here in the Northwest its hydro and dirty coal is on its way out.


However, they're still in use *a lot* elsewhere. At 2mg a lamp, it takes a thousand lamps to equal that of a mercury fever thermometer. 

Current LED system is not acceptable in terms of luminous efficacy, but then Puget Sound, BC Hydro and BPA have among the cheapest rates in the nation, so you can afford the poor efficacy of LEDs :no:



> You and I will not see eye to eye. I see CFL's as mercury filled, ballast burning flickering tech that has run its course, and I have NEVER seen a dimming setup that worked to my expectations.


Improved quality is desirable for consumer grade CFLs, but it is a market that is extremely competitive on up-front cost where customers bark at $8/lamp. To satisfy the consumer's expectations of lower initial cost, retailers have integral ballast CFLs at prices ranging from $1-3. 

Those $2 lamps include the BALLAST as well as the lamp. What kind of quality are you expecting from $2? 

Have you looked at externally ballasted commercial grade system? 
Ballast ICF-2S26-H1-LD runs 1 or 2 26W lamp. This is $20-30
26W lamp. This is $4-5 ea, in bulk, last 12 to 16k hours



> organic LED's and purple wire LED's are the future. Clean arsenic free and becoming ever more efficient and color stable.


You're comparing the cheapest of cheap CFLs against premium LEDs. 



> IF I had to install 70 thousand feet of lighting tomorrow, I would give the office folk the cold harsh reality of undimmable T8 tech.


I suggest you purchase the components I listed below and installing it into a shop light to test out the system. 

But to say that CFL or T8 is a good dimming choice is to me stretching the truth. [/quote]

The CFLs you find at Home Depot that say "screw into a fixture and it works with a regular dimmer" does not work anywhere near as well as commercial grade system. 

fluorescent systems that dim below 5% are for visual effect/aesthetic purpose, so they're not specified for general purpose, because they cost more. You DON'T need to be able to dim cafeteria lighting to 1%. 




> Tell me one good example of a CFL system with a dimmer that actually works. I will try to find it and examine it myself. part and model numbers if you have them would be great.


T8 system: (91Lm/W system efficacy) 
two x Philips F32T8/835/ADV/XLL (40,000 hour, 5% light loss over lifetime) 
Lutron H3D T832 C U 2 17 ballast
Lutron NF-10 dimmer
Dimming range: 51 to 7020 lumens 

CFL system: 
Lutron FDB-T426-120-1-S 
Lutron NF-10 dimmer (same as above, and the unit supports up to 16A of total load) 
1x Philips PL-C 26W 
Dimming range 86 to 1710 lumens 

<20% THD
>0.95 power factor

With either setting, you can build a demonstration unit for around $200 including the cost of demonstration fixture (that's assuming the price of single unit purchase) 

Good luck coming up with a 7000 lumen LED system for less than $200/ea even in pallet loads and don't forget to include system warranty comparable to fluorescent if you want any chance at winning the bid.

Name an LED system with a system efficacy exceeding 90Lm/W, 7,000 lm output, competitively priced with fluorescent, PF > 0.95 and THD not to exceed 20%. Flicker index shall be less than 0.1. 

Remember that both LED and fluorescent are current regulated devices they both require a regulation device, which is called "ballast" for fluorescent, but "driver" for LEDs. They're basically the same thing with the exception that fluorescent units have a starting routine. They're the same in that they provide constant current to the lamps, and in the process, they consume some power.


----------



## danickstr (Mar 21, 2010)

NO I don't sell LED's lol. And here is a 90% efficiency link, so please do not say LED's are not capable of 90% efficiency:

http://www.eetindia.co.in/ART_8800599251_1800008_NP_b01370eb.HTM

Your tendency to quote the SH*ZZLE out of my posts shows a more intense approach to this than I really have, but good for you.

I am not going to go through and quote you line by line, since I really only am here to give my opinion of LED as a better quality of light. I had not mentioned the Color Reflective Index before and thought I would add it. It is one of the reasons fluorescent light seems to offer a paler view of the room than incandescent.

I just do not care for the CRI (color reflective index) of 70% I get from a typical FL bulb vs. the 92 or so I can get from an LED.

That means that I am only seeing 70% of the color present in the world lit by that particular FL bulb. I would imagine this is one of the bigger reasons why most folks find FL light less appealing.

If you sell FL lighting, perhaps you could refer me to a place I could see your FL dream setup and I can judge it for myself. I will go anywhere in the greater Seattle/Tacoma metro area if you can arrange or recommend any place to view the setup you advocate. I don't want to create a system just to look at it. I know the Lutron rep so maybe I can talk to her if I see her and ask about their premium comm. FL line.

I am betting I won't (like it) but I admit I am a bit of a lighting snob, and that is the reason I would argue against any type of light I think is less than ideal for any customer, even though most commercial owners will be forced by current cost pressures to go cheap, and that means FL.

Doesn't Cree lighting (as one example) sell some nice retrofit LED bulbs for around 20 bucks each that are dimmable, and have nice CRI and can go into GU10 MR16 type sockets? (OK they pay me a secret fee) JK.

This is one of the reasons I like LED so much, is that the retrofit to incandescent and halogen is painless, and the flicker and color loss are negligible.

Anyway, thanks for the information on FL, I will try to look into it.


----------



## Electric_Light (Apr 6, 2010)

danickstr said:


> NO I don't sell LED's lol. And here is a 90% efficiency link, so please do not say LED's are not capable of 90% efficiency


First of all, that link does not work, so you'll have to Google it, then pull from cache. You got 90%, because you read it wrong. It's talking about LED driver being 90% efficient, which is just another term for ballast.

As quoted in article, 

"Infineon Technologies AG has released its specific off-line ICL8001G LED driver IC for high-efficiency LED bulbs with dimming for residential lighting. The driver enables up to 90 per cent efficiency and is the only primary controlled off-line LED drive with integrated power factor correction."

Here is an actual test report of an LED lamp. 
http://www.luminairetesting.com/Files/Sample__LED_Integrating_Sphere_Report.pdf

25lm/W. You can that sort of efficacy with 12v 60W 9005 automotive halogen lamp. The GE "energy smart" medium base LED lamp is about as bad. 

Lamps can not be expressed in "% efficient". It is expressed in "lm/W" efficacy, because we are not concerned with xx watts of radiant energy per one watt of electrical energy. Since illumination is for the purpose of making things viewable for human beings, it only make sense to express in how effectively it produces lumens per watt. 



> I am not going to go through and quote you line by line, since I really only am here to give my opinion of LED as a better quality of light.
> 
> I had not mentioned the Color Reflective Index before and thought I would add it. It is one of the reasons fluorescent light seems to offer a paler view of the room than incandescent.
> 
> I just do not care for the CRI (color reflective index) of 70% I get from a typical FL bulb vs. the 92 or so I can get from an LED.


It's color RENDERING index for one. It's also not fair that you're comparing low-end fluorescent against some of the best LEDs. 

I don't know what you call "typical FL bulb" but the statement is wrong if you're referring to anything that has an Energy Star label. A CFL can not pass EnergyStar without having a CRI of >80

http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=fixture_guide.pr_fixtures_guide_lightquality



> That means that I am only seeing 70% of the color present in the world lit by that particular FL bulb. I would imagine this is one of the bigger reasons why most folks find FL light less appealing.


Color temperature affects the presentation of color significantly and CRI is only useful in comparing like CT sources. ANY black body radiator has a CRI of 100, from candle light to halogen lamps, yet as you know, they render color differently. They're available from 2700 to 6500K and offer great consistency between lamps. 

There's a great difference in appearance from 2700 vs 6500. 

Cheap T8s are CRI 75-78. 735 and 741 are the common general lighting lamps. 

CFLs are ~80
800 T8s are usually 85-86 
Philips 950 is 98, but it's not particularly efficacious. 



> If you sell FL lighting, perhaps you could refer me to a place I could see your FL dream setup and I can judge it for myself.
> I will go anywhere in the greater Seattle/Tacoma metro area


WA state is quite stringent on lighting code. Dimming ballast system should be available at just about any supply house. Platt, Graybar, Grainger, etc. 32W T8 830 lamps (86 CRI, 3,000K) as well as 865 are available at Home Depot

Go look around newer campus buildings on Univ of Washington. The CFLs are all 82 CRI (low CRI CFLs are no longer being made). They're probably 3500K. 



> if you can arrange or recommend any place to view the setup you advocate. I don't want to create a system just to look at it. I know the Lutron rep so maybe I can talk to her if I see her and ask about their premium comm. FL line.


Asking a Lutron rep would be your best bet. 1% dimming isn't used all that often, because its usually not necessary. 




> I am betting I won't (like it) but I admit I am a bit of a lighting snob, and that is the reason I would argue against any type of light I think is less than ideal for any customer, even though most commercial owners will be forced by current cost pressures to go cheap, and that means FL.


Of course cost matters. That is the main goal. Who really wants a setup that won't ever pay itself off? 



> Doesn't Cree lighting (as one example) sell some nice retrofit LED bulbs for around 20 bucks each that are dimmable, and have nice CRI and can go into GU10 MR16 type sockets? (OK they pay me a secret fee) JK.


These? http://www.ledliquidatorsinc.com/MR16_D_3_LED_Cree_light_bulb.php

They're accent lights. Not general area lighting. Also, the lm/W doesn't include driver loss. 

46 lm/W BEFORE driver loss and 6.8 cents/lumen for 9W type? uhhh no. I'm betting the 46lm/W was measurement taken within seconds of turning on. That's $204 for 3,000 lumen in 100+ lot. TL835s are like $1.60/ea in case quantity. 



> This is one of the reasons I like LED so much, is that the retrofit to incandescent and halogen is painless, and the flicker and color loss are negligible.
> 
> Anyway, thanks for the information on FL, I will try to look into it.


LEDs flicker more than fluorescent, because the phosphor doesn't persist as long. If the driver delivers a ripple free current, neither fluorescent nor LED will flicker.


----------



## danickstr (Mar 21, 2010)

My link works for me 

I have to say that line by line you have colorfully rendered a well-indexed argument. I am more inclined to look at them as a transition to the next generation of lighting more favorably due to the amount of valid info you have presented.

Let's hope the janitor disposes of them properly.

My research into the future of LED's has me even more excited about what they will achieve soon, such as film based oLED providing ultra-thin flexible light panels.

Maybe there is something exciting in the future of fluorescents, but I didn't come across it.


----------



## Voltech (Nov 30, 2009)

danickstr said:


> My link works for me


The site requires a log-in name and password


----------



## Electric_Light (Apr 6, 2010)

danickstr, here is a dimmable fluorescent system in use. I just recorded it. This is Lutron based. This is manual control without the complication of daylight feedback system. 

It dims VERY nicely without any flickering in actual use. Keep in mind that camera phone CCD doesn't have the same dynamic range as our eyes and it keeps adjusting exposure settings in order to achieve proper exposure with shifting light level. The flicker is from camera trying to adjust itself. 

The dimmer switch shown here is a step-less variable type with separate on/off switch. They do make stepped dimming switches with buttons as well.


----------



## danickstr (Mar 21, 2010)

Hey that looks like it actually works.


----------

