Induction lamp as an alternative to LED

The article is some kind of confusion.
At the beginning of the article we read:
Meanwhile, there are light sources that currently have better technical characteristics than LEDs and are about three times cheaper than them. It is commercially available induction lamps.
THREE TIMES CHEAPER

At the end of the article we read the opposite:
However, I regret to note that the price of an induction lamp with an E27 base with a power of 20 W is approximately 700-1000 rubles, and an energy-saving lamp of the same power that has already become commonplace costs 100-150 rubles.
SEVEN AND MORE TIME ROAD

How to understand?

At the beginning of the article, a comparison is made for the price of an induction lamp and an LED lamp (induction is about three times cheaper). At the end of the article, the price difference is shown between induction and more familiar to all compact fluorescent lamps (commonly referred to as energy-saving). In general, induction lamps are cheaper than LED, but more expensive than compact fluorescent lamps. Although the price is not a determining factor. All light sources listed in the article have their advantages and disadvantages, and, based on this, for the lamp of each type, you can find the most effective way to use it.

And it is not clear how the interference caused by the RF transformer affects other equipment located in the room nearby (TVs, radios, etc.).

Induction lamps will soon displace DRL, DRI, DNAT lamps, as have much better technical characteristics and a long service life.The future is with induction lamps! As for LED lamps, there are still a lot of questions.

Induction lamps are all old technologies. They were invented a long time ago, they only learned to create technically only now. But it's' too late. Five more years will pass and all the lighting around us will be LED. There will be no other bulbs, including induction, but there will be only one LED lamp. This is the LED lighting revolution! Our grandchildren will see all other lamps only in the museum, and then if they want to go there and look at all this junk. LEDs are the near future, if not the present!

Inductive excitation light sources in the USSR were mass-produced in the 60s of the last century!
Since 1970, I have been using the photon ultraviolet cosmetic lamp. The light source itself is a 2 cm BULB. And next to it the RF coil of the 27.12 MHz generator. At MELZ they could not find the ends to restore this technology. Even there is no CD product mass-produced for many years. Compared to the Chinese UV crafts of the present, the efficiency is much higher. Although the lamp circuit is outdated a long time ago.

Prior to this article, I knew absolutely nothing about such lamps, I did not even hear!

You know colleagues, but I think that the future is not even for LEDs, this is also the last century. The future, for something new, maybe even not yet open, will be like a plasma lamp or a vortex, and if you recall Tesla, they’ll come up with some kind of ion ...  

Very useful information, only the presence of vol. fields.

If a clumsy lamp manufacturer, then yes compatibility problems are quite possible, because The Chinese like to take tests (samples of excellent quality and the series are slag), but at the moment there are already several large manufacturers who sell these lamps around the world. Personally, I really like these lamps, DRL and DNAT tear, and the LED (powerful and high-quality) is very expensive!

I believe that induction light sources are just what you need today. The characteristics of such sources are impressive. Excellent Lm / W ratio, almost no color distortion, a lifespan of 150,000 hours (this is somewhere around 30-35 years), the possibility of using them for street lighting, as the temperature range of the environment is not an obstacle for them, excellent quality of light - this is what is needed to maximize the satisfaction of needs in such a thing as lighting! The only question: "Will the generator withstand such a long service life?" But, it seems that this problem is solvable. However, until some gentlemen (especially the red ones) who swallowed up a lot of money (ours, mind you!) In the topic of LEDs and continue to fool our brains with this, do not "take away" their loot, the topic of induction lighting in Russia will be inserted huge sticks in the wheels. And it’s clear where the problem of lighting is heading in our country. However, I would like to believe that the rational will win!

Induction lamps are a very interesting light source, but still it will be difficult to compete with LED light sources, LED lamps have wider application, and production options are much more flexible and practically depend only on imagination.

The conclusion is that there is nothing more economical and harmless "Ilyich's bulb". These are all the machinations of the "imperialists"))) A high-quality incandescent lamp is what we need !!! I already went crazy about it and put only ordinary bulbs at home. For public places and large workshops, of course, this can and will do.

If you look at the article, then the induction lamp is not bad and practical, but I've never seen it on sale.

Perhaps I agree with Jean 12r. incandescent lamp and 700-1000r. induction and where is the guarantee that it will work for 18 or at least 5 years, and besides V.Ch. radiation, which in a modern environment is at least a dime a dozen.

Read. Pretty interesting. It is very pleasing that induction lamps can compete normally with other modern well-advertised light sources. Anyway, induction lamps are something new, although they wrote in the comments that they used to be, but I have never seen such lamps. Interestingly, they can be found on sale? Now there would be some kind of variety and alternative, and then around they write only about LED lighting. And I do not like the same LED lamps. Well, I don’t see the future in them and that’s it. And in general, everyone around them took up too zealously. Obviously, something is not clean here. In general, I am for the development of technology and the introduction of such induction lamps in lighting.

Very interesting technology and in my opinion promising. I didn’t even hear it before ...
I was interested in the question about dimming. The article says that you can dim with a regular dimmer .. is this really so? and how then to dim the lamps with the built-in ballast ... after all, in theory it is better to embed a dimmer between the ballast and the lamp ...

Sometimes, sometimes we don’t see beyond our nose (red comrades put their hand in it). Since we are talking about energy-saving technologies - why reinvent the wheel? What LEDs, what induction lamps - how many years will it take for them to naturally displace metal hybrid and metal halide? Light from the extremes is well studied and applied everywhere (Europe, Asia, America). Give an example of at least one stadium lit by induction lamps or LEDs.

And you can save up to 40% on simple and well-proven MGL and DNAT, in addition, the resource can be increased almost twofold!

The link went crookedly.

I heard about such lamps for a long time, but there was no information on frequencies ... But such a question: if you use a tube from a simple fluorescent lamp, it doesn’t matter, traditional or CFL, and hang an inductor on it ... Even in theory, you can use b / at the receiver. What kind of luminous flux will this design have?

Interesting information. The fact that the development is old is okay. We need efficiency, not novelty for the sake of novelty. Most likely, LEDs will win in the future, but for now it’s worth using what is ECONOMIC, i.e. gives a greater effect at a lower price.

Fluorescent lamps can have a dozen times greater resource at the same price, or slightly higher. See the article "Eternal lamp":

There is no alternative to LEDs yet. In them, electricity is directly converted into light. This is a key point. The fewer energy conversions, the higher the efficiency. As for induction lamps, so, IMHO, a very suspicious thing. Disputes over the harmfulness of cell phones have not yet subsided, and their power is typically 0.3 watts, and here - as much as 20 watts, and if there are several light bulbs? ... Yes, and we use the phone occasionally ...

Induction lamps are a great topic, very promising. The control unit is too big and expensive.

In the descriptions of the vaunted induction lamp, the presence of RF radiation is not indicated anywhere. However, everyone knows that this radiation adversely affects human health !!! Where there are coils, there is always radiation.For street lighting, you can still allow the use of induction lamps, but in everyday life - definitely NO! So far, there is no alternative to LED lighting in everyday life and the RF field from pulse converters is much lower than that of induction ones ... so, decide for yourself whether or not to have induction lamps at home as light sources.

I will tell you as it is. I have been engaged in the sale of all energy-saving light sources for 4 years.

The advantages of induction lamps are clearly exaggerated. Mainly in the description of the so-called "photopic" light. It is photopic, not photographic.

The fact is that certified light metering devices wanted to spit on the "photopic" light, so you have to catch the light on the device, and then the savings in consumption compared to DNaT lamps become completely not noticeable. And by sight, the difference between "scotopic and photopic" light is not so great. An 80W lamp produces about 6200 Lm in scotopic light, and no more than 8500 Lm in photopic light. The fact that the objectivity of the assessment is affected is the difference in the color rendering and color temperature of the lamp in comparison with DNaT. We see a part of the road or room in yellow light and white, therefore we evaluate that white is brighter or more pleasant. But this is a lamp, and its design implies reflection from the reflector and the passage of light through the glass. The total loss of luminous flux is from 15 to 30%.

The service life, yes, it is high, but the guarantee is implied on the lamp, and not on the HF, and from experience it quite often burns out. Then the question is, if the savings in comparison with DNaT are mostly due to lack of maintenance (although a good DNaT works from 3 to 5 years), then replacing the HF complicates this payback, but the low cost of the luminaire based on an induction lamp in any case leaves real chances return on investment in about 1.5 years.

In turn, we rely on LEDs. Lamps from the manufacturer we selected 4 years ago during this time had single complaints. Efficiency is 90-100 lm / W. The cost in comparison with induction lamps today is only 2 times higher, and the warranty is 3 years. Real payback on average 1.8 years. At the same time I set and forget. (I say this as a seller, for me this is the most important factor. I sold it, I got my profit and they don’t bother me anymore).

In turn, microwave lamps (plasma) are more efficient, reliable and promising in comparison with induction lamps.

In some cases, it is more efficient to use luminaires based on T5 fluorescent lamps with highly efficient ballasts that increase the service life by 50% or can increase the luminous flux by 25% or extend the operating temperature.

Each case is unique and there is no panacea.

Regarding induction lamps with a base E27 and E14. Their purchase is generally not advisable. Large size compared to energy savers. The highest cost. Reliability similar to energy savers. For the money, you can buy a good LED lamp. Although, while I do not advise, it is too early to implement them in everyday life. With the exception of spots.

About induction lamps, there is little practical information, mainly from advertisers, I would like to know the opinion of the one who services these lamps. And if you believe the advertisement, I hung such an induction lamp, and for ten years you may not be suitable.

I like the current "energy saving", but they often die. The reason is the degradation of the electrodes. Induction lamp in this regard is a completely different matter. The service life is limited by the degradation of the phosphor, and this is tens of years. Electronics inside does not count, because easy to repair. With the high price of the lamp, this is a very cost-effective occupation, especially since the price of electronic components is a penny.
An important advantage of such lamps over LEDs is the spectrum.Of course, both technologies are inferior to an incandescent lamp: there the width of the spectrum is maximum. In second place is the luminescence (read - our energy saving). And not a single LED will give you a wider spectrum than the frequency at which the atoms of the semiconductor transition emit. Such lighting is not very comfortable.
As for the radiation of the generator-inductor, it is clearly said: there are two options. The first is the inductor inside the lamp, the frequency is Megahertz, and this is bad, because electromagnetic radiation is not only sufficiently high-frequency, but also not limited in space. Another thing is an external inductor, where the frequency is lower (only a hundred kilohertz, as in conventional energy saving), and the electromagnetic field is concentrated inside the ferrite core - the ring. In short - a conventional transformer, which is unmeasured in any electronic device. For example, on the TV.
Z.Y. It is a pity that the design of traditional electrode energy-saving devices does not allow them to be converted into induction ones (a closed loop-flask is required), otherwise I would have been engaged in the skillful hands circle for a long time.

Well, firstly, the degradation of crystals in LED lamps will only be cheap and low-quality due to excessive current and voltage supply ... and improperly designed and made from consumer goods from China.

Secondly - in induction lamps the same problems as in mercury or luminescent .... the presence of harmful substances, due to gas compression in the cold, a poor start. Low vibration resistance in contrast to the same LEDs ......

Better overall luminescent conventional but also not AH. But the ice still lose however.

1) Cost: Chinese consumer goods costs 40 euros per pack of ten 7W 700Lm lamps for the E27 base. With such a price, one can also afford the “degradation” of crystals. Moreover, in China even better lamps can be found at a fairly affordable price - you can always find a price-quality balance. High-quality lamps, as noted in the comments, do not degrade.

2) I do not believe in the uniformity of the spectrum. Gas discharge lamps never gave uniform coverage of the color space. If the difference is valid only in the absence of electrons, then the statement is incorrect.

I would like to see a "picture" on the spectrum of the glow for induction lamps.

LEDs give light that is initially closer to incandescent light that is more comfortable for the eye. Only a narrow band in the “blue region” of the spectrum “rolls over”; in expensive lamps, it is filtered by a glass with spraying.

3) In terms of compactness, neither fluorescent nor discharge lamps can still be compared with conventional halogens or LEDs. T.ch. in production facilities, maybe you can put up with them, but you’ll put houses far from everywhere.

4) Again, at home, where the lamps turn on and off more often than once a month, a long time to reach the nominal mode characteristic of gas discharge lamps is not comfortable, especially when used in the bathroom, in the kitchen, in the corridor.

Frosts of more than thirty showed to many that low-pressure lamps cannot be placed on the street - despite all the advertising, the light will be mosquito.

One still needs to recall physics sometimes - the freezing point of mercury is about -40 centigrade.

Induction lamps do not contain pure mercury, in pairs only a small amalgam ball.
But the rest is the basic rule: there are no universal solutions and technologies.
For the home, of course, induction lamps are not an option. But for industrial applications, it is quite an effective solution both in economics and in quality. Especially for critical lighting quality rooms. Although, of course, not the only one. The uniformity of the glow, the absence of a stroboscopic effect is very important (still 160kHz is better than 50Hz).
The size of the light source is also important. Here, very often a large lamp size is a plus, becausepowerful point sources of light (LED) are very poorly perceived by the eye.
And if the temperature is high in the room, then for LEDs it is generally "very difficult operating conditions." I hope it’s not a secret here that the main problem of LED lamps (especially more powerful than 80-100W) is heat dissipation and heat dissipation.
If anyone is interested in information on induction lamps - contact the post office.

I wonder why drag in energy-saving.

And a couple of perplexed exclamations, so as not to litter the ether greatly:

1. The cost of 8 W of diode is equal to the cost of 20 W of induction, even lower, and consumption is lower.

2. The service life is comparable now, the life of LED lamps is from 50,000 to 100,000 hours

3. Why did they get that the induction lamp has more natural light than LED.

Where did the payback period of a LED lamp come from? If you are engaged in the sale of induction lamps, you do not need to defame the LED. Industrial lighting with LED lamps will be much cheaper and more economical with approximately equal service life.

I want to reassure those who were scared by the presence of an RF generator in an induction lamp))

At the frequencies used (maximum, medium waves are 100-200m wavelength), radiation losses with such a miniature emitter are extremely small + the presence of noise-protective elements in the design of the lamp and (or) lamp. But with a mobile phone, the picture is RADICALLY different - a rather powerful microwave source with an effective (as much as possible!) Emitter, and VERY close to the brain! With all the ensuing consequences ... True, manufacturers and mobile operators are trying in every way to reassure the public and, alas, they succeed ...

Well, to be honest, these mobile phones are all the same comfortable!))) Although they are really dangerous ...

Now I’m looking for an economy. light sources for a garage of 450 squares. Chinese induction lamp 50W 3500Lm E40 110-265V from the manufacturer on the site costs $ 130, 23W-1840Lm ($ 290, but for a dozen), 300W-24000Lm ($ 176, but an unknown seller. There is a great risk.). 30W LED floodlight with CREE 3600Lm - 379 UAH. ($ 46). Moreover, in Ukraine. Own assembly with electronic ballasts in the floodlight DNaT-150W (16000Lm) will cost about 600-800 UAH (less than $ 100). I do not find the advantages of induction, although I want to buy and touch. But expensive.

Induction lamps were installed in Odessa and Illichivsk. Everything is fine. Work for now. Put around the perimeter in Odessa shopping center "Riviera". Street Ilyichevsk.
If you have questions, write. I will be glad to answer and show (but only Ukraine).

artur_zver85,
"There will be no theater, no cinema, no circus - only television" (C) Rudik, Moscow does not believe in tears

Yes, damn it, is it difficult for you to draw something, how this lamp is depicted on the plans ?! I already went through a bunch of sites, and wherever there is no designation of INDUCTION LAMPS! I have a graduation project, but the teacher for evil does not want to give how it is drawn and in what sizes -_-... gave examples, nothing suits him ... SO WHERE IS THIS GUEST DESIGNATION ??? !!!

Induction lamp is the same fluorescent lamp is only an induction acceleration method. over the years, it, like the fluorescent lamp, dims and burns dimly at lower ambient temperatures. A fluorescent lamp serves well for 5-6 years, and with diminished brightness and up to 20 years, individual copies serve, but some manufacturers of such lamps have a service life of no more than a year.

Now I am faced with a choice at the plant, it is planned to switch from DRL lamps to the more effective cost of an induction lamp with a 150W lamp is 10500t.r. The cost of an LED lamp is 108 LEDs - 128W 14500t.r.(both lamps correspond approximately to DRL 400) According to calculations, we need approximately 70 lamps in total, we get the cost of LEDs totaling 280t.r. more energy savings 1.5kW / h round-the-clock production. And the question is what is more profitable? Who faced this product in the work can tell me advise.

Which is better - that the argument is less economically meaningless. For each specific case, we use our own lamp with its own lamp. And it’s good that they exist and there should be a choice starting from incandescent lamps with all modifications with halogen additives, as well as a large selection of power. Their main advantage is low cost and safety. Next, metal halide lamps fill their niche - as long as they have no equal in luminosity. Low-pressure mercury lamps, the so-called energy-saving, with them, we all lose sight. the lamps are dim, expensive. Beneficial to manufacturers and traders. LED lamps are good, but until there is a breakthrough in the technology of manufacturing P-N junctions - they remain expensive and this can go on for a very long time. Induction lamps - the light of a cold plasma. The future lies with this principle of lighting. Lighting of cities, squares, parks, factories. The efficiency of converting electric current to light to 100% is real (more than that of LED lamps)

With the favorable development of microelectronics and its reliability, it is realistic to get a lamp in 1,000,000 hours of continuous burning! There is no alternative to any known light production method today. What industry offers today is the beginning of a revolutionary breakthrough in lighting!

When you are calculating a certain average overall “efficiency” of the lamp in all respects - Do not forget to add the price of processing and disposal to the purchase price.

So, everyone knows that the cost of utilization of the luminescent "energy saving" exceeds the cost of its purchase. And of course, none of us has been delivering them to the lamp yet, but simply throwing it in the bin, where the lamp breaks and the whole carcinogenic suspension of heavy metals appears in the air. But if you oblige people to hand over such lamps for recycling, then everyone will quickly refuse them.

So all the "gas-filled" lamps with their flickering, freezing, etc. - these are continuous problems (for life and for pockets). Unless we are talking about inert gases, as is the case with halogens or xenon. Yes, and they probably add some rubbish ...

It is necessary to squeeze out such technologies from the MASS sector of consumption!

Individually, somewhere in an industrial facility as part of the equipment - yes, but in each apartment 10 pieces - no ...

In this sense, LEDs are much more promising - they work quietly and clearly, do not emit anything, and they die quietly. It is necessary to improve the technology of their manufacture, so that they work for 20 years. But this is not profitable for manufacturers :)

Michael, induction lamps are the very ones that Tesla demonstrated

Forgive me for my snobbery, but having put in LED lighting today, I was convinced that in interior lighting, LEDs are lighting for the poor or for common areas.

Yes, and expensive, which people buy voluntarily and with a song - like that cat from a joke.

A lot of flaws - koeff. color renditions do not even bother to declare (high there is not even in elite copies), natural roulette with degradation and overheating.

A bunch of obsessed profane who do not understand what they are saying is either "revolution" or "high-quality LEDs do not degrade." Just think - a young revolutionary has come and canceled the degradation of a semiconductor - in general, that is, completely.

The lamps are interesting, but I did not like the article. It was written by a person far from technology."High efficiency 0.9 (0.9-0.95 for LEDs);" - I wonder where the LEDs with such efficiency, really about 50%.

"High color rendering index Ra> 80, that is, comfortable, soft light, pleasant to the eyes, which can not be said about LEDs;" - the color rendering index depends on the phosphor used, which is in the lamp and in the LED. There are also LEDs with CRI> 80.

Points 5, 9, 10, 12, 14 in the merits of induction lamps over LEDs are also invented.

Andrew, we’ll talk in a year, when the conders in the generator circuit are covered. They can’t stand it for more than two or three years. And to change them, oh how expensive - how much does it cost to lift one tower? And the work is above and in bad conditions, and everything breaks down in bad ones ... All the savings go to a goat in a famous place. You need such a lamp to set and forget at least five to six years. Then in real life and the energy service contract can be muddied. And, as they usually say in such cases, we have them .. These are LEDs. Esicho, I can advise where there is no expensive and WITHOUT Conder, and even with protection against icicles, overheating and overvoltage (up to 1.5 kV it works independently and also turns on when the overload has passed). 72 W, 7500 Lm, 7200 rub. There are conclusions of the traffic police. The guarantee is 5 years, but it will last much longer, just made 5 years ago and there are no statistics.

Uv.friends. You have seen prices for induction! The average price is more than $ 150. And whoever had them will say that if you remove verbal tinsel and propaganda, then ordinary energy savers (not Chinese) are no worse and cost 12-15 times less. In addition, savings can be modified by feeding 2 to 10 kilovolts to the ends and they turn into induction and the service life is really limited by the phosphor. But apparently long-term lamps are not profitable to manufacturers !!! Or maybe this is the next step of energy saving. And advertising induction, and at such prices, it’s shit in chocolate paper - pure water bred for the collective farmer. Accustomed to selling cheap goods ten times more expensive than this. cost. After all, the cost of induction is lower than saving lamps by 30-50 percent !!!

"8. A high color rendering index Ra> 80, that is, comfortable, soft light, pleasing to the eyes, which can not be said about LEDs" - not a completely correct statement. LEDs are precisely those light sources in which you can optionally select any desired color temperature in the entire range of the required radiation - from infrared, through the entire visible spectrum, to ultraviolet. That is, what color you need, that one can be used. What no alternative light source has. And in luminescent shades, once or twice, it was counted off, and there is still harmful UV radiation ...

"12. The low content of solid state mercury is several times higher than that of conventional fluorescent lamps." - A very entertaining advantage over LED lamps, in which in principle there is no mercury and generally harmful substances ...

''thirteen. The average payback period of such lamps at an enterprise operating in two shifts of about 1.5 years for LED lamps is 5 years. "- it’s difficult to object here without certain figures of cost and energy consumption during operation, but I can only add that it’s expensive only at the beginning, any technology becomes cheaper over time, especially since it has competition in the form of alternative technology, for example, a 100w LED now costs less than 300 rubles, and not so long ago its cost was estimated at more than one thousand rubles ...

Yes, these lamps only for industrial facilities. If we compare the LED lamp at 300 watts and induction at 300 watts, then induction is much cheaper. And if we talk about small power up to 100 watts, then LEDs are certainly cheaper and better (in terms of light output), because in induction, the higher the power, the higher lm \ W, and for LEDs this indicator is stably high at any power.

Induction lamp full - huh, sorry for the expression. In Krasnodar, on one of the streets they put such, a week later they took off, because due to the high magnetic field, the connection of the police radios was completely jammed. like that ... and it's really proven!

Complete nonsense! The degradation of luminescent llamas occurs due to changes in the properties of the phosphor, but not in any way due to electrodes, etc., cases of damage to flasks in the near-electrode space due to overheating, etc. units, much more often the reason is in crooked connectors and crooked hands. As for the LEDs ... the author of the article is absolutely superficially familiar with this technology and most likely had the opportunity to communicate only with the Chinese cheap, but in the high-quality products everything is in order with the heat sink and heat dissipation, therefore they will last exactly as much that you already forget by the end term when set. And the author’s information ... dimmable LED lamps operating from a conventional PWM dimmer for incandescent lamps have long been available and cost about 400 rubles for 7 watts in an E14 cartridge, by the way, the same E14 induction at 20 watts is not even near the brightness and quality of light .

A funny article, but in this article the main minus is that it is not relevant. LED lamps are their main + that they do not have mercury at all, if you drop it, it will not work at maximum, but that it is inductive, that luminescent contains mercury. And then there is the HF magnetic field, otherwise we have little radio-magnetic noise around. No, LEDs are better, new crystals, and longer the service life and price of LED lamps for 220V are not so much worth ~ 150-400r so that mercury lamps are already the last century, among other things, that induction, that contains any other mercury , must be disposed of correctly. So the author of the article does not fully own the information about what he writes.

The phosphor in these lamps has the property of "sits down." This has already passed, given a “second life” to our fluorescent lamps, when the filaments were fenced off there, connected them through the multiplication circuit, they glowed for a couple of years, gradually degrading.

Well, the mercury vapor in it, problems with disposal.

In general, the last century.

Her guys, who’s like, but I won’t exchange LEDs for anything! The main thing is because they are economical, and secondly, environmentally friendly!

Never write such articles again !!! You mislead people! Not a single reasoned statement !!!

Good day, everyone. I’m reading an article and I understand that the author did not understand either LED lighting or induction. Now I’m worried about whether it’s worthwhile to call electricians into the house, it’s better to figure it out on your own and do it qualitatively and forever. I really liked the comparison of LEDs with induction, and in some paragraphs we compare induction with fluorescent.
Nothing is said about the pros of LEDs. The article is “on order”, of some manufacturer, apparently. We humiliate one, promote another. Let's write articles with healthy competition next time. Without humiliating the dignity of one. And by the way, LEDs have a payback period of 1.5 years. I searched the entire Internet. So don’t belittle. And I agree with Lech. they didn’t write anything about mercury vapors at all, but also about how mercury vapors act on a person and that they are not excreted, but you can save on light and destroy health that you can’t buy. So you need to save wisely.

All this is junk, induction lamps are not profitable because of their price, LED lamps are the most reliable and economical source of energy, if you buy high-quality lamps from well-known companies, then the durability will be over 100,000 hours. At my place, the LED lamp has been on for three years and has never had any problems, and it cost 600 rubles. So all these induction lamps are banal marketing, the future is with semiconductors !!!

What do neither the article nor the comments have a date?
It is not known in what era he fell.
White LEDs 3-6 pcs can work from 12-24V through a resistor, without interference and electrolytic capacitors nearby.
Induction is not available.

What years is all this text? LED lamps are almost like fluorescent ones, against this background it is simply economically unprofitable to buy induction for a thousand rubles (10 times more expensive than LEDs), they simply never pay off (even with 3 shifts). The author also forgot about additional costs for storage and disposal of luminescent fluids due to the content of mercury vapor, and an LED-piece of plastic that does not require such honors.

Are you serious about efficiency? On the Internet they sell an induction bulb in the E27 base for 15 watts with a luminous flux of 750 lumens. An honest LED with such power will give out 1200 Lm. With all this, the price of a light bulb is 2200 rubles. What is the benefit of such lamps is not clear.