## 3 Results and Discussion
In any case, all of them are in a very narrow range of values, between 0.57 and 0.65, as can be seen in Figure 2. According to what was explained in Section 2, if the value of \(\varepsilon\) is 0.57, for every 1 VA of apparent power, 0.57 W of active power used. In other words, to obtain 100 W it is necessary to have 175 VA. That is, 75% of the energy is wasted, and in the most favorable case, the wasted energy is 54%. If this behavior found for each lamp is extrapolated to the amount of lamps of this type that are used in a country, it is clear that the supply companies must generate and distribute a much higher amount of energy than is used, so the overall system is not very efficient. Although there are other kinds of considerations to take into account for the implementation of these devices (mercury emissions, for instance), from an energy point of view they do not represent a good solution. This problem could be aggravated if, as is discussed, the cost of the poor efficiency of these lamps begins to be passed on to the end consumer, since one of the advantages of this type of lamps is, precisely, the savings they represent for the home user. If a change in legislation is proposed in the future, it is possible that the measurement of reactive and distortion power consumption for small consumers may be considered. If this happened, their consumption would be included in the bill, and the advantage of the low cost of these lamps would disappear. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline
**Lamp** & **I\({}_{\textbf{1}}\)/I\({}_{\textbf{3}}\) (\%)** & **I\({}_{\textbf{1}}\)/I\({}_{\textbf{5}}\) (\%)** & **I\({}_{\textbf{1}}\)/I\({}_{\textbf{7}}\) (\%)** & **I\({}_{\textbf{1}}\)/I\({}_{\textbf{9}}\) (\%)** \\ \hline L1 & 70.97 & 45.16 & 37.10 & 30.65 \\ L2 & 84.09 & 65.91 & 47.73 & 38.64 \\ L3 & 75.86 & 55.17 & 41.38 & 37.93 \\ L4 & 71.88 & 53.13 & 40.63 & 40.63 \\ L5 & 81.63 & 59.18 & 44.90 & 42.86 \\ C1 & 79.21 & 52.48 & 41.58 & 38.61 \\ C2 & 76.47 & 50.00 & 41.18 & 37.25 \\ C3 & 75.36 & 47.83 & 39.13 & 34.78 \\ C4 & 73.53 & 45.59 & 38.24 & 33.82 \\ C5 & 71.62 & 44.59 & 36.49 & 29.73 \\ C6 & 68.52 & 42.59 & 35.19 & 29.63 \\ C7 & 74.42 & 46.51 & 37.21 & 32.56 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 6: Harmonic currents expressed as a percentage of the fundamental current. Figure 2: Energy efficiency value calculated of each receiver. Figure 3 shows the measurements made for one of the groups made with the different lamps. These measurements are intended to evaluate whether the compensation phenomenon that can be assumed to occur between loads working on the same network occurs in these systems. Tables 7 and 8 show the measured and calculated values, respectively, for the four proposed groupings. Looking at the efficiency value, \(\varepsilon\), for the four groupings, it can be seen that in all cases the value is still quite bad, which indicates that the system is still inefficient from an energy point of view. In comparison with the results obtained for the individual lamps, the efficiency values of the of the associations is slightly higher, but the improvement is not significant enough to confirm that--contrary to the results published by [PERSON] et al. [33] who evaluated the harmonic compensation between different devices-- the distorting effect of the lamps are compensated. The overall effect on the system continues to be that of introducing distortions and requiring an excess of energy that is not used in its operation, in this case, representing between 40% and 60%. This conclusion is reinforced by seeing the comparison in the phase angle obtained for the third to ninth harmonics of the twelve individual bulbs, which is shown in Figure 4. It can be seen that the phase angles presented by the different lamps for each of the harmonics considered are very similar to each other, represented in the same quadrant of the figure. This implies that when groups of lamps work on the same network simultaneously, they do not compensate for each other.