Realizing benefits of electronic ballast on MH lighting?

[vthartford]

Has anyone run both magnetic and electronic ballast on a metal halide system to see if the benefits are really there? I know the supposed benefits are ballast run coller, lights last longer, less energy, but has anyone done the comparison and is it worth the extra money?

Thanks in advance,
Bill

 

[Anonymous]

Well the cooler thing probably isn't a monitary thing as your ballast can stay as far away from the tank as the cord allows (ie it won't heat your tank up significantly). Lasting longer lights, perhaps. Less energy? definately.

A 175watt magnetic ballast typically uses in the neighborhood of 210watts, were as a blueline electronic ballast will use 174watts. So there's a difference of 34 watts, now if you run the bulbs 10 hours a day, and your electric company charges you 10 cents per kilowatt hour. That's about 12.40 cents a year, per bulb, the savings go up slightly with wattage but its not a significant savings. If the e-ballast costs $50 more than the m-ballast, you'll break even in about 4 years, then start saving.

 

[coralfarmin]

some say the bulbs run brighter as well

 

[coastal]

Yes they seem to be better .I have 220volt 400 watt de and the light are supper bright. When put beside a normal 400 watt mogule base the diff is way obvious. The ballast burns cooler than tar ballast and take alot less space

 

[qwiksilver]

Wether or not a de 400 is brighter than a 400 se isn't the delimma. You could only compare an electronic de 400 to a magnetic 400 de. To really know you would have to use the same bulb, allow it time to warm up, take a lumen output reading, turn it off, use the same exact setup, switch ballasts and repeat the procedure for the other ballast. Only then will you really know. Now, I have seen both ballasts run side by side with the same bulbs wattage/kelvin and their appeared to be no difference. The biggest difference is supposed to be in the maintanance of the bulb, in other words the lumen output is supposed to stay more constant with the electronic. Does it? I don't know.

 

[ChrisRD]

IMO whether you go with electronic vs. magnetic halide ballasts mostly depends on what your priorities are. So far, I've never seen any actual data to show that illumination levels are more consistent throughout the life of the lamp, or that lamps last longer with electronic halide ballasts. Not to say it couldn't happen - I've just never seen evidence of this, personally (keep in mind that manufacturers make lots of claims to sell their products :wink: ).

I don't think anyone would argue that electronic ballasts are smaller, lighter, use less power and run cooler. One thing to consider, however, is that magnetic ballasts will actually run many lamps more efficiently. Yes, they do consume more power, but often they produce an even greater increase in light output from the lamp (ie. more light produced for the power you're using = more efficient).

Check out Sanjay Joshi's lighting page:
http://www.reeflightinginfo.arvixe.com/

You can compare different lamp/ballast combinations that you're considering to see how they perform. Might help you make a decision. If light output and efficiency is your main concern, there are many instances where magnetics are actually better.

 

[Entacmaea]

I second what Chris says about efficiency, and what your priorities are. Most tar ballasts draw more power, but also run bulbs brighter (higher par) then their electronic brothers- so a tar balast and bulb can actually be more bang for your lighting buck. But, as mentioned, I don't think there is conclusive data either way whether overdriving the bulbs in this way shortens their life, or shifts their spectrum in any way. That would be a good study- albeit one over a couple years to get useful data!

 

[qwiksilver]

But if tar ballasts (magnetic ballasts) came out first (which they did), then is it that they OVERDRIVE a bulb, or that the electronic underdrives it. So, if the bulb lasts longer with an electronic, than wouldn't it just be that the electronic can LENGTHEN the life of the bulb, and not that the magnetic shortens it, since that was the way the bulbs were originally developed to be run on? I agree that there is not evidence out there to support the claims of electronics in terms of lumen maintanance, and I am a mag ballast supporter. The true reason for the development of electronic ballasts was not for the aquarium industry, but for businesses that use a large number of lights at once, thereby overall reducing their lighting costs. One, two, or even three electronic ballasts are not enough to pay for themselves or make it worthwhile IMO.

 

[coralfarmin]

Quick silver,When a bulb is "overdrivin" it is usally on a 430 watt Son Agro HPS(high pressure sodium), I would assume that the bulb life would be less on these so called HQI ballasts used to drive pulse start bulbs

but in the case of a 400 Iwasaki a tar type mercury vapor ballast is assumed the best for this bulb I quess

far as electronic's overdriving I'd not know without data sheets for each ballast, ballast such as some of IceCap's are tuned and tunable to specific bulb spec's like OCV etc, I think that most electronics are assumed to run the bulb brighter than magnetics because the actual ballast runs cooler and can get more rated power to the bulb when comparing probe start bulbs ,pulse starts like Radiums on so called HQI's are overdrivin point blank

 

[coralfarmin]

oh pulse start bulbs like Radiums were NOT designd for so called HQI ballasts

 

[qwiksilver]

So then, if a certain ballast is designed for a certain bulb (ie MH for MH, M59 for 400w, etc) then it won't overdrive it. Of coarse a ballast will overdrive a bulb if you put the wrong bulb on it (ie Single ended bulb on a de ballast , HQI as it were). That would be like trying to run a 100W, 120v lightbulb on 208volts. Chances are high you will blow the bulb... if not for sure. I think we might be trying to say the same thing here?

 

[ChrisRD]

I think that most electronics are assumed to run the bulb brighter than magnetics because the actual ballast runs cooler and can get more rated power to the bulb when comparing probe start bulbs

I think if you check some of the published data (check Sanjay's site, and also check Joe Burger's site) you'll find that theory doesn't hold up well. There are many instances where magnetics perform better.

That said, I really think it's tough to generalize about this stuff. IMO you really need to look at the data for the particular lamp/ballast combinations you're interested in to get an accurate idea of what to expect.

 

[ChrisRD]

But if tar ballasts (magnetic ballasts) came out first (which they did), then is it that they OVERDRIVE a bulb, or that the electronic underdrives it.

In the case of many DE lamps for example, that is just the case. They are not being "overdriven" by an "HQI" ballast. That is the ballast they're designed to be used with. They're being underdriven on the electronic ballast.

 

[coralfarmin]

I disagree Chris, a 400 watt HQI is usally just a hydroponic 430 watt Son Agro HPS, this is "NOT" the ballast designed for the 400 watt Radium or any other HQI,it(400 Radium) was designed for a 360 watt euro mercury if my memory serves me correct,they are closer to spec on a ANSI M-135, a 400 watt Ushio 10k would be closer to spec on a 400 HPS then a so called HQI 400 you have to look at the ocv etc etc,note I said "assumed" on the quote about electronics,how can you say they overdrive as a generalized statement,alot of IceCaps are specificly tuned to the bulb they were designed for,far as generalizing any other electronics its hard to say without each ballasts "spec" sheet

all just IMO

 

[coralfarmin]

I've never used or looked at the lower wattage DE bulbs specs so cant comment on those ballasts or the new 400 de

 

[ChrisRD]

I disagree Chris, a 400 watt HQI is usally just a hydroponic 430 watt Son Agro HPS, this is "NOT" the ballast designed for the 400 watt Radium

I agree with that statement, so I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with. :wink:

a 400 watt Ushio 10k would be closer to spec on a 400 HPS then a so called HQI 400

Maybe so, but again, I'm not arguing this point. The discussion was regarding pros/cons of electronic vs. magnetic halide ballasts.

I said "assumed" on the quote about electronics

I understand, and I'm just saying the data that's out there right now doesn't seem to support the theory that electronic ballasts usually run the lamps brighter. Don't take my word for it - check it out.

how can you say they overdrive as a generalized statement,alot of IceCaps are specificly tuned to the bulb they were designed for

Again, I'm not sure we're understanding each other. I never stated that electronics overdrive the lamps. As for the IceCaps being specifically tuned for a particular lamp, I think you're thinking of the older models. The modern electronic ballasts run pretty much any lamp - no tuning required.

 

[coralfarmin]

In the case of many DE lamps for example, that is just the case. They are not being "overdriven" by an "HQI" ballast. That is the ballast they're designed to be used with. They're being underdriven on the electronic ballast.[/quote]

Sorry I totaly misread your statments,you were refering to "some DE HQI's",............
I also misread the statment on electronics,I read "underdrivn as overdrivin.
I sometimes have to read and type in a hurry when my little girl is around she likes to type as well

but I dont understand how you would think a 400 electronic blueline underdrives a Radium,it looks like its on a 430 Son Agro on this ballast,unless you are just refering to DE lamps,I would'nt know without viewing each bulb and ballast specs first

 

[ChrisRD]

Sorry I totaly misread your statments

Heh, no problem - we all do it from time to time. :wink:

but I dont understand how you would think a 400 electronic blueline underdrives a Radium,it looks like its on a 430 Son Agro on this ballast,unless you are just refering to DE lamps,I would'nt know without viewing each bulb and ballast specs first

Again, I'm not arguing that. I am in no way trying to say that magnetics are always going to give you better output. I was just trying to point out that in many cases, magnetics do provide better lamp output, and sometimes even more efficiency. A lot of people seem to have misconceptions about the performance of electronic halide ballasts. The most common seems to be that because they generally use less power, they're thought-of as being more efficient. Not always the case...

 

[coastal]

coastal here ,I like electronic ballast for alot of reasons and dont care what studies are out there it all comes down to a tank full of electronic ballast grown coral that will soon be in a state of the art green house with only supplimental halide lights and oh yea electronic 220 volt 400 watt de's so put that in your pipe and smoke it

 

[coralfarmin]

I really wish the "expert" (IMO)would start posting over here at RO, he has WAY more knowldge than the "assumed" experts and the rest combined IMO

His name is PaulErick at RC he knows his stuff, Im sure he could shed some light on this topic,mabey I'll email him and see if he'll join,but if you have "ANY" questions about anything related to lighting components and proper ballast bulb combos, he always seems glad to help and you can take what he says as the GOSPEL