Anyone done side by sides digital/magnetic ballasts

[overmyhead]

Hello all, has anyone actually done side by sides in terms of light output and power usage? I've been using a quantum 600 for a year now and really like it but I don't have anything to compare it to. Thinking about getting a 1000 and wanted to know if it was worth it or smart to get another digital. Thanks!

 

[etinarcadiaego]

Hello all, has anyone actually done side by sides in terms of light output and power usage? I've been using a quantum 600 for a year now and really like it but I don't have anything to compare it to. Thinking about getting a 1000 and wanted to know if it was worth it or smart to get another digital. Thanks!

I wish I could find the thread, maybe I can if I search a bit, but yes I've seen a side by side with light-output that proved that electronic ballasts emit about 10% more light than magnetics.

This was maybe in November of '09 or maybe a little earlier, I'll try to find it.

 

[overmyhead]

Thanks, yeah, I searched too but a new thread might be good because when the technology is changing so fast some of the old info might be outdated. So, maye I should ask for folks to tell us when they bought theirs'.

 

[etinarcadiaego]

Well so far I've found 2, one that supports what I said, one that contradicts it:

SUPPORT:

No, if there is a savings on power it is minimal.

My magnetics were so crap they used about 570w on a watt meter, the lumatek 600w uses about 640.
Magnetic light meter test approx. 90
Lumatek approx. 130
Same bulb, exact same distance to light meter.

DOES NOT SUPPORT:

There has been a lot of talk lately about electronic ballasts vs magnetic ballasts. There are the known pros/cons that everyone can agree on.

Pros
~ 99% efficient
~ weight of the ballast
~ Heat the ballast puts out
~ silent

Cons
~ Cost
~ Warranty is not as long
~ Compatibility with some bulbs

But what I wanted to find out is if electronic ballasts burned the bulb brighter, I have heard that a 600w electronic burn brighter than regular ballasts and will come close to a 1000w magnetic.

So what better way to try to see if thats correct than to test it out myself. This test is in no way meant to be scientific or even accurate. I did try to make the test fair and equal to all ballasts, I let the lamp burn for 20 mins and then I took my measurement. Then I let the bulb cool off for 30 mins then I tested another ballast. I then repeated the test to see if the numbers stayed the same or if they changed.

Here is what I am using

Digital light meter from hydrofarm that measures foot candles and is set up so you times the number is shows by 100 to get the result

Example 17.1 x 100 = 1710

600w Hortilux Super HPS brand new
600w Galaxy electronic ballast
600w Sunlight Gro Pro magnetic ballast
600w Future Brite electronic ballast
600w Lumatek electronic ballast
Hydrofarn Daystar reflector
1000w Sunsystem 6 HPS/MH ballast

I have the light meter sitting on a 55 gallon drum, and the distance from the meter to the bulb is 34", so all my readings will be from the same distance .

Galaxy attempt 1 = 1710 on the meter
Galaxy attempt 2 = 1730 on the meter
Gro Pro attempt 1 = 1890 on the meter
Gro Pro attempt 2 = 1880 on the meter
Future Brite attempt 1 = 1710 on the meter
Future Brite attempt 2 = 1760 on the meter
Lumatek attempt 1 = 1850 on the meter
Lumatek attempt 2 = 1820 on the meter

Sunsystem 6 1000w = 3040 on the meter

Well this little experiment opened my eyes, for one I thought the 600's would be a lot closer to the 1000's than they were, and I also thought the electronic ballasts would perform the same if not better than the magnetics. The Lumatek was the only one that came close to the magnetic. so now I really want to try out a Lumatek 750 and see how that performs.

Like I said before this is not meant to be a scientific or even accurate test, just something that has been sitting in the back of my mind. Take the info and do what you will with it, if there are any questions, I can try to answer them to the best of my ability. From the research that I did the foot candle on the meter is the same as lumens, I may be wrong and if so please let me know the proper way to convert foot candles to lumens so I know for future reference.

 

[Pinball Wizard]

...http://www.eyehortilux.com/EYELU600.pdf

 

[humble1]

in terms of efficiency the 600W digi vs mag is much better than the 1000W digi vs mag.
100W digis use almost the same amps and deliver just slightly more light, but cost another 200+ dollars a piece than the mags. if ya got the dosh, do it. if not..... ehhhhhh....

 

[T-type]

I own a 600 digi and magnetic, but I love my digi and hate my magnetic.

I don't know which one puts out more light, but I do know which one is lighter, cooler, smaller and quieter.

I used to have to move my mag ballasts in a rubbermaid crate with two in it and could barely carry it. I could fill a rubbermaid with like 10 digis and still be able to carry it.

One thing I do notice is at lights on the digi's get to max light faster, but they flicker blue for a while. The mag ballast doesn't ever flicker to blue. I am using hortilux eye hps bulbs.

While this might not mean anything, it seems that the digi's are a little harder on the bulb at startup at least.

Of course this is just observation backed by no scientific reasoning or evidence whatsoever.

 

[foomar]

Ran a quality magnetic 600 alongside a BAL 600 digital and saw little quantifiable difference in the finished crops.

The primary reason for going digital for me was the superior way they handle voltage drops and blackouts in a rural area with an unreliable and ageing infrastructure.

Repeated hot restarts have killed many bulbs but the digis handle the fluctuation without damage.

Would make certain the 1000 bulb is rated for digital ballast if you get one , recently had a 600 solarburst explode in my face which is supposedly safe , a 1000 watter could only be worse.

http://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?t=163653

 

[MrShpongle]

Something the previous posts/tests don't mention is that the magnetics will lose their luster over time as their capacitors age. You'll never notice it to the naked eye, as it takes years, but eventually your magnetic ballasts will be putting out 20-40% less juice than they did when new. All depends on the quality of the caps that the manufacturer used. They can be replaced for $30 or so, but not everybody has the technical knowhow or comfort level to go ripping their ballasts apart.

As far I've heard, this is not a problem with the digital units.

One thing I haven't seen anyone quantify is the total amount of light put out over time by each type of ballast. Since the digital units bring the bulb up to full brightness much faster than a magnetic, you should get a few % more lumens to your plants over a 12-hour lighting cycle. Doesn't sound like much, but it's something.

 

[Lazyman]

Visible light in this test is kinda meaningless, but lumen meters are the only thing we can all find and afford so that's what I use.

I compared my SS mag ballasts against a Quantum digi (all 1000W, EYe Hortilux HPS bulbs, same hoods, everything the same age) and measured them at 22" from the bulb, I got exactly 10% more light with the digi. I switched to my MH bulbs and repeated the test, and again saw 10% more light with the Quantum. The HPS put out 10% more light than the MH as well.

So by switching to Quantums I gained 10% more light on the canopy, with no increased energy or cooling costs. Switching to a great reflector like a SS2 or a Magnum XXXL will probably gain you another 10-20% (the Magnum throws down 16% more light than my Xtrasun 6AC's did) so that's a 26% increase in lumens with the same amount of power!

And I don't wanna hear anyone lecturing me about PPFD or PAR watts unless they're gonna ship everyone in the thread a $1000 pyranometer, capisce? Lumen meters are $30 and the only practical reference we have, so deal with it!

 

[MrShpongle]

Agree with you completely, Lazyman. One question on your mag vs. digi test: how long were your lights on when you sampled their output? As I mentioned, the digi will give full power much faster than magnetic. I'd be curious if the 10% gain was only within 30 minutes of startup, or if it persisted for the entire time they were lit.

 

[redheadfreakin]

You can get a good par/ppf meter for $200.
I have yet to find a digi ballast that puts out a higher par/ppf level than a good mag ballast.
They are about the same.
When a digi fails post warranty, it goes in the trash.
When a mag fails post warranty, you replace a simple part.
Beware of digi ballasts with "pro-rated" warranties...

 

[Lazyman]

I had all the lights on for one hour before testing, but yes the Quantums get to full brightness about 5-10 min before the mags. So I got rid of all the mags and bought more digis:



My figures were (all 1KW 240V ballasts)

Quantum HPS 6500 lumens
SS1 Mag HPS 5500 lumens

Quantum MH 5500 lumens
SSA Mag MH 4500 lumens

So I guess over 10%, more like 14.6 on the HPS if my math is right, it might not be. Anyway, that's the only data I have but that's what it is.

 

[Lazyman]

You can get a good par/ppf meter for $200.
I have yet to find a digi ballast that puts out a higher par/ppf level than a good mag ballast.
They are about the same.
When a digi fails post warranty, it goes in the trash.
When a mag fails post warranty, you replace a simple part.
Beware of digi ballasts with "pro-rated" warranties...

Can you post a link please? Everyone tells me that to get a decent one is $1K.

 

[redheadfreakin]

http://www.specmeters.com/Light_Meters/Quantum_Light_Meter.html

 

[Lazyman]

http://www.specmeters.com/Light_Meters/Quantum_Light_Meter.html

I've looked at those, they only measure in PPF, not PPFD, and there is no converting one to the other. We need PPFD tto get accurate numbers, and they're over 3X the price. Thanks tho!

 

[redheadfreakin]

Why do you need PPFD?
Just measure PAR as umol and it is accurate.

 

[grow nerd]

in terms of efficiency the 600W digi vs mag is much better than the 1000W digi vs mag.
100W digis use almost the same amps and deliver just slightly more light, but cost another 200+ dollars a piece than the mags. if ya got the dosh, do it. if not..... ehhhhhh....

Not doubting you at all, and makes me feel a 'lil better having gone with 1k magnetics, but references would be awesome (i.e., how you came to that conclusion.)

The way I figure it, it's like, I kinda know the ballasts can pay for themselves pretty quick if they do put out a little more light, but it's really hard to fork over an extra $2-$4k when the budget is already spewing. Every time I tell myself "after harvest I will upgrade" but when harvest comes around it's really not that much of a priority anymore.

I always like to get brand new bulbs, though, I don't use 'em for more than a length of a cycle. It's always worth it if you notice how much brighter new bulbs are side-by-side, compared to even 2 month old bulbs.

I'd like to hear more about RF/EMI issues on 1kw digi's nowadays (last I heard from Lumatek, it was still an issue within 10-15ft on their 1kw's). I really like how much smaller and lighter they are, and how much easier they are to mount to a wall/panel compared to traditional cased ballasts. Anyone who has a Hydrofarm XtraSun or identical case knows what a bitch it is to hang those things... (something to do with retarded hole size, if anyone knows what I'm talking about), plus I don't feel comfortable mounting a bunch of 'em (many hundred pounds, all pulling down on a wall...)

I asked one grower what he thought, since he had a few digi's along with magnetics, and he swears that it's noticeably brighter by naked eye. I couldn't tell, 'cuz the lazy mothersucker didn't clean his glass in probably years. He says it was clean at the time of notice.

 

[humble1]

which part of what i said did you want the references for?
efficiency of digital 600W vs 1000W
or
amps for mag vs digi
or
lumens/PAR watts output for mag vs. digi

 

[grow nerd]

All of the above would be great but more specifically [output diff. of 1000w digi vs. 1000w mag.] vs [output diff. of 600w digi vs. 600w mag]