DIMMABLE Ballast?
- Thread starter Hackk
- Start date
MrShpongle
Member
very interesting...
very interesting...
Great find, Whazzup. For those who don't speak or read science talk, let me summarize:
1) the efficiency of the Lumatek ballast at lower dimmable settings is significantly lower than at full blast, i.e. at 75% setting you're getting 57% as much light, and at the 50% setting you're getting 36% as much light. NOT a good deal.
2) On the Lumatek, at the 75% power setting you're actually getting only 66% as much power output from the ballast.
3) The Super Lumens feature only draws and puts out an extra 5% power, resulting in an extra 6-7% more light. Lumateks website claims 10%.
This doesn't even get into the issue of how a bulb running on reduced power changes it's spectral distribution (i.e. the "color" of light coming from the bulb). An underdriven bulb should throw off less blues relative to the reds, and if you're running a regular HPS in flower that's the last thing you need.
I think I'll stick to full power or Super Lumens, thank you.
very interesting...
Great find, Whazzup. For those who don't speak or read science talk, let me summarize:
1) the efficiency of the Lumatek ballast at lower dimmable settings is significantly lower than at full blast, i.e. at 75% setting you're getting 57% as much light, and at the 50% setting you're getting 36% as much light. NOT a good deal.
2) On the Lumatek, at the 75% power setting you're actually getting only 66% as much power output from the ballast.
3) The Super Lumens feature only draws and puts out an extra 5% power, resulting in an extra 6-7% more light. Lumateks website claims 10%.
This doesn't even get into the issue of how a bulb running on reduced power changes it's spectral distribution (i.e. the "color" of light coming from the bulb). An underdriven bulb should throw off less blues relative to the reds, and if you're running a regular HPS in flower that's the last thing you need.
I think I'll stick to full power or Super Lumens, thank you.
A little Background here:
You know the power ratings for PC-Power-supplies, Like 80plus bronze, silver, gold, etc? Having a good efficiency at lower than the maximum power draw is quite a challenge in switching power-supplies, which both Ballasts and computer power-supplies are. They even work in the same range from ~250-1000W. Look at the price difference between the bronze and platinum rated ones and keep in consideration that the Lumatek always stays above the platinum standard (92%), if it where a computers power supply. And there are not a lot of platinum rated power-supplies anyway.
The 75 setting is 66% and should be labeled so, but only draws the according power, too. 50 is actually 48%, I'm OK with that. I think Lumatek followed a power-draw scale, having temperature in the grow-room in mind, not so much relative light output.
Anyway, those settings are obsolete, the new Lumateks have e.g. 600, 600SL and 400, 400SL settings, which I think means in SL over-driving up to 10%.
You know the power ratings for PC-Power-supplies, Like 80plus bronze, silver, gold, etc? Having a good efficiency at lower than the maximum power draw is quite a challenge in switching power-supplies, which both Ballasts and computer power-supplies are. They even work in the same range from ~250-1000W. Look at the price difference between the bronze and platinum rated ones and keep in consideration that the Lumatek always stays above the platinum standard (92%), if it where a computers power supply. And there are not a lot of platinum rated power-supplies anyway.
The 75 setting is 66% and should be labeled so, but only draws the according power, too. 50 is actually 48%, I'm OK with that. I think Lumatek followed a power-draw scale, having temperature in the grow-room in mind, not so much relative light output.
Anyway, those settings are obsolete, the new Lumateks have e.g. 600, 600SL and 400, 400SL settings, which I think means in SL over-driving up to 10%.
Not true. System efficiency is still 93-95%, lamp efficiency is the difference.
Yes, so? It only draws 66% as well.
They claim 10% more light than magnetic ballasts as far as I know. In many cases this is completely true, given the mains voltage not being optimal.
I thought you would get more blue at lower settings. Anyways, to prevent the temperatures from reaching unworkable levels I would rather have a bit less light and conveniently switch it back to 75% or 50%. True, the micromoles per watt drop dramatically but it saves you changing the lamp for a 400 one.
Hmm.. I didn't read that and we didn't measure it either. SL stands for super lumens yes? If that would have changed from 5 to 10% Lumatek would have had to apply for a new UL approval for the changed model. I think the models are still the same.
MrShpongle
Member
Actually, their website says, "This feature will boost lumen output by 10% when the switch is activated." If you read other literature by them, it clearly references a 10% gain in lumens over their regular full power setting.
As for the other issues, i.e. putting out 66% power when you mark it as 75%, call me old fashioned but I prefer something to do what it says rather than something approximately near what it says. Then again, my background is in electrical engineering and advertising law, so this touched a bit of a nerve. If the market for digital ballasts were bigger, Lumatek could be looking at a class action lawsuit for false advertising. Ask Mazda about it - they ended up giving $500 to every purchaser of the 2001 Miata because they miscalculated (and misadvertised) the horsepower.
You guys use the SL function all the time?? I dont ever use it. I would think it will shorten the life of the bulb. I have tried it and it works you can see the light get brighter but I leave it on 600. What useful function does it have?. Turn it on the last 3 weeks of flowering to improve Yields is that what it's for???
1
187020
micromoles sound really cute !!
will I get a 10% increase in yield buy using the SL lol I dont think so. What would anyone use this for?? Like I asked Im pretty sure you would see a small increase in yield 2%???
My bulbs are not used more then 1 year. I have never sen a 4 years bulb. So if I have to replace my bulb in 12 months buy using the SL I would need to replace them in 7 months. I really dont have a clue why they think this is a good thing?
My bulbs are not used more then 1 year. I have never sen a 4 years bulb. So if I have to replace my bulb in 12 months buy using the SL I would need to replace them in 7 months. I really dont have a clue why they think this is a good thing?
C
cheesey
4 yr bulb life ? what make are those then ? i change my bulbs after 2 crops on 12/12 .
They just want us to use it so you will need to buy bulbs more often increasing there profits. Its always about money.
guys really, look at the data. Do you see the output power of the magnetic ballasts? That is what they normally do when they have the correct mains voltage. Of course a lamp Can run at +10%. They need to because voltage tolerances are (in The Netherlands) +6%/-10%. So if you run your electronic ballast at 100% you run your lamp like you would with a magnetic ballast under-performing because of not so good mains voltage (voltage drop translates is lower output with a magnetic ballast). The lamps can surely take it (if they are good lamps!) and I totally agree with grow101: it would not influence the output over the short period we use our lamps. The Greenpower Electronic lamp has a light maintenance of of about 96% over a year use (5000h) so even after a year it is brighter than most new lamps.
What people should do is replace their reflectors more often. There is much more to be gained by replacing your reflective material every year or two (and keeping them clean!).
The four years comes from Osram VIALOX NAV-T SUPER 4Y, that is the maintenance time of those bulbs. You wouldn't use them that long for growing, but don't forget that 95% of all HPS are designed for illuminating buildings and storage facilities and accidentally work quite well for growing MJ.
