Wht not keep the 400 mags and run cmh?
Digital Ballast Pro's and Cons
- Thread starter Maximo
- Start date
poindexterous
Member
I've been wanting to try a CMH, they run off a magnetic HPS ballast but not MH right?
G
Groseph
Correct - 400w CMH run on magnetic hps ballast
Green and Gold
Member
I've run 4 Quantum 1000s for 18 months now without any issues.
The dimmable feature is great when transitioning plants from the T5 veg room.
The dimmable feature is great when transitioning plants from the T5 veg room.
S
sm0k4
I don't think the change in price will be noticeable unless you are running 10kW or more in lights. Digitals are great for less heat. If you don't have the luxury of venting to an external room or outside, digitals will keep temps down a bit in your cabinet. The surface of my magnetic 250W ballast gets 90-100 degrees, thats a lot of extra heat being radiated back into the room. I will be going digital eventually, after all other mods to the cabinet get finished.
G
Groseph
My Phantom ballasts say
Imax 9.2a ... so 9.2a x 120v = 1104
Lumatek says 8.42a x 120v = 1010
Does this mean my Phantoms are costing me nearly 100w more to operate?
Running 10 phantoms vs 10 lumateks is damn near like running another 1000w light when compared with the lumateks?
I dont run my ballasts at 120v and the ballasts dont specify input amperage for 240v operation. I've always just assumed they are around 4.16a since 1000w/240v = 4.16a. In the past Lumatek has stated that they dont make dual voltage ballasts because while dual voltage ballasts (120v) can be ran at 240v you dont gain the efficiency benefit of a true 240v appliance. This was when lumatek had 120v ballast and 240v ballasts. They THEN came out with dual voltage ballasts. I've got 600w Lumateks that are 240v only...and I have Lumateks 600w which are 120v/240v. Are my 240v only ballasts more efficient?
- -
In regards to the dimming.. is input energy reduced when dimmed down.. or is the unit still using 1010w even when dimmed to 75% or 50%?
Imax 9.2a ... so 9.2a x 120v = 1104
Lumatek says 8.42a x 120v = 1010
Does this mean my Phantoms are costing me nearly 100w more to operate?
Running 10 phantoms vs 10 lumateks is damn near like running another 1000w light when compared with the lumateks?
I dont run my ballasts at 120v and the ballasts dont specify input amperage for 240v operation. I've always just assumed they are around 4.16a since 1000w/240v = 4.16a. In the past Lumatek has stated that they dont make dual voltage ballasts because while dual voltage ballasts (120v) can be ran at 240v you dont gain the efficiency benefit of a true 240v appliance. This was when lumatek had 120v ballast and 240v ballasts. They THEN came out with dual voltage ballasts. I've got 600w Lumateks that are 240v only...and I have Lumateks 600w which are 120v/240v. Are my 240v only ballasts more efficient?
- -
In regards to the dimming.. is input energy reduced when dimmed down.. or is the unit still using 1010w even when dimmed to 75% or 50%?
statefarmguy
Member
HAD A FAILURE ON MY FIRST RUN WITH A ADVANCED NUTRIENTS BADASS.. they didnt want to replace ti easily for the store so theyy gave me a phantom and it works great, i have a radio to listen to in the room on the same shelf and no issues witit at all.. keep the mags just in case something happens too
dgr
Member
I find the claim that ANY electronic ballast outputs 1000W of light while consuming only 1010W suspect. However, for comparing them, let's go with that. My S&G mag ballast shows 5 amps/240V 9.5/120V. At best rating, that is 1140 VA
If I purchase a new 1000W lumatek, it will run around $250. The cost of my magnetic is zero as it has already been purchased and the OP said he was "upgrading his current ones. Every day that I run my 1000W magnetic will cost me 130x12 watt/hrs or 1.6 KWH. If I look at my power bill, we'll say I pay 15 cents a kilowatt. So every day it costs me 23 cents extra per day over replacing it with a digital. If the digital costs 250, the cost will be recouped in 1068 days or around three years or 19 8-week bloom cycles. At that point, I'm making money
I do have a question that may impact real-world choices to run digitals. Can all/any of the digital ballasts be used with a flip flop?
If I purchase a new 1000W lumatek, it will run around $250. The cost of my magnetic is zero as it has already been purchased and the OP said he was "upgrading his current ones. Every day that I run my 1000W magnetic will cost me 130x12 watt/hrs or 1.6 KWH. If I look at my power bill, we'll say I pay 15 cents a kilowatt. So every day it costs me 23 cents extra per day over replacing it with a digital. If the digital costs 250, the cost will be recouped in 1068 days or around three years or 19 8-week bloom cycles. At that point, I'm making money
I do have a question that may impact real-world choices to run digitals. Can all/any of the digital ballasts be used with a flip flop?
FWIW, I replaced all of my magnetics about 2 years ago. Would never go back. Just bought a few more - all Quantums. I run Galaxies, as well. No issues at all.
As a side note, some may notice the ballast link in my sig. Since that event, I tested a SS HPS600 (Advance) ballast for a year. The ballast was equipped with a brand new Advance cap. In less than 10 months, its lumen output was roughly equivalent to a 400. That's how quickly it degraded.
Simon
As a side note, some may notice the ballast link in my sig. Since that event, I tested a SS HPS600 (Advance) ballast for a year. The ballast was equipped with a brand new Advance cap. In less than 10 months, its lumen output was roughly equivalent to a 400. That's how quickly it degraded.
Simon
S
sm0k4
Can you elaborate more? What makes you sold on them. How much cooler are they than the same watage HID? I am looking to lower my heat, but if they don't run a whole lot cooler I won't bother switching.
You mean sold on digitals in general? Take a look at the ballast thread in my sig. I'm just not willing to give up a portion of my yield to non-existent light intensity. I bought Quantums and Glaxies, because SS cords fit with no adapters. As they worked out, I stuck with them.
Subjectively, a 600w ballast runs maybe 10-20% cooler.
In terms of the heat put out by the ballast, the difference isn't night and day. The primary befit of a digital ballast is consistency. Where as a magnetic degrades over a relatively short period of time, the digital doesn't. Hell, I could have bought a half dozen digital ballast with the loss in yield from the one magnetic I cited earlier. That's not even a year.
Simon
aggregatebuzz
Member
one benefit to being late to the party I outfitted my space with a eballast that are proving themselves to be reliable and easier to place and maintain with fewer upkeep cost
for CMH test use I purchased a SS 400w mag ballast,a cheap model for $120.00,the small one is not too heavy and not to loud but I never had any use experience with the 1000w mag ballast
for CMH test use I purchased a SS 400w mag ballast,a cheap model for $120.00,the small one is not too heavy and not to loud but I never had any use experience with the 1000w mag ballast
nukklehead
Active member
In terms of the heat put out by the ballast, the difference isn't night and day. The primary befit of a digital ballast is consistency. Where as a magnetic degrades over a relatively short period of time, the digital doesn't. Hell, I could have bought a half dozen digital ballast with the loss in yield from the one magnetic I cited earlier. That's not even a year.
do you really believe they degrade that quickly??? Not wanting a pissing match but I am going to digis real soon but I never saw that kind of regression from my mags over 4+ years with the same ballast.. just curious
do you really believe they degrade that quickly??? Not wanting a pissing match but I am going to digis real soon but I never saw that kind of regression from my mags over 4+ years with the same ballast.. just curious
Yep, your Phantoms ARE costing you what could be an extra light in electricity. Running stuff at 240 isn't necessarily too much more efficient, maybe a small bit, but not much.
It depends which dimmable ballast you get. I can confirm that Quantums DO decrease the amount of energy they use when dimmed in direct proportion to the setting (i.e. 50%, 75%). I can't say for other ballasts, I've only ran Quantums before. YMMV.
One thing that a lot of people overlook is that a quality digital will also make your bulbs last longer. Yet another positive!
One pro of a digital ballast that hasn't been mentioned...
A lot of dudes up nawf have temp problems in summers or winters, too low or too high etc. See their posts all the time when the seasons turn.
Well Lumateks and I'm sure other e-ballasts are switchable... my lumateks settings are 400-600-superlumens... superlumens supposedly puts out a little less equivalent light than a 1000w... it just gives you more temp control, put it that way.
Man before e-ballasts I used to think I was hot shit for using inexpensive aquarium MH ballasts. I thought they were gunna be in every grow room ballast array because they were just EZ and smaller.
Get an e-ballast... I'm pretty sure most of the initial concerns were ironed out awhile ago.
A lot of dudes up nawf have temp problems in summers or winters, too low or too high etc. See their posts all the time when the seasons turn.
Well Lumateks and I'm sure other e-ballasts are switchable... my lumateks settings are 400-600-superlumens... superlumens supposedly puts out a little less equivalent light than a 1000w... it just gives you more temp control, put it that way.
Man before e-ballasts I used to think I was hot shit for using inexpensive aquarium MH ballasts. I thought they were gunna be in every grow room ballast array because they were just EZ and smaller.
Get an e-ballast... I'm pretty sure most of the initial concerns were ironed out awhile ago.
