Ballasts: Digital vs. Magnetic

[SweetIndica2]

25% yield increase? Highly doubtful. There are so many other contributing factors that could change the yield. Even the companies who MAKE the ballasts claim a 5-12% increase in light, and from what i have read even that is debated and most people say there isn't much of a difference in light at all.

Digital ballasts are lighter, cooler, smaller, etc. but they do not increase your yield by 25%. No way.

 

[SweetIndica2]

I think sunpukse, ushio, and 1 other now say they make bulbs specific to the higher frequencies of digital ballasts. Everyone I know has made the switch to ushio and are happy, dunno about the sunpulse.

Thanks for the info.

 

[wickedpete66]

I recently got a visit from my cable company due to the interference created by a 1000w 2009 model Lumatek. The brand new switchable "superlumens" kind. The one that is supposed to be fixed... Rrrrrright.

Was told the noise coming from my house was affecting service in the neighborhood, and had to talk my way out of them coming to the house to check all the connections.

The ballast worked great, but after hearing all their BS about how they resolved the interference problem with the 1k models, and finding out the hard way that was not the case, I can only recommend my peers avoid them.

Problem instantly gone when I went back to my old magnetic ballast. Totally sure it was the cause of the issue. Now I will have to buy another magnetic when I do my upgrade, rather than use the new Lumatek as I had intended. 350 bucks down the drain, as I can't sell it with a clear conscience, and wouldn't get all my money back anyways since it has been used a couple of months.

Seriously, go magnetic and never wonder if you made the right choice. 5% additional efficiency or whatever it works out to is just not worth the security risk.

Agreed, I have 2 600wt and 4-400wt digital ballsts hanging around. I can use them due to interference with other people. Besides you can buy 600and 1000 mag ballast for around 125.00 now.

 

[Hawk]

Here's some testing some might find interesting. I did, especially seeing what a dimmable Lumatek does exactly on less than full power. http://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?t=148472

FWIW, I've got a 250w Lumatek and a 250w C.A.P. magnetic. I think the Lumatek is better in every way (except not being compatible with CMH lamps, so I hear).

 

[ShortStackz]

Digitals have fans, while magnetics have no moving parts.

In my opinion, that is the biggest issue regarding reliability.

Only some brands have them. Mine for one doesn't.

 

[fatigues]

25% yield increase? Highly doubtful. There are so many other contributing factors that could change the yield. Even the companies who MAKE the ballasts claim a 5-12% increase in light, and from what i have read even that is debated and most people say there isn't much of a difference in light at all.

Digital ballasts are lighter, cooler, smaller, etc. but they do not increase your yield by 25%. No way.

Really? Then perhaps you should read the diary. It's all well and good to offer opinion - but at the end of the day, opinions counts for shit when they meet up with a hard and unyielding brick wall called "data".

Raphael's grow is not a perfect comparison, but it is highly persuasive.

I'm not saying that every side-by-side comparison of digital to magnetic is going to result in an increase of 25%. I AM saying that a measurably and visibly perceptible larger harvest can be reasonably expected when using a digital ballast. The light is simply brighter and more consistent when generated from a digital ballast. That's the unmistakable conclusion the data demonstrates. Digital ballasts grow perceptibly larger plants under the same wattage.

So that's the data. And with that data comes the end of the story and the end of the debate. Whether it's 10% bigger, 15% bigger or nearly 25% bigger is beside the point. It's a measurably larger harvest to the naked eye. The rest is simply details.

If a 400w CMH grow is what you are looking for, then a new 400w HPS magnetic ballast is still the way to go and a logical purchase. No question about that. That exception aside, there is no logical reason to be purchasing new magnetic ballasts anymore. The sun has set on that technology.

 

[SweetIndica2]

Really? Then perhaps you should read the diary. It's all well and good to offer opinion - but at the end of the day, opinions counts for shit when they meet up with a hard and unyielding brick wall called "data".

Raphael's grow is not a perfect comparison, but it is highly persuasive.

I'm not saying that every side-by-side comparison of digital to magnetic is going to result in an increase of 25%. I AM saying that a measurably and visibly perceptible larger harvest can be reasonably expected when using a digital ballast. The light is simply brighter and more consistent when generated from a digital ballast. That's the unmistakable conclusion the data demonstrates. Digital ballasts grow perceptibly larger plants under the same wattage.

So that's the data. And with that data comes the end of the story and the end of the debate. Whether it's 10% bigger, 15% bigger or nearly 25% bigger is beside the point. It's a measurably larger harvest to the naked eye. The rest is simply details.

If a 400w CMH grow is what you are looking for, then a new 400w HPS magnetic ballast is still the way to go and a logical purchase. No question about that. That exception aside, there is no logical reason to be purchasing new magnetic ballasts anymore. The sun has set on that technology.

He said he weight two batches WET and came out with a 25% increase, that is hardly an acceptable test or hard evidence that Digital Ballasts give you a 25% increase. There are also plenty of variables that could make the yield differ. A much more accurate test is a light test, to measure how much more light a digital ballast is giving off, etc.

Look at the link Hawk posted, that is a much better test and while it does show that the Lumatek puts out more than a magnetic ballast, but it is no where near 25%. Infact the other Digitals in that test, put out less light than the magnetics in the test. Read the whole article, they obviously did their homework and are using scientific data.

I'm not saying Digital's don't give off more light, they do. I'm just saying it's not anywhere near a 25% increase.

What would you recommend for a mother light? I'm debating between a 400W CMH or a 600W Digital. My concern with the 400W is that while the CMH bulbs are nice, i don't think a 400W is going to give me enough light coverage for the 9 mothers i'm going to have under it. And i would like to try out a Digi ballast, and it looks like i could save a noticeable amount a month in electricity going with a digi.

 

[Easygrowing]

I have a Future-Bright 400 w digital and a magnetics 400 w

Dont have any problem at all with digi

Enjoying

 

[fatigues]

What would you recommend for a mother light? I'm debating between a 400W CMH or a 600W Digital.

If you are looking at keeping mother plants perpetually growing along to support the rest of your grow, the answer is: none of the above.

I would not get a HPS and I wouldn't get a CMH, either. I would use flourescents. Ordinarily, I would recommend PL-L lights, but for nine mothers where square footage may be a concern in circumstances where additional flowering capacity is not required, T5's or T8s (does not need to be T5HO, let alone 55w/80w/96w PL-L) will do you fine for this purpose.

Accordingly, a Fullham Workhorse 7 or 8 ballast or a combination of smaller Advance ballasts would appear to meet your needs. Build out the rest of your lighting assembly with "shop light" parts and you're good to go. It will be cheaper to purchase, cheaper to run and will not add appreciably to heat or require additional dedicated ventilation.

Your mother plants will be fine and grow adequately to support the rest of your grow. That's the test, right? You can grow seedlings or clones under those same lights too.

If you want your light setup to be able to do more than that, then the answer may well change. As it stands? T5's or T8's for the win.

 

[SweetIndica2]

Yea, i was thinking about T5's as well. What is the best brand to go with? Hydrofarm seems to make nice T5 fixtures for cheap. I'm not sure to go with something like the 216W or the 432W though.

 

[fatigues]

Yea, i was thinking about T5's as well. What is the best brand to go with? Hydrofarm seems to make nice T5 fixtures for cheap. I'm not sure to go with something like the 216W or the 432W though.

Creating your own T12 fixtures with shop light parts from Home Depot is easily the cheapest way to do this. You don't need glamor or brand names for a lighting project like this. The lights need to go on - they need to go off 18 hours later. As long as they do that, reliably, it's all good. Wattage requirements are modest. You aren't looking to VEG a grow here. You are looking to keep some mothers going and make your clones root. It's a very modest goal which only requires very modest needs.

I'd go T12 or T8 if the space is smaller. Parts are cheaper, bulbs are cheaper and readily available. T12s are ubiquitous. You never need worry about buying them with anyone wondering why, either.

Go to Home Depot, spend money, come home and install. Bam, you are done. Nothing to it.

 

[jarff]

Seems to me that the only ppl.putting down digitals are the ones who haven,t tried them or who tried them a few yrs ago when they were not reliable.Today,s Lumateks or Galaxy etc are good working ballasts when used with good bulbs.Since switching to Lumateks I def. am getting better production and I am less worried with them .When I was using magnetics I always thought of them as miniature furnaces ready to blow up,which I have seen happen.Most ppl I know with magnetics usually buy the raw ballasts and sit them on a cement block with wires hanging everywhere,while digital are in a neat organised package.Pretty hard to screw them up...I am not saying everyone is reckless with there electrics but I have seen a few set-ups that were fires waiting to happen.Digitals can be hung from a wall with drywall under them and they are safe IMHO.
I,m def.staying with Lumateks until I stop doing what i,m doing.They,ve made a believer outta me.
jarff

 

[Hal]

Great response everybody, thanks!

Gonna bump it back to page 1, see if we can get some more folks to vote.

 

[ogenko]

i went with the "latest and the greatest"
2 lumatek 600w 240v
hand to replace twice in under a year
now a one ot the replacements is doing funky things
never had a problem with my 430 magnetic
ran it for yyeeeeaaaaaarrrrsss too
the quietness and coolness of the digital is nice
maybe i just had bad luck with the digi's but i wish i wouldve gotten magnetic now

 

[macro]

I have two 600 watt magnetic ballasts, and one 400w mag ballast. They are great ballasts and I have never had problems with them. They run HOT though and put out measurable less lumens.

I also have two 1000 watt digital greenhouse brand digi ballasts
http://htgsupply.com/viewproduct.asp?productID=48111

I'm kind of worried about my cheapo digi ballasts because a couple of weeks ago someone from the electric company came up to my house saying they were picking up interference from "grow lights"

They swapped out a cable and said if the problem wasn't solved by that I would have to put the lights on another circuit (they are on an independent circuit). The guy assumed everything, I never once mentioned what I was up to nor did he have any actual evidence to believe there was a grow op going on other than the interference.

So far he has not been back but I never had this problem while running only magnetic. If it really is a security risk I would go mag. Otherwise I love my 1000w digi ballasts

 

[burnedout]

I'm kind of worried about my cheapo digi ballasts because a couple of weeks ago someone from the electric company came up to my house saying they were picking up interference from "grow lights"

They swapped out a cable and said if the problem wasn't solved by that I would have to put the lights on another circuit (they are on an independent circuit). The guy assumed everything, I never once mentioned what I was up to nor did he have any actual evidence to believe there was a grow op going on other than the interference.

So far he has not been back but I never had this problem while running only magnetic. If it really is a security risk I would go mag. Otherwise I love my 1000w digi ballasts

If someone who didn't know about my grow came to my front door and said they were getting interference from my "grow lights", I'd consider that a significant security risk.

 

[watson540]

that growell study up there..doesn't make sense to me..they're saying you "lose" power in between the wall and lamp..what utter bs as everyone knows anypower your lamp DOESN'T use goes back to the power line..you don't just "lose" power

oh and about magnetics degrading over time..I must be in real trouble cause my 250 watter was made in 1985

 

[SlevinK]

If someone who didn't know about my grow came to my front door and said they were getting interference from my "grow lights", I'd consider that a significant security risk.

Hully crap! I would tend to agree.

I'm on the market for a 600W set-up, now I'm totally confused with which to get. Does anyone know for a fact that the electronic 600W ballasts create some sort of measurable/noticeable interference? Not cool.

 

[Centrum]

I have had my digital's for a few years, I have never heard any cable rumors like that Mr.Bong.

I have several television and 3 computers with several DVR boxes.
Never not once, have i ever experienced any type of interruption. I actually have one 600 watt digital inches from the junction that splits the cable to several boxes and computers.

What i did notice, is if you place them too close 2 or 3 inches from each other, they seem to interrupt each other.

 

[foomar]

The main reason i went digital was due to the very poor quality electricity supply in a very rural area.
Voltage varies widely in winter from 220 - 250 plus spikes , numerous short blackouts in quick succession damaged the lights on repeated hot restrikes and just felt unsafe.

Digital handles these problems perfectly but i dont see any yield increase , same bulb much whiter to the eye on a digi and easier to colour balance the pics.

Went with BAL on seeing decent quality in their commercial and industrial stuff , not the most efficient design but good component and build quality with a fanless case should last for many years.

Seen no interference on TV or an old ethernet loop , AM and FM are unaffected on a radio placed next to it and a wireless router is fine even sat on top of it.

Would a cheap handheld em/rf meter be enougth to tell good from bad or would the mains need testing as well .....