PLL Club. (if you don't know, now you know)

[Sgt.Stedenko]

Workhorse Ballasts

Workhorse Ballasts

I have a question for you guys running Fulham Workhorse ballasts.

Has anyone considered the ballast factor of these ballasts in comparison to other compact flourescent ballasts? The workhorse 5, 7 and 8 - 120v ballasts all have ballast factors of 0.87.

You say what the hell is the ballast factor.
Allow me to cut and paste here:
One of the most important ballast parameters for the lighting designer/engineer is the ballast factor. The ballast factor is needed to determine the light output for a particular lamp-ballast system. Ballast factor is a measure of the actual lumen output for a specific lamp-ballast system relative to the rated lumen output measured with a reference ballast under ANSI test conditions (open air at 25 degrees C [77 degrees F]).

If you want the dumbed down version, it means a ballast with a higher ballast factor will put out more lumens than one with a lower ballast factor, using the same bulb.

Therefore, your 55 watt bulb, with ANSI rated outputs of 4,800 lumens, is only producing 4,176 lumens on a workhorse 120v ballast.
Some of the 277 volt workhorse ballasts have ballast factors greater than 1, but since most of us dont have access to 277v in our grow rooms, we are stuck with the 120v models with lower BFs.

The reason the Fulham Workhorse ballasts have lower ballast factors is they are designed to run multiple combinations of lamp sizes and numbers. If Fulham focused on a particular ballast for a particular lamp, their ballast factor would be higher.

So what other options are there? Trust me, I'm not pitching this brand. It's just the first example I found with a better BF

Advance produces ballasts designed for particular lamps. Their 55w Centium ballast has a BF of 1.02 (4,896 lumens on a ANSI rated 4,800 lumen bulb). Granted, you can only run one or two bulbs on one Centium ballast, and the cost of the Advance Centium is $35 as compared to $26 for the Workhorse 5, which also runs 2 lamps.

On another level, you could say the Workhorse 5 with two 55w bulbs will output 8,352 lumens for $26 (not counting the cost of the bulbs), or 321.2 lumens/$.
The same Advance ballast will output 9792 lumens for $35, or 279.8 lumens/$.

Obviously, the workhorse is the cheaper way to go, but for those wanting to produce maximum lumens, other ballasts are better designed to operate the high lumen bulbs we desire.

Just some food for thought.

 

[Aerohead]

You can use ballasts from coral reef hoods, these are tuned to a single wattage of bulb and are very easy to find in 55w. Down side is locating them without buying the whole fixture isn't easy...

 

[Strapped]

That's a good post Sgt. I didn't know about the ballast factor. From what you've said, I think you are still getting more lumens for your dollar with a fulham. When it comes down to it, I think it's about what works for you. Whether it be cost, lumen output, or space that is your main concern, it's different for everyone. I will consider ballast factor if I'm ever in the market for more ballasts, but right now I'll defend the purchase I already made

 

[Sgt.Stedenko]

I in no way meant to offend any workhorse owners. I think it's a fine product and I'm still on the fence about what to buy.
I was just pointing out some info I think most overlook.

 

[rives]

I in no way meant to offend any workhorse owners. I think it's a fine product and I'm still on the fence about what to buy.
I was just pointing out some info I think most overlook.

I think that it was a remarkable find. I have been specifying/purchasing ballasts for almost 35 years, and have completely overlooked that spec! I have (5) workhorse 5 ballasts in service, and have been quite happy with them, but I would be a hell of a lot happier with 13% more light. Good info, Sarge.

 

[Sgt.Stedenko]

Glad you found it useful.

 

[Strapped]

I in no way meant to offend any workhorse owners. I think it's a fine product and I'm still on the fence about what to buy.
I was just pointing out some info I think most overlook.

None taken. Thanks for giving me something else to look out for when I'm searching for them in the future

 

[cosmik debris]

Thanked ya before and I'll thank ya again Sarge. The factor on the GE's that I mentioned elsewhere is over one, as with those that you had mentioned. They price out cheaper per ballast but ya need more of them than the Fulhams.

I've asked this in another thread and not heard anything definitive back as yet; since the programmable electronic ballasts extend bulb life significantly, why would you want instant ons that don't? They both still drive the lamps at high freq. from what I can see...or am I missing something specific that relates to growing with them?

Also in looking at the AH Supply Bright Kits they mention a 96 watt set up. Is this just an overdriven 80? And if so does anyone know if the lumen per watt efficiency is improved to the level of the 55's when properly driven by a full potential ballast?

The concerns over UVB had me a bit confused as well. Just how much does one of these PLL's put out anyway? I didn't think there was any to speak of. If you want more UV why not just add a low watt UV bulb?

Does anyone know what happens temp wise when you drive a lamp like a 55w. with these higher efficiency ballasts? The ballast is making better use of the energy that passes through it, but then are we going to end up with a bigger heat problem at the lamp?

Also, does anyone know where in the States full sheets of Alanod's Mira can be had? I don't care for the dimpled stuff, do like the 95-98% reflectivity and 25 year warranty.

Last but not least, I was of the impression that a smooth parabola would be the best shape for a reflector, since the transition from point to point of incidence and reflection (especially with Mira's specular pattern)would also be smoother and would eliminate "hot spots". That is a shape that is reasonably simple to roll, yet the A.H. reflector is a bunch of bendy bits fabricated on a break. Any ideas as to whether this has anything to do with the difference between diffuse vs. specular reflectors, or just them using what they have?

 

[Tilt]

check out sola tube extension at home depot, It is a reflective skylight material.

 

[cosmik debris]

Never would have thought to re-purpose those in that way. Great idea. Price - 44 GBP/71 U.S. is a bit steep for a 24"x32" bit of reflector. 99% reflectivity is tops though so I guess ya gotta pay to play. I just hope the poly/foil film that they use doesn't give me any issues when I start trying to reshape it. Thanks fer the tip.

Any ideas or insights on the ballast questions?

 

[cosmik debris]

So I found this G.E. literature that explains more about the ballast factors (the ones listed are supposed to be good for both T-5 and T-8's).

http://www.gelighting.com/na/busine...ibrary/ballast/downloads/81173_ultrastart.pdf

Their ballasts don't seem to be capable of handling the 50+ watt lamps, but their lumen/watt output is about 25% higher than the actual realized using the Fulham W/H and 4x54's.

Not to confuse the issue anymore but the lumen figure is just a relative number for comparison. Here's an interesting YouTube video of the Ice Cap ballast PAR/watt output compared to a generic. Ice Cap makes a high efficiency 440 watt ballast that'll drive anything from VHO's down, but it's expensive as all get out ($150+)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XWk4tGNuRw

 

[gloryoskie]

Also, does anyone know where in the States full sheets of Alanod's Mira can be had? I don't care for the dimpled stuff, do like the 95-98% reflectivity and 25 year warranty.


Check this out, www.aquatictech.com/lighting., bottom of the page, sheets for sale as well as custom fabrication per your specs.

 

[cosmik debris]

Many thanks ski. I did manage to track the main domestic supplier down and they offer about a 50% better price, but ya have to buy a pretty fair bit. Aquatictech looks like a reasonable alternative for smaller cuts and I'm waiting to hear back from them to see if they can do roll forming. The reflectors that they show that are theirs all seem to be breaks (bends) which are a lot easier to do. They can be done on anything from a siding break to the little bench top units that Bottom of the Harbor Freight sells. Part of my conundrum is that I want/need to bend a double parabolic shape with a kind of real short bat wing bend in the center to accomplish what I want with the PLL's. The roll forming is a little tougher to get right I guess so I'm scouting some local sheet metal shops to see who's hungry enough to do it cheap and still get it right. We'll see. The cheapest means of doing it myself was an $800 metal worker from the aforementioned purveyor of commie Chinese junk.

In speaking with the manufacturer's rep they gave me a better idea of the differences between their product and the alternatives. Their reflective coating is an anodized finish that actually impregnates the aluminum with silver and gives you a bendable material that won't wrinkle or peel, plus it's heat resistant and won't support flame, good up to about 300 degrees C. The Mylar and polyester film/foil products that I've looked at were all pretty much crap that lied about their level of reflectivity.

I'm not an engineer but it seems to me that anything that's not reflected is going to end up being absorbed as heat energy (such as a painted white surface that may only be 70 to high 80% reflective at best) and that's a waste of light. The other thing is that I've read that as the light is reflected more and more times the difference in 95 and 98% reflective materials becomes exponentially more evident. Another thing was that for all of their claims, all of the tent/space blanket/ radiant barrier stuff overstates their effective reflectivity pretty significantly (gee, sales touts that lie...now that's a first). I guess the problem is that people can say just about anything they want short of claiming that they've cured cancer and get away with it so caveat emptor.

Thanks again for the tip.

 

[cosmik debris]

Just heard back from Aquatictech. They can bend but they can't roll form. They agreed that it would be a better design, but it's just too complicated for their tooling/capabilities. I'm kind of hung up on this curved reflector idea because this stuff bounces light off at the same angle that the light strikes it, so the parabolic shape should be able to bounce any reflected light down to where it's needed with fewer strikes than the flat angled planes - more uniformly throughout. When I get this sorted out I think I might try to get a hold of a PAR meter and test the two (parabolic and bat wing) side by side with the same lamp and ballast set ups to see if all of these mental gymnastics were worth the squeeze.

 

[yesum]

What is the penetration level of 55 watt pl-ls? I have heard knna say 10 inches and heard someone else say 6 inches. This is for flowering.

I have a single vertical 55 watt in center of 2x2 foot tent with overhead LED. I am hoping the one can do enough and not have to put more in corners.

 

[cosmik debris]

I would tend to defer to knna's interpretation. A major issue is also what Sarge was referring to with the under driving of lamps by using low factored or over worked ballasts. There seems to be a lot of folks that have been using the Fulhams (lower ballast factor) with more lamps than they're rated for. Yes they will strike and light, but no you will not get anything approximating their rated maximum output. That's not to say that they won't grow, just that you're not getting what you may think out of your lighting. The ballasts are somehow tuned to specific lamp requirements to properly excite the phosphors contained within.

I would say that paired with the correct quality ballast, particularly with a vertical side light mount, you should be fine since you're not trying to punch down through the plant canopy.
The intensity and wave lengths of your LED's are probably going to be a more significant factor.

The other thing about adding lamps and overloading the ballast is that the fall off in light intensity also carries with it a change in the frequency of the light produced. An under driven 3500K lamp does not just create less light of that spectrum, the entire spectrum appears to shift. Combine that with the variety of spectrums that fluorescent lamps produce and there's no telling what you're working with. I can't explain all of the electro-chemical jazz at work, I'm just repeating what others more knowledgeable about the science have written. When you look at a spectrograph of a lamp's output it all changes when you screw with the energy input. Physics, another class that I now regret having slept through.

 

[420ish]

I would tend to defer to knna's interpretation. A major issue is also what Sarge was referring to with the under driving of lamps by using low factored or over worked ballasts. There seems to be a lot of folks that have been using the Fulhams (lower ballast factor) with more lamps than they're rated for. Yes they will strike and light, but no you will not get anything approximating their rated maximum output. That's not to say that they won't grow, just that you're not getting what you may think out of your lighting. The ballasts are somehow tuned to specific lamp requirements to properly excite the phosphors contained within.

I would say that paired with the correct quality ballast, particularly with a vertical side light mount, you should be fine since you're not trying to punch down through the plant canopy.
The intensity and wave lengths of your LED's are probably going to be a more significant factor.

The other thing about adding lamps and overloading the ballast is that the fall off in light intensity also carries with it a change in the frequency of the light produced. An under driven 3500K lamp does not just create less light of that spectrum, the entire spectrum appears to shift. Combine that with the variety of spectrums that fluorescent lamps produce and there's no telling what you're working with. I can't explain all of the electro-chemical jazz at work, I'm just repeating what others more knowledgeable about the science have written. When you look at a spectrograph of a lamp's output it all changes when you screw with the energy input. Physics, another class that I now regret having slept through.

i have ran 4 55 watt bulbs on workhorse and have ran 3 55 wattbulb.i could not tell that the bulbs were brighter with only three.it was not scientific but i would think it would be noticible.

 

[yesum]

Thanks cosmik, yea I have more ballast(rated 60 some watts) than light by some, so no probs there. Think I will get another ballast and light socket and put 2 lights side to side in middle of tent and leave it at that. 126 watts of HGL LED overhead btw.

 

[cosmik debris]

Like I said, you can still light the lamps, and you'll still be able to grow, you're just not getting anything like what you think. If we assume that a properly tuned high efficiency ballast is capable of producing 100% of its matching lamp's rated output spectrum wavelengths and intensity, and we substitute a lesser ballast that under ideal circumstances is only physically capable of producing 87%, then we have an obvious and definite difference. When this is exacerbated by attempting to feed too many devices with too little energy the problem is compounded. Just because it's not obvious to your eye doesn't mean that the physics aren't fact.

Part of the problem is best described by the lumen rating. Lumens are the small portion of the light spectrum that the human eye sees, while the photosynthetically active part of the spectrum includes many wave lengths that we aren't capable of seeing. Logic would dictate that the same amount of energy being split four ways rather than three is going to be present in a diminished quantity at each end point, hence there is less energy available to excite the phosphors in the lamp and consequently less light emitted. Add to this the loss of efficiency each time another device (lamp in this case) is added to the same circuit (particularly when they are all being fed simultaneously). Each time energy passes through another device there are losses incurred. When energizing lamps this means some is converted to heat. The more lamps that the same relative input is supplying the more energy gets converted to heat and the less that's left to make light. This is an over simplification but bottom line, there is a difference, whether you can discern it or not. The math of the ballast efficiencies doesn't lie regardless of what we can see.

As for making the four lamps light up, again...yes this will still be doable, but no you are not getting anything close to what you think. I've seen countless commercial grow boxes/lights, etc. that tout XXX watts, or XXX lumens, based on the rated wattage and or lumen output of the lamps that they include. This is all crap, because it totally ignores the quality (frequency) and quantity of power being supplied by the ballast. There's a very good reason that things like ballast factors and recommended lamp pairings are included by the manufacturers with their products. Don't you think that Fulham would say that you can drive 4 x 55w. PLL's if they knew that it could be done properly with their given ballast? The other thing is that while they make a fine product, it is not the best performing overall for these applications. It does represent a very good value relative to the amount of light that it can throw for each dollar invested in the hardware, but in an environment where we are constantly tweaking to gain little bits and pieces of extra this and that (particularly usable light) to enhance the grow, it just makes sense to at least consider the ballast/lamp efficiencies and pairings beyond what can make light that we can see.

 

[420ish]

i wasnt saying you were wrong,just putting out my observation.thanks for the info!