# lumatek dual 600



## MarihuanatrÃ¤umt (Sep 19, 2009)

A 600 Watt Lumatek Dual E-ballast, or 2 lumatek 600 watt E-ballast.


----------



## Pepper (Sep 19, 2009)

I have my eye on that same piece lol, Id get the single ballast dual 600w if I were you. I dont know if you know this but that unit does not work on 120, its 240 ONLY, but you get to run 2 600w for the same amp draw of 1 600w on 120 and all on the same ballast its great. If you do not have 240 then you will need to buy 2 seperate 600w ballast that run on 120.


----------



## MarihuanatrÃ¤umt (Sep 19, 2009)

the 240 is not a prob.  A friend of mine is an electrician.  I was planing on running 240.  Is the dual 600 going to worth it?  I kinda like the 1 ballast idea.


----------



## Pepper (Sep 19, 2009)

Yes the single ballast is great. If I were you I would get a large Ajust-a-Wing reflector and put 1 600w bulb on each end of the reflector with a medium spreader under each bulb, VERY important that you use the spreader under the bulb otherwise you do not get the true performance out of the reflector, you will be able to put your 1200w 10 to 12" away from the top of the canopy without a fan blowing through the lights because of the design of the reflector its a very simple reflector BUT its THE most efective reflector on the market today.

With an Adjust-a- Wing reflector your canopy tops WILL be even all across your garden, even from seed and not just clone, because there is no glass on the reflector there are NO hot spots on your canapy, and the design of this reflector spreads the light evenly across the tops of your plants. If you do not buy this reflector I can guarantee that you will NOT yield what you should yield, and your canopy will NOT be even.


----------



## MarihuanatrÃ¤umt (Sep 19, 2009)

the 600 dual or 2 single 600 watters???


----------



## Pepper (Sep 20, 2009)

1 ballast the dual 600w = 1200w single ballast


----------



## MrNorCal (Sep 20, 2009)

I found myself faced with the same dilemma about 3 weeks ago. After much research and talking with 2 different hydro shops, I decided on 2 single 600W lumateks. The dual is prone to failure and both hydro shops told me they had multiple returns and that they did not stock or recommend them but could order. One of the hydro shops told me that every one she ever sold had come back. Also, if one of your ballasts does fail, you at least have one ballast still going until replacement arrives. They are about the same price anyways, so there is not cost savings either way. Just my 2 cents.


----------



## StoneyBud (Sep 20, 2009)

Pepper said:
			
		

> I have my eye on that same piece lol, Id get the single ballast dual 600w if I were you. I don't know if you know this but that unit does not work on 120, its 240 ONLY, but you get to run 2 600w for the same amp draw of 1 600w on 120 and all on the same ballast its great. If you do not have 240 then you will need to buy 2 separate 600w ballast that run on 120.


Hey Pepper, I see that you've also seen the misinformation about the 240/120 electric usage. Unless using 3-Phase devices, wattage is wattage. If you use 600 watts of bulb, it will draw 600 watts of power. If you run two bulbs that each use 600 watts of power, then they will cost you 1200 watts worth of power consumption. There is no escaping that fact. It makes no difference what you route it through.

There is a large difference in how digital and analog ballasts work, but both draw from the source in amounts equal to usage.

The usage is at the bulb, not the ballast.

Don't feel bad man. This misconception is RAMPANT on the Internet. I've run into it dozens of times and several time here on MP.

As far as using a dual ballast or two singles.... the expression "putting all your eggs into one basket" comes to mind.

If you have a backup dual ballast, then that would minimize the risk of catastrophic failure.


----------



## MarihuanatrÃ¤umt (Sep 20, 2009)

Thank you stoney, you always have best info!!!


----------



## MarihuanatrÃ¤umt (Sep 21, 2009)

So last night I ordered me a new lumatek 600 and an inline 6 in. cooled hood.  I plan on using 1 600 for veg then run 2 lumatek 600 for flowering.  I will post new pics of my setup after I get it all dialed in


----------



## The Effen Gee (Sep 21, 2009)

StoneyBud said:
			
		

> There is a large difference in how digital and analog ballasts work, but both draw from the source in amounts equal to usage.
> 
> The usage is at the bulb, not the ballast.



Magnetic ballasts use up to or more than 100 watts to operate. Digitals use much less.

Ballasts do use power to operate the bulb.

Stay away from crazy new tech for a year or two so they can work out the kinks.


----------



## monkeybusiness (Sep 21, 2009)

So what is the benefit of using 240 instead of 120 to power the ballast/light? 
Mine runs on both


----------



## StoneyBud (Sep 21, 2009)

monkeybusiness said:
			
		

> So what is the benefit of using 240 instead of 120 to power the ballast/light?
> Mine runs on both


Wire size. The 240 wiring is heavier and will run longer and safer than the same amount of power used on a 120 line. More power can be used from the same line, thus enabling you to run more lights per/line.


----------



## StoneyBud (Sep 21, 2009)

Fast Overview:

Magnetic Ballast:

1) Large transformer-like core, power factoring capacitor, and a Igniter that produces a high voltage kick to get the light going. 
2) Lamp actually "blinks" 120 times per second each time the voltage crosses 0 volts
3) Limited range of voltage and frequency input before unit can not provide the correct conditions to keep the lamp lit.
4) Very heavy
5) Simple design, so there is not much to fail. Been around for 60+ years, in almost every street light out there. 

Electronic Ballast: 

1) Converts AC to DC and then back to AC at a very high frequency using solid state components. 
2) Fully regulated circuit can take very wide range of voltages and frequencies while maintaining proper lamp conditions. 
3) Due to the high frequency, there is no visible lamp flicker.
4) Due to secondary frequency, the transformer core can be very small and lightweight. 
5) Complicated design which "came of age" after high voltage transistors became available. (about 20 years) 
6) Usually very reliable, but part failure will stop unit dead. 

Electronic high-frequency ballasts increase lamp-ballast efficacy, leading to increased energy efficiency and lower operating costs. Electronic ballasts operate lamps using electronic switching power supply circuits. Electronic ballasts take incoming 60 Hz power (120 or 277 volts) and convert it to high-frequency AC (usually 20 to 40 kHz). Electronic ballasts are more efficient than magnetic ballasts in converting input power to the proper lamp power, and their operating of fluorescent lamps at higher frequencies reduces end losses, resulting in an overall lamp-ballast system efficacy increase of 15% to 20%.

Electronic ballasts have a number of other advantages over magnetic ballasts. Electronic ballasts are readily available that operate three or four lamps, allowing the use of a single ballast in 3-lamp and 4-lamp luminaires. This reduces both installation and field wiring labor costs, and may negate the necessity of tandem luminaire wiring as required by the 1992 Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings (Title 24). Electronic ballasts are designed to operate lamps in either series or parallel mode. 

The advantage of the parallel mode of operation is that a single lamp failure will not affect the operation of the remaining lamps controlled by the same ballast. However, ballast losses will increase slightly in the parallel mode. Other advantages of the electronic ballast include reduced weight, quieter operation, and reduced lamp flicker. Electronic ballasts are directly interchangeable with magnetic ballasts, and they are available to operate most full-size and compact fluorescent lamps. 

The full output electronic ballast is rated with a ballast factor of at least .85. This factor actually identifies the output of light from the ballast-lamp combination. The ballast factor is simply that percentage of the lamp's rated lumens actually produced by the ballast lamp combination.

Magnetic ballasts normally have a ballast factor of between .90 to .95. The electronic ballast however can be purchased in a large range of ballast factors. You can purchase an electronic ballast that may range from 1.00 to 1.30 which acts as a booster with the lamp and actually lets the lamp produce a greater amount of lumens then the lamp is actually rated for.

The lumen output from both electronic and magnetic through their lifespans is shown in the chart below. You can see easily that the lumen output remains at a much better level with the electronic ballasts for a longer period of life. 

As that lumen out put drops, some electronic ballasts adjust their power usage to compensate for that loss and that compensation keeps the lumen output from the bulb constant until failure. 

Even with this compensating power increase, the electronic ballast will use much less power over it's life span than it's equivilant magnetic ballast. Most of this power difference is as a result of less operational heat. The heat of a magnetic ballast is directly proportional to it's power difference as compared to an electronic ballast.


----------



## monkeybusiness (Sep 21, 2009)

wow, fantastic info.
Thanks a ton Stoney!
So, no money difference in running 240 instead of 120?
I have noticed my electronic ballast seems to run much cooler on 240 than 120.


----------



## MarihuanatrÃ¤umt (Sep 21, 2009)

Your ballast will run cooler with 240.  240 is the way to go.


----------



## StoneyBud (Sep 21, 2009)

monkeybusiness said:
			
		

> wow, fantastic info.
> Thanks a ton Stoney!
> So, no money difference in running 240 instead of 120?
> I have noticed my electronic ballast seems to run much cooler on 240 than 120.


In electronics, anytime you can ditch some heat, it's a good thing and almost always a money saving thing. The difference at a household level would be pretty small. A couple of bucks maybe, if that.

Unless you're already wired for it, I don't think the cost savings would be realized for quite some time until conversion costs were recouped.


----------



## Pepper (Sep 22, 2009)

StoneyBud said:
			
		

> Hey Pepper, I see that you've also seen the misinformation about the 240/120 electric usage. Unless using 3-Phase devices, wattage is wattage. If you use 600 watts of bulb, it will draw 600 watts of power. If you run two bulbs that each use 600 watts of power, then they will cost you 1200 watts worth of power consumption. There is no escaping that fact. It makes no difference what you route it through.
> 
> There is a large difference in how digital and analog ballasts work, but both draw from the source in amounts equal to usage.
> 
> ...


 




Yes you are correct, I guess I did not make myself clear sorry. I'll try again  

On one 15 amp breaker of 120 he could only run two 600w lights, on a 15 amp 240 breaker he can run four 600w lights, that is what I meant, but good looking out.


----------

