# Whats your favorite ballast?



## Fadeux (Apr 27, 2008)

Just want to know what people on here favor for ballasts. I'm partial to the Lumatek Digital. I've only used the 400 and 600, but they were fantastic. Dead silent, very little heat, and you dont need to do anything to switch from MH to HPS (on the 400 at least) So, what's your best ballast?


----------



## PeaceKiller (Apr 27, 2008)

Hi Fadeux

I have a Digital Greenhouse 400 Watter, and as you said, dead silent and minimal heat. No complaints.


----------



## streamit (May 19, 2008)

lumatek 600w 240v enough said hands down the industry leader.:ignore:


----------



## IllusionalFate (May 20, 2008)

streamit said:
			
		

> lumatek 600w 240v enough said hands down the industry leader.:ignore:


What makes the 240v version better than the 120?


----------



## fattytop (May 20, 2008)

more lumens


----------



## IllusionalFate (May 20, 2008)

fattytop said:
			
		

> more lumens


If that's true how come people use lumens to determine the amount of light they have? There's no way to find out how many lumens you have then unless you own a lumen meter.


----------



## Fadeux (May 20, 2008)

I don't know that it's necessarily more lumens. Voltage is just pressure. 1 volt can easily kill you, provided it has enough amps. From my understanding, 240v use energy more efficiently, therefore, just knocking a few bucks off the electricity bill. 600w is 600w, regardless of the voltage, but 240v is a "wider tube" than 120v, it doesn't mean more is going through it though.


----------



## fattytop (May 20, 2008)

im no expert on electricity, but i can give you this http://www.botanical.com/hydro/lightsys/ballast/lumatek.html

I think it may be deeper than comprehendable?  at least for me.


----------



## IllusionalFate (May 20, 2008)

fattytop said:
			
		

> im no expert on electricity, but i can give you this http://www.botanical.com/hydro/lightsys/ballast/lumatek.html
> 
> I think it may be deeper than comprehendable?  at least for me.


According to that site, 240v supposedly produces more light than 120v. Doesn't make any sense though since 600w is 600w, the lightbulb knows no difference. I think Fadeux has it right, efficiency alone (maybe some other minor things) makes the most sense to me.


----------



## Fadeux (May 20, 2008)

Think of it in computer terms. The wattage is your powerhouse, the processor.  The pinnacle of the machine is the amount of energy it can accommodate. The processor is the heart, and the RAM is the veins. The heart can pump as much as it can pump, but the veins, or ram, or voltage, can only get so big, after it reaches a size, it cant increase the efficiency any higher. While the 240v can be more efficient in lighting, it can't really be any brighter. 

Sorry, I haven't smoked in a while, found some tonight. Havin at it (After a 44 hour work weekend....)


----------



## fattytop (May 20, 2008)

I know good points. I was in a discussion about this on another forum. They concluded 240v puts out a wacky frequency that makes it produce more lumens. Yes 600w is 600w BUT compare a 600w core and coil to a 600w electronic. Not the same is it? infact the digital suposidly puts out up to 27% more lumens. I dont know maby im wrong, and this site is bunk, its possible. But i dont know why theyd put out false info like that.


----------



## kubefuism (May 20, 2008)

IMO, the 240v would have less resistence for the flow of juice, therefore energy processed by the bulb is more efficent, and therefore higher output from the bulb.......IMO


----------



## streamit (May 21, 2008)

The 600w 120v lumatek vs the 600w 240v lumatek. Ummm 30deg difference meaning the 120v is hotter turning your lumens to heat so the 600w 240v is brighter hence the more efficent power source.So the 400v and 480v version are the most efficent. hope this clears things up :hubba:


----------



## fattytop (May 21, 2008)

Makes sence, good points. Wait, the bulb or the ballast is hotter?


----------



## streamit (May 22, 2008)

Fattytop :  The ballast .


----------



## IllusionalFate (May 22, 2008)

The reason why magnetic ballasts put out less lumens than digital ones do is because they use some of the 600 watts to convert the electricity into useable form (or something like that). I know magnetic ballasts don't use all the watts for the bulb, that's for sure.

It doesn't make sense that different voltages would have any effect whatsoever on the light since digital ballasts put all the watts into the light... no matter the voltage, the light still has the exact same amount of energy to use.


----------



## SkSMaN (May 29, 2008)

fattytop said:
			
		

> more lumens



I am skeptical about this...You current draw will be half of 120V, but light output should be fairly close to the same...Tap position will make a small difference with magnetics....The 240V version of same wattage should be more efficient than 120V (IXIXR=P right??)


----------



## SkSMaN (May 29, 2008)

IllusionalFate said:
			
		

> The reason why magnetic ballasts put out less lumens than digital ones do is because they use some of the 600 watts to convert the electricity into useable form (or something like that). I know magnetic ballasts don't use all the watts for the bulb, that's for sure.
> 
> It doesn't make sense that different voltages would have any effect whatsoever on the light since digital ballasts put all the watts into the light... no matter the voltage, the light still has the exact same amount of energy to use.



You will get two major type of loss in magnetics...first your copper loss second will be your steel loss...
Lumen output should be similar....The ballast is designed to operate a specific lamp type within an operating window for that lamp, shouldnt matter if its magnetic or electronic. The electronic will have lower overall loss for sure but magnetics should drive the lamp the same....only the input power will be higher....
If you have a 600W for example, using a magnetic ballast you may be drawing 670W from the wall...The lamp is still driven at the proper output...with 70 being transformed into heat loss....make sense??

IMO the difference in light output is more due to the capacitor tolerance shipped with the magnetic ballast...3 - 5% on the low end can make a fair difference in lumens....


----------

