# Buying New Light



## AutoGrower16 (Nov 14, 2009)

hXXp://htgsupply.com/growlighttypes.asp?categoryID=1&subcategoryID=155[/URL]
Has anyone used one of these htgsupply light ballast's? Are they any good? I was also thinking about saving up an extra $100 to get a 600 watt digital greenhouse system, but how much will my bill increase if I'm running it 18/6


----------



## OGKushman (Nov 14, 2009)

what is your cost of electricity per kilowatt?

 lol


----------



## PUFF MONKEY (Nov 14, 2009)

tell me a few things about your grow area....the 400 may not be enough...a digi ballast will use considerably less power than a mag ballast...if you can spring for the 600 digi, i think you'd be wayyyy better off than if you were to buy the mag 400 JMO...


----------



## OGKushman (Nov 14, 2009)

PUFF MONKEY said:
			
		

> tell me a few things about your grow area....the 400 may not be enough...a digi ballast will use considerably less power than a mag ballast...if you can spring for the 600 digi, i think you'd be wayyyy better off than if you were to buy the mag 400 JMO...


This is not true.

A magnetic ballast uses the same electricity as a digital ballast. A digital ballast converts the electricity into more usable light output, therefore making it more efficient.

1000 watt lamp switched on for 1 hour is 1 Kilowatt/hour. NO way to get around the laws of nature. Both ballasts DRAW 1000 watts.


----------



## PUFF MONKEY (Nov 14, 2009)

oh,..ok.....well....digi's rule !!!!..lol..i guess i should have said "you get more bang for your buck with a digital ballast"..you wiil however draw less current with 240v operation as opposed to 120v......i think..


----------



## OGKushman (Nov 14, 2009)

PUFF MONKEY said:
			
		

> oh,..ok.....well....digi's rule !!!!..lol..i guess i should have said "you get more bang for your buck with a digital ballast"..you wiil however draw less current with 240v operation as opposed to 120v......i think..


correct, which will save _some _money as power is not lost due to thermal exchange across the wire.


----------



## CungaBreath (Nov 14, 2009)

Your really spiting hairs I think.... go with what you can afford.


----------



## OGKushman (Nov 15, 2009)

Spitting hair. EEEEEEWwwwwwww.

cahhhhhguuuuuuu, chahhguuuuuu....sorry 

Hairball :rofl:


----------



## The Hemp Goddess (Nov 15, 2009)

OGKushman said:
			
		

> This is not true.
> 
> A magnetic ballast uses the same electricity as a digital ballast. A digital ballast converts the electricity into more usable light output, therefore making it more efficient.
> 
> 1000 watt lamp switched on for 1 hour is 1 Kilowatt/hour. NO way to get around the laws of nature. Both ballasts DRAW 1000 watts.



Sorry, but this is not true.  The wattage refers to the bulb wattage.  A ballast can and does draw more than the given wattage.  You can figure out how much a fixture will draw by multiplying the amps and the voltage.  My 1000W magnetic is 9.5 amps.  That works out to a 1140 watts.   However, my 600W Lumatek appears no more efficient than my magnetic.  The Lumatek draws 5.67 amps, so that is about 680 watts.  I have a Cool Blue 600W digi ballast that is 5.05 amp, so is much more efficient at 606 watts.


----------



## The Hemp Goddess (Nov 15, 2009)

PUFF MONKEY said:
			
		

> .you wiil however draw less current with 240v operation as opposed to 120v......i think..



No, that is not true either.  When you double the volts, you half the amperage, so the electrical draw is the same.


----------



## OGKushman (Feb 24, 2011)

The Hemp Goddess said:
			
		

> Sorry, but this is not true.  The wattage refers to the bulb wattage.  A ballast can and does draw more than the given wattage.  You can figure out how much a fixture will draw by multiplying the amps and the voltage.  My 1000W magnetic is 9.5 amps.  That works out to a 1140 watts.   However, my 600W Lumatek appears no more efficient than my magnetic.  The Lumatek draws 5.67 amps, so that is about 680 watts.  I have a Cool Blue 600W digi ballast that is 5.05 amp, so is much more efficient at 606 watts.


Old post but thought it might be worth an update...


I purchased a "kill-a-watt". 

My new 600w lumatek draws 600watts. 662 watts on superlumen.

My new 1000w mag draws 998 watts. 

My new 400w mag draws 404 watts.

My 1000 watt OLD CAP mag ballast draws 784 watts! And is noticeably orange??? SO i think its about to die.

My 600 watt OLD Lumatek draws 600watts non-switchable.

Some old bulbs, some new..dont know what it all means (except I have a bad ballast). Just thought Id share.


My 40in Phipps LCD uses 125 watts
this computer AND TV uses 380 watts... lol


----------



## Jericho (Feb 24, 2011)

Those meters are fun aint they OG, hehe. When i got one i was running round the house seeing how much everything uses. 

Lol that link in the 1st post has been live this whole time and no one noticed.


----------



## Wetdog (Feb 25, 2011)

The Hemp Goddess said:
			
		

> No, that is not true either.  When you double the volts, you half the amperage, so the electrical draw is the same.


:yeahthat: 

Ohm's law will not be denied, despite marketing hype.

Wet


----------



## StoneyBud (Feb 25, 2011)

PUFF MONKEY said:
			
		

> oh,..ok.....well....digi's rule !!!!..lol..i guess i should have said "you get more bang for your buck with a digital ballast"..you will however draw less current with 240v operation as opposed to 120v......i think..


 
A long, long time ago, (sounds like a bedtime story.hehe), I was an Electronics Tech and an aircraft electrician. I've heard the argument you've made for 240v vs 120v power supplies, but frankly have never understood it.

From my own education on electricity, I learned that if 600 watts is consumed, 600 watts Plus is pulled from the source, regardless of the method of delivery between the two. As I said, that was a long time ago and maybe the rules have changed in this regard.

Could you, and would you, (or anybody) please explain to me in detail, how using 240v service would decrease the amount of wattage pulled from the power source and requiring payment by Kilowatt?

I would greatly appreciate your explanation. I enjoy learning new things.


----------



## StoneyBud (Feb 25, 2011)

OGKushman said:
			
		

> correct, which will save _some _money as power is not lost due to thermal exchange across the wire.


 
Ahhhhh, now I understand. Over time, that could add up if the usage was enough to justify the 240v setup.

Less amperage, less heat. Less heat, more efficiency. More efficiency, less wattage used.

Thanks.


----------



## OGKushman (Feb 25, 2011)

No problemo stoney! :48:


----------

