Are digital ballasts really the shizzle?

[Old_SSSC_Guy]

Time to replace a few 1000 systems. The specs all point to the newer digital ballasts being superior to old traditional metal-plate ballasts, but sure could use some real world experiences to support the specs. Have some Hydrofarm old-style ballasts which have never failed in 10 years.

If you have used both ballast types - could you offer an opinion fronm experience on whether the digishizzle ballasts are the preferred choice? I heard the digi failure rate was much higher than plate ballasts, what is your experience?

 

[DonJones]

Old SSSC Guy,

If your present ballasts are working well, why replace them? Why not just update your hoods/reflectors?

Personally, as long as I can buy 400 watt commercial HIDs used for under $35, I'll continue to buy them and remote mount the ballasts from the hoods/reflectors. I've also come to the conclusion that the commercial reflectors work just as good as the high dollar hoods for sale. I tried a couple of DIY copies of the various air cooled hoods and didn't think they worked as good as the commercial reflectors with vertical hung bulbs, as long as you have height enough to use them. If height is a concern, then a horizontal reflector/hood is the only way to go.

Just my questions and views -- facts to back them up, just observations.

Good growing and Great smoking!

edited for spelling by DonJones

 

[The Hemp Goddess]

I vote for digi ballasts.

I recently changed out 1 1000W magnetic ballast for 2 600W digi ballasts. I am getting about 40,000-50,000 more lumens for very little increase in wattage. I am interested in getting the best lumen per watt rate that I can. The initial cost of the digi was not really a consideration as energy costs and savings are more of a concern for me. I want my grows to be as green as possible (in all ways )

 

[Droopy Dog]

If those 'old style' ballasts haven't failed in 10 years, why spend more $$$$ just to experiment?

I'd stay with the proven track record.

Check digi's out when they have a 10 year track record of no failures.

DD

 

[ishnish]

i've been considering a change to digi myself here.
my plan is to get one when the finances allow it, and keep the old one around in case something goes wrong with the digi ever, or when i get more space i'll use em both.. and my reasons for the change are simple...
1. less electricity usage.
2. I've seen other people on this forum grow far superior yields with the same wattage as I'm using and think it may be due to an old outdated ballast.

 

[Locked]

Love my Digi....I wld not throw my old style ballast but if it died and I needed to replace it it wld be a digi...if i was going to buy a new ballast for any reason it wld be a digi...

 

[Mr.Wakenbake]

The 1k watt digital ballasts are trash. The failure rate is super high. I have owned both the core style and the digital. I own lumateks as well.

Up to 400w is super reliable. I have had my 400w digital for almost 2 years running 24/7. Nevvvvvver had a problem.


I also had 2 600's that I ran for flower, and didn't have a problem for over 18 months, then one day... poof, one went out. I sold the other 600 to a friend when I got down on my luck so now I am stuck with no 600 ballast to run my bulbs.

I have seen the new luma 3.0 from sunleaves with aluminum wound ballast transformers and they supposedly run a lot cooler than the copper core. I will be switching back to old school ballast just for the flower room and keep the digital for the much smaller 400w veg area.

Stick with magnetics for over 400w.

Your taking your chances with the 600, the other 600 i sold my buddy is still running perfectly after 2 years.

Another 5 years and the technology should be perfected to the point of almost no failure rates for very long periods of time. However, at this time, the digital 1k's, no matter who makes em are mostly trash, other than the lower heat output.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[Old_SSSC_Guy]

Appreciate everyone's opinion on this one, inclinded to save the money and stay traditional. I worked in the hydro shop world for many years and left when the digitals were just coming out. That was about 10 years ago and we all said then "just wait 5 years for the technology to mature". Now 10 years later folks are still saying the same exact thing. Plus I'm not that fond of buying anything Chinese. I have enough lead in my butt thank you...

To those that asked "why replace what works?"... #1 because the noise and power savings reported for digital. Figured to keep the existing plate ballasts as backups. In ->theory<- if a digi 1000 watt ballast uses 30% less energy then replacing 3 of them is almost like running a 4th light for free. How's that for pot head logic?

 

[nvthis]

Look man, just do whatever gets you there in a way you can tolerate. I am running a 1000w lumatek as we speak. I hear all this talk about failure rates and blah blah blah. Here's the real on that....

Number 1, who ever said anything had to last ten years? Who made up that marker anyhow? And what can you tolerate? I know we all wish that the money we spend will equal a life time of guarantees and promises, but in real life it just ain't so. Once we have established that nothing will last forever we ask ourselves what can we tolerate? Are magnetic ballasts guaranteed for ten years? I have seen the 5 year warranty. You ok with that? Is the fact that if it burns out in five years you will have to buy a new one tolerable to you? Seems reasonable to me. Can you live with 5 years of buzzing and keeping it cool and shorter bulb life/more frequent replacement? Not me. I dunno, what can you tolerate?

I paid $399.00* for my Lumatek in-store. That seems kinda spendy. Compared to a magnetic ballast it seems really spendy. But what's the trade off? Well, besides bulb life, heat, noise and what we have already talked about, mine came with a 5 year no fuss guarantee. If it pops I take it to my local grow shop, drop it off and walk out with a brand new one. How's that for garbage? Well, for me the trade off is good. That I can tolerate. I can promise you if my Lumatek burns up in 18 months I ain't gonna walk away from that $400 man. I will get five years of service from this equipment, period. I can only hope it does burn up, like at 4 years 10 months. Now that would be money well spent

* Not sure where you are from, but here is how that worked. At the shop I go to, if you build your light kit there you will get 10% of the total. That would have been $45 off of a $450 ballast. However I was looking at their online shop and they had the same ballast listed @ $399. I called them on it and they honored. I saved $5. Whoopie

 

[legalize_freedom]

Interesting thread. I have a magnetic ballast for my swithchable hps/mh 400w, and a digital for my 600w. I got good deals on both of these. I like the fact that the 600 runs quieter, and is saveing me energy costs, but thats not the reason I bought it, I got it because I needed a bigger light and found a good deal.

My question is when both of these lights are running side by side, (the 400 set on hps) to my eyes the 400w (magnetic) looks to be brighter than the (600) now the 600 is a newer bulb, and the digi ballsat...so I don't see how the 400 could be running brighter...could this just be the way my eyes are precieving things? I don't own a light meter to actually test it, but thought it was weird.

 

[Tact]

Not all digitals are created equal!! The only brands I would buy are Lumatek, Hydro Farm, Galaxy, or quantum.. They give 5 year warranty's and work great.. Also my Lumatek I just bought said made in the USA on it..

:yeahthat:

I have a 1k Lumatek (purple ballast), 5-year warranty, made in the USA, what more can you ask for if are indeed in the market for a digi.

 

[WrEkkED]

Digital ballasts use less power, as they are more effectient, and usually output a bit more light. Don't think the savings in electricity would warrent the cost of switching though.