The Truth About Magnetic Ballasts Power Wastage!

[Maxum]

What you learned from this test is the power draw for that ballast and bulb together, what you didn't learn was the individual draw of each, if the bulb is rated at 400 watts it may only draw 375 and the balance is the ballast. You would need to do the same test with the electronic ballast and compare the results to know the ballast loses with one versus the other, but there is much more to this. In commercial applications ballast loses are rated at about 12% and these guys know lighting. When you pay the bill for 250 1000 watt metal halide bulbs running 365 days a year in a mega mall parking lot you pay attention to the details.

Read the lumen depretiation curve for the bulb, you'll find it runs about 20% loss over the life of the bulb with a non defined ballast, this is critical. Lets assume it was a magnetic ballast and bulb life is defined by the industry standard, when 50% of them have failed under ideal conditions. On off cycling and mounting orientation effect the lifetime dramatically and lumen losses are right in line with the life cycle.

Considering all this, your test has only shown you what your electric bill will be.

So lets move on to electronic ballasts. Don't install them in a fixture, the heat of the bulb will degrade the components and lead to early failure.

The algorithim in an Accendo electronic ballast will maintain 95% of the initial lumen output over the life of the bulb, that 15% more light for the money, not including the savings that you have yet to determine from your incomplete test, if there are any. It can also restrike much faster giving more light sooner and can double or triple the lifetime of some bulbs, but this changes from bulb to bulb.

I know someone that just bought a 250 watt Accendo, I have a meter and when I get the chance I'll compare the two ballast types with the 250 watt Hortolux and post the results.

 

[TorturedSoul]

Most growers, not having light meters (and knowing that an appreciable amount of illumination is lost before the point is reached when they can eyeball it), most likely have defined the useful life of their bulb as one grow, two grows, or the like. For them, it would seem that the lumen-maintenance thing is less of a factor than to the mall-owner and his staff who replace bulbs when they actually burn out.

Why not test bulbs in a fixture? That's the way that they are used unless a person is going with an open vertical-bulb grow. Is it just because of the lack of control of the temperature variable (in that one doesn't know the temperature/cooling setups of all growers?

 

[Maxum]

It's the electronic ballast that should not be in the fixture because heat and electronics are a bad combination. The fixture increases the efficency of the system by reflecting the light to where you want it, it would be crazy not to use it.
As for lumens, growing is a technical science and lumens is what you are paying for, the more lumens per watt the greater the efficiency of the operation. If two 400's will give the same light as a 1000 I'd be dam happy.

If you get 2 grows per bulb with magnetic and with the electronic ballast you get 3, with more light at the end than the magnetic gets after one grow then is it worth it? Probably

The graph that I'd like to see is the spectral shift over lifetime, do we lose critical wavelengths faster because we push that part, or lose evenly across the spectrum? I think it's worth a call to bulb company to find out.

I'm going to test the ballasts in identical systems and post the results. I can borrow a light meter from an electrician, but I may be wasting my time on that part.

 

[TorturedSoul]

It's the electronic ballast that should not be in the fixture because heat and electronics are a bad combination. The fixture increases the efficency of the system by reflecting the light to where you want it, it would be crazy not to use it.

Oh, ok. No worries there - most people only grow with an AiO-type setup if they cannot afford separate components (and some of them would separate the components themselves). If a person is buying a setup that includes an electronic ballast, it would in almost all cases be separate. And (I assume) in the majority of cases, placed outside of their grow room/cabinet. After all, they produce heat.

If you get 2 grows per bulb with magnetic and with the electronic ballast you get 3, with more light at the end than the magnetic gets after one grow then is it worth it? Probably

Agreed. It's just kind of hard to tell without instruments. I guess that's why people doing such testing can be so helpful to the rest of us.

The graph that I'd like to see is the spectral shift over lifetime, do we lose critical wavelengths faster because we push that part, or lose evenly across the spectrum? I think it's worth a call to bulb company to find out.

I wouldn't mind seeing graphs of that nature. Please post them if you get them.

I'm going to test the ballasts in identical systems and post the results. I can borrow a light meter from an electrician, but I may be wasting my time on that part.

Thank you. It would be nice if you could arrange to borrow a PAR light meter as well, but that's not something that an electrician would be likely to have.

Will you be including a Lumatek in your ballast test? It has become a sort of benchmark in regards to electronic ballasts in many people's eyes, so that would be very helpful.

 

[Maxum]

I'll take a look at the spec's for the Lumatek and Par light meter, I may be able to come up with one or both.

 

[TorturedSoul]

Thank you very much, regardless of exactly what you come up with for the tests.

I had at one time read that cheap PAR meters ran $650 and up (way, way up, lol) and that a good meter that measures absolute radiance from a light-source (one that measures radiant flux, or total power of light emitted) can be very expensive. A regular light meter, one that measures in lumens and/or lux is strongly weighted towards the human eye, giving most weight to the portions of the spectrum that we "see" the most.

The regular meter can show a lot, of course. But it can also show a bulb as being "brighter" when the other bulb actually provides more usable illumination to the plants. And a well-designed LED fixture that is made up of wavelengths solely in the PAR range might perform very poorly indeed on a lux meter.

I almost didn't mention it, because you're testing ballasts instead of bulbs. But I've read on some aquarium forums that some ballasts are bad about shifting the color-spectrum of their high-K bulbs (might not be an extreme factor to us if it is only most pronounced with 10,000+K bulbs, IDK). This served to drive home to me the fact that the performance of a ballast is more than just how much light the user gets out of it and for how long.

Things were simpler when our means of illumination came from the sun and the flame. One assumes that the cannabis is better now though, lol.

 

[Setting Sun]

I think the only real use for a lux meter when comparing different technologies like LED and HID is to ignore absolute intensities and compare coverage by measuring relative intensities on the same grid for each light individually.

Absolute lux readings would be much more useful when comparing two lights of the same technology, although still not perfect since PAR values of HID bulbs and LED lights can be somewhat different, though much less different than comparing LED vs HID.

 

[Maxum]

I will actually be measuring foot candles as a measurement of visable light density, I doubt there will be any difference in the readings with a new bulb.
The digital ballasts seem to claim better lumen maintenence rather than increased output, although it can for certain bulbs.
I only want one variable for the test and that's the ballast. From there I can read power consumed and FC's at identical grid points.
This stuff goes log scale fast with spectralradiometers and ginowhatevers, look at the stuff the Illuminating Engineering Society does.
LED needs specific light meters, very few hand helds are made and they are expensive. HPS and MH meters are cheap and reliable. They measure visable light which is not ideal for growers and the spectral intensities specific to the task of photosynthesis, but using the same bulb will negate this issue.

 

[G-Dog]

Interesting thread.

I have always been a cheapskate grower and only used HIDs that I built myself or got from surplus from factories.


My thoughts are if you are wealthy and want the nicest looking, coolest stuff and do not care what an oz of weed cost buy all the fancy stuff you can. If you are just trying to grow yourself an oz of weed and do not have or want to spend a lot of money there are plenty of way to do it.

Digital ballast claim to be a soft start and preserve bulb life. Outside of that I do not see any benefit. Now when it comes to bulbs I buy from whomever has them the cheapest (home stores) and they are usually about $20. I think if you spend more than that you are caught in the hype and wasting money. Again if you got it and feel it makes your bud bigger go for it.

 

[Maxum]

I agree with you if you're talking about "growing an oz", it's not about "if you're wealthy and want the nicest looking, coolest stuff"
The thread is geared to the commercial grower looking for the best return on investment and that requires the fundamental data be accurate. Ballasts are a small part of the process.

 

[G-Dog]

I agree with you if you're talking about "growing an oz", it's not about "if you're wealthy and want the nicest looking, coolest stuff"
The thread is geared to the commercial grower looking for the best return on investment and that requires the fundamental data be accurate. Ballasts are a small part of the process.

I did not see commercial in the thread title and I do not know if this site is about commercial growers.

Commercial or not, the thread title is about the truth in Magnetic power. So far I have never seen a reason to spend the kind of money on a digital ballast vs a second hand or surplus high bay lighting fixture with the correct reflector.


So if Commercial is what you are talking about I would have to say you are off topic.

 

[TorturedSoul]

I'd say it has implications for both. For the small personal grower... If a $20 bulb performs as well as a $100 bulb, then fine and dandy. But if not... The difference in price is a good ¼-ounce, which might enter into the equation if that grower had to make up a dry spell between harvests. If, OtOH, the difference (in production from the garden) between the cheapest and the most expensive bulbs is more than ¼-ounce, then it's past the break-even point and is a gimme.

The same would seem to hold true for other tools used in growing - in this case, ballasts - if their cost is negated (or more than) by their contribution to the harvest.

Hey, Maxum: If you do end up getting a Lumatek to test, and can also test one of AN's new low-frequency electronic ballasts along side it, that would answer one of the questions I have about which is better. And thanks again for ANY testing that you do.

 

[Maxum]

After visiting the various websites it is clear the only way to find out is to test under identical conditions.
Lumatek and Nextgen have zero technical information, Accendo has quite a bit but not everything I'd like.
One thing is clear after reading the Accendo data, the benifits of digital are substantial for metal halide. If you look at the lumen curve over lifetime on the Hortilux site, MH loses 50% of initial output. If the Accendo maintains 95%of initial, it's a no brainer.
HPS loses 20% so gains are limited to 15% maximum. We are only talking lumens here, power is yet to be determined.
Accendo can run multilamp with one ballast and HPS and MH with the same ballast but it's tough to figure out from a website.

So you'd like to see, Accendo, Lumatek and Nextgen... vs... magnetic?

 

[TorturedSoul]

Sounds like a winner!

BtW, most (all?) electronic ballasts (in this industry) can run either type of HID bulb.

Several brands offer multilamp (dual) ballasts. Not sure what the true benefit is. They cost a lot more, although I haven't looked at them in a while to see if their price is comparable to two separate single-lamp ballasts. But my worry would be that if such a ballast developed a problem, the grower would lose two sources of light - if not right away (partial failure), definitely when he/she sent it off for service. I like my ballasts like I like my women - single.

 

[Setting Sun]

Another popular brand of digital ballasts is Galaxy, so you might want to check out their info.

I have several digital ballasts, including (2)150w Galaxy (not the dual one, two singles), 250w Lumatek (not newest dimmable one, just straight 250w), 400w Galaxy (not new dimmable one), and last but not least, 400w Lumatek (new dimmable model).

All of them run both HPS and MH, sensing and switching automatically from one bulb type to the other, and I'm extremely happy with all of them.

They're silent, run cooler, have been completely trouble-free, and cost me less money to generate more lumens.

game over



but still very much looking forward to any tests you conduct!

 

[dxco]

The main problem I have experienced with Digital ballasts is NOISE, not noise of the audible type but noise of the EMF & RF type interference that can cause other electronic devices in and around the building containing the ballast to malfunction.
I actually use a Lumatec digital 1Kw to test my lighting controllers before sending them out to make sure that the digital timer isn't going to malfunction or reset due to the RF noise in the AM radio frequency range produced by a LOT of digital ballasts. Not just the cheap one's -I'm talking about 1st & 2nd gen Lumatec, NEXT, the brand new HydroFarm Phantom & ALL of the cheap ass HGT, Wellthink, Daystar, etc... While a shielded cord will help prevent the noise from radiating we shouldn't have to go to the expense of replacing the lamp cord when "upgrading" (or downgrading) to a digital ballast. Hanna, BlueLab, Hach, & other professional grade EC & pH meters also might have an adverse reaction to a nearby digital ballast starting. At least one grower (in an un-canna-friendly state) has had very unwanted visitors due to the noise from his digital ballast interfering with a neighbor's cable TV reception! Is any of this trouble worth the alleged increased output of the lamps?
Note: Lumatec's latest revisions are almost noie-free and shouldn't cause any problems even without the need to buy a shielded cordset.
What about lamp life? I know for a fact that EYE Hortilux Super HPS bulbs will not last as long when used with a Lumatec digital ballast. They burn out where when used with a magnetic ballast they are discarded before they fail -What this indicates to me is that the extra little bit of brightness that may be delivered is actually over-powering the lamp, causing premature failure. Not good at $70 plus per lamp.
And then there is the lifespan of the ballasts. First thing: Any ballast with a cooling fan is out! As anybody who has worked on PC or other power supplies will tell you, most of the failures occur due to a problem with the fan that went on unnoticed -Plus, why would you want a continuous flow of dust going through a high-power device day-in & day-out? If you are inclined to buy a digital ballast, at least buy one without a fan!
My biggest problem with digital ballasts is that, while all of the reputable manufacturers are constantly upgrading the software that controls the ballast, NONE of them have spent the 50 cents to install a means for the consumer (or the retailer) to upgrade the software. If you buy revision Ballast X, rev 1.2 & they realize that some parameter could be tweeked with software to fix a known problem causing premature failure of Bulb Y & release rev 1.3 -You're stuck with an obsolete product with a known flaw and your only recourse (if you even hear about the problem or revision) is to buy a new ballast! -Actually, there is a better way: Find a way to fry the ballast & get a warranty replacement -Just make sure you have your receipt and registered the ballast in time & didn't somehow void your warranty...
When somebody makes a digital ballast with upgradable software, convection cooling & that is certified to work with, and will not affect the warranty of bulbs from reputable, mainstream manufacturers (EYE, Philips, etc.), then I would say to give it a try -If the price isn't more than a comperable quality cap/coil ballast...
Give it another year.
Oh, false claims and bogus products -That reminds me of an LED manufacturer that claims their lights are better then the SUN! I've seen it all now.
Also, if you're looking into buying a lighting controller (and you shoud be if running more than a couple lights), BUY AMERICAN! Stay away from the Canadian Hobby Boxes at NoWireNuts Canada -They have a major design flaw and have the potential to burn your house down or electrocute anybody who touches the box!

 

[Karr]

I've just bumped up to a 600w lumatek with their high par hps bulb. The stats on the bulb are impressive, seems the par is too good to be true.

I haven't yet recorded it but I know my old 400w magnetic ate about 475 watts, unfortunently i don't have a digi to compare at that wattage.

 

[Setting Sun]

The Lumatek bulbs, subjectively, are really bright, and I haven't checked one with a meter, but it wouldn't surprise me if they crank out the jams.

 

[Ithiggy]

Recently just started growing again ... under T5s.

I have been doing much research, this site has been great for me to catch up its been 20 years since I grew.

I have found out that not all magnetic ballasts are the same, there are some that do have 40% power rating and some over 97%.

There are 4 basic circuits with different pros and cons.

1. Reactor (R) circuit will promote higher lamp life but tend to use more amps, has no isolation from grid power, poor lamp watt regulation, uses more power both in start up and after warm. power factor ranges 40 -90 %. Inexpensive to produce.

2. Hi-Reactance (HX) circuit same pros and cons as reactor but slightly more cost to produce.

3. Constant Wattage Autotransformer (CWA) better lamp wattage regulation, avg power factor of 90%, not isolated from grid power, slightly lower lamp life and uses less amps. Production cost about 50% higher then Reactor circuit.

4. Constant Wattage (CW) Isolated from grid power, the best power factor 90 - 100 %, highest regulation, and slightly lower lamp life. Production cost is about 3 times more then a reactor circuit.

I got this info from a pdf file for trouble shooting Hid lighting provided by a major ballast manufacturer made for service personnel.

When buying a Magnetic ballast look for CWA or CW and the highest power factor. My understanding is most growers replace a bulb before it dies anyhow.

R and HX ballast power factor can be brought up with the right Cap wired in at the right place.

A newer magnetic ballast with a low power factor might have a leaky cap.

The major manufacturer makes ballasts for commercial and industrial clients I am sure they are not a sponsor on this site. But I can tell you buying a ballast from a hydro store costs way more then these guys.

 

[dxco]

Interesting stuff -I haven't seen any reactor ballasts in a long time. I don't think they are even manufactured these days due to DOE regulations. Most of the mag ballasts sold by the major grow light manufacturers are CWA type. I didn't realize that the CW ballast could hit 100% PF -I think the cost is too high for anybody to market them to growers but a 10% better efficiency over the CWA ballasts would pay off in time (But the digital manufacturers would still be claiming 120% or some impossible nonsense!).
Thanks for the info -If you can post a link to that manual I'd like to read it -
DX