Printable View
Hey oldmac,Quote:
Originally Posted by oldmac
I didn't really understand what you were saying here. Could you explain this post to me in a little bit more detail. Sorry for the electrical incompetence, not a big electricity guy (something I want to learn MUCH more about).
What did you mean by 150W per 1000W. Are you simply saying that you think it's worth the use of a tad bit more electricity required by a magnetic ballast to pump out the large spectrum coverage of a CMH bulb?
A typical iron core magnetic ballast uses abt 150w above the 1000w bulb for a total of 1,150watts.
An example is a hydrofarm balast uses abt. 9.6 amps @ 120v = 1152watts.
A typical digital or electronic ballast has a power efficentcy of almost 99% and would use about 10w per 1000w for a total of 1,010watts, plus a little more if it has a fan to cool it.
So the penalty to use a CMH might be worth the better performance it could provide. Dutch needs to do an experiment I think, or may have an opinion on the subject since he uses one.
Sweet, thanks for that clarification. I appreciate it
CMH bulbs were designed by Phillips to replace the commercial/manufacturing YELLOW HPS lights in their HPS ceiling ballasts; with a bulb that has WHITE light of an MH bulb, without having to change ballasts. They come in two sizes 250 watt and 400 watt, only.
There are smaller CMH bulbs on the market; but they require 'pulse start' MH ballasts.
Digital ballasts are getting better, more reliable. The newest ones; like Quantum have adjustable power settings: 50%-75% and 100%...:thumbsup:
Magnetic ballasts -60Hz
Digital ballasts -up to 240Hz...(they over drive the bulbs, if you get the wrong one)
Again: CMH bulbs require a Magnetic HPS ballast. Either 250/400 watts.
So DP,
From your perspective, it would be more efficient to run a CMH bulb using a magnetic ballast rather than running 1 MH with 1 HPS using a digital ballast?
The digitals would be more efficient. Electricity wise. Magnetics would probably kick their ass in reliablity.
but, the digitals are getting better. Most magnetic ballasts are UL rated. Most digitals are not. (Get one made in USA/Canada...not China)
I sleep better at night with UL rated products....:thumbsup:
Didn't you say also that digital ballasts couldn't handle / weren't compatible with CMH bulbs?
yes... that is true...CMH bulbs are NOT compatible with digital ballasts.Quote:
Originally Posted by SauceeMcGee
CMH bulbs requires 60Hz ballasts. (ANSI code: S-50, 250 watt or S-51, 400 watt magnetic HPS ballasts
Which is the ONLY reason I got a dig. ballast. Other than that I would have gone with an analog ballast. But knowing I was going to be consuming mass amount of electricity to cool the grow, I wanted a more efficient light system.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dutch Pimp
There really are ups and downs of each system as I'm coming to find out. They're both great, just have to pick the one that's right for you. My application called for a digital.
Now, to me, with a dig. ballast this new lamp from Hortilux would be the best solution. I guess this thing just came out, but it looks pretty nice. One lamp through the whole process seems cool to me, especially gaining the added bonus of the blue spectrum while flowering.
So what does everyone think of THAT lamp?
*junk
Which lamp might that be?Quote:
Originally Posted by sergentjunk