Electronic MH ballest

[roland jacques]

heres the link that i like fo MH lighting

 

[roland jacques]

KevinC;67300 wrote: Agreed. If anyone comes out with an electronic ballast designed to drive HQIs, I'll be all over it. Certainly electronic ballasts have advantages in heat and size. Whether or not you like a 14k bulb driven to look like a 20k bulb (like the Phoenix 14k bulb does on the Icecap) is a matter of preference. And whether or not you need the extra light output a HQI ballast provides, at the expense of lower efficiency and more heat, is another question.

It looks to me that HQI has the highest efficiency. PAR/watts 0.5067
Heat?

 

[kevinc]

Yeah, actually most everything I have seen showed the HQI ballasts to be the most efficient in terms of PAR per watt. I was just tired of being disagreeable :yes:

But they do get hot.

 

[skriz]

How do you get that? E-ballasts are more efficient? They provide more par per watt than do hqi.

Sanjay's site shows the efficiency of each bulb/ballast combo...

 

[dakota]

Very informative thread.

Today I switched from a Giesemann electronic ballast to a Giesemann magnetic ballast to drive a 150 W DE bulb.

I expected the light to be brighter and the color of the 14K bulb to be whiter.
I was surprised by what I saw. To put this as unscientifically as possible, the light was much "calmer" and the color was "richer".

The tank is a lot easier on the eyes. I've been staring at it all day; and with the electronic ballast, I could only look at it briefly before my eyes started hurting.

Like I said, to put this as unscientifically as possible, I think there is much more to driving these DE bulbs correctly than can be quantified in terms of PAR or Watts. IMO the electronic ballast created very "harsh" light, while the light from the magnetic ballast is very "smooth".

BTW- the corals have never looked so good and the microfauna have been out and about all day. I think they notice the difference, too.

 

[ouling]

KevinC;67237 wrote: The PFO HQI ballast (and the PFO standard) is a magnetic ballast. The 250W HQI is an ANSI M80 ballast, and the 250 probe start (standard) is an ANSI M58 ballast.

I'll check it again but i'm extremely sure it's an electronic ballast. I have the 400w btw, not the 250w.

 

[ouling]

KevinC;67240 wrote: Actually the HQI ballast drives HQI bulbs the way they are supposed to be driven. The electronic ballast drives them as if they were normal SE bulbs, at a lower current level, thus putting out less light with less power draw.

HQI or anything that puts out more power than the wattage ratting on the bulb is over driving it. My 400w ballast is actually putting out 450w-470w.

Skriz;67386 wrote: How do you get that? E-ballasts are more efficient? They provide more par per watt than do hqi.

Sanjay's site shows the efficiency of each bulb/ballast combo...

http://www.cnidarianreef.com/lamps.cfm">http://www.cnidarianreef.com/lamps.cfm</a>

I lost the link on the 400w test.

Electronic ballast usually come out the worst in PAR test because it drive the bulb the way manufacturer suggested, which is the actual bulb rating.

 

[kevinc]

I guess I am gonna have to be disagreeable again

ouling;67417 wrote: Electronic ballast usually come out the worst in PAR test because it drive the bulb the way manufacturer suggested, which is the actual bulb rating.

No they don't. Electronic ballasts come out behind when driving HQI bulbs because they DON'T drive the bulb the way the manufacturer suggested. I like the idea expressed above - let's just go with what the manufacturer suggests, shall we.

http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2007-03/sj/index.php">http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2007-03/sj/index.php</a>

Quote from Sanjay's article referenced above:

[INDENT]* Note HQI refers to high lamp current European specification. Operating it on a standard American pulse start (ANSI M138/M153) ballast will reduce its output and may cause color shift.[/INDENT]And notice in that article what the manufacturers suggested for every single 250 DE bulb in the chart: the M80 HQI ballast. Here's the chart from the article - excuse the formatting, I can't seem to figure out how to get the spacing correct in the forums: :)


[INDENT]250-watt MH DE lamp Lamp Standard Lamp Type Recommended Ballast
Aquaconnect 14,000K M80/HQI PULSE M80/HQI
<span style="font-size: 12px;">Aqualine Buschke 10,000K, 20,000K80/HQI PULSE M80/HQI</span>
<span style="font-size: 12px;">BLV Nepturion 10,000K, 14,000K, 20,000K M80/HQI PULSE M80/HQI</span>
C<span style="font-size: 12px;">oralVue 10,000K, 14,000K, 20,000K M80/HQI PULSE M80/HQI</span>
<span style="font-size: 12px;">CoralVue ReefLux 10,000K, 12,000K M80/HQI PULSE M80/HQI</span>
<span style="font-size: 12px;">EVC 10,000K, 14,000K, 20,000K M80/HQI PULSE M80/HQI</span>
Giesemann Megachrome Marine 12,500K M80/HQI PULSE M80/HQI
Giesemann Megachrome Coral 14,500K M80/HQI PULSE M80/HQI
Giesemann Megachrome Blue 22,000K M80/HQI PULSE M80/HQI
<span style="font-size: 12px;">Hamilton 14,000K M80/HQI PULSE M80/HQI</span>
<span style="font-size: 12px;">Helios 12,500K, 2</span><span style="font-size: 12px;">0,000K M80/HQI PULSE M80/HQI</span>
<span style="font-size: 12px;">PFO Lighting Krystal Star M80/HQI PULSE M80/HQI</span>
<span style="font-size: 12px;">Phoenix Electric HexArc 14,000K M80/HQI PULSE M80/HQI</span>
Ushio Aqualite M80/HQI PULSE M80/HQI
<span style="font-size: 12px;">XM 10,000K, 15,000K, 20,000K M80/HQI PULSE M80/HQI</span>
[/INDENT]<span style="color: #ffffff;">[B]Standar[/B]</span>
Here's the specs on Ushio lamps from their website:

[IMG]http://www.ushio.com/products/petcare/aqualite.htm">http://www.ushio.com/products/petcare/aqualite.htm</a>

Notice which ballast they spec to run their DE lamps? That's right, the M80 magnetic HQI ballast. Not an electronic ballast that was designed to replace M58 and M138 ballasts.



If you can find a manufacturer that suggests using an electronic ballast to drive HQI bulbs instead of the M80 ballast, please link it for me.

 

[roland jacques]

Skriz;67386 wrote: How do you get that? E-ballasts are more efficient? They provide more par per watt than do hqi.

Sanjay's site shows the efficiency of each bulb/ballast combo...

Not according to Sanjays web site. (unless i'm reading it wrong.) HQI ballast did provide the highest PAR per watt. 5.067 was the highest efficiency rating listed and the HQI ballast listed a few lamps running over 5. PAR/watts. Electronic did not have any lamps over 5. At a quick glance most the lamps were more efficient with HQI

 

[kevinc]

One more thing before I give up - also note that in Sanjay's article I linked to above, the M58 and M153 ballasts have a nominal rating of 133V and 2.1 amps = 279 watts, where the M80 ballast has nominal specs of 100V amd 3.0 amps = 300watts. The M80 is expected to draw more power - that's not overdriving, that is as designed.

We can't actually run the bulbs exactly since they are designed for European voltages and frequencies, but the M80 is as close as we can get and is what the lamp manufacturers recommend here in North America.

 

[roland jacques]

I learned a lots of good info on HQIs, Thanks

 

[skriz]

Roland- what you are looking at are SE bulbs, not DE bulbs. WHen you check the DE bulbs only, it tells a completely different story.

Check the site again and check by ballast. Pick only shileded bulbs. It will list all DE bulbs tested with the m80, and then the E-ballast.

Kevin- I never thought about the European design aspect. That would throw everything off. I wonder what the results would be like if we used 220v instead of 110v. I know icecap's are available in 220v, are any of the magnetic's? This would be a good experiment.

 

[skriz]

btw, I have enjoyed this thread. It has been a good discussion and nobody got all pissy (like I see on another board which shall remain unnamed)

 

[kevinc]

Skriz;67465 wrote:
Kevin- I never thought about the European design aspect. That would throw everything off. I wonder what the results would be like if we used 220v instead of 110v. I know icecap's are available in 220v, are any of the magnetic's? This would be a good experiment.

Maybe. I don't know which ballasts the 220v Icecaps are designed to replace. Perhaps they would be the equivalent of the HQI magnetics, in which case they would definitely be the way to go in Euro land.

If you look at the last table in Sanjay's article I linked, there are substantial differences in arc voltage and current, starting voltage and pulse height, power consumption, etc between HQI and normal ballasts. Notice the 400W HQI ballasts also consume a good bit more power than the 400W standard ballasts, just as in the 250W realm. (480 watts vs 439 watts nominal).

It's also interesting to note that there are a number of single ended bulbs that are actually designed for HQI ballasts. These will likely fire on a standard pulse start ballast, but would not be driven to spec. People seem to equate double ended to HQI, where that is in fact not the case.

I have also enjoyed the discussion (and especially the civility). I'm just trying to get folks to not be so hung up on the power usage of the ballast, and actually look at the design of the lamps. We engineers hate it when we design something and the users ignore our specs, that's all.

 

[roland jacques]

Skriz,
Yeah i see what your saying. Pretty interesting Stuff I never really paid that much attention to how each bulb interact with each ballast. I plain to use more HQI lamps in the future and this has been very helpful.
Dakotas input is very interesting also.

 

[skriz]

Roland Jacques;67683 wrote: ...
Dakotas input is very interesting also.

I agree. Either way you look at it, the corals will be happy with whatever combo you go with. So, it comes down to a subjective difference in the "look". Par may be great, but if the color just doesnt look good or the light is too harsh for you, then what's the point? Afterall, we did build our systems for us to enjoy!