Halide Ballast Question

[basscyn]

I have my eye on a 72" Aqua medic fixture 4x250. It comes with external magnetic ballasts. I have read that electronic ballast are much better for many reasons.

So, can I get some good like Icecap or PFO ballasts and upgrade it?

It this possible?

Thanks!

 

[johnr2604]

yes you can upgrade. It may take some wiring but pretty easily done.

 

[basscyn]

Barbara;232615 wrote: If the fixture is new, you might be better off just ordering it with the upgraded ballast. Buying an electronic ballast, plus the hassle of installing it might not be worth the marginal difference in price to just go ahead and get the electronic ballast in the fixture.

Its a used fixture. I think I can get it really cheap. If so I can put more $$$ toward quality ballasts and bulbs.

Thanks!

 

[johnr2604]

ares;232627 wrote: what makes you say electronic is better?

its a limited to what bulbs they can fire, bulbs typicly put up less par.

bulbs do last longer and they are a bit more efficient.

I stuck with the magnetic when the choice came up.

I have to agree here. It is my understanding that magnetics push the bulb harder.

 

[purplegorilla]

johnr2604;232628 wrote: I have to agree here. It is my understanding that magnetics push the bulb harder.

They push harder but fluctuate up and down in wattages more. Therefore decreasing the life of the bulbs.

 

[basscyn]

Hmm...I have never heard ANYTHING good about magnetic. All I have read says the ballasts get VERY hot, become a fire hazard and dont last as long. As well as retard the life of the bulb.

The fire hazard part is my main concern.

Am I misguided?

 

[dannybradley]

A high quality ballast should not catch on fire. The place the fire starts is always on the cheap, high guage wiring used inside. I know, I had 3 do it while I was running retail.

 

[skriz]

Danny is right. Good ballasts won't catch fire. Thinl about this: commercial warehouses have been using magnetic ballasts for decades!

Also, magnetic are the most efficient with regards to par per watt.

 

[purplegorilla]

Figured I would add to this discussion. Since everyone has an opinion. My take on magnetic is that it is old skool.

http://ateam.lbl.gov/Design-Guide/DGHtm/electronicvs.magneticballasts.htm">http://ateam.lbl.gov/Design-Guide/DGHtm/electronicvs.magneticballasts.htm</a>

[B]This is a direct quote.[/B]

[QUOTE=]
[I]Electronic high-frequency ballasts increase lamp-ballast efficacy, leading to increased energy efficiency and lower operating costs. Electronic ballasts operate lamps using electronic switching power supply circuits. Electronic ballasts take incoming 60 Hz power (120 or 277 volts) and convert it to high-frequency AC (usually 20 to 40 kHz). Electronic ballasts are more efficient than magnetic ballasts in converting input power to the proper lamp power, and their operating of fluorescent lamps at higher frequencies reduces end losses, resulting in an overall lamp-ballast system efficacy increase of 15% to 20%.</em>
[I]Electronic ballasts have a number of other advantages over magnetic ballasts. Electronic ballasts are readily available that operate three or four lamps, allowing the use of a single ballast in 3-lamp and 4-lamp luminaires. This reduces both installation and field wiring labor costs, and may negate the necessity of tandem luminaire wiring as required by the 1992 <u>Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings</u> (Title 24). Electronic ballasts are designed to operate lamps in either series or parallel mode. The advantage of the parallel mode of operation is that a single lamp failure will not affect the operation of the remaining lamps controlled by the same ballast. However, ballast losses will increase slightly in the parallel mode. Other advantages of the electronic ballast include reduced weight, quieter operation, and reduced lamp flicker. Electronic ballasts are directly interchangeable with magnetic ballasts, and they are available to operate most full-size and compact fluorescent lamps. </em>[/QUOTE]

[B]And more link for comparison.[/B]

[IMG]http://www.planetnatural.com/site/xdpy/kb/future-brite-ballasts.html">http://www.planetnatural.com/site/xdpy/kb/future-brite-ballasts.html</a>

 

[tim8111]

I personally like Magnetics. I feel that a good quality magnetic ballast will outlast a similar quality electronic. I have magnetic ballasts that are at least 5 years old. Hard to find an electronic that will lest 5 to 7 years.

If energy efficency is the key concern LED or T5 are the answer. If prolonging the life of the MH Bulb then Electronic (although I still would recommend the 6 to 9 months) As far as fire hazards, there is more wires and other electronic parts (capacitors, resistors, etc) in a electronic ballast.

In conclusion, buy what ever you feel is the best choice for yourself, just buy quality. I always tell my customers at the store you can skimp on some things but never on skimmers or lights!

Just my 2 pennies,
Tim

 

[basscyn]

Ok...I scored it.
72" Aqua Medic 4x250 HQI 4x39 T5

With magnetic ballast!:unsure:

On to the next step!

Thanks as always!

 

[kwl1763]

The one thing I will say is there are tons of factors to take into account.

magnetic ballast make some bulbs PAR significantly better (see Sanjay's site)

Electronic Ballasts sometimes interfere with X-10 controls (huge decision point with me as 2 DC 8s for my AC3 vs 16 X10 modules is enough to fund the efficiency difference for years)

While both should last 3-5 years an magnetic ballast is easily fixable by an average person with very little electrical knowledge and usually for less then $50. I have one that I have had since 1998 and have replaced the capacitor once and the core once. Total cost $24.

Having said all that electronic is better, it's more efficient, more even and should generally increase bulb life and last a bit longer. Those tradeoffs to me though don't get me past the interference and PAR issues (with the bulbs I use)