Ballast?

[sgarron]

Any one using Lumatek ballasts? How do they compare to Ice Cap and others? They sound great but would like some first hand experiences. I am thinking of getting a Current USA Outer Orbit w/T5's and 3 - 250w MH. But would like to change the magnetic ballasts that come with it and thought these would be a nice option.

http://www.marinedepot.com/ps_ViewIt...ct~LK1115.html

[dwl]

Well, I don't have any experience with these, and I was going to suggest the IceCap ballast from the same seller for $1 less.
I was leaning toward a Galaxy ballast, but will watch this thread for more information/confusion.

Good luck.

[sgarron]

Confusion is definitely the right word

[dwl]

bump

[DarG]

"Magnetic ballasts waste up to 75 watts to convert the electricity, whereas Lumatek sends the FULL 250 watts to the bulb, lighting it to its fullest potential. The Lumatek achieves superior light meter readings in comparison with other digital ballasts on the market through using microprocessors to detect the precise type of lamp used and accordingly supply the correct power. Some lamps are able to use slightly more than 250 watts. The Lumatek ballast will detect this difference and increase output accordingly."

Sounds like more marketing fluff than reality. Considering that they claim to be the "brightest" (I wonder if that means the blue/purple case) I'm not quite sure how that's gonna work seeing how they also claim to "send the FULL 250 watts to the bulb lighting it to it's fullest potential". Most 250 watt DE bulbs on M80 ballasts are running at over 300 watts. A few even upwards of 350 - 360 watts which the M80 is capable of delivering to the bulb if that's what the DE bulb "wants". I don't see how 250 watts "or slightly more" is going to drive a DE bulb that runs on 320 watts, or 330 watts etc. on the M80 ballast to higher output than the M80 ballast will.

May be a good option for SE bulbs or where electronic ballasts are concerned. But by it's own description this ballast claims to drive Double ended lamps at lower wattage than the Magnetic HQI ballast that DE lamps are spec'd to run on.

But, who knows. Maybe I'm missing something that goes beyond plain old common sense.

[Lagger]

more spillover from the horticulture field. Made by BAASR, Lumatek's are sweet & thats a good price at MD

[slow_leak]

Uses a microprocessor for steady source electricity. I order two yesterday when when my low-loss digital controlled ie tar ballast died in my Aqualine Busche internal lamp.

Can't say I believed the marketing either claims but I did believe the 3 year warranty/ 5 year prorated description and went with that. I can see the microprocessor delivering energy savings in this or future redesigns. I also liked the 12 hour testing period. I had bad luck with QC on Blueline Eballasts.

[DarG]

I'm not doubting the quality of the ballasts or how they compare to typical electronic ballasts effficiency wise. All I know is that if you have a DE lamp that is spec'd for an M80 ballast and runs at 330 watts, for example, on an M80 ballast, and the Lumatek delivers 250 watts or "a little more" to that bulb, then the Magnetic HQI ballast is going to drive that bulb to higher par.
Yes, it will use more electricity to do it, but it will be brighter.
Thats all I'm saying, nothing negative about the quality or efficiency.

[slow_leak]

Wouldn't a comparison of older Icecap 250 ballast versus magnetic ballast answer this question as well?

[Lagger]

Originally posted by DarG
"Magnetic ballasts waste up to 75 watts to convert the electricity, whereas Lumatek sends the FULL 250 watts to the bulb, lighting it to its fullest potential. The Lumatek achieves superior light meter readings in comparison with other digital ballasts on the market through using microprocessors to detect the precise type of lamp used and accordingly supply the correct power. Some lamps are able to use slightly more than 250 watts. The Lumatek ballast will detect this difference and increase output accordingly."

Sounds like more marketing fluff than reality. Considering that they claim to be the "brightest" (I wonder if that means the blue/purple case) I'm not quite sure how that's gonna work seeing how they also claim to "send the FULL 250 watts to the bulb lighting it to it's fullest potential". Most 250 watt DE bulbs on M80 ballasts are running at over 300 watts. A few even upwards of 350 - 360 watts which the M80 is capable of delivering to the bulb if that's what the DE bulb "wants". I don't see how 250 watts "or slightly more" is going to drive a DE bulb that runs on 320 watts, or 330 watts etc. on the M80 ballast to higher output than the M80 ballast will.

May be a good option for SE bulbs or where electronic ballasts are concerned. But by it's own description this ballast claims to drive Double ended lamps at lower wattage than the Magnetic HQI ballast that DE lamps are spec'd to run on.

But, who knows. Maybe I'm missing something that goes beyond plain old common sense.

Darg: I think you're missing the point. Im sure the lumatek is pushing more than 250 watts to the bulb, it's just advertising that it sends all 250 input watts directly out to the bulb, with little/no watts going to waste, such as excess heat, typical of mag ballasts. Similar to the galaxy & it's 99.9% effeciency rating. Thus taking less wattage to acheive the same amount of light.

Although Im sure it wont be able to drive as hard as a standard hqi ballast. But like you said, advantages & disadvantages of both....

[DarG]

Originally posted by Lagger
Darg: I think you're missing the point. Im sure the lumatek is pushing more than 250 watts to the bulb, it's just advertising that it sends all 250 input watts directly out to the bulb, with little/no watts going to waste, such as excess heat, typical of mag ballasts. Similar to the galaxy & it's 99.9% effeciency rating. Thus taking less wattage to acheive the same amount of light.

Although Im sure it wont be able to drive as hard as a standard hqi ballast. But like you said, advantages & disadvantages of both....

No, I'm not missing the point. I understand the efficiency claim and the advantage to the ballast because of it. But the advertising is still misleading. They are still claiming to drive halides to higher par than any other ballast and do so more efficiently. They dont only claim to drive bulbs to higher outputs with less energy and leave it at that. They claim to drive them to higher outputs period. It's marketing, every companies agvertising plays the semantics game. I'm just pointing it out.

[dwl]

so then, what would be the best electronic ballast for DE/HQI bulbs?
Galaxy? IceCap? Lumatek? Blueline? ARO?
Does anyone know how "hard" any of these drive the HQI bulbs?

[Lagger]

Originally posted by DarG No, I'm not missing the point. I understand the efficiency claim and the advantage to the ballast because of it. But the advertising is still misleading. They are still claiming to drive halides to higher par than any other ballast and do so more efficiently. They dont only claim to drive bulbs to higher outputs with less energy and leave it at that. They claim to drive them to higher outputs period. It's marketing, every companies agvertising plays the semantics game. I'm just pointing it out.

That's not what I read....

Magnetic ballasts waste up to 75 watts to convert the electricity, whereas Lumatek sends the FULL 250 watts to the bulb, lighting it to its fullest potential. The Lumatek achieves superior light meter readings in comparison with other digital ballasts on the market through using microprocessors to detect the precise type of lamp used and accordingly supply the correct power. Some lamps are able to use slightly more than 250 watts. The Lumatek ballast will detect this difference and increase output accordingly."

[DarG]

Magnetic ballasts waste up to 75 watts to convert the electricity, whereas Lumatek sends the FULL 250 watts to the bulb, lighting it to its fullest potential. The Lumatek achieves superior light meter readings in comparison with other digital ballasts on the market through using microprocessors to detect the precise type of lamp used and accordingly supply the correct power. Some lamps are able to use slightly more than 250 watts. The Lumatek ballast will detect this difference and increase output accordingly."

There are other claims in the description illustrating what I'm saying but the first sentence in bold up top is one of them. Sending a full 250 watts ... lighting it to it's FULLEST potential. Maybe it's me but that is suggesting that 250 watts will extract the maximum par from most every bulb. It is definitely not the case with most DE bulbs. Furthermore, with the first part of the sentence, when taken with the second in bold, it can clearly be taken as they are suggesting that magnetic ballasts do not even achieve the full wattage at the lamp. They suggest that 75 watts of what should be making to the lamp is wasted when in reality, the lamp gets the full wattage, the ballast may just use 75 addition watts from the wall to make that full wattage at the bulb ... because, as we know, the are inefficient compared to electronics, and the Lumatek.

The second sentence in bold states that some lamps are able to use SLIGHTLY more than 250 watts. Many 250 watt DE lamps run at 320 watts and up, a few up to 340, 350, 360 watts on M80 ballasts which they are spec'd to run on. That certainly is not slightly more. And if the lamp will use, for example, 330 watts on an M80 then 330 watts is what will drive it to full par. Not slightly more than 250 watts.

I dont want to turn this in to an argument. It's really not worth it. I just believe that the description is misleading. One can believe, from the description, that the Lumatek will drive any DE lamp to the same output that the M80 ballast can and at an energy savings over the M80 ballast. The energy savings is certainly true but it will come at the cost of par in the case of most DE lamps. I believe the description to be misleading but I am not faulting Lumatek for manipulating semantics to sell their product. Every company does it. I was just pointing it out.

[slow_leak]

I have two up and running as of yesterday. It was a toss up between them and the electronic 250 icecaps for me. MD has them 20% off with 5 year prorated warranty so I went that more untested route, in aquariums.

Wish I had a light meter, but my goal was not to push the par limits, but to have a dependable system. After 12 hours, I can say the output on 2X 250DE14K is MUCH bluer than the expired Aqualine Busche internal lamp build. Appears as bright(whatever that means) Those old parts were scary to disassemble, as heat severely degraded them in 4 years. One of the ignitors sprayed liquified plastic on the back side of the flimsey reflector panels. I reused case. So my comparison is anecdotal but I like them.

Quality is excellent. Wiring almost fool proof. Ballast to lamp cord is maybe 15' and other cord to wall is maybe 8'. Not excessively hot. Specs on LK2120 ballast state 120V I=2.75A, PF>=99%, THD <= 10%, CF 1.7, Ta=30c, Tc=70c.

The selling Semantics are like the presidential debate. They answer the question they want to be asked, and promise the most entitlements.

I will follow online reef keeping magazines to see how it compares to Icecap. Didn't get clunkers out of the box. Wish I upgraded sooner if I knew the fire hazard I had in there. I thought water heater was going the day before it tripped breaker.

[DarG]

Slow_leak ... they are supposed to be great ballasts and Im sure they will work fine and hold up well. Again, I'm not crticizing the ballast or Lumatek for making a shoddy product.

sgarron, the OP, was asking about these ballasts in regards to replacing the ballasts that come with a 250 watt Outer Orbit fixture with the Lumateks. I really only brought it up because of that. Those stock ballasts are magnetic HQI M80 ballasts. It seemed that another poster was also interested. I just wanted to point out that the Lumateks would very likely NOT light the halides to as high an output/par as the stock ballasts. I felt that the advertising of the Lumateks was misleading by "suggesting" that the ballasts would do that and didnt want that to be a reason for the OP to ditch the stock ballasts for the Lumateks.

There still is no free lunch. Until an electronic ballast comes out that will feed the DE lamps with the higher wattages like the Magnetic HQI ballasts do, then the magnetic HQI's will burn the DE halide lamps brighter than electronics. The cost for the extra par is more juice at the wall socket which is above and beyond what they provide to the bulb and which is a tradeoff that some DE halide users will accept.

[slow_leak]

Here's from an article earlier this year on reefkeeping

(3) Electronic Ballasts
Recently, electronic ballasts based on digital electronics have become available for metal halide lamps. Manufacturers claim that these ballasts provide better performance in a smaller package, have a high power factor, save energy, generate less heat, have less change in output power and have lower maintenance costs than F-can and core/coil ballasts. Manufacturers also claim that high frequency ignition reduces blackening on the arc tube’s wall, which gives better color stability and longer lamp life. In addition, electronic ballasts can dim the lamp up to 33% of its full light output. Two concerns with electronic ballasts operating at high frequency are acoustic resonance and electromagnetic interference. Several users have reported interference with other electrical signals, such as TV, and interference with home automation signals, such as those used for X10 devices.