what does your lights really use??

bergzy · 07/31/2006, 09:39 PM

i hooked my giesemann 72" 3x250w all metal halide pendant to a kill-a-watt and it reads that it is using 925 watts.

i think that is kinda a little too far off.

does everyones lights use more than the untended amount.

tough question given the infinite variation of bulb and ballast etc...

hahnmeister · 07/31/2006, 09:46 PM

most halides use more than the bulb wattage listed. The '250' is what the bulb is rated for and gets, but it can take much more than that to run it. Some HQI ballasts run almost 350 watts for a 250 watt bulb!!! 925W or 308W each sounds about right.

bergzy · 07/31/2006, 10:02 PM

thanks for the info!!! that helped out a lot!

as for your 'hobby experience'...that is hilarious! that is what i ask my sister in law when she said that the people the ceo of a struggling company has...'a lot of experience'. i say 'what kind of experience?...experience in making a lot of mistakes?' she still doesnt get it.

hahnmeister · 07/31/2006, 10:25 PM

glad you like my commentary...

In the thread below, if you scroll down in it, you will see many wattages listed for various bulbs and ballasts. There is quite a range... so no need for concern with yours (unless you have weird noises, sparks, or flames shooting out).

http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/sh...hreadid=254667

moonpod · 07/31/2006, 10:27 PM

Actually Bergzy that seems about right to me. The gman uses a mag ballast right? That's a double ended set of pix right? so Ballpark 300 or so is what most mag M80 ballasts draw (depends on bulb ballast combos). You would be averaging 308. So it sounds just right to me.

BONDQ · 07/31/2006, 10:30 PM

The reason more than the bulb wattage is used, is because of the ballast and the loss of heat to the ballast.

It's purely an effciency issue. I'm not aware of any power supply that gives back 100% of what it takes in.

All that heat coming from your ballast is lost energy. That's the residual heat created by the ballast, which in turn is a result of electrical resistance.

bergzy · 07/31/2006, 11:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by moonpod
The gman uses a mag ballast right? ...You would be averaging 308. So it sounds just right to me.

the giesemann that i have uses electronic ballasts...the ballasts are enclosed in the light fixture...it weighs a ton!!! well, a hundred pounds at least and is a nightmare to try and 'delicately' move into place!

is this still a normal reading?

no sparks, flames or ufo's coming out of the lights!

BONDQ · 08/01/2006, 12:11 AM

I would say your numbers are in-line with the averages.

I think it is realistic to expect 70%-80% efficiency on these types of ballasts. So if you had a 100W bulb (let's just say), the ballast could use up or loose as much as 30% more energy; so about 120W-130W for that 100W bulb.

A 400W MH bulb would take about 500W to lite, based on these numbers. The ~100W loss goes to the ballast, as residual heat due to resistance.

8BALL_99 · 08/01/2006, 01:31 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by bergzy
the giesemann that i have uses electronic ballasts...the ballasts are enclosed in the light fixture...it weighs a ton!!! well, a hundred pounds at least and is a nightmare to try and 'delicately' move into place!

is this still a normal reading?

no sparks, flames or ufo's coming out of the lights!

Sounds like you have Magnetic Ballasts to me.. Electronic Ballasts aren't very heavy.. My 250 Icecap ballasts only use like 220 watts of power.. I tested all 5 of them and they all read about the same..

moonpod · 08/01/2006, 07:37 AM

Giesemann only had electronic ballasts for a short period of time, BUT interestingly they ran bulbs very similar to mag ballasts and had similar power consumption ratings....ie you didn't have the approximately 20% less electrical draw and output. It was all on par with what a mag ballast would do. That being said, they aren't heavy.

bergzy · 08/01/2006, 08:10 AM

hmmm,

maybe they do have magnetic ballasts...

i was under the impression they were electronic but i think y'all are right.

07/31/2006, 09:39 PM	#1
bergzy Registered Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: OC CA USA Posts: 5,299	what does your lights really use?? i hooked my giesemann 72" 3x250w all metal halide pendant to a kill-a-watt and it reads that it is using 925 watts. i think that is kinda a little too far off. does everyones lights use more than the untended amount. tough question given the infinite variation of bulb and ballast etc... __________________ The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule it. H.L. Mencken Ben. Current Tank Info: 180g sps, 90g cube clam biotope.

07/31/2006, 10:02 PM	#3
bergzy Registered Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: OC CA USA Posts: 5,299	thanks for the info!!! that helped out a lot! as for your 'hobby experience'...that is hilarious! that is what i ask my sister in law when she said that the people the ceo of a struggling company has...'a lot of experience'. i say 'what kind of experience?...experience in making a lot of mistakes?' she still doesnt get it. __________________ The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule it. H.L. Mencken Ben. Current Tank Info: 180g sps, 90g cube clam biotope.

07/31/2006, 10:27 PM	#5
moonpod Premium Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: B.H., Los Angeles Posts: 13,053	Actually Bergzy that seems about right to me. The gman uses a mag ballast right? That's a double ended set of pix right? so Ballpark 300 or so is what most mag M80 ballasts draw (depends on bulb ballast combos). You would be averaging 308. So it sounds just right to me. __________________ Excuses are just the nails for the house of failure. Current Tank Info: 32" Leemar starfire cube now empty and not quite so stinky

08/01/2006, 07:37 AM	#10
moonpod Premium Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: B.H., Los Angeles Posts: 13,053	Giesemann only had electronic ballasts for a short period of time, BUT interestingly they ran bulbs very similar to mag ballasts and had similar power consumption ratings....ie you didn't have the approximately 20% less electrical draw and output. It was all on par with what a mag ballast would do. That being said, they aren't heavy. __________________ Excuses are just the nails for the house of failure. Current Tank Info: 32" Leemar starfire cube now empty and not quite so stinky

08/01/2006, 08:10 AM	#11
bergzy Registered Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: OC CA USA Posts: 5,299	hmmm, maybe they do have magnetic ballasts... i was under the impression they were electronic but i think y'all are right. __________________ The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule it. H.L. Mencken Ben. Current Tank Info: 180g sps, 90g cube clam biotope.

07/31/2006, 09:46 PM	#2
hahnmeister Moved On Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Brew City, WI Posts: 10,156	most halides use more than the bulb wattage listed. The '250' is what the bulb is rated for and gets, but it can take much more than that to run it. Some HQI ballasts run almost 350 watts for a 250 watt bulb!!! 925W or 308W each sounds about right.

07/31/2006, 10:25 PM	#4
hahnmeister Moved On Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Brew City, WI Posts: 10,156	glad you like my commentary... In the thread below, if you scroll down in it, you will see many wattages listed for various bulbs and ballasts. There is quite a range... so no need for concern with yours (unless you have weird noises, sparks, or flames shooting out). http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/sh...hreadid=254667

07/31/2006, 10:30 PM	#6
BONDQ Premium Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: So CA Posts: 621	The reason more than the bulb wattage is used, is because of the ballast and the loss of heat to the ballast. It's purely an effciency issue. I'm not aware of any power supply that gives back 100% of what it takes in. All that heat coming from your ballast is lost energy. That's the residual heat created by the ballast, which in turn is a result of electrical resistance.

08/01/2006, 12:11 AM	#8
BONDQ Premium Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: So CA Posts: 621	I would say your numbers are in-line with the averages. I think it is realistic to expect 70%-80% efficiency on these types of ballasts. So if you had a 100W bulb (let's just say), the ballast could use up or loose as much as 30% more energy; so about 120W-130W for that 100W bulb. A 400W MH bulb would take about 500W to lite, based on these numbers. The ~100W loss goes to the ballast, as residual heat due to resistance.