250 watt ballast. electronic or hqi

anemoneguy · #1 12/03/2007, 06:50 PM

im needing to get three new 250 watt ballasts and using with de bulbs. i was almost settled on ice cap elec. until i read a neg. thread about them now. something about quality not the same now since someone frome ice cap left the company. so can i find any new older version ice caps or go with hqi or maybe a different electronic.any exp. with any of the electronic ballasts would be great. thanks

DarG · #2 12/03/2007, 07:03 PM

DE lamps are spec'd to run on Magnetic HQI ballasts. The vast majority will output their maximum PAR with them. There is information that the DE lamps having a longer usable life on HQI magnetic ballasts. The cost is higher power consumption for the extra par.

I havent heard anything negative about the newer Icecaps in general. Dont use their halide ballasts though.
I have used ARO electronics and had good results, no issues.

Personally, I figured that if I am going to run DE's, I'm going to run them on their spec ballast. If I am that concerned about the extra power and heat on HQI magnetics compared to electronics (probably 100 - 150 watts more, total, for a pair of 250 watt DE's), then I am probably not going to run halides in the first place. But that's just me. Plenty of reefers run DE halides on electronics. It certainly is a viable alternative.

dandydan · #3 12/03/2007, 07:05 PM

I have tried coral vue on my 250's,
They reduced the light light intensity so much - was obvious to the eye. on my Lux meter measured 20% down.
I hear thats how they save electricity.
Back to the magnetic for me
Luck

dwl · #4 12/04/2007, 01:24 AM

what about the Galaxy ballasts?

Lumamae · #5 12/04/2007, 03:16 AM

SLS is recommending the Galaxy for their MH fixtures.

Wrench · #6 12/04/2007, 09:24 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by dandydan
I have tried coral vue on my 250's,
They reduced the light light intensity so much - was obvious to the eye. on my Lux meter measured 20% down.
I hear thats how they save electricity.
Back to the magnetic for me
Luck

Not sure if the ballast was to blame or not. If you look at the chart here, cnidarianreef.com/lamps.cfm you will see that with a lot of bulbs, the Coralvue ballast provides higher PAR and wattage with less amp draw. Take the XM 10k on the CV ballast. PAR of 541 with 257w. On the Icecap ballast it drops a bit to 530/252. Difference in draw is minimal at .01a less with the CV ballast. Other ballast show similar results, I was just using the Icacap as an example because it's pretty well used. I can also say that the CV ballasts run much cooler than others I've used. I don't have any comparison numbers but the CV wins the "touch" test

jc9394 · #7 12/04/2007, 09:31 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by dwl
what about the Galaxy ballasts?

They are great, I replaced my BlueWave with them on my Maristar fixture and I did not notice any degradation.

DarG · #8 12/04/2007, 10:26 AM

The difference in PAR between DE lamps on Magnetic HQI vs. electronic varies with the lamp. With some lamps the difference is not all that much, with others it is pretty big. The Galaxy isnt any different than other electronic ballasts in that it drives the 250 watt DE's with right around 250 watts. What benefit it may or may not have aside from that in efficiency or anything else I dont know. The new Icecaps are supposed to run the lamps with a little bit higher wattage and I think they do. Not sure if the difference would really be noticeable with most lamps compared with the old Icecaps and other electronics but I dont own one so I cant say. Also, I have no idea if the new Icecaps have a slight efficiency advatage with the new design.

But I always felt that if I was going to run Metal Halides then I wasnt looking for the most efficient lighting source anyway. And I am not going to be concerned about saving 100 - 150 watts to run my M80 spec DE's with electronics. They run to their highest potential on Magnetic HQI, that's what they are designed to run on, that's what I run them on. I'm not criticising anyone who choses to run them on electronics. It's just the way I look at it.

chirocato · #9 12/06/2007, 09:28 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Wrench
Not sure if the ballast was to blame or not. If you look at the chart here, cnidarianreef.com/lamps.cfm you will see that with a lot of bulbs, the Coralvue ballast provides higher PAR and wattage with less amp draw. Take the XM 10k on the CV ballast. PAR of 541 with 257w. On the Icecap ballast it drops a bit to 530/252. Difference in draw is minimal at .01a less with the CV ballast. Other ballast show similar results, I was just using the Icacap as an example because it's pretty well used. I can also say that the CV ballasts run much cooler than others I've used. I don't have any comparison numbers but the CV wins the "touch" test

All those tests were for SE bulbs though not DE. I believe there to be a difference somewhat. See here http://www.cnidarianreef.com/lamps.cfm

dandydan · #10 12/06/2007, 10:33 AM

Thanks all,
I know I was only measuring Lux not par, but still the actual light quality/quantity was way down visually, in fact not too much above my 2X54w giesemann t5 white with giesemann 2X54w t5 actinic+. I did post on coral vue forum and e mail direct to factory -no reply received.
I certainly would try Ice cap or whatever, but believe it or not the only 250w ballast available at moment over here is coral vue.
I have now seperated the hot hot hot magnetic ballasts out of the fitting and to alongside the sump cupboard, with a comp fan above, (one already melted) ha ha.
Luck