05dr
06/06/2003, 07:35 PM
i basically want your thoughts on fulhams response. as many of you know fulham has now approved there workhorse ballasts for use with T5 HO bulbs despite industry research stating that they cause accelerated decay of expected lamp life expectancy. the two proposed mechanisms (as i understand them) are the overdriving of bulbs and the instant (ie. "rough") start "wear out" the bulbs prematurely. i specifically called them regarding whether or not a wh7 ballast would decrease lamp life if used to power 2 80W T5 bulbs citing this information.
his anwer was two part. first he stated that if using wiring diagram #9 the bulbs would not see the full 220W the ballast is capable of delivering. By only using 2 of the 4 possible power outlets the ballast would somehow adjust downward while somehow still musturing the wattage necessary to run the lamp. this emplies the ballast delivers more that 55W(220/4) to the bulb without delivering the full 110W(220/2). i don't really understand how this would work but even if the bulbs were overdriven to the ballasts maximum wattage it would only be by a maximum of 37.5%(30/80). ice cap is projecting bulbs lasting nearly 2 yrs overdriving them around 45-64%.
the second part of his reply regarded the instant start of the fulham balasts. he quoted what has previously been said on this board stating that a minimum of a 12 hr burn time should be used and that rapid cycling(like in a bathroom) would were out the bulb early. when i probed further he stated that the truth is that each bulb only has a set number of "starts" to begin with and that it is actually distinct of "lamp life" or the total number of hours a bulb will last prior to decreased light output and spectrum shifts to unacceptable levels. if you turn the bulb on and off repeatidly the bulb will wear out but not in the typical sense of changing spectrum and decreased output. he then stated that as long as the bulb is only turned on only once a day (almost irregardless of "burn time") the ballast should not cause early lamp failure.
although there is no exact anwer out there (these bulbs are just now getting real field use) i would love to hear some conjectures regarding actual loss in bulb life expectancy. i am not stating any of this to argue or contradict what others here have stated. i am only posting what seemed to be a little more detailed response from fulham regarding their ballasts. i would truly appreciate any thoughts or explanations yall have as i have not yet made my decision regarding lighting. i guess i need to admit this is not for a salt tank. i am actually a fw cichlid guy who want to add some plants to my tank which is 5'x2'x2' but i really didn't want to use between 4 and 6 t-8 bulbs after i figured it would end up costing the same for the t-8's as the t-5's if i used the fulham ballast. i did consider the programmed start ballast but there are none out for the 80W bulbs that i could find and using 4 ft bulbs would unecessarily push the price up. anyways, sorry for being so longwinded. to see pics of my tank with 80-120W of t12 lighting check out this link http://community.webshots.com/user/05doctor
his anwer was two part. first he stated that if using wiring diagram #9 the bulbs would not see the full 220W the ballast is capable of delivering. By only using 2 of the 4 possible power outlets the ballast would somehow adjust downward while somehow still musturing the wattage necessary to run the lamp. this emplies the ballast delivers more that 55W(220/4) to the bulb without delivering the full 110W(220/2). i don't really understand how this would work but even if the bulbs were overdriven to the ballasts maximum wattage it would only be by a maximum of 37.5%(30/80). ice cap is projecting bulbs lasting nearly 2 yrs overdriving them around 45-64%.
the second part of his reply regarded the instant start of the fulham balasts. he quoted what has previously been said on this board stating that a minimum of a 12 hr burn time should be used and that rapid cycling(like in a bathroom) would were out the bulb early. when i probed further he stated that the truth is that each bulb only has a set number of "starts" to begin with and that it is actually distinct of "lamp life" or the total number of hours a bulb will last prior to decreased light output and spectrum shifts to unacceptable levels. if you turn the bulb on and off repeatidly the bulb will wear out but not in the typical sense of changing spectrum and decreased output. he then stated that as long as the bulb is only turned on only once a day (almost irregardless of "burn time") the ballast should not cause early lamp failure.
although there is no exact anwer out there (these bulbs are just now getting real field use) i would love to hear some conjectures regarding actual loss in bulb life expectancy. i am not stating any of this to argue or contradict what others here have stated. i am only posting what seemed to be a little more detailed response from fulham regarding their ballasts. i would truly appreciate any thoughts or explanations yall have as i have not yet made my decision regarding lighting. i guess i need to admit this is not for a salt tank. i am actually a fw cichlid guy who want to add some plants to my tank which is 5'x2'x2' but i really didn't want to use between 4 and 6 t-8 bulbs after i figured it would end up costing the same for the t-8's as the t-5's if i used the fulham ballast. i did consider the programmed start ballast but there are none out for the 80W bulbs that i could find and using 4 ft bulbs would unecessarily push the price up. anyways, sorry for being so longwinded. to see pics of my tank with 80-120W of t12 lighting check out this link http://community.webshots.com/user/05doctor