Go with magnetic or Electronic Ballast?
- Thread starter hot883
- Start date
oceana
Active Member
Originally Posted by Agent707
They pay for themselves over their lifetime... and then some.
The ONLY reason to get a magnetic is IF you simply can't afford that initial extra cost of the electronic.
As stated, over the period of ownership, you recoup that extra money.
Period.
this is a very untrue statement. although the cost can vary its not by much in most cases. atleast not enough to matter IMO. do a bit of research and you will find that they both have a place and you need to choose accordingly.
you get the ballast that your bulb was made to run on. every bulb will operate different depending on the ballast it was made to run on. you need to match the ballast to the bulb in order to get the best performance possible out of your bulb of choice.
if your setting up your system properly you need to take this into account. it should have nothing to do with the cost.
They pay for themselves over their lifetime... and then some.
The ONLY reason to get a magnetic is IF you simply can't afford that initial extra cost of the electronic.
As stated, over the period of ownership, you recoup that extra money.
Period.
this is a very untrue statement. although the cost can vary its not by much in most cases. atleast not enough to matter IMO. do a bit of research and you will find that they both have a place and you need to choose accordingly.
you get the ballast that your bulb was made to run on. every bulb will operate different depending on the ballast it was made to run on. you need to match the ballast to the bulb in order to get the best performance possible out of your bulb of choice.
if your setting up your system properly you need to take this into account. it should have nothing to do with the cost.
saltfan
Active Member
Originally Posted by oceana
this is a very untrue statement. although the cost can vary its not by much in most cases. atleast not enough to matter IMO. do a bit of research and you will find that they both have a place and you need to choose accordingly.
you get the ballast that your bulb was made to run on. every bulb will operate different depending on the ballast it was made to run on. you need to match the ballast to the bulb in order to get the best performance possible out of your bulb of choice.
No sir, this is not exactly correct. Lights don't run the ballast, the ballast runs the lamp. You can put your money into a Ice Cap Ballast, and have it run NO lamps at VHO levels.
this is a very untrue statement. although the cost can vary its not by much in most cases. atleast not enough to matter IMO. do a bit of research and you will find that they both have a place and you need to choose accordingly.
you get the ballast that your bulb was made to run on. every bulb will operate different depending on the ballast it was made to run on. you need to match the ballast to the bulb in order to get the best performance possible out of your bulb of choice.
No sir, this is not exactly correct. Lights don't run the ballast, the ballast runs the lamp. You can put your money into a Ice Cap Ballast, and have it run NO lamps at VHO levels.
agent707
Member
Originally Posted by oceana
this is a very untrue statement.
You are intitled to your own opinion.
My post was not in regards to what ballast goes with what bulb... the FACT is electronic ballasts use less energy/heat, which in turn makes your electricity bill less, which in turn makes up for the extra cost over the period of the lifetime you own the ballast.
12 hours per day time xx years you run them adds up to a significant amount of savings.
this is a very untrue statement.
You are intitled to your own opinion.
My post was not in regards to what ballast goes with what bulb... the FACT is electronic ballasts use less energy/heat, which in turn makes your electricity bill less, which in turn makes up for the extra cost over the period of the lifetime you own the ballast.
12 hours per day time xx years you run them adds up to a significant amount of savings.
bdubbya
Member
A 400 watt ballast uses approximately 400 watts. It doesn't matter if it's electronic or magnetic. Typically magnetic ballasts use slightly more electricity, but in return you get a little more intense light. So, in a sense you're right they do use more power, but not because they are less efficient than electronic. Electronics do run a little cooler though, if that's important to you.
Good luck.
Good luck.
agent707
Member
Here ya go. click here
He's referring to flourescent, but same principle.
And here
Again, referring to flourscent, but again, same basic principle.
He's referring to flourescent, but same principle.
And here
Again, referring to flourscent, but again, same basic principle.
agent707
Member
Originally Posted by Bdubbya
A 400 watt ballast uses approximately 400 watts.
The bulb uses 400 watts, not the ballast... :notsure: Where did you get this? Yes, ballast do comsume some power, but nothing like the bulb does...
The point here is that electronic ballast comsume less power than magnetic ones for the same results through the bulbs.
But you don't have to believe me though. I'd suggest just searching the web. There is ample info on this kind of stuff.
A 400 watt ballast uses approximately 400 watts.
The bulb uses 400 watts, not the ballast... :notsure: Where did you get this? Yes, ballast do comsume some power, but nothing like the bulb does...
The point here is that electronic ballast comsume less power than magnetic ones for the same results through the bulbs.
But you don't have to believe me though. I'd suggest just searching the web. There is ample info on this kind of stuff.
bdubbya
Member
I would suggest going to this webpage and taking a look at this guy's research. More importantly it is independent research, he's not trying to sell you anything. He's a hobbiest just like us, trying to see which item works best. You'll see with his research, that most of the time you get more useable par out of the bulbs with the magnetic ballast, with no more wear on the bulb than an electronic.
http://www.personal.psu.edu/faculty/...ticle-list.htm
Yes, I know it's the bulb consuming the energy. I wouldn't think anyone would try to light their aquarium with a ballast and no bulb, so I just assume if they have a 250 watt ballast they will have a 250 watt bulb. Which I guess is what you were assuming when you wrote this?
the FACT is electronic ballasts use less energy
. You could use a 250 watt ballast to light a 175 watt bulb, but you would just overdrive it and shorten its usable life.
HOT883 email me and I will give you a link to a great website for selecting ballast and bulb combinations. blake323@msn.com
I can't give it to you here because of the link policy.
Good luck.
http://www.personal.psu.edu/faculty/...ticle-list.htm
Yes, I know it's the bulb consuming the energy. I wouldn't think anyone would try to light their aquarium with a ballast and no bulb, so I just assume if they have a 250 watt ballast they will have a 250 watt bulb. Which I guess is what you were assuming when you wrote this?
the FACT is electronic ballasts use less energy
. You could use a 250 watt ballast to light a 175 watt bulb, but you would just overdrive it and shorten its usable life.
HOT883 email me and I will give you a link to a great website for selecting ballast and bulb combinations. blake323@msn.com
I can't give it to you here because of the link policy.
Good luck.
squidd
Active Member
The point here is that electronic ballast consume less power than magnetic ones
Actually...The electronic ballasts do consume less power than the magnetic ones, although the difference is becoming less with some electronics actually using more than some Mags...so the difference isn't as great as some would have you believe...
for the same results through the bulbs.
This "for the most part" is inaccurate... Electronics use slightly less juice than Mags, but there is a definite decrease in output from bulbs...
Sure the electronic is "efficiently" using electricty...just quietly sipping electrons as it puts out it's 250 or 400 watts...Kinda like an economy car...
And the Magnetic Ballast is sucking the wattage and rumbling in the closet and pushing it's 250/400 watts as well...kinda like a pick up truck or muscle car...
And the ballasts, just like the cars..are both capable of going 60mph and they both can travel a 1/4 mile...
But which one do you want to light up you tank with...??
The Dodge Neon or the 440 hemi 'Cuda...???
Actually...The electronic ballasts do consume less power than the magnetic ones, although the difference is becoming less with some electronics actually using more than some Mags...so the difference isn't as great as some would have you believe...
for the same results through the bulbs.
This "for the most part" is inaccurate... Electronics use slightly less juice than Mags, but there is a definite decrease in output from bulbs...
Sure the electronic is "efficiently" using electricty...just quietly sipping electrons as it puts out it's 250 or 400 watts...Kinda like an economy car...
And the Magnetic Ballast is sucking the wattage and rumbling in the closet and pushing it's 250/400 watts as well...kinda like a pick up truck or muscle car...
And the ballasts, just like the cars..are both capable of going 60mph and they both can travel a 1/4 mile...
But which one do you want to light up you tank with...??
The Dodge Neon or the 440 hemi 'Cuda...???
bdubbya
Member
Originally Posted by Squidd
Actually...The electronic ballasts do consume less power than the magnetic ones, although the difference is becoming less with some electronics actually using more than some Mags...so the difference isn't as great as some would have you believe...
This "for the most part" is inaccurate... Electronics use slightly less juice than Mags, but there is a definite decrease in output from bulbs...
Sure the electronic is "efficiently" using electricty...just quietly sipping electrons as it puts out it's 250 or 400 watts...Kinda like an economy car...
And the Magnetic Ballast is sucking the wattage and rumbling in the closet and pushing it's 250/400 watts as well...kinda like a pick up truck or muscle car...
And the ballasts, just like the cars..are both capable of going 60mph and they both can travel a 1/4 mile...
But which one do you want to light up you tank with...??
The Dodge Neon or the 440 hemi 'Cuda...???
That is a great analogy Squidd. That's what I was trying to say, I just lack the insight . . . or . . . brains, to say what I mean so everyone can understand it.
Actually...The electronic ballasts do consume less power than the magnetic ones, although the difference is becoming less with some electronics actually using more than some Mags...so the difference isn't as great as some would have you believe...
This "for the most part" is inaccurate... Electronics use slightly less juice than Mags, but there is a definite decrease in output from bulbs...
Sure the electronic is "efficiently" using electricty...just quietly sipping electrons as it puts out it's 250 or 400 watts...Kinda like an economy car...
And the Magnetic Ballast is sucking the wattage and rumbling in the closet and pushing it's 250/400 watts as well...kinda like a pick up truck or muscle car...
And the ballasts, just like the cars..are both capable of going 60mph and they both can travel a 1/4 mile...
But which one do you want to light up you tank with...??
The Dodge Neon or the 440 hemi 'Cuda...???
That is a great analogy Squidd. That's what I was trying to say, I just lack the insight . . . or . . . brains, to say what I mean so everyone can understand it.
kindbuds2k
Member
I completely agree with Bdubbya, great way to compare the two Squidd.
hot883
Active Member
Originally Posted by Squidd
Actually...The electronic ballasts do consume less power than the magnetic ones, although the difference is becoming less with some electronics actually using more than some Mags...so the difference isn't as great as some would have you believe...
This "for the most part" is inaccurate... Electronics use slightly less juice than Mags, but there is a definite decrease in output from bulbs...
Sure the electronic is "efficiently" using electricty...just quietly sipping electrons as it puts out it's 250 or 400 watts...Kinda like an economy car...
And the Magnetic Ballast is sucking the wattage and rumbling in the closet and pushing it's 250/400 watts as well...kinda like a pick up truck or muscle car...
And the ballasts, just like the cars..are both capable of going 60mph and they both can travel a 1/4 mile...
But which one do you want to light up you tank with...??
The Dodge Neon or the 440 hemi 'Cuda...???
Thanks Squidd, if anyone could explain it; it would be you. I searched the threads and could not find good info. on the two. This is exactly the type of info. we needed on the subject. I think this should go to the archives.
Actually...The electronic ballasts do consume less power than the magnetic ones, although the difference is becoming less with some electronics actually using more than some Mags...so the difference isn't as great as some would have you believe...
This "for the most part" is inaccurate... Electronics use slightly less juice than Mags, but there is a definite decrease in output from bulbs...
Sure the electronic is "efficiently" using electricty...just quietly sipping electrons as it puts out it's 250 or 400 watts...Kinda like an economy car...
And the Magnetic Ballast is sucking the wattage and rumbling in the closet and pushing it's 250/400 watts as well...kinda like a pick up truck or muscle car...
And the ballasts, just like the cars..are both capable of going 60mph and they both can travel a 1/4 mile...
But which one do you want to light up you tank with...??
The Dodge Neon or the 440 hemi 'Cuda...???
Thanks Squidd, if anyone could explain it; it would be you. I searched the threads and could not find good info. on the two. This is exactly the type of info. we needed on the subject. I think this should go to the archives.
agent707
Member
Originally Posted by Squidd
Actually...The electronic ballasts do consume less power than the magnetic ones, although the difference is becoming less with some electronics actually using more than some Mags...so the difference isn't as great as some would have you believe...
This "for the most part" is inaccurate... Electronics use slightly less juice than Mags, but there is a definite decrease in output from bulbs...
Sure the electronic is "efficiently" using electricty...just quietly sipping electrons as it puts out it's 250 or 400 watts...Kinda like an economy car...
And the Magnetic Ballast is sucking the wattage and rumbling in the closet and pushing it's 250/400 watts as well...kinda like a pick up truck or muscle car...
And the ballasts, just like the cars..are both capable of going 60mph and they both can travel a 1/4 mile...
But which one do you want to light up you tank with...??
The Dodge Neon or the 440 hemi 'Cuda...???
What?
This is great analogy? I would say more like EFI vs. Carburator if you ask me.
Here is a quote from a publications website. I'll just leave it at that.
And of course, magnetic ballasts do have one other advantage – they're less expensive! A typical two lamp fluorescent system that uses an electronic ballast is likely to cost 1.5 times more than a similar system with a magnetic ballast. However, if the energy savings are considered, even over a short span of time, the advantage goes back to electronic. And when you throw a four-lamp system into the equation, which only uses one electronic ballast versus two magnetic ballasts, even initial cost advantage falls solidly on solid state.
Now as I originally was saying... ("and that's all I was saying") Electronic ballasts will pay for itself (the cost difference) over time.
I'm sorry, but I can't find anywhere that states magnetic ballast setups put out "more lumens per watt consumed"... which is what it sounds is being said?
Here. I won't leave you with make shift analogies about compact cars vs muscle cars. Just read this. That should help somewhat.
I'll leave it at that. :joy:
Actually...The electronic ballasts do consume less power than the magnetic ones, although the difference is becoming less with some electronics actually using more than some Mags...so the difference isn't as great as some would have you believe...
This "for the most part" is inaccurate... Electronics use slightly less juice than Mags, but there is a definite decrease in output from bulbs...
Sure the electronic is "efficiently" using electricty...just quietly sipping electrons as it puts out it's 250 or 400 watts...Kinda like an economy car...
And the Magnetic Ballast is sucking the wattage and rumbling in the closet and pushing it's 250/400 watts as well...kinda like a pick up truck or muscle car...
And the ballasts, just like the cars..are both capable of going 60mph and they both can travel a 1/4 mile...
But which one do you want to light up you tank with...??
The Dodge Neon or the 440 hemi 'Cuda...???
What?
This is great analogy? I would say more like EFI vs. Carburator if you ask me.
Here is a quote from a publications website. I'll just leave it at that.
And of course, magnetic ballasts do have one other advantage – they're less expensive! A typical two lamp fluorescent system that uses an electronic ballast is likely to cost 1.5 times more than a similar system with a magnetic ballast. However, if the energy savings are considered, even over a short span of time, the advantage goes back to electronic. And when you throw a four-lamp system into the equation, which only uses one electronic ballast versus two magnetic ballasts, even initial cost advantage falls solidly on solid state.
Now as I originally was saying... ("and that's all I was saying") Electronic ballasts will pay for itself (the cost difference) over time.
I'm sorry, but I can't find anywhere that states magnetic ballast setups put out "more lumens per watt consumed"... which is what it sounds is being said?
Here. I won't leave you with make shift analogies about compact cars vs muscle cars. Just read this. That should help somewhat.
I'll leave it at that. :joy:
agent707
Member
Originally Posted by Squidd
Electronics use slightly less juice than Mags, but there is a definite decrease in output from bulbs...
And I have to say, this "for the most part" is Very innacurate. Inital lumens decrease is FAR sharper on a magnetic ballast setup... meaning a bulb on an electronic ballast will hold it's brightness MUCH longer.
Electronics use slightly less juice than Mags, but there is a definite decrease in output from bulbs...
And I have to say, this "for the most part" is Very innacurate. Inital lumens decrease is FAR sharper on a magnetic ballast setup... meaning a bulb on an electronic ballast will hold it's brightness MUCH longer.
oceana
Active Member
try personal experience as opposed to what some site says. if youhave tried both it different config's and done the research i think you will find it to be true. the proper meters are not very expensive and worth it when testing out lighting for your reef.
i myself have tried several different electronic ballast and several different magnetic. all with the same bulbs. i for one will always stick with magnetic. if is cost a few cents more to run a day big deal. we are not talking about 100's of dollars here.
but to answer the original question yes your answer is correct they do cost less to run.
i myself have tried several different electronic ballast and several different magnetic. all with the same bulbs. i for one will always stick with magnetic. if is cost a few cents more to run a day big deal. we are not talking about 100's of dollars here.
but to answer the original question yes your answer is correct they do cost less to run.