O
ohioballer
Guest
which is better the hellolights 4 bulb 440W VHO or the ICE cap 660 i need some help on this is the ice capps really worth more money
blondenaso1
Member
I am really happy with ym Icecap660. Runs quiet, cool, and from what I know uses the least electricity. Can't go wrong with the Icecap.
frink
Member
I also saw the sale that hellolights are having. Not a bad deal. I posted the same thing but nobody has answered yet. Ever since I bought my seaclone100, I am a little more aware that low prices and a good product write up are not good reasons to buy a product. Also, does anybody know if hardware stores sell VHO ballasts as they would probably be cheaper as well. Thanks Frink
eng50
Member
I use the hellolights and have not had a single problem with them, company is great to deal with and someone else here recommended them to me. Just my experience..all balasts can cause fire, be smart about where you put it and how its mounted (if you are DIY'n it!) . My VHO balast is slightly warm to the touch when on for 8 hrs....HTH
sgt__york
Member
I bought 2 - 2bulb VHO Ballists from a local electrical supply house (Westinghouse) and paid less than $20 for each of them. They have run for about 3yrs (when i had my tank setup before). AFter nearly a 2yr layoff w/o use - they are active again for the past 6months. I have had "NO" problems with them. I have mine mounted underneath the tank (not in the canopy) - and wired a harness to some VHO icecap ends. Bulbs don't run too hot, and the ballasts are a bit warm to the touch - but remotely located - who cares - it doens't affect the tank.
Specs on the ballasts (keep in mind nearly 5-6yrs old now)
Magnetek
uinversal VHO Ballast
Model: 960-VLH-TC-P
1500 MA Rapid Start Ballist
Anyone with experience w/these (good or bad) feel free to comment - would love to hear other inputs. I've had no problems (that i know of) from these. I didn't see paying $100+ per ballast when for $20 ea these have done wonderful.
If i ever have to redo them again - instead of getting 2 - 2-bulb ballasts, I would get 4 SINGLE bulb ballasts - for maximum control over the lights - ie, simulate different different sequences of lights coming on for different appearances - sunset/sunrise for 2 blue/1white and 2white/1blue appearances.
A writeup at Champion lighting (pushing Icecap ballasts) only had one indirect comment about other (non-electronic) ballasts. They said "Previously, VHO required large, hot, energy wasting ballasts, which caused lamps to run at high temperatures, requiring replacement every 3-4 months."
Are they larger? a tad - but if u have the room - who cares? why pay more?
Hot? yea, a tad - but if they are remotely located and don't affect the tank - what does it matter?
energy wasting? I don't have anything to compare it by - but I wonder how long it takes for the "difference" in any energy savings to make up for the huge cost for the ballast themselves. I paid $40 for 2 ballsts for 4 bulbs. Those at Champion are about $130/ea or $260 - that's $220 more. So the question is, how long would it take for the DIFFERENCE in cost to accomidate it as a better deal?
If i understand this correctly...
Here, electricity is about 3.81 cents per kWh
The 4 bulbs at 120Watts ea = 480 watts that run an avg of 10hrs a day = 4800 watts per day used. That is 4.8 kW @ $0.0381 per kW = $0.18288 per day (18 cents) of usage.
Thus $220 would burn these bulbs for 1222 days or 3.4 yrs.
The SAVINGS for icecaps is only the "DIFFERENCE" in electrical (they are not free to use). Now icecap boasts "while saving 40% line current."
Assuming that translates to a 40% in cost savings as well (which may be an exaggeration - as we are not even getting into life expectancy of each ballast is, and whether the cost savings is maintained over its life) - would translate into a 40% savings of the $0.18288 cost per day of use. A SAVINGS of 0.0073152 cents per day.
At $220 extra cost for the ballasts - the savings of $.0073152 (less than a penny) would take 30,074 days - or 84.5 years to make up the difference in the added cost.
Maybe i've miscalculated, and maybe you don't want the extra heat in the room. Rather depends on ur situation and location of your tank. Maybe it depends how much money you have to throw into the hobby. But i couldn't, and still cannot, justify the added cost.
I'd rather keep my ballasts, and put the $220 into a new piece of coral.
Anyone with rebuttle - please feel free to post - I find the best arguement is one that has both sides presented
Specs on the ballasts (keep in mind nearly 5-6yrs old now)
Magnetek
uinversal VHO Ballast
Model: 960-VLH-TC-P
1500 MA Rapid Start Ballist
Anyone with experience w/these (good or bad) feel free to comment - would love to hear other inputs. I've had no problems (that i know of) from these. I didn't see paying $100+ per ballast when for $20 ea these have done wonderful.
If i ever have to redo them again - instead of getting 2 - 2-bulb ballasts, I would get 4 SINGLE bulb ballasts - for maximum control over the lights - ie, simulate different different sequences of lights coming on for different appearances - sunset/sunrise for 2 blue/1white and 2white/1blue appearances.
A writeup at Champion lighting (pushing Icecap ballasts) only had one indirect comment about other (non-electronic) ballasts. They said "Previously, VHO required large, hot, energy wasting ballasts, which caused lamps to run at high temperatures, requiring replacement every 3-4 months."
Are they larger? a tad - but if u have the room - who cares? why pay more?
Hot? yea, a tad - but if they are remotely located and don't affect the tank - what does it matter?
energy wasting? I don't have anything to compare it by - but I wonder how long it takes for the "difference" in any energy savings to make up for the huge cost for the ballast themselves. I paid $40 for 2 ballsts for 4 bulbs. Those at Champion are about $130/ea or $260 - that's $220 more. So the question is, how long would it take for the DIFFERENCE in cost to accomidate it as a better deal?
If i understand this correctly...
Here, electricity is about 3.81 cents per kWh
The 4 bulbs at 120Watts ea = 480 watts that run an avg of 10hrs a day = 4800 watts per day used. That is 4.8 kW @ $0.0381 per kW = $0.18288 per day (18 cents) of usage.
Thus $220 would burn these bulbs for 1222 days or 3.4 yrs.
The SAVINGS for icecaps is only the "DIFFERENCE" in electrical (they are not free to use). Now icecap boasts "while saving 40% line current."
Assuming that translates to a 40% in cost savings as well (which may be an exaggeration - as we are not even getting into life expectancy of each ballast is, and whether the cost savings is maintained over its life) - would translate into a 40% savings of the $0.18288 cost per day of use. A SAVINGS of 0.0073152 cents per day.
At $220 extra cost for the ballasts - the savings of $.0073152 (less than a penny) would take 30,074 days - or 84.5 years to make up the difference in the added cost.
Maybe i've miscalculated, and maybe you don't want the extra heat in the room. Rather depends on ur situation and location of your tank. Maybe it depends how much money you have to throw into the hobby. But i couldn't, and still cannot, justify the added cost.
I'd rather keep my ballasts, and put the $220 into a new piece of coral.
Anyone with rebuttle - please feel free to post - I find the best arguement is one that has both sides presented
josh
Active Member
Hi,
The last I heard Andy at icecap was importing his ballast, so chances are there won't be a big difference.
Icecap has great customer service and they do run cooler than any other ballast. It's really your call, I have heard some negatives about the lampsnow ballast, but I have also heard they too have excellent customer service and replaced them without any questions. I went with Icecap on my 250 HQI ballast b/c I needed a ballast to run cool to cold. The few times I actually had to call Andy his was very patient and answered every question I had.
If it were me, I would find a nice used icecap ballast and go that route. Check ---- or the selling forum over at reefcentral and as well as here. 660 are pretty commonly sold.
~ as for the fires, get a GFCI and you won't have to worry about anything like that....thank god.
The last I heard Andy at icecap was importing his ballast, so chances are there won't be a big difference.
Icecap has great customer service and they do run cooler than any other ballast. It's really your call, I have heard some negatives about the lampsnow ballast, but I have also heard they too have excellent customer service and replaced them without any questions. I went with Icecap on my 250 HQI ballast b/c I needed a ballast to run cool to cold. The few times I actually had to call Andy his was very patient and answered every question I had.
If it were me, I would find a nice used icecap ballast and go that route. Check ---- or the selling forum over at reefcentral and as well as here. 660 are pretty commonly sold.
~ as for the fires, get a GFCI and you won't have to worry about anything like that....thank god.
sgt__york
Member
Originally posted by Benj420
Yep, I was going to say and electrical supply house as well. If you have friends that are electricians or contractors, you can probably even get a discount.
Hey sgt,
Where did you get the VHO icecap ends? How much were they? Any idea on price for the single bulb ballasts?
I had worked for electricians myself for 5yrs - so was comfortable setting it up. IT is really not that difficult, but obviously some basic electrical knowledge/experience doesn't hurt.
Better to spend another $220 than mess up and burn a $100,000 house down - not counting the damange to the tank itself. LOL
As far as the icecaps - like i said - i havn't bought lighting hardware in over 5yrs. I don't recall exactly where i got them. I believe i bought them online - paid like $15 per pair. I remember being irritated that i paid more for the endcaps, than i did for the ballasts! hahaha
ok, went and looked it up... i did order my BULBS from Champion supply - and manged to find the exact same endcaps i use - they are first on the list - near the botton (3-piece german VHO encaps). They are now $12/pair.
http://www.championlighting.com/e/en...hting/vho.html
Kinda funny, the pic they have of one has them mounted the same way I did mine. I used plexiglas to build a mounting bracket - stranded wire (b/c it gives better) and plastic flexible tubing to protect the wire from the salt/heat of the bulbs. I ran the wires do a wire harness so i can disconnect it when removing the canopy. Mounted the ballasts below the tank.
Good luck.
Keep in mind, CHEAP is not nearly as good as VALUE. Sometimes ya get what ya pay for. However, it is very common for 'specialized' markets to have TREMENDOUS markups. You have to find that balance.
If my ballasts were mounted in the hood, the heat and size would be a much greater concern to me. Because they are remote, and the electrical cost difference doesn't warrant spending more for an energy efficient ballast, i find the best VALUE are ballasts from an electrical supply house, but I bought good endcaps.
once again, good luck to ya.
bang guy
Moderator
Originally posted by sgt__york
Anyone with rebuttle - please feel free to post - I find the best arguement is one that has both sides presented
Just one point
I use 6' bulbs ,they average about $40 apiece.
On the IceCap ballast the Actinic are useful about a year and the AquaSuns are still bright after 2 years. I run three bulbs on each ballast, and I have 2 ballasts. So, over a 4 year period I would spend 3 (actinics) X 4 replacements + 3 (AquaSuns) X 2 replacements. That's 18 bulbs at $40 is a total of $720, plus $380 for the ballasts - Grand total of $1100.
On magnetic ballasts bulbs are useful for about 6 months before they need to be replaced. So, over 4 years I would spend 6(bulbs) X 8 replacements. That's 48 bulbs at $40 for a total of $1,920, plus $60 for the ballasts - Grand total of $1,980.
That's a difference in favor of the IceCap of $880.
I have not tested it, but I would imagine the HelloLights ballast would exibit similar bulb life.
I would rather spend the $880 I saved by using the IceCap on a 900 gallon refugium (exact cost of my refugium BTW
)
bang guy
Moderator
Originally posted by josh
~ as for the fires, get a GFCI and you won't have to worry about anything like that....thank god.
Josh, I wish this were true, but I don't think it is. GFCI will detect a ground fault and may save your life, but most electrical fires are caused by short circuits. GFCI will not detect a short circuit.
I only bring this up so you don't have a false sense of security. Electrical wiring is dangerous stuff.
josh
Active Member
Bang,
Ok maybe I have the wrong idea about them, but I thought that detected any fluxuation in the flow of electricity to appliance ( b/w the hot and neutral plug ) you have plugged into it. So it would trip if there were a short b/c when the short would occur there would be a fluxuation.
Is this not the right line of thinking? Hmmm, I know nothing is fail proof....just trying to make sure I get a better understanding on these things
Ok maybe I have the wrong idea about them, but I thought that detected any fluxuation in the flow of electricity to appliance ( b/w the hot and neutral plug ) you have plugged into it. So it would trip if there were a short b/c when the short would occur there would be a fluxuation.
Is this not the right line of thinking? Hmmm, I know nothing is fail proof....just trying to make sure I get a better understanding on these things
bang guy
Moderator
We should ask BenJ's brother
It's my understanding that GFCI will trip if the current going out doesn't match the current coming back... ie, a Ground fault.
I think during a short circuit the current finds an alternat path to come back but doesn't go to ground. The circuit breaker can detect it, but not the GFCI.
I hope BenJ asks his brother the Master Electrician and gets back to us...
Guy
It's my understanding that GFCI will trip if the current going out doesn't match the current coming back... ie, a Ground fault.
I think during a short circuit the current finds an alternat path to come back but doesn't go to ground. The circuit breaker can detect it, but not the GFCI.
I hope BenJ asks his brother the Master Electrician and gets back to us...
Guy
benj420
Member
A GFCI will detect a short circuit if properly installed. In all likelihood, the type of short circuits you would encounter in a fish room would be something getting wet. This would almost certainly happen "down line" from the GFCI outlet (definitely if you use a GFCI breaker). You are correct that it detects a "gound fault". Basically it measures the power going out and the power coming back on the neutral and if they are'nt close enough (your electrical devices will take some power) it assumes that the power is going directly to ground and will trip. It's the same principal as a circuit breaker, but much more sensitive. High powered motors like a vacuum, or big pump quite often will trip a GFCI because of the natural power drain. The GFCI assumes there is a fault and trips.
So, the moral of the story is:
1) they are certainly safer than no GFCI
2) they are NOT fool proof
3) they do wear out, so test them often
4) they just might save your life.
GFCI's are required by code in all new kitchens and bathrooms because of the combination of appliances or hair curlers and water. The difference being if you are sitting in the bathtub and decide it's time to curl your hair, and drop the curler in the water, you will almost certainly receive a breif shock, but will probably not die and the GFCI will trip. Straight power may or may not trip a standard breaker in the same situation, so you are in trouble.
A GFCI will not help you if the short is upline from the GFCI. For instance, if you have a wire coming from your electrical panel that runs to a GFCI outlet. Then you decide you want to be Bob Vila and put some drywall up in your basement. In typical Vila fashon you run a screw right through the romex (wire) and short the hot and neutral. That is a short, and the GFCI can't do anything about it. However, this shouldn't happen in your case.
I will end with the same recommendation for extreme caution when doing DIY wiring. Unless you really know what you are doing, you can burn your house down.
So, the moral of the story is:
1) they are certainly safer than no GFCI
2) they are NOT fool proof
3) they do wear out, so test them often
4) they just might save your life.
GFCI's are required by code in all new kitchens and bathrooms because of the combination of appliances or hair curlers and water. The difference being if you are sitting in the bathtub and decide it's time to curl your hair, and drop the curler in the water, you will almost certainly receive a breif shock, but will probably not die and the GFCI will trip. Straight power may or may not trip a standard breaker in the same situation, so you are in trouble.
A GFCI will not help you if the short is upline from the GFCI. For instance, if you have a wire coming from your electrical panel that runs to a GFCI outlet. Then you decide you want to be Bob Vila and put some drywall up in your basement. In typical Vila fashon you run a screw right through the romex (wire) and short the hot and neutral. That is a short, and the GFCI can't do anything about it. However, this shouldn't happen in your case.
I will end with the same recommendation for extreme caution when doing DIY wiring. Unless you really know what you are doing, you can burn your house down.
slowest is fastest
Member
One other consideration for the power consumption calculation is that most electronic ballasts actually underdrive the bulbs. By putting out 900 milliamps the light is not as bright but the bulbs last longer and the ballast consumes less power. Usually the magnetic ballasts overdrive the bulbs at 1100 milliamps. The bulbs burn brighter but do not last as long. So while I'm not sure how this translates into actual power consumption differences I do prefer electronic to magnetic.
Both setups have merit but I prefer to use Electronic (from both IceCap and HelloLights).
SiF
Both setups have merit but I prefer to use Electronic (from both IceCap and HelloLights).
SiF
sgt__york
Member
Originally posted by Bang Guy
I use 6' bulbs ,they average about $40 apiece.
On the IceCap ballast the Actinic are useful about a year and the AquaSuns are still bright after 2 years.
Just curious, but when you say the bulbs are still bright - that does not necessarily mean they are putting out the proper spectrum, right??? I was under the assumption from all the reading i've done that bulbs, for the purpose of reef tanks, are often long beyond their usefulness before they ever actually burn out.
In making a fair comparison for purposes of cost, it would have to be determined that the Magnetek ballasts somehow "use up" your bulbs life 400% faster (as you propose) 6mo's vs 2yrs.
Icecap ballasts boast a 40% energy effeciency not a 40% longer life - lone less a 400% longer life as you are suggesting.
Specifically Icecap states:
Energy Efficient
440 watts of light consumes 260 watts of electricity.
320 watts of light consumes 190 watts of electricity.
...while saving 40% line current....
watts used can be directly correlated to the amount of electricity used thus the COST related to running them. This does not necessarily mean there will be a significant difference in their life. A 25 Watt bulb does not have a longer life than a 40Watt bulb due to simply lower wattage.
when icecap talks about longevity of use they state: "VHO lamps last a minimum of a year when run on an IceCap, most of our customers replace their PC lamps every 9 months. You may have heard that VHO lamps must be replace every 6 months. - this is only true if you are running a tar ballast."
So they claim 1yr (not 2yrs) and YET still make the disclaimer than most customers replace them at 9 months. This is likely due to the desired spectrum that determins the useable life of the bulb - not whether it's still burning.
So a fair comparison is 6months to 9 months - or even 12 months. That's a 50% to 100% increase in bulb cost due to periodical replacements - a FAR CRY from 400% increase. That reduces that $880 of savings (over 4 yrs) to more like $220 over 4 yrs or $55 per year.
As the previous example of 4 VHO (4 ft) showed a $220 difference in price - you gave the example of 2 - 3bulb ballasts for 6ft bulbs. Those ballasts (icecap 660's) are $20/ea more. That raises the differential cost to $260.
thus the breakeven point would be $260/savings of $55 per year (in bulb replacement frequency - assuming 12 mo replacements vs 6mo due to tar ballasts) = 4.7yrs. I wonder what the life of the ballast itself is. Takes 4.7yrs just to RECOUP (break even) w/the extra cost you spent on the initial investment. You don't begin SAVING MONEY until this point.
SO, if you want to spend more on ballasts and PRE-PAY that cost that will take 4.7yrs to recoup - that's fine. Some people pay additional points when they purchase a house w/that same type of break even rate.
I'm not putting down icecaps - I think it's just a premium ballast that isn't extremely necessary for applications where your ballasts are remotely located (not in the canopy). Some people drive porsche's - and some think Honda's get ya to work just fine too.
lol
bang guy
Moderator
Great subject for debate, thank you for responding!
My response to your questions will be based on some facts, and some operating ideas I have come up with while purusing experiments and published findings. I'll try to make the distinction where I can. I'm not argueing, just expanding on why I made the statements I did. Perhaps some of my ideas are wrong and the actual costs are somewhere in the middle.
Originally posted by sgt__york
Just curious, but when you say the bulbs are still bright - that does not necessarily mean they are putting out the proper spectrum, right??? I was under the assumption from all the reading i've done that bulbs, for the purpose of reef tanks, are often long beyond their usefulness before they ever actually burn out.
I've seen the results of more than one study on the life expectancy of various bulbs flourescent. A monochromatic phosphor such as an actinic will not significantly change spectrum. It cannot. Each individual Phosphor either glows or it doesn't. Multi-chromatic bulbs only change spectrum when the various types of phosphors burn out at different rates.
The research I've seen on AquaSun bulbs is that the various phosphors decline at similar rates. Data shows that after 5 years the frequency peaks on the Aquasun stay in relation to each other with a variation of less than 5%. The peaks are smaller for sure, but the spectrum of the bulb is still very close.
I do not have a PAR Meter (unfortunately). All I have to judge intensity is a Lux meter. While it's not a good judge of the amount of light a bulb puts out, it's a pretty good indicator of how much intensity has been lost over time. I've record the Lux after using a bulb for 2 weeks (12 hrs/day) and then periodically until I see a 15% decline in Lux. When I did this with the URI SuperActinic it hit the 15% decline after about a year and the AquaSun after about 2 years. For added data the Actinic White hit this mark at about 20 months. I no longer use Actinic Whites though, mostly because the Phosphors decline at different rates and the overall spectrum of the bulb will change with time..
When I used Magnetic ballasts this 15% decline came at about the 6 month point for each type bulb.
So, I feel my comparison is valid. In my tests, URI AquaSuns lost 15% of their intensity (after initial break in) as measured on my Lux meter at 6 months when using Magnetic Ballasts and at 24 months when using an Electronic ballast, specifically IceCap 660.
Another point AGAINST the IceCap is the intensity was slightly lower than the Magnetic ballast. For example, I measured 1250 LUX on the AquaSun using a Greybar ballast and 1180 on the IceCap after the 2 week breaking. That's enough of a loss to be significant IMO.
As the previous example of 4 VHO (4 ft) showed a $220 difference in price - you gave the example of 2 - 3bulb ballasts for 6ft bulbs. Those ballasts (icecap 660's) are $20/ea more. That raises the differential cost to $260.
This is incorrect. I incorectly used $190 as the price of an IceCap 660, the actual price is lower. If you click to the left under "Dry Goods" you can find them for $179.
My response to your questions will be based on some facts, and some operating ideas I have come up with while purusing experiments and published findings. I'll try to make the distinction where I can. I'm not argueing, just expanding on why I made the statements I did. Perhaps some of my ideas are wrong and the actual costs are somewhere in the middle.
Originally posted by sgt__york
Just curious, but when you say the bulbs are still bright - that does not necessarily mean they are putting out the proper spectrum, right??? I was under the assumption from all the reading i've done that bulbs, for the purpose of reef tanks, are often long beyond their usefulness before they ever actually burn out.
I've seen the results of more than one study on the life expectancy of various bulbs flourescent. A monochromatic phosphor such as an actinic will not significantly change spectrum. It cannot. Each individual Phosphor either glows or it doesn't. Multi-chromatic bulbs only change spectrum when the various types of phosphors burn out at different rates.
The research I've seen on AquaSun bulbs is that the various phosphors decline at similar rates. Data shows that after 5 years the frequency peaks on the Aquasun stay in relation to each other with a variation of less than 5%. The peaks are smaller for sure, but the spectrum of the bulb is still very close.
I do not have a PAR Meter (unfortunately). All I have to judge intensity is a Lux meter. While it's not a good judge of the amount of light a bulb puts out, it's a pretty good indicator of how much intensity has been lost over time. I've record the Lux after using a bulb for 2 weeks (12 hrs/day) and then periodically until I see a 15% decline in Lux. When I did this with the URI SuperActinic it hit the 15% decline after about a year and the AquaSun after about 2 years. For added data the Actinic White hit this mark at about 20 months. I no longer use Actinic Whites though, mostly because the Phosphors decline at different rates and the overall spectrum of the bulb will change with time..
When I used Magnetic ballasts this 15% decline came at about the 6 month point for each type bulb.
So, I feel my comparison is valid. In my tests, URI AquaSuns lost 15% of their intensity (after initial break in) as measured on my Lux meter at 6 months when using Magnetic Ballasts and at 24 months when using an Electronic ballast, specifically IceCap 660.
Another point AGAINST the IceCap is the intensity was slightly lower than the Magnetic ballast. For example, I measured 1250 LUX on the AquaSun using a Greybar ballast and 1180 on the IceCap after the 2 week breaking. That's enough of a loss to be significant IMO.
As the previous example of 4 VHO (4 ft) showed a $220 difference in price - you gave the example of 2 - 3bulb ballasts for 6ft bulbs. Those ballasts (icecap 660's) are $20/ea more. That raises the differential cost to $260.
This is incorrect. I incorectly used $190 as the price of an IceCap 660, the actual price is lower. If you click to the left under "Dry Goods" you can find them for $179.