Originally Posted by wattsupdoc
http:///forum/post/2635847
<<YEAH, or when they think the know more than they really do!>> Boy, what a jerk you are.
I have 23 years in the industry. I hold a Master license since 1999. You?
So according to the graingers specs there it's more economical to run this ballast at 277 than it is 480?
277 X 1.7 = 470.9
And, well, any idiot can see that 480 X 1 = 480.
Since 208 is a 3 phase voltage that you don't have in a RESIDENCE! and Indiana itself does not have a set voltage of 221 volts, it can vary from pot to pot at each home you know. You have to use a number more along the standard, like 240. And then HMMM you can clearly see that the power is the same at 480 as it is at 240!!!! WHY is that? If operating it at higher voltages is more economical? Even IF those numbers are correct, you can see that the difference is nominal, you would theoretically use 288, watt/hour less per day. Now that's not kilowatts hours, which cost you somewhere around 10 to 18 cents a KILOWATT HOUR. So every 4 days you would save approximately 1 kilowatt hour. OH, but wait a minute, that's figuring a 24 hour photo period, Luke's not going to run a 24 hour photo period, he might run say a 12 hour period. So then lets see. that's 144 watt/hours per day, so in one week there he'll use 1008 watt/hours less, oh boy a whole kilowatt a week, that's 52 kilowatt hours a year, at say even 25 cents a kilowatt hour which is a VERY high rate, Luke MIGHT save a whole 13 bucks a year. WOOOOHOOOO
lets get all excited about that. The thing is those differences are so minimal, and trivial that it is really no savings to speak of. As well as those numbers can vary from fixture to fixture. I mean we are talking about a difference of .1 amp here. This is IMO, is no difference.
Now the savings on the pump might be a little better percentage wise. But still not much.
wow... you guys lost me a looooong time ago!!!
