vho lamps hot

hartkarl

hartkarl

Member
i just built a new light canopy for my 75g tank. the canopy is 48"x10"x4" with 4 lamps and the ballasts are remotly located. the lamps are running so hot that you cant even touch them. is this normal for these kind of lamps to run that hot? the lamps are starting to raise my water temp. the lamps im using are used is this a factor? thanks
 
bang guy

bang guy

Moderator
Shoulda got an IceCap 660 from SWF.Com IMO ;)
This is normal for Magnetic Ballasts. Electronic ballasts do a MUCH better job.
 
slick

slick

Active Member
what kind of ballast are you using? Everyone and thier brother says the Ice Cap is the best but I'm not so sure. I mean you can't even control the bulbs seperatly.
 
broncofish

broncofish

Active Member
I am running a workhorse seven with 2 75w URI bulbs over my 29g and could not be happier. Plus you can wire a dimmer inline with each individual bulb(have not tried it yet, but have seen it) The best thing about it was the hole setup cost me $80 bucks brand new:cool: When I set my 90g back up it will be with the 660 though, just for the convienance of haveing one ballast.
 
tangman99

tangman99

Active Member
I have the IceCap 660 and I love it also. I can touch my bulbs anytime with no problem. They are warm, but do not burn me. I also have one icecap fan which keeps it nice and cool.
 
broncofish

broncofish

Active Member

Originally posted by TangMan99
They are warm, but do not burn me.
Same thing with the workhorse, so which ballast heats them up so much?
 
jarvis

jarvis

Member

Originally posted by Bang Guy
Shoulda got an IceCap 660 from SWF.Com IMO ;)
This is normal for Magnetic Ballasts. Electronic ballasts do a MUCH better job.

bang, do you have any web sites that compare electronic ballast to magnetic ballast. I have 2 ice cap ballasts and am very well pleased with them.
 
hartkarl

hartkarl

Member
yes i am running magnetic ballasts (2). does anyone know if the electronic ballasts run the lamps cooler for sure? i will then buy a icecap. thanks
 
bang guy

bang guy

Moderator
The IceCaps are expensive, no doubt. I have experienced the following using them:
Bulbs run cooler
The ballast barely gets warm
The bulbs last at least twice as long
From research the following is true:
The IceCap runs the bulbs just as bright as magnetic ballasts using significantly less energy. As an example it only uses 260 watts to light four 110 watt bulbs this compares to a typical magnetic ballast using about 470 watts for the same amount of light.
You can mix and match bulb types with the 660. ie. a pair of 96 watt PC daylights plus a 110 watt VHO actinic plus a 40 watt GE ultraDaylight NO bulb.
FYI - it will run the NO bulb twice as bright as a NO ballast but only use about 65 watts to run it.
 
jarvis

jarvis

Member
Just for the fact that bulbs last twice as long should sell everybody on electronic ballast. They pay for themselves pretty quick. Just to make sure I am clear on this...... URI are efective up to a year with electronic ballast and 6 months with magnetic ballast.
 
bang guy

bang guy

Moderator
Jarvis,
That has been my experience with URI SuperActinic and URI ActinicWhite (12 months). I've found the URI AquaSun to be effective for 24 months on the IceCap and 6 months on Magnetic ballasts.
 
cjr579

cjr579

Member
I also have an icecap 660 and love it. I was going to get powercompacts but the LFS talked me into buying the 660. He said it would be more convenient and more versatile than PC because if you ever wanted to get a bigger tank you just add longer bulbs to the end caps without buying a whole new set up.
 
leboeuf

leboeuf

Member
love my icecap 660. very easy to install and has a three year warranty. Also, called the factory and 90% of components can be replaced. Not a bad deal!
 
rook

rook

Member
Bang,
Are you making the statement that the bulbs last long on the 660, based on light readings (par, ect)? I assume so but just want to double check that.
Also, do you think the same facts are, or should be true with electronic vs magnetic MH ballasts?
 
bang guy

bang guy

Moderator

Originally posted by Rook
Bang,
Are you making the statement that the bulbs last long on the 660, based on light readings (par, ect)? I assume so but just want to double check that.
I don't have a PAR meter and this would of course be the best choice. I do have a LUX meter. While this is useless to compare different bulbs it is quite useful to determine when a bulb needs to be replaced. I replace bulbs after Lumen output drops 30% after initial break-in.
Also, do you think the same facts are, or should be true with electronic vs magnetic MH ballasts?
I don't understand the question, sorry. If you reword the question so my feeble mind can comprehend it I'll give it a try :)
 
rook

rook

Member
Statement from you above regarding IC 660 VHO ballast.
"Bulbs run cooler
The ballast barely gets warm
The bulbs last at least twice as long
From research the following is true:
The IceCap runs the bulbs just as bright as magnetic ballasts using significantly less energy. As an example it only uses 260 watts to light four 110 watt bulbs this compares to a typical magnetic ballast using about 470 watts for the same amount of light."
My question is, whould you think in comparing electronic MH ballast vs. magnetic MH ballast, the electronic (specifically the IC ballast) would run the bulbs cooler, run the ballast cooler, the bulbs would last longer, use less energy; than the magnetic.
I know you do not currently run MH, but just curious.
I have been trying to decide if electronic MH ballast are worth the extra cost.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top