StirCrazy
12-04-2001, 11:44 PM
I got in to a discusion about how much power a guy with 4, 110watt vho on a 660 ice cap balast is consuming.. he said only 270 watts.. well being not totaly brain dead the struck me odd.. a capability of 440 watts of out put and his balast is only drawing 270 watts? so I did some digging and Ice Cap has released theas figures.
Model 660 4-lamps
NO 48" T-12 = 255
NO 48" T-8 = 268
VHO 48" T-12 = 269
a reply was sent to ice cap which stated "Last line 4 VHO T-12 VHO using only 269 watts on a model 660. Doesn't this strongly suggest that a model 660 significantly under powers these 48" VHO bulbs. Shouldn't it be 440W + the power used by the ballast? "
Ice Cap after 8 days replied
"Regarding the under-powering, this is one of the reasons we never made a big thing about saving energy, because invariably people would say then there's not enough power. Truth is I've never had anyone post, my VHO's are dim when I use an IceCap ballast. High frequency output which adjusts its strength many times per second depending on the lamp load it senses is much more efficient than blasting lamps the conventional way, which also explains the longer lamp life we provide.
We are working on a higher output version of the Model 660 which will consume up to 500-watts on a larger load than currently allowed but it's not close to being sold as of yet. It's still in a 220V only version and runs too hot as far as I'm concerned."
so now this move ice cap up to the bigest rip off in the aquatic industry.. this has mad me mad as they took 20 days to post the consumption values from the time they were asked and another 8 days to reply to why they under power bulbs..
but this does clear up a lot of things like how they clame a VHO bulb will last 3 years.. and also how it makes a NO bulb as bright as a VHO.. it does and by there result of wattage consumed there is no need to run VHO at all as a NO is only about 3.5 watts less than a vho on that balast.
the thing that gets me is how many people have boughten the Ice Cap thinking it the end all of all ends to run there 4 110 watt VHO's and don't relize it is only driving them at 61.1% of there rated output? I wonder how much more intensity you would get from a balast that drove it at a true 110 watts and how much better it would be for the coarls.. or maby instead of 4 lights you would only need 2
anyways enuf of that. I just was so mad when I found this out.. to think I almost ordered one today..
Steve
Model 660 4-lamps
NO 48" T-12 = 255
NO 48" T-8 = 268
VHO 48" T-12 = 269
a reply was sent to ice cap which stated "Last line 4 VHO T-12 VHO using only 269 watts on a model 660. Doesn't this strongly suggest that a model 660 significantly under powers these 48" VHO bulbs. Shouldn't it be 440W + the power used by the ballast? "
Ice Cap after 8 days replied
"Regarding the under-powering, this is one of the reasons we never made a big thing about saving energy, because invariably people would say then there's not enough power. Truth is I've never had anyone post, my VHO's are dim when I use an IceCap ballast. High frequency output which adjusts its strength many times per second depending on the lamp load it senses is much more efficient than blasting lamps the conventional way, which also explains the longer lamp life we provide.
We are working on a higher output version of the Model 660 which will consume up to 500-watts on a larger load than currently allowed but it's not close to being sold as of yet. It's still in a 220V only version and runs too hot as far as I'm concerned."
so now this move ice cap up to the bigest rip off in the aquatic industry.. this has mad me mad as they took 20 days to post the consumption values from the time they were asked and another 8 days to reply to why they under power bulbs..
but this does clear up a lot of things like how they clame a VHO bulb will last 3 years.. and also how it makes a NO bulb as bright as a VHO.. it does and by there result of wattage consumed there is no need to run VHO at all as a NO is only about 3.5 watts less than a vho on that balast.
the thing that gets me is how many people have boughten the Ice Cap thinking it the end all of all ends to run there 4 110 watt VHO's and don't relize it is only driving them at 61.1% of there rated output? I wonder how much more intensity you would get from a balast that drove it at a true 110 watts and how much better it would be for the coarls.. or maby instead of 4 lights you would only need 2
anyways enuf of that. I just was so mad when I found this out.. to think I almost ordered one today..
Steve