here it is

[StirCrazy]

ya it is the one with 66 replies.. VHO or Power compact. I did come across a little hard on my first replynow that I look back but this energy for nothing realy bugs me .. this is why I am going to do a tactfull reply

Steve

[StirCrazy]

In Response to statements made by ASH (Andy) I am left with an unpleasant taste in my mouth. I have always thought Ice Cap to be the standard in electronic ballasts but a few facts that have turned up show it to be not what it clames.

First in a thread Vho or Power compacts
( http://www.reefcentral.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=49133 )

On Reef Central there was a comment made stating that "An additional advantage of Icecap is energy savings. Four 110 watt VHO's would only draw 270 watts of power." well this peeked my interest and I got into the conversation wondering how 440 watts of light out put could be produced with only 270 watts of power.. also there was a clame of VHOs being good for over 2 years on a Ice Cap ballast how could this be, when I used to run VHO's they were good for 6 months.. So this drew my attention even more. I thought those statements might have been a type O but it was replied that it wasn't.

So after a couple post from the other guy Andy come into the thread and posts

"From Icecap:
Let me shed some light on this. But for the 6 year bulb life claim, what this thread says about our product is on the mark. When the ballast was designed it was decided to match conventional output of light, not match conventional consumption of energy. We have manufactured a 220V version that consumes a lot more energy but it runs hot and there's a diminishing return on the light output per watt as it is increased. By using about 270-watts to drive 4 X 4-ft VHOs our only crime is saving energy and giving you a much longer lamp life.
PC are what's new and this hobby thrives on new. We're currently testing some thinner lamps that are linear but promise to push the PC to the back page. What's nice is the same Model 430 or 660 will run them, just like the PCs, but they'll provide a longer life and be more efficient at putting the light where you want it. The design of the PC doesn't lend itself to lighting a tank IMO. How much of its output makes it to where you want it? I think they're fine for situations where space is the major factor, at least until we show you what's coming.
Anyway, back to work so that the next long thread will be about some really innovative lighting.
Andy"

Well to say the least this didn't sit well with me.. But my suspicions were starting to form that the were in fact under driving lights which would account for the longer life and the low power consumption.. So I decided to go fishing in the
sponsor Q&A forums for Ice Cap and I found another link called "Here is one for the masses"( http://www.reefcentral.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=40017 ) now in this thread on the 5th of October some one asked about the power usage of the Different Ice Cap ballasts and the reply was finally posted on the 25th of October stating

" Here's a start:
Model 430 2-lamps
NO 48" T-12 = 143
NO 48" T-8 = 151
VHO 72" T-12 = 200
55-watt PC = 148

Model 430 3-lamps
NO 48" T-8 = 216

Model 660 4-lamps
NO 48" T-12 = 255
NO 48" T-8 = 268
VHO 48" T-12 = 269

Model 3000 2 lamps
NO 48" T-8 = 60

All wattage figures include total wattage consumed by the bulbs and ballast .
Andy"

On the 15th of November some one else thought that data looked funny and posted

"Andy,
Can you comment on the the data you posted earlier

Model 660 4-lamps
NO 48" T-12 = 255
NO 48" T-8 = 268
VHO 48" T-12 = 269

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?

What am I missing?"

8 days later (23 Nov) Ice Cap replied

"From IceCap:
Sorry, but thankfully we've been very busy. I will try to add to the list next week.

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.
Andy"

So from all that Ice Cap is admitting that is it under powering the bulbs to get the longer life. A few calculations to throw out at 269 watts of line current a Ice Cap ballast is only providing 65.9 watts to each 110 watt 48" VHO bulb you have hooked up.. And this is assuming a 98% efficiency in the ballast. That also means that your expensive VHO bulbs you bought are only being powered to 59.9 % of there rated capability. The interesting fact was that with a NO 4 ft T12 bulb a 660 would light 4 of them to 255 watts.. That means a NO bulb is being powered by 62.5 watts (assuming a 98% efficiency) this is incredible.. No wonder everyone says it makes NO as bright as VHO or does it.. Not really, it does increase the NO bulb by 1.5 times but it is still a far cry from what a VHO SHOULD be. But hey if you want to use NO bulbs this is great.

Now that we have gone through all this it leaves a question in my mind on weather I want a ice cap or not even if it was only to power my actinic.. I still have to wonder how bright the lights would be if they were getting the proper power..

StirCrazy

[StirCrazy]

I wonder if reef central will ban me for questioning oneof its sponcers? .. oh well to late now I guess

[Troy F]

Isn't the most important thing to look at PAR? Haven't Icecap ballasts been tested against the competition?

[StirCrazy]

not that I have found.. they have been sold on the premmisis of the energy savigns and there ability to handle multi light configurations. and the ability to overdrive NO lights from what I have been able to find.. the ice cap home page makes no mention of anything so you can't get anything specific out of them

Steve

[reefburnaby]

Hi,

Yeah...I knew something was up when I saw those numbers....that's why I did the Icecap clone....here's another one of my theories...

VHOs are notorious for having massive dropoff in output for the first 100 hours. Say, it starts at 7000 lumens and drops to 5000 lumens. So...that's like going from 100% to 71% output. On top of that, most VHO ballasts are design to operate at 85% maximum output - to save power. So, thats 60.3% output at 100 hours. Now...suppose the Icecap does not drive it as hard...so that it's output dropoff is not as steep...say only 5%-10% loss (typical NO, T8 numbers). We are talking about 50% to 55% of the original VHO .... pretty close to a regular 60.3% VHO. So...that's why it doesn't really pay to drive tons of power in to a VHO. Part of the reason why VHOs fail so fast is the current that is passed through them...1.5A vs 430mA in a NO (regular) or PC (roughly the same current...but not quite).

So...I hope that explains why. It has nothing to do with high frequency drive blah blah blah... That fixes a different design problem. images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif

As for your PC vs VHO question...PC has more lumens and it is slightly more efficient than VHOs. The problem with PCs is that the actinics suck and lamps are expensive (55WPC costs more than 1 VHO). If you don't mind power inefficiency...MH is the way to go images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

Hope that helps.
- Victor.

[StirCrazy]

hehe you need to come to the Island .. I have seen one VHO bulb a 36" and they wanted 80.00 for it LOL

thats why I am going NO bulbs for my actinic and thinking about over driving them

Steve

[DJ88]

Victor,

I'll be talking to you soon about your little ballast overdrive thingy.. images/smiles/icon_wink.gif

lol

[reefburnaby]

$80 for VHO...okay...you should open a fish store images/smiles/icon_smile.gif No wonder you guys load up on fish stuff everytime you come over.

I thought you guys were really rich...or I was really really cheap....

- Victor.

[DJ88]

Victor I hope you dont mind that I quoted your theory.. I coudln't have expressed it better myself.

Kinda getting curious about all of this.

Even wondering about swapping my Icecap for overdriven.. or even using a different VHO ballast to drive those expensive VHO lamps I bought..

[StirCrazy]

hey anyone know whar I can get a light meter for fairly cheep that is half deicent?

Steve

[reefburnaby]

hi

Do you have a camera that can do spot measurement ?

If you do...then you can use that.

A good old SLR with a good fast lens (i.e. F2.8 or lower) is also another alternative.

- Victor.

[StirCrazy]

hmm all I have is this digital I will have to check on that.. thanks

Steve

[smokinreefer]

the icecap issue aside,
how long do VHO bulbs last driven on a regular VHO ballst? 6 months?...a year?
i am contemplating using 2 6' actinic VHO for my reef, but at $50 a pop, i think i'll just use my NO if they only last 6 months.

[StirCrazy]

ya 6 to 8 months seams to be the norm on a tar balast VHO.. a electronic might be better ..

Steve

[titus]

Hello Guys,

Okay Stircrazy this is quite something you found. But I still love my IceCap, purely for the fact that I can dim the lights.

Titus

[BCReefer]

Holly Cripes it seems you disturbed a hornets nest. I guess you can never bite the hands that pay as sponsors.

Ask an intellgent question and you get flamed.

Love how they brought up "SUE" since that is the middle name of most American's.

Opps - hope that did not offend anyone.

[Shadetree]

I have read the posts and can't believe some of the responses. Good to see a valid question simply get put to bed by those in charge images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif . I must say that the response from Andy is NOT typical for him or IceCap. I have emailed him/them directly a number of times, I even sent him a link to this board at the beginning, and had to call upon their customer service and have nothing but good things to say about both of them. As a small business owner I know that sometimes ANY negative customer feedback feels like a personal attack and it seems that this one might have got to him. I hope that this discussion and query can continue here without being spoiled by ignorance. It is a valid question, just it was posted with what could have been read as a negative connataion IMO. I hope that Andy will answer here with the knowledge and genuine concern I have come to expect from him. This all comes from an interested hobbiest and IceCap faithful. Look at the picture below, and the two variable speed Ice Cap fans I own aren't even pictured here.
http://www.shadetree.homestead.com/files/tankballasts.jpg

Scott

[StirCrazy]

That all for one tank Scot? thats some serious lighting hehe

Steve

[Shadetree]

Yah, all for one tank, and to think I will be adding one more VHO ballast in the spring for some more actinic supplementation.

Scott

[Troy F]

Just a heads up. The admin over at reefcentral closed the thread to try cool things off. I believe that he would welcome the question again in a couple of days though I'm sure he'd prefer the question asked in a slightly different manner.

[DJ88]

Troy,

Have you spoken with John about that?

just curious. I don't need to post about it anymore.. Don't want to really.. I know what I am going to do.. images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

[titus]

Hello Guys,

A most sensitivie subject here. I haven't really read through "all" the posts about this topic on ReefCentral.

I do think this is a valid topic of discussion and am interested in whatever results anyone finds. However, I must admit I did feel all the questioning on Andy and IceCap did appear to be a bit harsh, as other than Canreef images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif , I don't know any other company (aquarium wise) would provide as courteous and rapid of a customer support as IceCap does, just like what Scott said.

So it's good that things are cooling down and let's see what the test results show.

Titus

[DJ88]

Titus,

I know it did get a bit harsh. That was not my intention. I just want to know the hard facts. I foudn a lot of people just kept saying the same things over again.. They are brighter.. I have seen it with my own eyes. Or so and so says they are brighter. To me that is no good for basing a decision about which puts out more light. Data does.

I have emailed IceCap asking the same questions about the ballasts I have asked elsewhere. The response I recieved today wasn't what I had asked for images/smiles/icon_confused.gif and I have sent a reply explaining what I am about to do.

I will say that I am not impressed that so many people want answers and can't get them. We can find out about almost everything that is sold to us. Yet I can't find info on any VHO lighting. Tests, data whatever.

So I will be going at this as soon as possible. I will be ordering a light meter this weekend and start the tests in the new year with new lamps and daily measurements on my tank. I won't be making any statements about which is best in my opinon as I am not in a position to do this. Only the hard data I collect. The reader can make that decision for themselves. If Dana Riddle or Richard Harker want to look at it and make a statement I'd be honored.. lol images/smiles/icon_wink.gif

If anyone wants to lend a hand I welcome it. This is gonna be a bit costly but I think in the end it will be worth it.

[ 06 December 2001: Message edited by: DJ88 ]

[StirCrazy]

well, I guess the reef central post is going to die. Titus I have to make clear it wasn't my intention to accuse or insult. I sent Andy 3 e-mails in the last 3 days and 2 privat messages on reef centrals system, and not oneof them was answered.. if he would have at least comee back with a "can you give me a few days to find the info you want" I would have been more than happy. and after reading througth the ice cap fourm I noticed I wasn't the only one that was ignored who was asking the same quiestions.. si I wrote whe I concidered a tact full and fact filled post. I never said they were a bad balast or that they had bad customer service. but it seams funny that jest when others were starting to voice suport for me then thread was closed.. it was alowed to stay running as long as people were bashing me though..
oh well just my observations I guess..

I am almost dome my readings from the overdrive test.. quite impressive so far

Steve

[Reefmaster]

metal halide metal halide metal halide...HEY. who put ANTHRAX on my cereal??

[Troy F]

Darren, yes, I spoke with John about the subject and voiced my concern over the fact that Steve had a very well thought out question. I mentioned that nothing had been done about the rude treatment of Steve and others. John's view (valid from his vantage point), is that had the question been posted in a less accusatory way, Andy may have contributed in a more appropriate way. I too believe that, given the right circumstances, he will reply with some information. To those of you interested, whether or not you do your own tests, I'd still give him a chance to answer.

I'm willing to bet that IceCap VHO ballasts will provide the same intesity that your standard VHO tar or electronic ballasts do. This is my guess. IceCap are reliable and are unmatched in varied application, this coupled with the extended bulb life has them a winning choice in my opinion. I look forward to hearing the truth on this and can't wait to see the results. I'm not so curious to spend money to find out images/smiles/icon_smile.gif . Good luck guys. You've certainly stirred up a hornet's nest.

[Mushroom Boy]

Hi guys.

I stayed out of that post on RC. I feel the question is valid and is certainly an issue that needs to be addressed, however, IMO, it was asked in an inflamatory fashion. It was a train wreck waiting to happen after about the fifth response. The inflamatory nature of the post, in and of itself isn't a bad thing, and I'm not sure why the post was closed to tell you the truth (well, I suppose it's not too hard to figure out why it was closed really images/smiles/icon_smile.gif). I'm looking forward to seeing what Darren comes up with.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quoteLove how they brought up "SUE" since that is the middle name of most American's Ouch, that kind of stings BCReefer images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

[Delphinus]

Well .... my opinion means absolutely nothing, but here it is anyways.

The only thing I can think of to say is, even though I am certain that Icecap products are very nice and I'm sure anybody who uses them is very satisfied ... but when I can pick up a MH ballast for $50 (or less ... I picked up my 3 175W ballasts and my 1 250W ballast for $30 apiece when Home Depot decided to unload their stock) when the cheapest I can do for an Icecap up here in Canuckland is $260 .... 'nuff said.

Ok, so there will be some operational cost benefit, maybe I won't replace my bulbs as often, maybe my electricity bill is slightly less each month .... but frankly, I'm not unhappy paying that little extra to get that "shallow water shimmer" in my tank.

I'm sure Icecap is a nice product. And one day, when I have $300 to burn, maybe I'll go that way just to see what all the fuss is about with these guys.

I was talking with a friend who runs a MO outfit here in Canuckland and he is so totally sold on Icecap. When I mentioned that I once read on the web an opinion that "Icecap fans were not a recommended product" my friend scoffed at me like I was making this up or something. How dare I question Icecap? What a fruitcake I must be.

Again, talking about $30-50 for "conventional" MH ballast versus $300 for Icecap MH ballast, that thing better be hacking into my utility companies billing database giving me a rebate before I see any cost benefit to going that way.

Ok, so there may be benefits to going eballast, and they are probably quite legitimate. My question is, is it worth the 600% premium to pay on the setup costs? It probably IS worth it for some. But for me, the setup costs speak volumes to me.

Like I said, maybe one day ("when my ship comes in") I'll be able to understand what all the fuss is about. Until then ... I remain broke.

[BCReefer]

I’m not an engineer but can someone explain how wattage affects ability to increase the overall depth of the tank. I currently have 175W MH with 5500 Lumens. Would a 250 W MH 5500 lumens be better or equal.

If they are equal what does the extra wattage provide me?

Mushroom Boy – hope you did not take that personally, I was just having some fun and pointing out how some people can really get their nickers in a knot and start over exaggerating things.
images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif

[reefburnaby]

Hi,

Typically (not all lamps and ballasts are the same...but usually for 5500K),

175W MH draws 2 amps and produces 12000 lumens (8000 lumens over 1000 hours).

250W MH draws 3 amps and produces 20000 lumens (13000 lumens over 1000 hours).

400W MH draws 4 amps and produces 33000 lumens (22000 lumens over 1000 hours).

So...you get about 60% more light with 250W over a 175W.

As for the 5500 lumen part...I think you refering to the colour of the lamps -- 5500 Kelvin. Higher Kelvin lamps have a higher proportion of blue light over red light.

- Victor.

[reefburnaby]

Hi,

In general, higher lumens (from a MH) usually allows one to light up a deeper tank. If you are supply 200W to a 400W blub...then you will produce approximately 50% less lumens. By using two lamps fixtures...it does not necessarily mean you will double the light intensity of a given area -- but you will be pretty close.

Hope that helps.

- Victor.

[BCReefer]

I knew I should have just said 5500 K bulb.

So if more wattage means more lumens which I presume can mean a deeper tank, then if one purchases a 400W ballast, be it a MH or a VHO, and the out put wattage is only 50 – 60 %, then you might not reach the bottom of the tank where the light is needed? So then you would be required to purchase 2 sets or do something totally different?

That is 1 heck of a long sentence.

I hope I am understanding this properly?? If not then I will save it for our next meeting and hopefully someone can explain it to me.

[Mushroom Boy]

Not at all BCReefer, I tend to think you're right. images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

[canadawest]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BCReefer:

I hope I am understanding this properly?? If not then I will save it for our next meeting and hopefully someone can explain it to me.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Speaking of "next meeting", has anyone steped up to the plate and prepared for an afternoon of visitors?

I know it's a busy time of year, but perhaps we could squeeze a meeting in the weekend of Dec 22/23?? Just a thought. If anyone is willing, now would be a good time to set it up.

PS.. I will likely have a couple heads of Torch coral and maybe some Acropora if someone could help me frag it. (ahem, Jamie or Darren, ahem)

[ 08 December 2001: Message edited by: canadawest ]

[Acro]

Andrew,
Man that must be a big piece if ya need helpj/k Sure lets hook up next week seeing we work for the same place right now I'm sure I can step out of the office for a bit what works best for you?
Later Jamie

[canadawest]

Well let me check my schedule with my personal assistant, and then I'll have her contact your personal assistant to setup a time that works for both of us.

I have mentioned to her that I have a wide open schedule all this week. Perhaps your assistant can find a time that works for you?

PS.. It's not very big, it's just that I've never frag'd an Acro before. (And could you bring some putty?) If we can get two or more decent frags from it, you're welcome to one for your trouble.