250 watt HQI ballast.

[StirCrazy]

Ok because of some inquiries to me I am going to get a price on bare HQI ballasts. what I need to know is how many people would be interested in them so if there is enuf maybe I can get them at a cheeper price.

they come with the ballast, cap and starter so you would need to make your own housing or just retro fit them into a exzisting one.

last time I ordered them they cost me about 140 + tax which was cheeper than the 150+ tax J&L wanted.

I myself need 1 more so let me know over the next couple days if you are interested in any.

Steve

[Lofus]

Is that a tar ballast you are looking at?

[Delphinus]

Yep .. Advance is the only builder of non-electronic M80's. Here is a spec sheet if you're interested:

http://www.advancetransformer.com/ecom_PDFS/out/7431016181.pdf

Only thing with these is you need to watch your BTL wire length, the ignitor is rated only up to 5' so that does put these ballasts somewhat close to the hood as compared to other ballasts.

[BCOrchidGuy]

Steve I just spoke with Al brite in Port Coquitlam and they quoted me $109 each for the M80s.

Advanced Pulse Start ballast #71A57A2 is $68.50, can you run most bulbs off this?

Doug

[One_Divided]

I need 1 more, even 2 if it's a good enough deal

[StirCrazy]

Steve I just spoke with Al brite in Port Coquitlam and they quoted me $109 each for the M80s.

Advanced Pulse Start ballast #71A57A2 is $68.50, can you run most bulbs off this?

Doug

get them to look up the exact part number and make sure it has the starter and cap.. don't let them tell you to use a different or that this is a replacement ballast as there isn't a replacement ballast.. I went through this with Albright befor and I had 4 price changed till it ended up being 159.00. yes you can run any bulb of the HQI or the pulse start but you don't get the benifit of the extra PAR, but as a second choice I would go with the pulse start.



Steve

[BCOrchidGuy]

I phoned them and got the price then I called back to make sure it included the starter and cap but I got another fellow, he said it doesn't need a starter because it's MH I assume that's what makes it different than non HQI is that it DOES need the starter.

So I'd get more PAR off the HQI than the Pulse start?

Doug

[StirCrazy]

I phoned them and got the price then I called back to make sure it included the starter and cap but I got another fellow, he said it doesn't need a starter because it's MH I assume that's what makes it different than non HQI is that it DOES need the starter.

So I'd get more PAR off the HQI than the Pulse start?

Doug

that tells me there that they have no idea what ballast you are asking for like any lighting place. ask them for the exact part number including the cap and starter and I can guarente the price will climb but do it anyways so we can compare prices but go there and make them show you the PN in there book, you'll find they like to substitute to what they think you need and frankly most of these guys don't have a clue when it comes to the types of bulbs and there requirments that we use.

um ya way more PAR I think the ushi tests in at almost 1.3X more PAR on a ushio bulb.

Steve

[BCOrchidGuy]

When I phone Albrite tomorrow I don't want to confuse them but, with the talk about Ballast to Lamp distance, can you change off capacitors or ignitors to increase that distance? The M80 says a Ballast to Lamp distance of 5 feet, what if I wanted to go to 7 or 10 feet?

Doug

[Delphinus]

Not with the M80. The ballast has a recommended ignitor, if you dig and dig through the Advance catalog you can find long-distance ignitors for the OTHER pulse-start ballasts (e.g. M138) but there is no long-range version of the ignitor used with the M80. As far as I can tell.

[BCOrchidGuy]

Thanks Tony, I like how this stuff is nice and clear... (oh boy)

Doug

[Delphinus]

LOL no doubt.

Steve, how did you find working within the 5' limit. I assume you found a way to live with it? Where do you keep/hide your ballasts?

[StirCrazy]

LOL no doubt.

Steve, how did you find working within the 5' limit. I assume you found a way to live with it? Where do you keep/hide your ballasts?

I don't hide them :mrgreen: they are ontop of my stand in a big mettal box, I am thinking of extending the wood work to the celing so that would completly hid them but no one realy notices them as you have to look up to see it and even then it isn't that noticable.

Steve

[BCOrchidGuy]

Steve I just got off the phone again with Albrite, the guy I spoke with check the Advance part number for the M80 ballast and gave me the same part number you did. I asked him if he had the part number for the ignitor and cap, the cap he didn't but said it's a 20microfarad cap/280v which corresponds with the advanced catalouge. The Ignitor is the same part number as out of the advanced Cat.

Doug

[ron101]

I checked out the advance spec sheet. It lists the M80 ballast as 'dual'. I assume that means that it is dual transformer design but it still only runs one lamp.

So I will need to order two correct?

[Delphinus]

So I will need to order two correct?

If you have two bulbs you want to fire, yes. One ballast per bulb, can't get around that one unfortunately. :mrgreen: What they mean by "dual" (or "tri" or "quad") is the number of "taps." "Dual tap" means a lead for if you want to run it off a 110V circuit, and another in case you want to run it off a 220V circuit (they share the "common" either way). "Tri tap" would mean 110V, 220V, or 360 (?? not sure, something in the 300's anyhow) and "quad" means 110, 220, 360, or 480. :exclaim:

It depends on the application and what kind of power supply ya got in your location but basically for our needs we're just interested in the 110V tap. I suppose one could run a dryer or stove circuit and use the 220V tap but I don't know if there would be any real benefit to it.

[Buccaneer]

That brings up a interesting question as to whether there is a advantage to running the ballasts on the 220V ... anyone out there have a comment on this ?

Cheers

[powerboy]

the only advantage to using 220v is the amperage drawn is half of what 110v would be. now this doesnt mean less electricity consumed, only less amperage, as 110v is drawn from each leg of the duplex recepticle.

you will have to keep in mind that if you do go this route, you will have to get a dual pole breaker in your panel (or sub panel, depending on application) and run the appropriate wire.

does all this equate to a worthwile venture? depends on how many bulbs (and size) you plan to run.

what you could do, is run a 220v sub panel to your tank area, then wire it up so the lights are on their own 220v breaker(s) and pumps heaters etc are on 110v breaker(s). this will give you the advantage of drawing fewer amps on the lights while utilizing one circut from the main panel.. eliminating trying to find different circuts to equalize the existing load..

may cost you a little bit up front, but you have the safety and convenience of one place to draw power from, and individual breakers to rely on so excessive load does not become a factor

hope this helps...

[ruck'n'reefer]

Tag

[Buccaneer]

the only advantage to using 220v is the amperage drawn is half of what 110v would be. now this doesnt mean less electricity consumed, only less amperage, as 110v is drawn from each leg of the duplex recepticle.

you will have to keep in mind that if you do go this route, you will have to get a dual pole breaker in your panel (or sub panel, depending on application) and run the appropriate wire.

does all this equate to a worthwile venture? depends on how many bulbs (and size) you plan to run.

what you could do, is run a 220v sub panel to your tank area, then wire it up so the lights are on their own 220v breaker(s) and pumps heaters etc are on 110v breaker(s). this will give you the advantage of drawing fewer amps on the lights while utilizing one circut from the main panel.. eliminating trying to find different circuts to equalize the existing load..

may cost you a little bit up front, but you have the safety and convenience of one place to draw power from, and individual breakers to rely on so excessive load does not become a factor

hope this helps...


Thanks for the explanation

Cheers

[ron101]

Would you not theoretically gain a slight efficiency advantage with higher voltage (ie. less heat produced by the ballasts)?

[Delphinus]

If there is something like that, my guess is it's minimal or negligible. Of all the stats/specs I read about ballasts, they all more or less have the same "wattage" (which is roughly amps times voltage, give or take) regardless of what input voltage is used.

Thus I'm not real sure that it's a "benefit" nor a "deteriment" to run them off 220. Like powerboy said, it's half the amps, but it's twice the voltage. Six of one, half-dozen of the other? I guess it's more a matter of whatever's convenient. If you have to run some new circuits/wiring/breakers anyways, you might as well just do the one for 110 and be done.

But, on the other hand, .... the wiring for 220 is presumably going to be heavier guage and thus there ought to be less resistance in the wiring. Therefore it might be conceivable that there is some slight gain in efficiency (rather, a reduction of loss, or something like that), but I can't imagine if that really translates into a noticeable reduction in your power consumption... I have no idea.

[ruck'n'reefer]

Well put in a circular sort of way!! :smile:

[BCOrchidGuy]

I think the bennifit of running 220 volts is you can pretty much run twice the equipment on a circuit, IE if you can run 15 amps on a 20 amp circuit @120 volts you can run twice the equipment (as long as it's rated for 220v) on a 220v circuit to make that 15 amps.

maybe not?

Doug

[powerboy]

yes, thats pretty much what it boils down to. amps drawn are half, so you can essentially double the load.

just remember, at startup, theres quite the surge of power, so keep that in mind when calculating.

as for power consumption, its going to be the same regardless. what bc hydro pumps into our houses is single phase power, and its quite inefficient.

theres an equation used by the hydro companies to allow for wasted power (i think its called the pfc. power factor correction) essentially its for situations when current drawn doesnt follow the voltage (goes out of sync) in any case, its to their benefit..

im getting to technical for myself here :)

i guess my point is, 220v is great. if you have the opportunity to use it do so!

[Delphinus]

I'm not sure I get it. Does the pfc. (or whatever) value have any bearing?

Ok. Let me try it this way... So if I was going to install a subpanel in a tank room, I'd use a 220V feed for that and have separate breakers for each 110V circuit. If I had that, then conceivably I might just leave a 220 circuit for the ballasts and any pumps I had that might run off 220.

But assuming that I don't currently have the subpanel, and don't have any equipment that runs off 220, I don't know that I see a benefit to the effort of installing one 220V circuit. The lights aren't going to burn any brighter, the ballasts aren't going to run any less hot, the watts consumed aren't going to be any less. Essentially, it comes down to "what plug do I want to use?"

The "double your load" thing really only strikes me as a benefit if I was on the borderline of overloading one circuit. In which case, I might just string myself some extra circuits anyways and just do a careful load balance to begin with?

[powerboy]

i started the pfc topic to illustrate that power delivery is not efficient, and when more is drawn, the less efficient it gets. this was to dispell the notion that there was a cost savings involved by using less amps.



Ok. Let me try it this way... So if I was going to install a subpanel in a tank room, I'd use a 220V feed for that and have separate breakers for each 110V circuit. If I had that, then conceivably I might just leave a 220 circuit for the ballasts and any pumps I had that might run off 220.

But assuming that I don't currently have the subpanel, and don't have any equipment that runs off 220, I don't know that I see a benefit to the effort of installing one 220V circuit. The lights aren't going to burn any brighter, the ballasts aren't going to run any less hot, the watts consumed aren't going to be any less. Essentially, it comes down to "what plug do I want to use?"

The "double your load" thing really only strikes me as a benefit if I was on the borderline of overloading one circuit. In which case, I might just string myself some extra circuits anyways and just do a careful load balance to begin with?

the benefit is safety and convenience. when you deal with power, the arguments should not be "The lights aren't going to burn any brighter, the ballasts aren't going to run any less hot, the watts consumed aren't going to be any less" it should be, how can i minimize overload.

the whole function of the breaker is to not protect the appliance plugged into it, it is to protect the wire. now if you watch any home show these days, ie holmes on homes etc, you will take note to how shoddy peoples work can be.. i have seen some absolutely horrible house wiring that shouldnt be in the walls, but yet there it is.

this will be my last post on this topic as it seems were flogging a dead horse here..

my personal experience dictates running a seperate line to something which is going to draw more current than normal.. so this is why i push it.. (most electricans will agree) if your current set up works for you and you see no need to change, then thats ok as well :)
[/quote]

[Delphinus]

I don't think we're flogging a dead horse. I think it's been interesting so far.

First of all I'm not sure that I am in disagreement at all about:

my personal experience dictates running a seperate line to something which is going to draw more current than normal.. so this is why i push it..

That's exactly what I was thinking, too. I would try to minimize overloading any one circuit by spreading the load onto different circuits. Personally, if I was anywhere near a 15amp load on a single circuit, I'd be very nervous about that. I'm much rather, for example, see 12amps split between two circuits, instead of all on one circuit.

It seems me that you're saying that one can take this one step further, instead of putting "this and that on circuit #1" and "this other thing and that other thing on circuit #2", we're now putting "half of this one item on circuit #1" and "the other half of this one item on circuit #2." If my device had a serious amperage draw by itself then I understand why you would want to do this. But the typical amp draw for metal halides is going to be in the 2-4 amp ballpark, which to me, seems not entirely unreasonable to have one or two of these on a circuit and then be done with it.


the benefit is safety and convenience.

Is 220V inherently safer than 110V? If we're going to introduce variables such as "shoddy wiring" then it seems to me that 220V is potentially "twice as dangerous" as 110V. Convenience be one thing, efficiency be other thing, and safety be yet another thing.


the arguments should not be "The lights aren't going to burn any brighter, the ballasts aren't going to run any less hot, the watts consumed aren't going to be any less"

I think they are still valid questions though. Even if the answer is "it won't make a difference" they should still be asked. If it's better to do "function 'X'" in one method over another, why not pursue that?

My thinking was that as far as the "overall efficiency" (which I, personally, measure in terms of "what did the utility company charge me this month"), 220V vs. 110V won't make any significant difference. Nothing in the ensuing discussion since the question was originally asked, has suggested otherwise. The only good reasons have been about load balancing and minimizing overload. If one's circuits are not closely approaching their limits then I don't see a burning need to rip apart my house and install a 220V circuit. If they were, however, taxed close to their limits, or perhaps I was building a new tank room that I wanted to service who-know-what-kind-of-future-needs, then yes, I see the "benefit."

[powerboy]

looks like it isnt my last post :)

and im not at all upset, just feels like my point isnt being conveyed.


Is 220V inherently safer than 110V? If we're going to introduce variables such as "shoddy wiring" then it seems to me that 220V is potentially "twice as dangerous" as 110V. Convenience be one thing, efficiency be other thing, and safety be yet another thing.

for a second, try to forget voltage.. its just another way to deliver the current.. the amps are what is important. this all depends on whats going on with the main panel in your house, the age of the hardware, etc.

if you have a 100 amp main service, and your house isnt drawing tons of power, then keep it with what you have.. the reason to go with 220v is when amps are at a premium, and/or safety.

if you look at whats in your main panel, you will see lots of single pole 120v breakers with 14gauge(min code) wire going from them to wherever it leads.. now, each break in the line adds to resistance. resistance equals heat. heat makes the breaker trip (as well as amps) if its wired correctly, all is well and life goes on.

now each 400 watt ballast puts out about 5 some odd amps at startup and settles down to about 4ish i believe (120v)

put two on there and you now have pretty much maxed the circut.. not to mention the other breaks in the line ie other recepticles etc.. then you have to look for other sources of power, so what do we do? we run extention cords.. which are not at all designed to carry power for a long time.. they are for instant power then to be put away.. this is why the wire is stranded.. not very efficient.. all of this creates a network of heat from multiple places with potential for multiple problems.

now i realize its not practical in most cases to just run another line and tear up walls etc. we are far to use to just "plugging it in and hope for the best" so to speak

electricity is quite dangerous, and we as the consumer are not educated enough on the topic. its a harmonious balance to keep electricity in check.. just "plugging it in and trusting existing wiring" is certainly not for me.

in an ideal world we would all run 220v sub panels to our tanks and have one source of power to draw from. this is the way to do it, but as we all know not feasable in most cases.

i guess the nuts and bolts comes down to.. does using a dedicated line make sense to the average hobbiest who is drawing only 10 amps, certainly not.

does it make sense to the person who is drawing 30amps @120 volts? it does indeed..

3 400w ballasts, a few pumps and a heater or two and your there. (i didnt even mention people with chillers)

its not hard to add up the amps with todays toys :)

always air on the side of caution when dealing with electricity..

[/quote]

[Delphinus]

Thanks for the info..

its not hard to add up the amps with todays toys :)

:mrgreen: Too true ....


3 400w ballasts, a few pumps and a heater or two and your there. (i didnt even mention people with chillers)

I cannot even imagine putting all that on one breaker! For me, you just described at least 3 or 4 separate breakers.

I do like the 220V subpanel idea...

cheers

[BCOrchidGuy]

When I was setting up my fish room I had an electrician come in to put in a 220v line to run my heaters off. (with permission from my landlord of course) The panel I've got wouldn't support it so we looked at alternatives.
My reasoning was, I could run two 1500 watt heaters off a 220v line because at 220v they only draw 750 watts but, the hydro bill still shows that as 1.5Kwh. My thoughts were that I could heat my room more efficiently with two space heaters rather than one.
If I were having a professional fish room set up, I'd probably look at 220 for the lighting, but not for anything else. And remember the rule.. (which I forget) but isn't it like.. never run more than 80% of your breakers rating on one line? IE, if you're running a 20amp breaker, never run more than 16 amps on that line.


Doug

[powerboy]

cannot even imagine putting all that on one breaker! For me, you just described at least 3 or 4 separate breakers.

just illustrating how easy it is to eat up power :)


[/quote]If I were having a professional fish room set up, I'd probably look at 220 for the lighting, but not for anything else. And remember the rule.. (which I forget) but isn't it like.. never run more than 80% of your breakers rating on one line? IE, if you're running a 20amp breaker, never run more than 16 amps on that line. [/quote]

you would want to run whatever you could off the 220v. ie whatever device could run @ 220v.

and yes, 20% is the safety margin employed in todays breakers.

and just because you run the initial line 220v, doesnt mean you cant then branch off again to 110V :)

[ron101]

Would you not theoretically gain a slight efficiency advantage with higher voltage (ie. less heat produced by the ballasts)?

If there is something like that, my guess is it's minimal or negligible. Of all the stats/specs I read about ballasts, they all more or less have the same "wattage" (which is roughly amps times voltage, give or take) regardless of what input voltage is used.

Overall power draw on the circuit is voltage x amperage; which should remain the same for both a 110 and a 220v setup. However power lost to heat is [correction : resistance x current squared] so a 220v setup should have less than a 110v and thus the difference should make it to the lamp given a constant line resitance.

Anyways, consider it a proposed experiment for someone with a 220v hookup and a PAR meter :biggrin: .[/i]

[ron101]

As a side note I called Albight lighting today to ask about M80 ballasts. They quoted me $153 each for Advance p/n 71A5880 and special order status taking 4-6 weeks. Sounds like everyone gets a different story. At that price it's better to just get a dual PFO HQI from J&L...

[Buccaneer]

Here is a link to a older experiment ( albeit slightly biased to the manufacturers electronic ballast ... which is a dead link in that article btw )

http://www.animalnetwork.com/fish2/aqfm/1998/mar/product/

however it would seem that the electronic ballast draws less amps ... and if this is true then when this discussion came up with the Venki electronic ballasts and initially it was thought that there would not be much of a savings ... but if Venki's ballasts were even close to as efficient then one circuit only would be needed and you would save on breakers/wire etc

Food for thought :idea:

Cheers

[Delphinus]

power lost to heat is amperage x current squared

That's a keen little factoid, I've never heard that before. Can you point me to any docs (online or otherwise) where I can do some further reading?? :biggrin: Thanks!!

[BCOrchidGuy]

Ron yeah they quoted me $109 for the 71A5880, Steve pointed out that it's an odd ball thing for them so they may be substituting other stuff, he suggested going in and ordering direct out of the catalogue when we see the correct PN. They also gave me the PN for the cap and ignitor for it to compare with the Advance catalogue.

Doug

[ron101]

ron101 wrote:
power lost to heat is amperage x current squared


That's a keen little factoid, I've never heard that before. Can you point me to any docs (online or otherwise) where I can do some further reading?? Thanks!!

Err... my bad. That should be Thermal Loss (Watts) = Current (Amps) squared x resistance (Ohms)

Fingers moving faster than the brain again. :eek:

[StirCrazy]

As a side note I called Albight lighting today to ask about M80 ballasts. They quoted me $153 each for Advance p/n 71A5880 and special order status taking 4-6 weeks. Sounds like everyone gets a different story. At that price it's better to just get a dual PFO HQI from J&L...

that sounds more like a albrite price on them.

Steve

[StirCrazy]

Overall power draw on the circuit is voltage x amperage; which should remain the same for both a 110 and a 220v setup. However power lost to heat is [correction : resistance x current squared] .[/i]

Ron, you realize thoes are both formula to figure out the same thing.. the second one assumes you don't know the voltage, and the first one assumes you don't know the resistance of the load.

so both will give you the total power consumed by a load and if you know all the factors and do it both ways you should come up with a number that is very close to the other.

Steve

[ron101]

ron101 wrote:
Overall power draw on the circuit is voltage x amperage; which should remain the same for both a 110 and a 220v setup. However power lost to heat is [correction : resistance x current squared] .[/i]


Ron, you realize thoes are both formula to figure out the same thing.. the second one assumes you don't know the voltage, and the first one assumes you don't know the resistance of the load.

so both will give you the total power consumed by a load and if you know all the factors and do it both ways you should come up with a number that is very close to the other.

Steve


Yes and no, it depends on which context in which they are used. If you are evaluating systems where the power output is only heat (ie space heater) and at a constant voltage then that formula is simply interchangeable with the others.

However if you are evaluating a system where not all the energy put into the system is converted to heat (ie lighting system or electric car) then current x voltage is the sum of I^2 x line resistance + useable power output + non-thermal losses .

This is why it is more efficient to transfer power at high voltage/low current then the other way around.

Anyways the answer to my original question depends on how the DC restistance of the MH ballast changes with the different voltage taps on it. If it is constant and the power input is constant there should be less heat from the ballast and more energy to the lamp (heat and/or light), as miniscule as it may be. When I do my upgrade Ill break out the multimeter and find out...

[Quinn]

Ooooo, formulae! Did you know that the standard deviation of a normal curve is equal to the square root of the mean square within groups in a one-way analysis of variance?
Can you tell I'm jumping between surfing the reefing boards and doing a stats assignment?

[StirCrazy]

double post

[StirCrazy]

[
why it is more efficient to transfer power at high voltage/low current then the other way around.

because there is less line loss at a higher voltage and lower current.

if you pass 1000 watts at 100 volts you are using 10 amps but if you do 1000 watts at 1000 volts you are only pushing 1 amp and this will cause less line loss. this is why they send 10000 volts and more on the high voltage power lins instead of 220 volts and megga amps.

I do agree it is better and slightly more efficient to run ballast on 220volt power if you can as it will use less current so you can put more on your breaker and you will have a small percentage less line loss.

Steve