Icecap 660..NO or VHO?

[Son Of Skyline]

For anybody using an Icecap 660 for actinics, have u noticed an actual difference between using NO tubes vs VHO? I've only used NO on the 660 and I know they're overdriven, but are they overdriven to VHO levels?

[StirCrazy]

For anybody using an Icecap 660 for actinics, have u noticed an actual difference between using NO tubes vs VHO? I've only used NO on the 660 and I know they're overdriven, but are they overdriven to VHO levels?

nope, a icecap over drives NOs to HO levels and under drives VHO to HO levels.

Steve

[Son Of Skyline]

nope, a icecap over drives NOs to HO levels and under drives VHO to HO levels.



Interesting. Thanks Steve.

[Werbo]

How about a Fulham WorkHorse 7 ballast?
Is it consider a HO or VHO ballast for 2X48 inch bulbs

[ree-fready]

[quote=StirCrazy]
nope, a icecap over drives NOs to HO levels and under drives VHO to HO levels.


how come they only drive a vho bulb to ho levels? is this not a vho ballast?

[ron101]

how come they only drive a vho bulb to ho levels? is this not a vho ballast?

It has to do with the Icecap circuitry. I believe it runs them at lower wattage but slightly higher frequency.

How about a Fulham WorkHorse 7 ballast?
Is it consider a HO or VHO ballast for 2X48 inch bulbs

If you wire them in parallel (as in the manual), a WH7 will power 2-48" tubes to HO level. Wiring them in series (like one 8' tube) might run at close to full VHO level as a WH7 can run 2-96W PCs, though I have never done this.

[StirCrazy]

the icecap is actualy a electronic ballast like the workhorse but the prewiring done by IceCao sets it up to be a electronic HO ballast.

a work horse 7 can drive NO, HO or VHO depending how you set it up.

Steve

[canadawest]

For anybody using an Icecap 660 for actinics, have u noticed an actual difference between using NO tubes vs VHO? I've only used NO on the 660 and I know they're overdriven, but are they overdriven to VHO levels?

nope, a icecap over drives NOs to HO levels and under drives VHO to HO levels.

Steve

I am currently using an Icecap 660 to drive 4 x 48" lamps.

So if that theory (or fact as it may be) holds true, it really is a waste of money to spend $34 per URI 110W VHO actinic bulb when an $18 Phillips 40W NO actinic bulb will produce nearly the same output?

(Pricing based on 48" florescent tubes as of Jan 17th, 2004 online J&L's website)

If so, I'm gonna save myself some money when it's time to change lamps!

PS.. I'm already using GE Ultra-Daylight NO 40W lamps from Crappy Tire in place of URI 110W VHO Aquasuns ($4.25 vs $41.95) Hell I can change them 4 times a year and still save over 50% over the URI VHOs. :cool:

[dyereefer]

Is this true? If it is I will be ****ed I am no electrical engineer but if this is the case why would they advertise it the way they do.?

[golden69_ca]

insteed of getting new bulb got to albright lighting in coquitlam of the mary hill bypass and get a work horse 7 balast and drive the vho properly . last time i checked they sell to the public also and i think the price on one is around 65 buck . why whould anyone not got to vho over no or ho ? :biggrin:

[StirCrazy]

Is this true? If it is I will be ****ed I am no electrical engineer but if this is the case why would they advertise it the way they do.?



because they don't.. the never once say it will drive VHO tubes to VHO levels, instead they rant and rave about the energy savings and the extended bulb life (upto 3 years :mrgreen: ) if you look for the thread I started on RC over a year ago (actualy there was 2 threads but the first one was deleted as the old RC staff didn't like anyone questioning one of there sponcers) you will see that even IceCap admidts they only power 4, 48" VHO tubes with 270 watts of power.

oh and don't forget there customer service is second to none, ... unless you happen to be asking how they can drive 440 watts of bulbs properly with only 270 watts of power :rolleyes: :mrgreen:

Steve

[IslandReefer]

Is this true? If it is I will be ****ed I am no electrical engineer but if this is the case why would they advertise it the way they do.?

..Sorry dude..a lot of the vho vs. no seems to be true. I think its funny even Icecap admits this(...as STEVE says:),heres some ref. from Icecap:
http://www.icecapinc.com/rev1.htm
http://www.icecapinc.com/rev2.htm
Seems that 660's are better at making NO hotter (brighter but shorter lived) than their stated use as a VHO E-ballast. But @ $2.50 to $5.00 for No (GE @ C.T. or the 6500k daylight delux @ Home depot) I can blast a lot of tubes before it costs as much as VHO bulbs.

Does anyone know if the Work Horse ballast overdrives NO also....a difference in wiring??...

[StirCrazy]

Does anyone know if the Work Horse ballast overdrives NO also....a difference in wiring??...

the workhorse can be wired to run 4 x NO tubes, 2 x HO tubes and 1 x VHO tubes (you can do 2 VHO if they are done in series and it doesent exceed the max lenght) all these use a different wiring configuration.

Steve

[IslandReefer]

Does anyone know if the Work Horse ballast overdrives NO also....a difference in wiring??...

the workhorse can be wired to run 4 x NO tubes, 2 x HO tubes and 1 x VHO tubes (you can do 2 VHO if they are done in series and it doesent exceed the max lenght) all these use a different wiring configuration.

Steve
Thanks Steve.
Does Fultham have a website with wiring details and specs?

[StirCrazy]

Thanks Steve.
Does Fultham have a website with wiring details and specs?

yup
http://www.fulham.com/wh7.html

Steve

[apepper]

http://www.fulham.com/wiring.html

[apepper]

lol...Steve beat me to it

[ree-fready]

so what is the total wattage a wh 7 is capable of running?

[StirCrazy]

so what is the total wattage a wh 7 is capable of running?

220watts

Steve

[nickb]

According to Fulham tech support, the Workhorse 7 is not approved to drive multiple VHO bulbs in either series or parallel. They reported that the current rating of the ballast is such that it can not sustain VHO levels. The rating of 220W is based on peak power, not throughput. If you check their wiring diagrams, you will see that the give diagrams for driving 2 NO or PC tubes but not for 2 VHO tubes.

[StirCrazy]

According to Fulham tech support, the Workhorse 7 is not approved to drive multiple VHO bulbs in either series or parallel. They reported that the current rating of the ballast is such that it can not sustain VHO levels. The rating of 220W is based on peak power, not throughput. If you check their wiring diagrams, you will see that the give diagrams for driving 2 NO or PC tubes but not for 2 VHO tubes.

in parralell it will only put out HO levels but I know that it will run in searies flawlessly as I have been running two 3 foot tubes in series for 18 months now, not a problem.

Steve

[nickb]

Here is the reply we got from Fulham. Wiring diagram 11 is for parallel wiring of 2 tubes.

Presently the Workhorse line of ballast will only provide enough lamp current to operate one VHO lamp at a time. Some people have attempted to operate two lamps wiring two red lead to each lamp with the yellow lamp in common, this will only provide enough lamp current to operate the lamps at about ½ light level. Some people use wiring diagram #11, but it defeats the purpose of using the VHO lamps as this method only provides the lamps with around 800mA and operate it like a HO lamp. If you try using all four red output wires, the application will overdrive the lamp operating current by as much as 20% which over-heats the cathodes. This is not an approved Fulham application and it voids any warranty of the product itself. We do not assume any responsibility for lamp or ballast system operations.

We also got this comment in another respone from Fulham:

In addition, Lamps should NEVER be wired in series. Running the bulbs in series would reduce the total number of turn-on cycles. There is no correct estimate of how much reduction because it depends on the lamp types and its wattages. If the single lamp voltage requirement is close to the ballast starting voltage, the addition of the second lamp will cause problems. We do not recommend series wiring with instant start ballast, however, if you have a continuous burn application then series wiring of lamps is ok

At least one manufacturer using Fulham ballast (CoolTouch lighting) has changed to use one ballast per bulb.

I'm still using the series connection but will be looking into switching over to one ballast per bulb.

[StirCrazy]

In addition, Lamps should NEVER be wired in series. Running the bulbs in series would reduce the total number of turn-on cycles. There is no correct estimate of how much reduction because it depends on the lamp types and its wattages. If the single lamp voltage requirement is close to the ballast starting voltage, the addition of the second lamp will cause problems. We do not recommend series wiring with instant start ballast, however, if you have a continuous burn application then series wiring of lamps is ok

At least one manufacturer using Fulham ballast (CoolTouch lighting) has changed to use one ballast per bulb.

I'm still using the series connection but will be looking into switching over to one ballast per bulb.

if you read that they admidt the only thing is going to be reduced turn on/off cycles sence the commen aplication for these ballast is lighting they are turned on and off several times a day, we only do it once. so even at a reduced on/off cycle it will suit us just fine. remember the big key is not to exceed the total lenght though, so you cannot do it with anything longer than 8 feet of tubes.

Steve

[ash08648]

From IceCap:
If all you are measuring is wattage consumed then a pair of 250-watt incandescent lamps should be better than an IceCap running 285 to 320 watts (depending on the load it senses) through 4 X 4ft fluorescent lamps.

The other problem with this rule of thumb discussion is it discounts the fact that an IceCap ballasts runs at +/- 27KHz frequency and have a soft start to prolong lamp life. I don't know of any other ballast that can be placed over 100 feet from the lamps and does not need a grounding plane behind the lamps to light them. We use a different technology to light lamps.

Andy

[StirCrazy]

I don't know of any other ballast that can be placed over 100 feet from the lamps and does not need a grounding plane behind the lamps to light them.

Andy

great, that will work perfect for me to put the ballast in my niebours house so I don't have to pay the power bill :rolleyes:

We are comparring electronic ballas tot electronic ballast also

Steve

[Jack]

What about the Icecap 430? I'm running 2x46.5" 110w VHO's.

I want to switch out to WH7 now. Will it make a big difference?

[dyereefer]

Well this is all very interesting it just goes to show buyer beware.
When I bought the ballast I assumed It was for VHO lighting.
To find out that I spent the amount I did for the ballast then the bulbs
only to get a product that is'nt what it is made out to be by retailers
only makes me question who I am doing bussiness with.
I expect 440 watts of light and I got less THAT IS NOT RIGHT :sad:

[Aquattro]

One thing to keep inmind with this type of thread; while this is really good technical/theoretical discussion, always pay heed to manufacturer's specs and warranty guidelines. Nothing worse than burning your house down and not being covered by insurance because you didn't follow the instructions provided by the manufacturer. And although I haven't burnt my house down (yet :rolleyes: ), I'll be careful how I hook these things up in the future.