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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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

Steve

[Son Of Skyline]

Originally Posted by StirCrazy

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="Son Of Skyline"]

Originally Posted by 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]

Originally Posted by StirCrazy

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.

[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 ?