The Truth About Magnetic Ballasts Power Wastage!

[OldMedUser]

I've read a few things about how the newer electronic ballasts save power over the older magnetic ballasts. Basically the bulbs are going to use the same amount of power in either system. The selling point has been that the electronic ones don't use extra power due to heat generated by the ballast itself. I don't have an electronic ballast to compare with but I used a little energy meter to see how much power my set-up uses.

The meter is is plugged into the main power line that my lights are plugged into and the timer cord is plugged into the meter. Lights being tested are 2-400W and 1-150W HPS all with magnetic ballasts. The lights are 1-400W EYE Hortilux bulb, 1-400W standard HPS bulb and 1-150 standard HPS bulb.

This is the reading after almost two hours to make sure the lights are running at a stable power draw.

As you can see they are only drawing 12 watts more than their rated usage combined of 950 watts. Say 5W each for the 400s and 2W for the 150.

My conclusion is that the power savings with electronic ballasts is minimal at best. The problems I've read about them is that they won't work properly with most bulbs or shorten the life of the bulbs. Newer versions supposedly have fixed this problem. Their only benefits I've heard about is that they are quieter, mine make no noticeable noise, or switchable to use MH or HPS bulbs.

In conclusion, IMHO, if you already have magnetic ballasts like I do there is no reason to upgrade to save power. Just buy the bulbs you need for different growth stages and many bulbs are retrofit to work with either type of ballast. If you are needing new lights to start or expand a grow then let overall costs be your guide. If you really need to save power then get some LEDs.

If anyone has more info please let me know.

 

[Weed420]

Good post.
My experience so far has been about the same. Haven't seen any increase bulb life.
I just see 2 positive effects of digital, they're quieter and they run cooler. Have had one 600w digital go out twice now. The first one after only about 3 weeks use and the second after about a month. But I've had a magnetic go out in 1 month too.

 

[Droopy Dog]

As you can see they are only drawing 12 watts more than their rated usage combined of 950 watts. Say 5W each for the 400s and 2W for the 150.

My conclusion is that the power savings with electronic ballasts is minimal at best. The problems I've read about them is that they won't work properly with most bulbs or shorten the life of the bulbs. Newer versions supposedly have fixed this problem. Their only benefits I've heard about is that they are quieter, mine make no noticeable noise, or switchable to use MH or HPS bulbs.

In conclusion, IMHO, if you already have magnetic ballasts like I do there is no reason to upgrade to save power. Just buy the bulbs you need for different growth stages and many bulbs are retrofit to work with either type of ballast. If you are needing new lights to start or expand a grow then let overall costs be your guide. If you really need to save power then get some LEDs.

If anyone has more info please let me know.

Yeah, 12W, big whoop.

For sure, it's 'new and improved' and your grow will be crap if you don't use them. Right?

It's all marketing to get newbs to buy stuff they really don't need, but cost more and then cost even more when they find out their 'new and improved' bulbs won't work with the 'new and improved' ballast. LOL

I wonder how long, saving 12W of energy it would take to pay for the difference in cost of the same 3 ballasts (2 400w&1 150w), digital over magnetic? I really don't feel like doing the math (drunk and stoned to be honest), but I bet it would be an eye opener.

Cooler and quieter? You bet. The new technology? Again, you bet. But I feel, right now, the cost outweighs the benefit. Needs to get like fluor is now, where the new digital ballasts cost the same as the old magnetic ones, or at least close.


Thanks, LR for a very informative thread! + reps for you.

DD

 

[DroJo]

I've read a few things about how the newer electronic ballasts save power over the older magnetic ballasts. Basically the bulbs are going to use the same amount of power in either system. The selling point has been that the electronic ones don't use extra power due to heat generated by the ballast itself. I don't have an electronic ballast to compare with but I used a little energy meter to see how much power my set-up uses.

The meter is is plugged into the main power line that my lights are plugged into and the timer cord is plugged into the meter. Lights being tested are 2-400W and 1-150W HPS all with magnetic ballasts. The lights are 1-400W EYE Hortilux bulb, 1-400W standard HPS bulb and 1-150 standard HPS bulb.

This is the reading after almost two hours to make sure the lights are running at a stable power draw.

As you can see they are only drawing 12 watts more than their rated usage combined of 950 watts. Say 5W each for the 400s and 2W for the 150.

My conclusion is that the power savings with electronic ballasts is minimal at best. The problems I've read about them is that they won't work properly with most bulbs or shorten the life of the bulbs. Newer versions supposedly have fixed this problem. Their only benefits I've heard about is that they are quieter, mine make no noticeable noise, or switchable to use MH or HPS bulbs.

In conclusion, IMHO, if you already have magnetic ballasts like I do there is no reason to upgrade to save power. Just buy the bulbs you need for different growth stages and many bulbs are retrofit to work with either type of ballast. If you are needing new lights to start or expand a grow then let overall costs be your guide. If you really need to save power then get some LEDs.

Yea.. LR, you're right on the money... I've got friends who switched from magnetic to digital and back to magnetic. They have the tendency to not only blow bulbs immaturely but also have the tendency to fail themselves. They say they have a 8% failure rate.
But I myself just got a lumatek because i was either sold a broken magnetic ballast, or its fuse blew. Im pretty happy i got my lumatek at first, but honestly lately i've been questioning the decision..
I ultimately got the lumatek, but I looked up a lot on the ballasts, not just grower reviews, or manufacturer's notes, but third party sites(good blunt truth sometimes) too. Ultimately, because of that and because good portion of our good and trusted members use lumatek digi's with no problem since getting them, I got me one.
I'm coppin a meter from RadioShack tomorro and going to order a lux meter. Then i'm going to get the magnetic one fixed and do my own Digi Vs Mag grow comparison. Its going to be interesting

Great Post LR. Very Poignant!

dro

 

[OldMedUser]

Hi Mr. DroJo ;0)

I can't see them being much more power efficient as there isn't much excess power being used. Then again I'm not saying that a person shouldn't use them, especially the Lumateks as those are the ones that I've been hearing good things about. They supposedly added circuitry to prevent burning out bulbs that weren't made specifically for digi ballasts and I hear they're pretty good about warranty stuff too. I'm not even sure what the difference in the prices are, I was looking at it from an energy usage perspective. My magnetics are like 20 years old, picked up at garage sales and still working. There honestly is no noise that I can hear over the fan and air pump which are both quieter than my exhaust fan. I wonder if the noisy ones are in tinny enclosures that are the real culprits. I have 2-1000W MHs in enclosures and they're a lot noisier. Makes me go . . . Hmmmm. The ones I'm using now are bare bones with wires hanging out all over the place but other than a very low hum, quite quiet.

Ballasts from HELL!

I think folks should get them if they need some ballasts and don't mind paying whatever the difference is but shouldn't get them for power savings which I can't see being there. If they've figured out how to make a 400W bulb run on 300W my next ballast will be a digital for sure. But being Scottish AND Canadian, there better be some real savings before I'll cough up extra cash for something that does the same job. :0)

I'm coppin a meter from RadioShack tomorro and going to order a lux meter. Then i'm going to get the magnetic one fixed and do my own Digi Vs Mag grow comparison. Its going to be interesting

That would be interesting. I hope to hear about it.

C'ya l8tr buddy.

​

 

[Weed420]

Thats one of the other downsides of digital ballasts. They tend to be picky about which bulbs will work with them.

 

[ultrasonic]

Thats one of the other downsides of digital ballasts. They tend to be picky about which bulbs will work with them.

There are bulbs made for digital ballasts that are designed to run at the higher frequency digital ballasts run at. Ushio and Sunpulse are 2 I know of.

The ONLY power savings regarding digital ballasts has to do with their amperage draw. You're able to run (FOR EXAMPLE) 5 digital 600w's on the same circuit where you would normally only be able to run 4 magnetic type ballasts. Electronics have a softer start up, and don't require that large amperage draw at startup that trips breakers. I believe this is the power savings they're really refering to, and they're leaving people to misunderstand what they mean in hopes of good publicity.

And you can't beat the higher output, which has been proved in many other threads in other forums. YES digital ballasts are basically glorified overpriced sound amplifiers, but they DO have their uses. It depends on what suits your needs. magnetics can be easily repaired, but hell, lumatek has a 5 year warranty, along with other big manufacturers like Galaxy: I've ever seen 7 year warranties around.

Plus I swear I feel like I can see the flickering of an HPS magnetic ballast light: cameras certainly can, and i'd assume plants would be the same. I've felt this way since day one, and I still hold strong: Digital ballasts are useless unless you're using a bulb that is made for one. It's a mixmatch of technology that shouldn't be expected to work together. Everyone knows 120v electronics won't work on 240v, and vice versa, so why do people think that a 50/60hz bulb will work in a 20,000-50,000hz ballast.

For how liberal marijuana users are supposed to be, the growing community is certainly a conservative bunch. Nothing wrong with that, but I find it makes progression VERY difficult when people refuse new ideas based solely on their emotional response. There's nothing worse than people writing, "No, that won't work. Oh, no, I haven't tried that myself, but i'm going to knock it anyhow." It's an issue on grow forums, in my opinion, everywhere. And please note, i'm not targeting anyone specifically: this is more or less my feelings about digital ballast research for the last few years, ever since the first lumateks came out.

If your looking for actual information on digital ballasts, the trolls will heavily outweigh the valuable contributers who have taken their time to share knowledge rather than opinion. Out there you can find comparison grows, but never scientifically accurate. People use OLD magnetic ballasts and new digitals, or vice versa, and bulbs that are at different points in their lives, and even different reflectors. That information is NOT viable, even if it shows in favor of the digitals.

You'd have to have 2 brand new bulbs, 2 new ballasts, and 2 of the same reflectors as well as a light meter. Lumen output will show which is brighter, and one can use a light meter for that. If not, the results are little more than opinion and bias. But I have come across many a situation where people have consistantly tested the output at 8-15% higher than magnetic.

/end rant

Hope that was to the point enough without sounding rude those are not my intentions

 

[Hogdady]

There are bulbs made for digital ballasts that are designed to run at the higher frequency digital ballasts run at. Ushio and Sunpulse are 2 I know of.

The ONLY power savings regarding digital ballasts has to do with their amperage draw. You're able to run (FOR EXAMPLE) 5 digital 600w's on the same circuit where you would normally only be able to run 4 magnetic type ballasts. Electronics have a softer start up, and don't require that large amperage draw at startup that trips breakers. I believe this is the power savings they're really refering to, and they're leaving people to misunderstand what they mean in hopes of good publicity.

And you can't beat the higher output, which has been proved in many other threads in other forums. YES digital ballasts are basically glorified overpriced sound amplifiers, but they DO have their uses. It depends on what suits your needs. magnetics can be easily repaired, but hell, lumatek has a 5 year warranty, along with other big manufacturers like Galaxy: I've ever seen 7 year warranties around.

Plus I swear I feel like I can see the flickering of an HPS magnetic ballast light: cameras certainly can, and i'd assume plants would be the same. I've felt this way since day one, and I still hold strong: Digital ballasts are useless unless you're using a bulb that is made for one. It's a mixmatch of technology that shouldn't be expected to work together. Everyone knows 120v electronics won't work on 240v, and vice versa, so why do people think that a 50/60hz bulb will work in a 20,000-50,000hz ballast.

For how liberal marijuana users are supposed to be, the growing community is certainly a conservative bunch. Nothing wrong with that, but I find it makes progression VERY difficult when people refuse new ideas based solely on their emotional response. There's nothing worse than people writing, "No, that won't work. Oh, no, I haven't tried that myself, but i'm going to knock it anyhow." It's an issue on grow forums, in my opinion, everywhere. And please note, i'm not targeting anyone specifically: this is more or less my feelings about digital ballast research for the last few years, ever since the first lumateks came out.

If your looking for actual information on digital ballasts, the trolls will heavily outweigh the valuable contributers who have taken their time to share knowledge rather than opinion. Out there you can find comparison grows, but never scientifically accurate. People use OLD magnetic ballasts and new digitals, or vice versa, and bulbs that are at different points in their lives, and even different reflectors. That information is NOT viable, even if it shows in favor of the digitals.

You'd have to have 2 brand new bulbs, 2 new ballasts, and 2 of the same reflectors as well as a light meter. Lumen output will show which is brighter, and one can use a light meter for that. If not, the results are little more than opinion and bias. But I have come across many a situation where people have consistantly tested the output at 8-15% higher than magnetic.

/end rant

Hope that was to the point enough without sounding rude those are not my intentions

you made some good, solid points....

 

[Setting Sun]

I don't think making a sweeping generalization about magnetic ballasts based on one data point is something you can take to the bank.

I'd like to see at least 10-20 magnetic ballasts tested for power consumption before making any judgements as to their efficiency.

I can tell you unequivocally that magnetic ballasts run hotter than digital, and that alone makes me doubt that they are just as efficient.

 

[Hogdady]

I don't think making a sweeping generalization about magnetic ballasts based on one data point is something you can take to the bank.

I'd like to see at least 10-20 magnetic ballasts tested for power consumption before making any judgements as to their efficiency.

I can tell you unequivocally that magnetic ballasts run hotter than digital, and that alone makes me doubt that they are just as efficient.

digitals are undeniably more efficient, the question is whether the difference is worth the extra cost....

 

[DroJo]

My issue with digis isnt the power savings. My fear is purely that my lumatek ballast will fail mid grow, or something like that. Im also worried about the premature bulb failures and customer reports of bulbs that blow up.

I had a digi ballast before my lumatek, so i know they run cooler.

 

[Setting Sun]

digitals are undeniably more efficient, the question is whether the difference is worth the extra cost....

In the 150-400w range, digitals are often less expensive or roughly equal in cost to magnetic.

 

[Hogdady]

My issue with digis isnt the power savings. My fear is purely that my lumatek ballast will fail mid grow, or something like that. Im also worried about the premature bulb failures and customer reports of bulbs that blow up.

I had a digi ballast before my lumatek, so i know they run cooler.

i've also seen magnetics go flame on!

 

[Hogdady]

In the 150-400w range, digitals are often less expensive or roughly equal in cost to magnetic.

guess i haven't been payin attention. thx for settin me straight..

 

[DroJo]

i've also seen magnetics go flame on!

really? wowz i've never read that. But my two friends that upgraded to digi and went back to mag went through 3 or 4 bulb failures within 6 months. I still got one because the newer generation digis have a lower % fail rate.

 

[Hogdady]

really? wowz i've never read that. But my two friends that upgraded to digi and went back to mag went through 3 or 4 bulb failures within 6 months. I still got one because the newer generation digis have a lower % fail rate.

i actually have my ballasts (magnetic) in a fireproof cabinet for that very reason....

 

[Weed420]

And as with any system its a good idea to have a backup plan. I had T5's for backup for a while and then I went ahead and bought another 1000w magnetic ballast and an extra bulb. Nothing more frustrating than getting 7 weeks into flower and have a bulb or ballast failure.

 

[Stealthy1]

So we assume its a know fact that Mag ballast create more heat...But do they?

Look at a digi ballast the entire thing is a aluminum heatsink...
A magnetic ballast is just steel and copper basically and much less surface area.
So the overall heat output could be the same but maybe mag ballast feel hotter because the surface temp is higher.
Just an idea to ponder as I dont have evidence either way....

But another thought is what do you do with a blown digi ballast throw it away?
Mag ballasts are recyclable (steel and copper) .
But im sure both end up in the trash more oft than not.

 

[Droopy Dog]

Good thread here.

DD

 

[Setting Sun]

Just the fact that my digital ballasts are quiet make the choice easy for me, because I don't like noisy gardens.

I could go on about the fact that they run both MH and HPS, they're smaller and lighter, they increase your lumen output by 10-20%, they soft-start your bulbs so that they last longer and maintain intensity longer, they don't have the same re-strike issues with power outages as magnetic, the dimmable digitals will run at lower watts to conserve energy or save energy in veg, and, being digital, they don't have drift and loss of performance issues over time like magnetics.........................

but I won't

just the noisy buzzing is enough of a deal-breaker now that there is a silent option.