Beware the cheap HPS tube

[Al B. Fuct]

You better get used to those 'slant-eyed' whatevers. There's a billion of them less than 5000km from you and one of these days, stuff from the land of the Emperor Nasi Goreng will be the quality of Japanese stuff. The Koreans are moving their quality along too, just quietly.

 

This problem doesn't appear to be in the quality of the HPS tubes but in the label on the boxes the tubes were stuffed in. The tubes I had probs with work OK on a Euro ballast, just had been mis-boxed. Did 'slanty-eyes' cause that? Doubtful. Any old kanaka showing up to work with a foggy head after a hard night on the grog could've made that mistake.

 

YOHS moved pretty quickly to sus out what went wrong. I'm going to be going in there with my light meter to check the performance of some Chinese CWA tubes when they come in. Will be comparing their output to better-known brands.

 

While there, I'll also be looking at some Lumatek digital ballasts to see if they really live up to their sales claim that you get 30% more lumens out of an HPS on their ballasts compared to a magnetic ballast.

[Luke Skywalker]

While there, I'll also be looking at some Lumatek digital ballasts to see if they really live up to their sales claim that you get 30% more lumens out of an HPS on their ballasts compared to a magnetic ballast.

 

Lumen maintenance I think not absolute lumens. The electronics are good, but they're not magic!

[Al B. Fuct]

Luke, Lumatek are specifically claiming "30% greater luminous output" in their sales literature. No mention of lumen maintenance in the sales lit.

 

We're going to test the Lumatek claim with a lux meter, 3 brands of HPS tubes (GE, Sylvania, some cheap Chinese tubes too) a Lumatek 600 and a common CWA magnetic ballast.

[Luke Skywalker]

Possibly they're referring to the difference between a standard and horticultural hps? Or the output a standard hps will give when used in a HO ballast?

 

But I'm yet to see a ballast that actually increases lumens from a lamp, electronic or magnetic. They do have better maintenance, but that's another matter, like I thought.

[Al B. Fuct]

K, we've got a piece of Lumatek sales literature that says:

 

Test data has shown that a 600 watt digital ballast produces only 5% less usable light than a 1000 watt "core and coil" ballast. It even uses less electricity than the old style "core and coil" 600 watt ballast. The Digital Revolution is here!

 

Using your same 600 watt bulb and the new lumatek ballast you get much higher (20%-30%) light output. More light equals more yield.

 

This implies 20-30% more brightness, without much ambiguity. They're leading the reader to believe that a Lumatek 600 produces only 5% less output than a 1000HPS.

 

I go to their website and see this:

 

Test data has shown that a 600 watt digital ballast produces only 5% less usable light than a 1000 watt "core and coil" ballast. It even uses less electricity than the old style "core and coil" 600 watt ballast. The Digital Revolution is here!

 

Using your same 600 watt bulb and the new lumatek ballast you get much higher (20%-30%) light output. More light equals more yield. You pay a little more for a lumatek ballast but with the same performance throughout the life of the ballast (as opposed to core and coil getting noisier and with worsening performance over time) you can save the extra initial outlay, over and over and over again

 

This version seems to imply that the output of a magnetic ballast degrades 20-30% over some unspecified time.

 

The working life of a magnetic ballast in a grow room could reasonably be 5 years. Most growers follow HPS tube makers' recommendations and relamp annually, so I wonder where the benefits are coming from.

 

I will be testing the Lumatek against a new CWA magnetic 600HPS and also a similar CWA magnetic 600HPS which though 7 years old, is still silent.

 

If Lumatek's implied claim of 20-30% more output is true, they'd make 123,500 lumens from a 600 HPS which normally makes 95,000.

 

We shall see!

[MongyMan]

I have only ever changed globes. A couple of the ballast I use were second hand 20yrs ago and I cant see any difference between them or the newer ones, and they deffinaty aren't digital.

 

Peace MongyMan

[Al B. Fuct]

MM, the Lumatek ballasts are not cheap and they've got a rather ambitious sales claim.

 

I agree that magnetic ballasts last nigh on forever. If their laminations are not rattling, they are no more wasteful than when new. I think this is what Lumatek may be driving at- CHEAP old ballasts' laminations can loosen, making noise and increasing eddy-current heat losses... but how long does it take to lose 20-30% of the output, specifically due to inductor core delamination? I would think a lot longer than 5 years in normal service life.

 

Going to take my current meter along on test day and measure the specific power consumption of the Lumatek vs old & new CWA ballasts.

 

If Lumatek's claims are true, these things should roll out the door by the palletload; the 600 should be making only 22% less light than a 1000 with 40% less power consumption. If they're not... you might buy a new magnetic ballast- and 3 spares for what you'd pay for a Lumatek.

[MongyMan]

It definatly sounds interesting Al B and I agree

If Lumatek's claims are true, these things should roll out the door by the palletload

I'll be interested to see what you find. I rely on generator power so anything that will reduce draw is a good thing imo.

 

Peace MongyMan

[Tom]

eddy-current heat losses

Eddy currents are magnetic, they don't effect the heat but they do drive the "hum" that makes the ballast noisy. The "hum" can usually be quietened or even silenced by tightening the screws down or fixing stripped threads, with the ballast unplugged of course, if you need to add any extra screws make sure you don't drill into anything else and don't touch any of the wiring or components as they may still hold a charge.

 

[Luke Skywalker]

I've tested a 600w Future Brite and I know that doesn't produce more light than a magnetic, new or old.

 

The lumatek's may be different, they're claiming they're digital not just electronic...

 

Keep us updated.