help with a descision on lighting
 

lighting hmmm seems simple enough. well have a 180 gal. 2 ft deep running a 400 watt hamilton and a couple of 4 ft and 2 2 ft flourescents. Found a triple 400w or 250w 72" retrofit for around 350$ U.S. and am considering the upgrade. 250 or 400's? I am thinking 250's would be plenty and if not i could incorporate my existing 400 for lots o light. I emailed to ask if his ballasts would run most bulbs and here is what i got back :
" Most bulbs? You are best to upgrade it to a pulse start so that you can run any bulb you like. You can do that for $15.00.
You can also upgrade this ballast to an electronic dimable ballast for $55.00 per ballast or to an IceCap for
$100.00 per ballast and they will run any bulb you like."
I understand the advantage for a dimable ballast. Why would the upgrade to icecap be so expensive and what is the advantage.

Well, nothing simple about lighting in this hobby! :biggrin:

The icecap ballasts are generally considered to be some of the best in the biz. They run cool, are small and light, and most say that electronic ballasts in general will help the life span of a bulb achieve its maximum. These ballasts also apparently save money in hydro costs although whether or not they save enough to make up the difference in purchase costs remains a little out of reach.

all that being said, do I run E Ballasts, nope! Compared to my pumps, the slight hum of my standard TAR ballast is not a problem, nor is the heat that it gives off, as a matter of fact it saves me a little in the winter. However, if storage of the ballast was to be somewhat enclosed, or if space was a major issue then I would eventually move to icecap.

I run 250's and am extremely happy, if you have the extra 400's already and I were in your shoes, I would probably go with 2x 250's and then maybe one of your 400's that way you can position certain corals under the lamp of choice.

Anyway, just food for thought. Good luck!

Rob

The advantage to using an electronic ballast is that the ballast won't give off heat. Thus, there is a slight improvement in efficiency.

That said, I have to view the claim that the reason the bulbs last longer with a little bit of skepticism. Personally, I feel they're probably acheiving this by slightly under-driving the bulbs.

My own take on them is that they're overpriced. The slight gain in efficiency and lamp longevity is offset by the huge initial cost up front, and frankly even if the improved efficiency results in a lower hydro bill, I think it would take years and years for the ballasts to pay for themselves. So don't look to them to make the hobby cheaper, but if heat or noise from the ballast is an issue then maybe.

I have tried electronic ballasts in two cases. In one, it was an Icecap driving a 175W Ushio. This was supposed to be the best ballast for an Ushio, driving them at peak performance. The lamp flickered so badly that looking at the tank gave me a headache. I tried three different bulbs before giving up and sending the ballast back. .. In the other case it was not an Icecap brand ballast but another one (name escapes me at the moment). At one point when trying to testing a DIY fixture, one of the leads had contact to ground and the surge fried the ballast instantly. The ballast is unrepairable, so now I have a $150 paperweight. It was that easy to destroy the ballast, a few seconds of tinkering and that was that.

I'd be more sold on the idea of electronic ballasts if the cost wasn't so much.

...

Now, an upgrade to a pulse-start ballast ... that's another story. Most of the bulbs of interest to the hobby run better on pulse-starts over the older style probe-starts. Upgrading to a pulse-start is definitely worth considering.

Nicely put Tony!

See that's why I use words like "apparently" and "so they say" :biggrin:

The only other consideration that I would mention is that space wise, E Ballasts are smaller and lighter.

Rob

well they do give off heat but noticably less than a tar ballast.

your right and tests have showed they under drive the bulb by as much as 40%. so if you are concerned about power usage (would take 5 years to pay its self off with energy savings on my power cost) whould it not make more sence to drop down to a 250 watt bulb which is plenty of light for a 24" tank instead of underdriving your 400 watt bulb to a light output that is actulay less than the 250 watt set up?

Steve

oh ok that clears that up ..I think