help looking for cheap way to power vho

[Goffee]

I want to know if anyone knows of a CHEAP way to power one 18" 40 watt vho. Cause i'd like to use 2 daylight pc's since ive heard the pc actinics arent very good. and also it'd give me more wattage. about 112 watts over a 10 gallon

[fragman]

I am currently doing a very similar thing, I have a single 18" 40W VHO Actinic bulb and two 32W PC'c over a 5.5 gal. , You can use a regular flourescent ballast or contact your local electrical supply shop to get an electronic ballast. I can't remeber the number off the ballast I am using right now but I will check it when I get home. I am using a regular tar ballast, just because I had it laying around. but I believe the balast cost me about $15 from HD.

[fragman]

Sorry it took so long, but here is the ballst that I am using it is a Magnetek 413-C-TC-P I bought it at Home DSepot for about 10 bucks, I know that i could order an electronic ballast from my local electrical supply place for about 20 but I also know that the advance  electronic ballast is about twice as big.

[NanoReefer53]

Hahaha, actually guys, it's a whole different thing.  Even though your powering the lamps, it's not at its full potential. A regular ballast still produces the same mA as a NO lamp. So really, your not getting all the lumens the VHO lamp can give. Your just using up more watts.

[fragman]

Obviously, you have missed my point! Yes the ballast fires at a lower mA than let's say an IceCap, and thus I am not getting the Lumens that I would noramlly get from this bulb. However, I was talking about a 5 gallon tank which already has 60+ watss of PC over it. The only reason that I am using the VHO bulb is for the color. Which when you come down to it, it's purely for asthetics.

 

The other thing to consider is that so many people have been subjected to reading labels and having what is on the label become the absolute truth. Yes the Icecap ballast say that it is a 1500mA ballast and mine says that it is an 800mA ballast, however; is that a bulb rating? I think not. It is a rating of the ballast itself. It is stating what the ballast 'under normal load' will draw!! The under normal load is a very subjective label. That particular ballast is designed to be able to run up to 2 x 72" - 160W bulbs. Mine is designed to run 1x48" - 40W bulb.

I would argue that since my power requirements are much less and since I am powering a bulb half the length of the design, I am gettitng more current to the bulb than a normal 48" lamp would get. The reduction is resistance just from bulb length.

 

The other point that must be brought up is firing rate. It is true that the firing rate of an Icecap is sufficiently greater than mine(better than double). This would also accredit the higher amperage, becuase the ballast is simply doing more work!!

This is the one area where I see the difference, because i have a lower firing rate, I also have a Higher kicking voltage on the lamps which in the end causes my lamps to burn out prematurely.

 

(Edited by fragman at 9:30 am on Jan. 6, 2002)

[NanoReefer53]

whoa ! i don't know if i got al that. Hmm...interesting points. Im not an electrician or anything but your points seem reasonable.

[fragman]

That might have seemed alittle crass, sorry for that!!

 

but the basic thought is that you are powering a much small tube withthe same wattage. since the voltage is a constant, then the only real variable is the amperage, It has been said on many unnamed sites that you need the higher amperage to power VHO's but with the same wattage and voltage, and a minisucle power factor it works out about the same. Of course, I do get nice blackend bulbs but the cost differential is worth it.