Quote:

---

Evan said:
I could be wrong but I was under the assumption that your electricity is kilowatts/hour and a shitty 400 and a good 400 would require the same amount of energy on the same ballast because they measure the electricity in watts.

---

ha ha true

Quote:

---

Evan said:
I could be wrong but I was under the assumption that your electricity is kilowatts/hour and a shitty 400 and a good 400 would require the same amount of energy on the same ballast because they measure the electricity in watts.

---

Quote:

---

coda said:
Power companies won't bust you for running your lights. The reason people get nailed by the power company is because they're usually stealing power. Something like that shows up a lot easier then someone running a few lights in there house.

Think about it, if you ran one 1000 watt lamp you're basically running the equivalent of 10 100 watt incandescent bulbs in terms of power usage. The power company won't come knocking at your door with the cops because you're not doing anything suspicious. Even if they did notice a pattern in your power usage during the 12/12 cycle it's still not enough proof to come knocking at your door.

I've used a 400 watt light, and now im using a 600 watt light, both have provided no problems for me at all. The total increase for my electricity bill for my entire setup was only an extra 30-35 a month. I ran two T-12 shop lights, one squirrel cage fan @ 80 cfm, a stanley blower, a 400 watt HPS (the 600 watt light gave me the 5 dollar increase), a 12" oscillating fan, and a 6" stationary fan.

So if i were you i would grab a 400 watt light and design a slightly smaller room to maximize the light. A 600 watt light would be better since it gives you a much better lumen output then a 400 watt light and is a lot easier (and cheaper) to cool and run then a 1000 watt light.

---

Quote:

---

Well said!

---

Quote:

---

multiply this by about $0.12/kwh and u get around $35 extra a month.

---

Quote:

---

coda said:

It's been a while, but, last i remember my power bill was only $.008/kwh.  I'll have to look again though, i also switched power companies this year, it may have been .08/kwh.  I do know that it was insanely cheap.

Also, that's 35 bones per month if you're running your lamp 24/7.  Since a lot of people use fluros or lower wattage lights for veg you can effectively chop that figure in 1/2 (35/mo for 24/0 17.50/mo for 12/12).  So, if you use your power costs, a 400 watt lamp on it's own costs less then 20 dollars a month to run on 12/12.  With that scenario it's quite possible to keep your entire setup (fans, pumps, etc) running below 30$/mo.

---

yup

you probably had $0.08/kwh.  that's 33% less than my ridiculous $0.12/kwh.  If it was less than a cent at $0.008 i'd be moving to where ever you live!

Quote:

---

erb said:
It also means a lower energy footprint.20% less suspicious.

They also extend the life of your grow lights…over three times that of magnetic versions.You can use HPS or MH bulbs.Start-up times in under one minute. Due to an absence of fans, they run extremely quietly, and produce much less heat than their core-and-coil counterparts. Cut-off circuitry increases safety. A rise in lumen output means a higher yield.

The 600W ballasts weigh less than 10 pounds compared to over 40 pounds for magnetic ballasts.
You can get a 600 watt for less than $200 now.

---

Quote:

---

It also means a lower energy footprint.20% less suspicious.

---

Quote:

---

They also extend the life of your grow lights…over three times that of magnetic versions.You can use HPS or MH bulbs.Start-up times in under one minute. Due to an absence of fans, they run extremely quietly, and produce much less heat than their core-and-coil counterparts. Cut-off circuitry increases safety. A rise in lumen output means a higher yield.

---

Now there are the advantages that are truly important!  I run a lumatek 600 watt digital and compared to my hydrofarm 400 watt ballast, it runs a lot cool, weighs less, takes up less space, and starts a lot faster.  It seems to be a bit sturdier too, i didn't even have my 400 watt ballast for a year before the capacitor blew on it.  So until i get bored and want to fix it i have a 30 lb paper weight lying around

I do like the digi's more, another thing i notice is they don't hum like my other ballast did.  It wasn't a loud hum, but if you were in the room with it you'd be able to hear it.  Plus it made a loud "chunk" sound every time it fired that you could actually hear downstairs if you were paying attention for it.

Quote:

---

coda said:
if you're area is really hot in the summer you're going to want to run your lights at night during the 12/12 cycle. Makes it a lot easier to keep the room at a decent temp, plus if you run your grow at night while you sleep you'll consume less electricity unless you like sleeping with all the lights in your house on.

---

Quote:

---

Chronica said:

Quote:

---

coda said:
if you're area is really hot in the summer you're going to want to run your lights at night during the 12/12 cycle. Makes it a lot easier to keep the room at a decent temp, plus if you run your grow at night while you sleep you'll consume less electricity unless you like sleeping with all the lights in your house on.

---

hows this work?

---

Quote:

---

coda said:
true, but, even a lamp that's 20% more efficient will only save you a few dollars a month and around 100 dollars per year.

---

Not to bump an old thread, but I was searching for this while contemplating whether or not my friend should pay an extra $150 for a digital ballast, and in a year the decrease in energy usage alone almost pays for the difference, even if it doesn't seem much month by month. This helps alleviate some of the concern he's having about paying that much more.

Is it really true though, that the bulbs typically last three times as long? The savings there would really make it worth the initial investment.

I'm reading that the digital ballasts have 30-40% more lumen output than the magnetic ballasts. Is this where the 20% savings in electricity comes from, or is that simply due to the fact that it loses less watts converting from the power supply to the lamp, and the boosted lumen output due to the fact that the microprocessors involved with the lamp cause the ballast to use the lamp more efficiently as well?