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?