AC Jr sufficient?

[Sparkss]

Hehhe... most of it is over my head also... I would check out the reef chemistry forum for the differences, since that is where I hear ORP being talked about the most. I really wish I could provide a more informed answer. All I know is that they are different measurements and the probes are vastly different in pricing.

NS5131 Standard Grade ORP Probe $49.00

NS5171 Oxyguard Dissolved Oxygen Probe w/ 10ft Cable - for Pro version use only $419.00

 

[leeweber85]

I wonder if the DC8 can handle a plug that has 2 175W MH on a magnetic ballast?

It's an old Hamilton fixture BTW.

I'd love to get an AC 3 Pro for it's connectivity. But I don't use PH and ORP stuff. Not sure what ORP is anyways. =P

Now if there was a cheap way to monitor calcium and alkalinity then let me know as that'd be the bomb for an SPS tank.

I have mine running with 2 175w magnetic ballast on 1 plug

 

[Sparkss]

2 X 175 W = 3.2 AMPs, now, since most magnetic ballasts run about 20% over their output wattage we are at approximately 3.8 AMPs, which is well under the 6 AMP capacity

(a 250W MH runs, on avg, about 300W power draw).

 

[plaz]

Do you need to add a percentage to electronic mogul and electronic HQI ballasts for start-up etc.?
Thanks!

 

[Sparkss]

most outlets are rated for inrush current and constant/running current. That inrush is the start up, etc. Just about all circuit breaker have a current inrush/spike trip delay, in other words they will handle X% more current than they are rated for, for a short, specific, period of time before they trip. Wiring/wire insulation is also rated similarly.

I believe that I read that the icecap ballasts had a heavy inrush current and that the DC4 (non-HD) was not applicable for use with them, but the DC8 states that it is fine for ice caps and so does the DC4HD. I am not sure if they differentiated between the magnetic and electronic ballasts.

leeweber85 states that he is running 2 176's on one plug, but he failed to mention what DC unit he was using. Hopefully he will chime back in with that tidbit

As for calculating the inrush at startup, I am not completely sure, but I would suspect that all ballasts are different, but similar enough that they could be generalized. The biggest question is can the contactors in the DC that you have handle the load. If your DC matches leeweber85's, then I would say most likely yes. Of course that also begs the question as to how long he has been running in that configuration, as it could deteriorate things over time. That is another bit of information that hopefully he can supply.

Electronic ballasts in general run alot more efficiently than magnetic ballasts, but I am not 100% sure about the inrush on them comapred to their magentic counterparts. I had read that in some instances electronic ballasts actualy used less wattage than their light output, IE: a 250 W electronic ballasts only consumes approximately 225 W of electricity (it could have actually been less, and I don't remember the exact thread). That was posted in a thread of people testing/plyaing with the KilloWatt wattage meter. They were testing it on various motors, lights and other tank equiptment. The restuls for the different manufactures and equiptment was "enlightening" to say the least.. especially comparing their stated/advertised power consumption compared to actual.. most actual consumption was lower.. a few notables were higher.:mad2: But I did not recall seeing anywhere where they tested the inrush current for any motors or ballasts.. sorry.

 

[jnarowe]

My ballasts burn 9.2 amps so it looks like DC4HD for sure.

Regarding equipment using less wattage than their stated specs: That doesn't sound good for lamps. If the lamp is 400W and the ballast is running at 380W, you would not be getting the light output you paid for right?--J

 

[Sparkss]

well, the light output is not necessarily tied to power consumption. Think about the PCs that put out 85 watts of equivalent light but only consume 19 watts of power. It all has to do with how efficitnet their transformer and the method that the light is produced by (IE: if it is by exciting gas, or buring a filament and what types of gas and/or filiment is used).

 

[jnarowe]

True. I am only dealing with halides so that was my POV in replying.--J

 

[Sparkss]

Well, me too, mainly (except for PC actinic supplementation). But even MH's have filaments and gas that needs to be excited to produce light, although I admittedly don't know the exact mecahism that MH's use to produce the light in the wavelength that they do.

 

[clp]

I recommend that you take a look at Sanjay's reef lighting website http://www.reeflightinginfo.arvixe.com/index.htm
to get actual power consumption numbers on various ballast/bulb combinations. In general must electronic ballast consume less power, but they always output less light (look at efficiency).

Curt

 

[Sparkss]

Curt,

Thanks.. I should have leaned towards Sanjay, since he is the reef lighting guru . Thanks for pointing us in the right direction.