changing lighting voltage

[exoticaquatix]

today at work i was talking with our electrician/carpenter/plumber and he mention that the new lighting system he was installing was going to be 277. i know that most if not all residential wiring is either 110 or 220 but he told me that when wired at higher voltage the amperage drops and so does the actual power comsumed by the lights. he also said that the higher voltages (220, 240? and 277) would run a bulb harder and thus get more light for less money.
with the cost of power about to take a jump of about 20%-76% (depending on your "plan" with BGE) i was considering rewiring my ballasts and a single socket for my lighting.

has anyone done this on their tanks?

does it actually cost less?

and

what type of effects on your equipment (bulb life, color, output) have you noticed?

thanks guys, i know some of you are electrical geniuses and id appreciate the help.

-nick

 

[hahnmeister]

He is partly correct. For larger buildings, the electric company doesnt just charge for the wattage, but the draw that the facility uses. If you look at the specs for ballasts from a company like advance (they make T5 ballasts in every flavor) you will see that the higher voltage units are more efficient as well. But the other reason many large buildings use higher voltage is so that they can run more lights on a single circuit...

If you had a warehouse running 400watt halides, you would only be able to put 3-4 of them on each circuit, but with 220 or 270, you can have 16 on a single line...much easier.

 

[BeanAnimal]

Most everything he told you is wrong, even though he has come to a somewhat correct conclusion. Somewhat correct in the fact that it can make a differnce in in large commercial situations... not over your fish tank or for your table saw.

The higher voltages don't "run bulbs harder" the bulbs on 110, 220, 270, 480, 545 ballast all see the same voltage.... thats what a ballast does (regulates voltage and current).

Regarding Amperage dropping.... well of course it does, becuase the voltage increased. This is Ohm's law at work. 5A @ 220V = 1100 watts, is the same as 10A @ 110V = 1100 watts.

remember you don't get billed for AMPS, you get billed for WATTS. The power factor for most ballasts is very close to 1 in most cases. That means that the real/reactive power debate is moot. So the input watts are what counts.

Voltage drop (line resistance) is a valid arguement in some instances, but not for the distances we are running and the amount of current we are drawing. IF it is an "issue" spreading the 110V lamps over 2 dedicated circuits (or more) is still usually more cost effective than running #10 (or larger) wire to get the same effect for 220V lamps. If this really was an issue, then you could also run #10 for all of your 110V stuff. We don't becuse it is not work the trouble in terms of payoff.

Changing a few aquarium lights over to 220V is pointless, and does not meet NEC code anyway.

Hahnmeister if you look at the specs, you will find that they are all over the board. Higher voltage has nothing to do with efficiency. The efficiency depends on the Power Factor (PF), the Ballast Factor (BF) and how the type and number of bulbs the ballast runs. These numbers come from the type and size of the xformer windings, ballast topology and PF correction built into the ballast, not to mention the characteristics of the bulbs being driven.

You will find in some cases the 120V version is more efficient (less input watts) and in others the 220, or the 270 version is more effiicent. There are a large number of parameters that determine this efficiency and in no way can you say that the higher voltage units are more efficient. Again, the numbers are all over the board. Worse, the differences are only a watt or two. So once again it's just not worth the trouble.

Bean


Bean

 

[hahnmeister]

I was looking at the advance flo ballasts, in particular the T5s, and on their pdf spec sheets, the higher voltage units (220 and 270) were the ones with higher power factors and ballast factors...at least what I was looking at. It looked like a trend at the time. For many halide ballasts it seems to be true as well, esp 400 watt ballasts on up. They seem to just be better performers. Even the input wattage seems to drop as the voltage goes up. Perhaps the greater efficiency (not much, but still a percentage) is due to less conversion?

http://www.advancetransformer.com/uploads/resources/EL-2110-R01.pdf

 

[BeanAnimal]

If you look down through the entire list you will fidn a watt or two on either side. The same goes for ace-ballasts etc.

Not trying to be PITA...

Less copper in the iron and coil is one of hte things that may make a difference. 2 watts over 10 hours a day for 365 days is at best a few dollars a year

I wish there were big savings in running 220V. I would switch everything over. Though like I stated the NEC does not allow 220V lighting in "dwelling units"... we call them houses.

Bean

 

[exoticaquatix]

thanks alot for clearing that`all up guys. i was having a hard time believing you could save a significant amount of energy this way and have heard nothing about it. a few dollars per year wouldnt even pay for the new breakers id have to install let alone the wire to run, the outlets and my time. we have close to 50 MH fixtures in our store so it makes sense we would see benefits from using higher voltage. my 1 400 watt metal halide wouldnt be worth the time it took to drive to home depot. ill just focus on other ways to save some watts on my tank, probably start with getting rid of my Rio's!
thanks again guys.
-nick