Bootlegger
New member
I'm running 6x 54watt T5HO off of Fulharm Workhorse 5s. I'm using these ballasts because that's what the Hamilton's Aruba Sun fixtures came with (I have 3x). I like these fixtures, they are sturdy, well-made, and use excellent reflectors. Moving on...
A while back I found my barely used (but dusty) Sylvania Quicktronic PRO 4x 54T5HO ballast from an older project in a box of aquarium stuff (score!). For grins and giggles I decided to fire up a couple of my bulbs with this instead. It's advertised (and priced) as a premium ballast....so I fired it up just to compare (visually) the difference between this and the Fulham 5. In short, no comparison. The Quictronic PRO (equivalent to Advance Centium) runs them brighter. Even if you have poor eyesight - the difference would be obvious. I thought, "...errrr why?" The answer is simple, the Quictronic have a stated ballast factor of 1.0 and the Fulham state >.9
The answer:
It's clearly psychosomatic. Just kidding. It's the "ballast factor", e.g. how well the ballast drives bulbs at their designed operating wattage. The Quicktronic is firing the bulbs (at least) at the full 54-watts with its 1.0 ballast factor. Fulham is a solid ballast but it doesn't give a hard spec for the ballast factor. After comparing the two, I'm thinking Fulham is .9 at best (>.9 is probably wishful thinking...especially considering they used to spec out at .88). This means the Fulham is driving them roughly at 49 watts versus 54. Does five watts make much of a difference? Well, it adds up to 30-watts when you factor a system running 6x bulbs. Also, it's not just the loss in wattage but the lumen and potential PAR loss when not running a bulb at its design wattage.
ATI's little secret?
Does anyone know what the ballast factor is on their ballast? I don't know for certain (never had chance to peek at their ballasts) but I'm going to guess it's at least 1.0, maybe even a little higher. They advertise using "high output ballasts" so I'm guessing they mean ballast factor. It's smart of them, starting with a high ballast factor is key to for optimal output. Also add in a top-notch reflector and active cooling of the label end...we have a winning design.
Hamilton. Maybe you ought to use Advance or Sylvania? Just saying.
I'm going to bed...
A while back I found my barely used (but dusty) Sylvania Quicktronic PRO 4x 54T5HO ballast from an older project in a box of aquarium stuff (score!). For grins and giggles I decided to fire up a couple of my bulbs with this instead. It's advertised (and priced) as a premium ballast....so I fired it up just to compare (visually) the difference between this and the Fulham 5. In short, no comparison. The Quictronic PRO (equivalent to Advance Centium) runs them brighter. Even if you have poor eyesight - the difference would be obvious. I thought, "...errrr why?" The answer is simple, the Quictronic have a stated ballast factor of 1.0 and the Fulham state >.9
The answer:
It's clearly psychosomatic. Just kidding. It's the "ballast factor", e.g. how well the ballast drives bulbs at their designed operating wattage. The Quicktronic is firing the bulbs (at least) at the full 54-watts with its 1.0 ballast factor. Fulham is a solid ballast but it doesn't give a hard spec for the ballast factor. After comparing the two, I'm thinking Fulham is .9 at best (>.9 is probably wishful thinking...especially considering they used to spec out at .88). This means the Fulham is driving them roughly at 49 watts versus 54. Does five watts make much of a difference? Well, it adds up to 30-watts when you factor a system running 6x bulbs. Also, it's not just the loss in wattage but the lumen and potential PAR loss when not running a bulb at its design wattage.
ATI's little secret?
Does anyone know what the ballast factor is on their ballast? I don't know for certain (never had chance to peek at their ballasts) but I'm going to guess it's at least 1.0, maybe even a little higher. They advertise using "high output ballasts" so I'm guessing they mean ballast factor. It's smart of them, starting with a high ballast factor is key to for optimal output. Also add in a top-notch reflector and active cooling of the label end...we have a winning design.
Hamilton. Maybe you ought to use Advance or Sylvania? Just saying.
I'm going to bed...
Last edited:
