Cococola36
Well-Known Member
Yeah I seen that demo on the site, its very pricey going that way tho ... thats why I am curious about the ushio with that hood considering i have 1000 watt digi ballasts just sitting around
Greengenes Apache AT600 Garden- Blackberry Kush
- Thread starter Greengenes707
- Start date
Cococola36
Well-Known Member
I'm sure by early summer I'll be letting everyone know lol...but I usually run 240 volt
Greengenes707
Well-Known Member
I'm a 240 guys too. And it makes about a 10% decrease of wattage at the wall by improved efficiency with my AT's. But 240 with normal hps ballast is still less then the 400v that the gavita ballast converts the 240v into. There could be like 3 tires of DE systems now...120/240/400. Seems like it's a great way to get anyone thinking of hps to go DE...more $$$ for someone up the line. But it is a higher performing system based on the numbers over standard moguls and I have spent plenty of $$$ for better performing systems(AT's aren't cheap unfortunately), so I'm sure the extra $$$ is worth it if you got it and are into hps. I still like the 860cmh that you have. Imagine a DE cmh...undisputed king of lighting possibly.
Cococola36
Well-Known Member
Mannnn i wish they made de cmh!!! Im most likely going to upgrade the hps I have now in the middle of my 2 cmh kits... i def feel it will be worth it, especially since i have a genesis high frequency that is capable of switchable 600-1100 watts. I think the bulbs will still outlast having to change standard hps every other cycle like I use to do.
Greengenes707
Well-Known Member
It's so funny about genesis...remember my 600 hps and the big lemons...genesis bulbs 600w's...25$...now they are looked at as great. Which they are. And very cheap. I'm glad they are getting recognition now.
EDIT: After hitting post I clearly see you are talking genesis ballast...not bulbs.
You should get a DE for the middle. Talk about amazing setup...power and spectrum with the 2 cmh going in there too.
EDIT: After hitting post I clearly see you are talking genesis ballast...not bulbs.
You should get a DE for the middle. Talk about amazing setup...power and spectrum with the 2 cmh going in there too.
Cococola36
Well-Known Member
Well the interesting part is i def remember the 600 watt you had with the lemons lol , if I remember correctly you had jillybean under the at120's? Either way now that those bulbs were recognized in hightimes they def jumped a bit in price, still very affordable, but supply n demand i guess. When I bought the ballast i didnt even know what genesis was lol it was just a solid built ballast for a good price on ebay when I bought it. Supposedly they are working on a double ended bulb now but I have yet to see it.
I would just need to build a much bigger space - but that would be extremely cool.
Greengenes707
Well-Known Member
I tested my at600 again tonight...
240v= 684w
120v= 735w
My disclaimer is that I have a 120v kilowatt meter but my light controller(240v output) accepts 120 plugs so I don't know if it has the right accuracy used like that...but I think it's pretty close and that there is a difference.
240v= 684w
120v= 735w
My disclaimer is that I have a 120v kilowatt meter but my light controller(240v output) accepts 120 plugs so I don't know if it has the right accuracy used like that...but I think it's pretty close and that there is a difference.
chazbolin
Well-Known Member
I'm thinking one of the meters is off. If you take uMole readings under both voltages and they don't change (there should not be any change at all) that would prove the problem is with the meter and my guess is it is with the light controller reading. I'm only saying that because I've yet to see an inexpensive plug in kW meter be off.
This is a significant difference in wattage. There should not be more than a 1 or 2 watt difference on a high power factor universal driver. I would be curious what AT has to say because if running these at 120 volts does somehow increase wattage by 50 watts that is a problem.
This is a significant difference in wattage. There should not be more than a 1 or 2 watt difference on a high power factor universal driver. I would be curious what AT has to say because if running these at 120 volts does somehow increase wattage by 50 watts that is a problem.
chazbolin
Well-Known Member
With a magnetic ballast there are up to 20% greater efficiencies when they run @ 240 volts but the digital ballasts should not be that far off. Digital ballasts have power factors of .95 and greater whereas magnetics can drop to a .8. For single phase supply circuits Amps x Volts = Watts. With that formula your 240v x 4.2 amps = 1008 watts is off and your 120 x 8.9 amps = 1068 watts would be right. Were you taking the amperage readings with a clamp on meter?
The IG universal digital power supplies have a .99 power factor and I can tell you from personal experience there is a negligible difference in consumed watts whether the lights are ran on 120 or 240 volts supply circuits. The only difference is that @ 120 volts a 420 will draw ~3.9 amps each and @ 240 volts they draw ~1.9 amps each. For circuit layouts I'll run 4 ea., 420's on one 20 amp 120 volt circuit or 8 ea., 420's on a 20 amp 240 volt circuit. If the draw was 10% higher at 120 volts I'd only be able to run 3 ea., 420's on a 20 amp 120 volt circuit and that has never been the case.
GG should check in with AT as they should have a simple explanation for the different wattage readings he's getting. It's not making sense to me.
The IG universal digital power supplies have a .99 power factor and I can tell you from personal experience there is a negligible difference in consumed watts whether the lights are ran on 120 or 240 volts supply circuits. The only difference is that @ 120 volts a 420 will draw ~3.9 amps each and @ 240 volts they draw ~1.9 amps each. For circuit layouts I'll run 4 ea., 420's on one 20 amp 120 volt circuit or 8 ea., 420's on a 20 amp 240 volt circuit. If the draw was 10% higher at 120 volts I'd only be able to run 3 ea., 420's on a 20 amp 120 volt circuit and that has never been the case.
GG should check in with AT as they should have a simple explanation for the different wattage readings he's getting. It's not making sense to me.
hyroot
Well-Known Member
Yeah it was 8.9 amps exactly and 4.236548#$@ amps. Something like that. It was a differnce of 37 watts and a digital quantum ballast. All their ballasts don't run at the same amps. They vary from balllast to ballast. My buddies ran 9.2 and 9.4 amps. That was according to what was written on the ballast. Mine matched the kill-a-watt meter.
Greengenes707
Well-Known Member
I tested the intensity this morning while the lights were still on(so it was warmed up) and the intensity was the same on both voltages.
chazbolin
Well-Known Member
Which confirms my point. You need to read both voltages/wattages off the same test equipment. Neither of these meters is going to be 'high end'. So with the light intensity being the same regardless of supply voltage than the only other thing that could account for the extra wattage draw (I doubt there is any difference though) would be if the AT was putting off more heat @ 120 than 240v. Beyond that I would check in with AT. My guess is they account for the difference being from two different meters and not anything to do with their power supply.
Greengenes707
Well-Known Member
You're not getting it...I use one and only one meter to check input for both voltages. Here it is...
http://t.homedepot.com/p/P3-International-Kill-A-Watt-EZ-Meter-P4460/202196388
And my quantum meter is what I checked the intensity with...which was constant dispite the different pulls at the walls.
AT knows about it. We brushed over it a few weeks ago. I don't know what the reason is in their words.
but I believe it's more efficient internally somehow. I thought the spec sheets of driver showed that...but that actually says it should run more efficiently at 120, unless I'm just misinterpreting it...
http://www.meanwell.com/search/plc-100/plc-100-spec.pdf
chazbolin
Well-Known Member
I'm not confusing the quantum meter with the kill-a-watt meter. The same uMole intensities were found regardless of whether or not the AT was fed with a 120 or a 240 volt circuit. The home depot meter will only read wattage on the 115 volt supply circuit. It is incapable of reading the wattage of a 240 volt circuit. You stated earlier that you were reading the wattage for the 240 volt circuit off of a lighting controller. What I was saying is that a single meter, capable of reading both 120 and 240 volt circuits consumed wattage, would indicate near identical values. Especially having now read the Meanwell driver spec you provided that puts the power factor @ >.95 with supply voltages between 90-264 vac.
It's a common misconception that the higher the voltage the less the wattage the light will consume. With today's high power factor digital drivers that is not really the case.
It's a common misconception that the higher the voltage the less the wattage the light will consume. With today's high power factor digital drivers that is not really the case.
Greengenes707
Well-Known Member
Chaz I know the math and have argued yor side with many about that voltage doesn't change wattage...it just redistributes the equation to run less amps. But you're still not getting that my light controller accepts 120 and 240 cords...but runs 240 through what ever is pluged in(120 or 240) so the 120 only meter fits into my controller/outlet.
Is that more clear???
I am using one meter and getting different wattages on difference voltages. Up until this in my face info...I would and have said the same thing as you...w=a x v...not that simple apparently.
Is that more clear???
I am using one meter and getting different wattages on difference voltages. Up until this in my face info...I would and have said the same thing as you...w=a x v...not that simple apparently.