????Quantum or Lumatek????

purplehazin

Well-Known Member
Ive been running my 400W lumatek dimmable/switchable for over a month with no problems. Fires my bulb in 1-2 seconds and is completely silent. Although Ive never tried turning it down to 250W or up to SuperLumens, it has been great so far. Using a regular Ultra Sun bulb.
 

gwhunran

Well-Known Member
I just got done with a grow using a 600watt dimmable Lumatek and one of the 600watt extra blue HPS bulbs. I left it on 600 setting the whole time on the advise of my hydro store person. I didn't have any problems and I really didn't notice any increase in my electric bills. Whole set up started new, flowering ran for 75 days. I am satisfied with the Lumatek.
 

HowzerMD

Well-Known Member
I've had no qualms with my Lumatek. It's a 400w dimmable/switchable and running strong. Before this I always used magnetic ballasts then I did my homework and decided I would go digital. If things keep going smoothly, I'll purchase another one for a veg room after this run. It runs much cooler than magnetic and it's silent to boot.
 

nickfury510

Well-Known Member
just bought a the 600w dimable lumatek today. the guys at my shop all said the lumateks were the way to go but that the quantums semmed to be just as good, although 1 of the guys said hes returned a few quantums due failure. both were $185 so i went with the lumatek for the super lumens feature. As far as running your ballast on 220 it does nothing to lessen your power usage, 1000w of power used is 1000w of power used no matter if your on 120 or 220. what switching does do is lessen the amount of amps you draw by 50% ie 1000w on 120 draws 9.2 amps, 1000w on 220 draws 4.6 amps giving you the ability to run 2 1000w lights on a standard 15a circut rather than 1.
 

Caregivin

Well-Known Member
I got both...I love them both...but that purple is memsmerizing! I have a 400, 600 and 1000. My 1 g is a quantum, the other 2 lummies!
 

myxedup

Active Member
just bought a the 600w dimable lumatek today. the guys at my shop all said the lumateks were the way to go but that the quantums semmed to be just as good, although 1 of the guys said hes returned a few quantums due failure. both were $185 so i went with the lumatek for the super lumens feature. As far as running your ballast on 220 it does nothing to lessen your power usage, 1000w of power used is 1000w of power used no matter if your on 120 or 220. what switching does do is lessen the amount of amps you draw by 50% ie 1000w on 120 draws 9.2 amps, 1000w on 220 draws 4.6 amps giving you the ability to run 2 1000w lights on a standard 15a circut rather than 1.
That's not entirely true, 220 is going to use exactly what it says that it will as far as amperage goes, however because of how Alternating current goes, if you draw the full 600watts off of one phase and there's nothing eating up that 600 watts on the other phase, you could draw 1200 watts total. Each phase of your power has to match so if it's off, you can draw double the power and it just gets grounded.

That's why, in addition to the halfed amperage, 220 is cheaper to use. We don't use 220 for everything for the simple reason that its too much voltage for a human body to withstand should an accident occur.
 

nickfury510

Well-Known Member
That's not entirely true, 220 is going to use exactly what it says that it will as far as amperage goes, however because of how Alternating current goes, if you draw the full 600watts off of one phase and there's nothing eating up that 600 watts on the other phase, you could draw 1200 watts total. Each phase of your power has to match so if it's off, you can draw double the power and it just gets grounded.

That's why, in addition to the halfed amperage, 220 is cheaper to use. We don't use 220 for everything for the simple reason that its too much voltage for a human body to withstand should an accident occur.
every electrician I have ever talked to on the subject disagrees with you...including the one sitting next to me right now. the only benefits to running 220 is lowered amperage draw and less wear on your equipment. you will not see any change in your power bill.:hump:
 
That's not entirely true, 220 is going to use exactly what it says that it will as far as amperage goes,
Kewl, I want to live where I am charged per amp not per Kw.

however because of how Alternating current goes, if you draw the full 600watts off of one phase and there's nothing eating up that 600 watts on the other phase, you could draw 1200 watts total. Each phase of your power has to match so if it's off, you can draw double the power and it just gets grounded.
???????????

That's why, in addition to the halfed amperage, 220 is cheaper to use. We don't use 220 for everything for the simple reason that its too much voltage for a human body to withstand should an accident occur.
The ill effects of electrical shock have a lot more to do than pure voltage i.e. what you are standing on, your physical condition, your skin, etc.
 

mydixiewrecked

New Member
every electrician I have ever talked to on the subject disagrees with you...including the one sitting next to me right now. the only benefits to running 220 is lowered amperage draw and less wear on your equipment. you will not see any change in your power bill.:hump:
your wrong,lowering the amperage,lowers the amount of kwh used,which is how your charged by the elec.co
if your drawing 50 amps,the dial spins at a rate for 50 amps,if your drawing 25 amps, the dial spins slower,which means less kwh,which translates to less bill.
the reason for using 230v,277,440v and even 3 phase is it is MORE EFFIECENT.
and quantum ballasts are the shit,I have 3 1000's and never had a problem.

a good read
Obviously, there is sufficiently little difference in the big picture that both standards have survived in different jurisdictions. (In fact, there are more than two standards: there are places with 110, 120, 130, 220, 230 240 V nominal line voltage [generally +/-6%] plus both 50 and 60 Hz frequency standards. There has been a little progress toward increasing standardization, but it has been very slow.) The existence of the various standards has been largely the result of local politics and historical accident. Roughly speaking, to operate a particular appliance requires a particular amount of POWER, which (at least for resistive loads) is current times voltage. If you double the voltage, you draw half the current to achieve the same power. The primary advantage of lower current is that you lose less power in the wires feeding current to the appliance (or you can use smaller, cheaper wires for the same power loss rating). On the other hand, the higher voltage is somewhat more dangerous if accidentally touched or if there is an accidental short circuit. Some experienced electricians are relatively casual about touching 110 V circuits, but all respect 230 V. (This constitutes a "don't-try-this-at-home thing, though--it's quite possible to get a fatal shock or start a fire with 110 V!) Current trends are toward the use of even lower voltages (24 V, 12 V, 5 V, 3.3 V...) for any devices which don't draw much total power to increase safety. Power is rarely distributed at these lower voltages; rather it is converted from 110 V or 230 V by a transformer at the earliest opportunity. Even in North America, 220-240 V is commonly used in residential appliances for most high-power electrical appliances (ovens, furnaces, dryers, large motors, etc.) so that the supply current and supply wire size can be smaller. Higher power industrial applications often use 480 V or more. And, of course, transmission lines use progressively higher voltages as the distance and total power go up (22,000 V for local distribution to 1,000,000 V for long distance lines).For further reading, one good newsgroup discussion on the issue can be found at sci.engr.lighting:http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...%3D10%26sa%3DN
 

nickfury510

Well-Known Member
your wrong,lowering the amperage,lowers the amount of kwh used,which is how your charged by the elec.co
if your drawing 50 amps,the dial spins at a rate for 50 amps,if your drawing 25 amps, the dial spins slower,which means less kwh,which translates to less bill.
the reason for using 230v,277,440v and even 3 phase is it is MORE EFFIECENT.
and quantum ballasts are the shit,I have 3 1000's and never had a problem.
I dont even know how to respond to this. watts used is watts used period. changing the amperage does nothing to change the amount of watts you use. 1000w light wired at 220 doesnt draw 500w it still draws 1000w. when you are charged by kwh you are charged by the amount of killowatts used per hour not the amount of amps you are drawing. its real basic stuff no need confusing things with a link that does nothing to support your argument. again..the only thing rewiring to 220 does is reduce the amperage draw and extend the life of your ballasts.
 

ENDLSCYCLE

Well-Known Member
Wanna hear something funny???.......................I bought a Galaxy......1000w select-a-watt.......It is so fkn bright inside my GL120(4'x4')......Running a Hortilux Super HPS.....reasons I went with this was ...I can run a 400w bulb in the Galaxy ballast......with the Lumatek 1000w dimmable, the lowest watt bulb you can run is 600....and when you dim a 1000w bulb, the lowest you can dim it is to 600w...........with the Quantum, on the dim feature it reads:100%,75%,50%.....so to me that means when you dim a 1000w bulb to 50% its 500w....and I wasnt sure if you could run different wattage bulbs in it..........I really like being able to dim down to 400w with the Galaxy...unlike Lumatek's lowest setting(600w) and Quantum's lowest(500w=50%dimmed 1000w bulb)............IDK.........I was stoned on White Rhino when I was shopping today so it all made sense.....Plus...Its Crippy Green......Crayola should name a color that!!!!LOL
 

xivex

Active Member
I don't know anything about the Galaxy's..they do look nice, but I have 5 Lumatek digital e-ballast (newest rev just received from Sunlight Supply 3 weeks ago)..the 400w ones. They run so cool to the touch, its ridiculous. They are barely warm at all. They are dead silent. They are beautiful...I love them. Running them with Hortilux bulbs (both HPS and MH) and have yet to have an issue..but it has only been a few weeks so far, so take that as it is stated...

X
 

mydixiewrecked

New Member
I dont even know how to respond to this. watts used is watts used period. changing the amperage does nothing to change the amount of watts you use. 1000w light wired at 220 doesnt draw 500w it still draws 1000w. when you are charged by kwh you are charged by the amount of killowatts used per hour not the amount of amps you are drawing. its real basic stuff no need confusing things with a link that does nothing to support your argument. again..the only thing rewiring to 220 does is reduce the amperage draw and extend the life of your ballasts.
were both kinda right and wrong.
you ARE charged by the amps used because amps is current and power = current x voltage
so if you draw 8 amps at 110volts, you would have 880watts
if you use 4 watts at 220,you still have 880 watts
 

ENDLSCYCLE

Well-Known Member
Was running about 73*F with the 400wHPS Lumatek....made the switch to the 1000w Galaxy with 1000wHPS bulb dimmed to the 600w setting and its now 83*F......do you think if it was on the 600w setting running a 600w bulb it would be cooler???? Missing my low 70's!!!
 

nickfury510

Well-Known Member
were both kinda right and wrong.
you ARE charged by the amps used because amps is current and power = current x voltage
so if you draw 8 amps at 110volts, you would have 880watts
if you use 4 watts at 220,you still have 880 watts
there is no kinda about it, im right and you are wrong. you are charged by the khw(killo watt hour) not by the amp .maybe one of these links will clear things up for you. its really basic
http://michaelbluejay.com/electricity/cost.html
http://www.ehow.com/how_2172446_calculate-electric-costs-energy.html
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_do_you_figure_out_kWh

and your math just proves my original statement that converting from 110 to 220 does nothing to change the amount of watts you use...........
 
Top