Review: Actual Power Usage Readings of Dimmable Lumatek 1000 and Galaxy 1000 Ballast

RemeberMe

RemeberMe

Active Member
I have a Killawatt wattage recorder and decided to test the actual power usage of my new Lumatek 1000 HPS/MH dimmable ballast at it's different power settings. Previously, the only info I could find on the dimmable Lumatek was that even though there are lower settings than 1000 (600 and 750) they used the same amount of power as the 1000. This I found to be completely FALSE. The setting of 600 used only 663 watts while the 750 used about 825 watts. This makes the Lumatek a truly useful ballast for scaling down power on days my grow room gets too hot to a 1000 watts.

I then checked the 1000 watt setting which used 1055 watts which is lower than the Galaxy which tested at 1080 watts. Another big surprise was the 110% reading required only 1090 watts, about the same as the Galaxy. With that low of a reading I doubt it gets brighter than the Galaxy even at it's highest setting.
 
E

exidis

Active Member
Nice to see this review. I jsut got myself the 600w lumatek and it has the 50% 75% 100% super lumen settings. Does the super lumen setting exceed 100%? Is that where the advertised 20% kicks in? LOL I love how its so quiet..
 
Ichi

Ichi

Well-Known Member
I wouldn't use that 110% setting unless you want to replace your bulb every grow cycle. Turning it up to 11 is going to eat bulbs. Oh ya, great info. Thanks!
 
E

exidis

Active Member
Im using the plantmax $15 dollar MH bulbs LOL I'll be happy if i can go thru 1 cycle with the bulb. I do have 2 more spare ones. Only bulb they sell in 600 watts around me.
 
nellyatcha

nellyatcha

Well-Known Member
RemeberMe said:
I have a Killawatt wattage recorder and decided to test the actual power usage of my new Lumatek 1000 HPS/MH dimmable ballast at it's different power settings. Previously, the only info I could find on the dimmable Lumatek was that even though there are lower settings than 1000 (600 and 750) they used the same amount of power as the 1000. This I found to be completely FALSE. The setting of 600 used only 663 watts while the 750 used about 825 watts. This makes the Lumatek a truly useful ballast for scaling down power on days my grow room gets too hot to a 1000 watts.

I then checked the 1000 watt setting which used 1055 watts which is lower than the Galaxy which tested at 1080 watts. Another big surprise was the 110% reading required only 1090 watts, about the same as the Galaxy. With that low of a reading I doubt it gets brighter than the Galaxy even at it's highest setting.
Click to expand...

Hey not to be a dick but if you run 1000w your total wattage your using is 1100w and you get charges not by 1000 kwh its actually 1100kwh like a 150w uses 165w
 
RemeberMe

RemeberMe

Active Member
nellyatcha said:
Hey not to be a dick but if you run 1000w your total wattage your using is 1100w and you get charges not by 1000 kwh its actually 1100kwh like a 150w uses 165w
Click to expand...

You might have missed the whole purpose to my post which was to show actual numbers on how much each setting uses. At the 1000 setting it uses around 1055, not 1100 like you state. Of course you'll get charged at the rate that are actually used and not what is printed on the box???
 
olaph

olaph

Active Member
Thanks for posting this.. On the Sunlight Supply web site, the only difference between the Galaxy and Lumatek seems to be the color. And, neither mentions the selectable output.
 
RemeberMe

RemeberMe

Active Member
Only Lumatek has the dimmable type. Lumatek makes both a 1000/1100 or this dimmable 1000. I don't know how they'll sell anymore of the 1000 only because I think they are both the same price.
 
BigBudBalls

BigBudBalls

Well-Known Member
Makes *perfect* sense.

The bulb sucks X watts, the ballast sucks an extra Y watts.

The control of the dimmable feature isn't free, it will cost you power. You are short powering a 100W bulb. Its going to need a certain amount of overhead before it even starts to give off light. So pulling a 1000W bulb back to 600W, will need more then 600W draw to give the equivienlant 600W light outtput.

A 400W magnetic/inductive sucks 450W. 400W for the bulb, and 50W for the ballast.

I really wish people would understand this. If an item is giving off heat, it *using* power.
 
O

overmyhead

Well-Known Member
RemeberMe said:
I have a Killawatt wattage recorder and decided to test the actual power usage of my new Lumatek 1000 HPS/MH dimmable ballast at it's different power settings. Previously, the only info I could find on the dimmable Lumatek was that even though there are lower settings than 1000 (600 and 750) they used the same amount of power as the 1000. This I found to be completely FALSE. The setting of 600 used only 663 watts while the 750 used about 825 watts. This makes the Lumatek a truly useful ballast for scaling down power on days my grow room gets too hot to a 1000 watts.

I then checked the 1000 watt setting which used 1055 watts which is lower than the Galaxy which tested at 1080 watts. Another big surprise was the 110% reading required only 1090 watts, about the same as the Galaxy. With that low of a reading I doubt it gets brighter than the Galaxy even at it's highest setting.
Click to expand...
Thanks for sharing this useful info, I have a couple quantums and they didnt say anything about that so I was suprised when looking at the lumateks. I guess their lawyers figured it would be best to under promise.

Out of curiousity, did you happen to check for a difference in the actual light produced? I am shopping now and I want to get either a lumatek or galaxy 600, then, I'll compare whichever I get to the Quantums. Thanks.

Edit: just found this, looks like lumatek wins in this test anyway. http://www.bghydro.com/BGH/static/articles/0506_digiballasts.asp
 
RemeberMe

RemeberMe

Active Member
I doubt there is enough of a difference to matter a thimble of beans. Both digital units are probably set to 600 watts so only the efficiency of the ballasts should make one use slightly less power but have the same luminance. But to answer your question, no, I do not have a good light meter so I did not test that.
 
Dr. Bigbud

Dr. Bigbud

Well-Known Member
U know I have one of those kill-a-watt meter too and when I tested my 430W hortilux hydrofarm ballast it was sucking 298W and I left it on for 10 minutes so I dunno if something is up with my meter, ballast or bulb. The ballast clearly says 430W and uses 5.2 amps but its no where near that. I have used the bulb on about 3 grows over a period of about 4 years. Any ideas whats up with this?
 
T

todd86

Active Member
Dr. Bigbud said:
U know I have one of those kill-a-watt meter too and when I tested my 430W hortilux hydrofarm ballast it was sucking 298W and I left it on for 10 minutes so I dunno if something is up with my meter, ballast or bulb. The ballast clearly says 430W and uses 5.2 amps but its no where near that. I have used the bulb on about 3 grows over a period of about 4 years. Any ideas whats up with this?
Click to expand...
Your bulb is stuffed that is why, bulbs ideally need to be replaced every grow, after one grow old bulbs can be used for veg again once only then throw them away.

they lose around 15-30 percent of light out put in a single grow.

if you hps bulb internal cylinder (when off) has black on each side its getting tired.

Budget on one new bulb per grow for optimum weight and use a new bulb in flower and the tired bulb in veg.

I know thread is old but needs to be answered.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top