250 Ballast
- Thread starter patchin
- Start date
sfsuphysics
Supporting Member
Ok electronic ballasts have the stigmata of once something goes wrong with them, you need a whole new ballast, with magnetic ballasts (and things do go wrong with them) the most common problem is a capacitor goes kaput so it is something you can easily DIY fix.
Looking at Sanjay's lighting page on an XM bulb as a reference
An electronic ballast will run very closer to 250watts, 256 & 257 for the two e-ballasts he tested
A magnetic ballast - M58 (this won't fire double ended bulbs) will pull 315 watts
A PFO magnetic - M80 (this will fire double ended bulbs) will pull 374 watts.
However looking further into the numbers the M80 will be more efficient than the electronic ballast in watt per light energy, however this does vary greatly by bulbs, and that M80 ballast will burn the bulb out quicker so there's the cost of replacement bulbs.
Another issue to consider is that electronic ballasts try to save the ballast by reducing the light output of the bulb as it ages (ok it's the bulb that's doing it, but the ballast simply compensates for the added load), with magnetic ballasts the light output stays mostly constantly in the bulb, but at the expense of shifting colors and pulling more power from the ballast, so you could burn your ballast out if you run bulbs for too long.
End result, E-ballasts will end up saving you money at the meter, however the downside is the bulb will get dimmer over it's lifespan considerably more than a magnetic ballast. So do you pay PG&E or do you pay more to Marinedepot (or wherever you get your light bulbs
) Basically arguments go either way as to which is "better"
Looking at Sanjay's lighting page on an XM bulb as a reference
An electronic ballast will run very closer to 250watts, 256 & 257 for the two e-ballasts he tested
A magnetic ballast - M58 (this won't fire double ended bulbs) will pull 315 watts
A PFO magnetic - M80 (this will fire double ended bulbs) will pull 374 watts.
However looking further into the numbers the M80 will be more efficient than the electronic ballast in watt per light energy, however this does vary greatly by bulbs, and that M80 ballast will burn the bulb out quicker so there's the cost of replacement bulbs.
Another issue to consider is that electronic ballasts try to save the ballast by reducing the light output of the bulb as it ages (ok it's the bulb that's doing it, but the ballast simply compensates for the added load), with magnetic ballasts the light output stays mostly constantly in the bulb, but at the expense of shifting colors and pulling more power from the ballast, so you could burn your ballast out if you run bulbs for too long.
End result, E-ballasts will end up saving you money at the meter, however the downside is the bulb will get dimmer over it's lifespan considerably more than a magnetic ballast. So do you pay PG&E or do you pay more to Marinedepot (or wherever you get your light bulbs
) Basically arguments go either way as to which is "better"