I started out trying to decide if I wanted a 600w digital vs magnetic. Ive been thinking on it for a week, and I thought I had decided digital. Then, being me, I ran through a list of pros and cons, and did a review of what is known for both of them. I realized I had written a lot, and so I thought I would share it with the forum.
Digitals COULD save you 5-10% energy, add 5% light, and reduce heat and noise. Im not sure if that is true, but we will accept it at face value for this post.
Im comparing 400 watters because most beginners use 400w first, and they are most likely to need someone to talk to them about how lights work. Things that are true for 400w's are more than likely true for other wattages one would assume.
If you DIY, a 400w ballast will be about 50 bucks. A prebuilt 400w magnetic light is about 120 bucks, and a 400w digital is 220, thats with reflectors ect.
100 dollar premium for digital.
These aren't arent, they are made for a single purpose, lighting up our rooms. Do we care if its the newest technology? I don't. So I am looking at it in a subjective way. Is the +'s of the digital worth 100 dollars, lets see.
Cost/Efficiency
Efficiency to me is how much light I get for 1$. Without going into the math part of it too deeply. A KWH(1000 watts of energy) costs about 10 cents from the power company. 400w magnetics use about 480w of energy to operate, so about 6000 watts a day, that 60 cents. 60(cents) x 30(days) = 18.00.
So, it costs about 20 bucks to run a 400w magnetic hps for the month. 5 percent of 20 dollars is 1 dollar. You will take about 100 months, lets say 8 years, to recoup your 100 dollars. I doubt the digital ballast would last that long, or that if you are still growing in 8 years you wont have moved up. Even if you add in the 5% increase in light, you are still going to use the ballast for 5 years or so before you break even. Even though it flies against what most of you would agree with, the very clear winner here is Magnetic.
Winner: Magnetic
Reliability
I don't think anyone argues that digital is more reliable than magnetic. It is simply a given. Kind of like a rock is harder than a piece of foam, noone who isn't retarded is going to argue that. Time has proven Magnetic reliability.
Winner: Magnetic
Heat
If you have a horrible time keeping your temps right, and you keep your ballast in your grow, then a digital could help you some. How much? Well, not as much as you might think, maybe 5% of total heat output. Sure the ballast is cooler, but the light is putting out 5% more, and thus will be hotter. 5% less energy is being used though, so you will have a net 5% less heat. If you have your ballasts remotely installed there is no benefit to the digital heatwise. The bulb is still hot, and possibly hotter using the digital due to more light being produced at the bulb. I have never noticed my 400w magnetic being a heat issue, but I have proper ventilation. That being said.
Winner: Digital
Noise
Any of you who have used a magnetic ballast, know the sound of it. However, just how loud is it? 2 feet from my 400w hps ballast with the door closed, I cannot hear it at all. Uninsulated walls, listening for it, and I cannot hear my grow at all. In fact, my air pump, exhaust fan, and my circulation fan are all louder than my magnetic ballast. Will you ever have your magnetic ballast running without your fans on? I really think the noise is a non issue, but the digitals win this.
Winner: Digital
Digital issues I didn't mention:
Some might have RF issues. IE: Maybe your TV/Radio or your Neighbors wont work. Its like broadcasting a radio signal that could cause a security concern.
Magnetic issues I didn't mention:
Heavy
Possible flickering. Ive never noticed this honestly, and I have looked for it.
Conclusion:
I believe I have changed my own mind about buying a digital. There is no difference in yields or quality of the crop, if your light works properly. The most important things to me are reliability and cost(both purchase and operating costs) I think I have shown that the efficiency(in dollars) of the digital ballast is mostly word play, and until the costs come down and the reliability comes up that they are not the right choice to make for most people. That hundred dollars from the initial purchase could easily be applied towards CO2, a nice inline fan, the electric bill, getting better meters/nutrients, or any number of grow items that may actually make a difference in how good your grow is. You wouldn't give the electric company 100 dollars cash today to lower your bill 2 dollars a month for the next 4-5 years, why would you give it to a digital ballast company? So, for the foreseeable future, in my opinion, Magnetic ballasts are the sweet spot in ballasts.
Overall winner:
Magnetic
Digitals COULD save you 5-10% energy, add 5% light, and reduce heat and noise. Im not sure if that is true, but we will accept it at face value for this post.
Im comparing 400 watters because most beginners use 400w first, and they are most likely to need someone to talk to them about how lights work. Things that are true for 400w's are more than likely true for other wattages one would assume.
If you DIY, a 400w ballast will be about 50 bucks. A prebuilt 400w magnetic light is about 120 bucks, and a 400w digital is 220, thats with reflectors ect.
100 dollar premium for digital.
These aren't arent, they are made for a single purpose, lighting up our rooms. Do we care if its the newest technology? I don't. So I am looking at it in a subjective way. Is the +'s of the digital worth 100 dollars, lets see.
Cost/Efficiency
Efficiency to me is how much light I get for 1$. Without going into the math part of it too deeply. A KWH(1000 watts of energy) costs about 10 cents from the power company. 400w magnetics use about 480w of energy to operate, so about 6000 watts a day, that 60 cents. 60(cents) x 30(days) = 18.00.
So, it costs about 20 bucks to run a 400w magnetic hps for the month. 5 percent of 20 dollars is 1 dollar. You will take about 100 months, lets say 8 years, to recoup your 100 dollars. I doubt the digital ballast would last that long, or that if you are still growing in 8 years you wont have moved up. Even if you add in the 5% increase in light, you are still going to use the ballast for 5 years or so before you break even. Even though it flies against what most of you would agree with, the very clear winner here is Magnetic.
Winner: Magnetic
Reliability
I don't think anyone argues that digital is more reliable than magnetic. It is simply a given. Kind of like a rock is harder than a piece of foam, noone who isn't retarded is going to argue that. Time has proven Magnetic reliability.
Winner: Magnetic
Heat
If you have a horrible time keeping your temps right, and you keep your ballast in your grow, then a digital could help you some. How much? Well, not as much as you might think, maybe 5% of total heat output. Sure the ballast is cooler, but the light is putting out 5% more, and thus will be hotter. 5% less energy is being used though, so you will have a net 5% less heat. If you have your ballasts remotely installed there is no benefit to the digital heatwise. The bulb is still hot, and possibly hotter using the digital due to more light being produced at the bulb. I have never noticed my 400w magnetic being a heat issue, but I have proper ventilation. That being said.
Winner: Digital
Noise
Any of you who have used a magnetic ballast, know the sound of it. However, just how loud is it? 2 feet from my 400w hps ballast with the door closed, I cannot hear it at all. Uninsulated walls, listening for it, and I cannot hear my grow at all. In fact, my air pump, exhaust fan, and my circulation fan are all louder than my magnetic ballast. Will you ever have your magnetic ballast running without your fans on? I really think the noise is a non issue, but the digitals win this.
Winner: Digital
Digital issues I didn't mention:
Some might have RF issues. IE: Maybe your TV/Radio or your Neighbors wont work. Its like broadcasting a radio signal that could cause a security concern.
Magnetic issues I didn't mention:
Heavy
Possible flickering. Ive never noticed this honestly, and I have looked for it.
Conclusion:
I believe I have changed my own mind about buying a digital. There is no difference in yields or quality of the crop, if your light works properly. The most important things to me are reliability and cost(both purchase and operating costs) I think I have shown that the efficiency(in dollars) of the digital ballast is mostly word play, and until the costs come down and the reliability comes up that they are not the right choice to make for most people. That hundred dollars from the initial purchase could easily be applied towards CO2, a nice inline fan, the electric bill, getting better meters/nutrients, or any number of grow items that may actually make a difference in how good your grow is. You wouldn't give the electric company 100 dollars cash today to lower your bill 2 dollars a month for the next 4-5 years, why would you give it to a digital ballast company? So, for the foreseeable future, in my opinion, Magnetic ballasts are the sweet spot in ballasts.
Overall winner:
Magnetic
