is Ice Cap all its cracked up to be?

[StirCrazy]

In Response to statements made by ASH (Andy) I am left with an unpleasant taste in my mouth. I have always thought Ice Cap to be the standard in electronic ballasts but a few facts that have turned up show it to be not what it clames.

First in a thread Vho or Power compacts
( http://www.reefcentral.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=49133 )

On Reef Central there was a comment made stating that "An additional advantage of Icecap is energy savings. Four 110 watt VHO's would only draw 270 watts of power." well this peeked my interest and I got into the conversation wondering how 440 watts of light out put could be produced with only 270 watts of power.. also there was a clame of VHOs being good for over 2 years on a Ice Cap ballast how could this be, when I used to run VHO's they were good for 6 months.. So this drew my attention even more. I thought those statements might have been a type O but it was replied that it wasn't.

So after a couple post from the other guy Andy come into the thread and posts

"From Icecap:
Let me shed some light on this. But for the 6 year bulb life claim, what this thread says about our product is on the mark. When the ballast was designed it was decided to match conventional output of light, not match conventional consumption of energy. We have manufactured a 220V version that consumes a lot more energy but it runs hot and there's a diminishing return on the light output per watt as it is increased. By using about 270-watts to drive 4 X 4-ft VHOs our only crime is saving energy and giving you a much longer lamp life.
PC are what's new and this hobby thrives on new. We're currently testing some thinner lamps that are linear but promise to push the PC to the back page. What's nice is the same Model 430 or 660 will run them, just like the PCs, but they'll provide a longer life and be more efficient at putting the light where you want it. The design of the PC doesn't lend itself to lighting a tank IMO. How much of its output makes it to where you want it? I think they're fine for situations where space is the major factor, at least until we show you what's coming.
Anyway, back to work so that the next long thread will be about some really innovative lighting.
Andy"

Well to say the least this didn't sit well with me.. But my suspicions were starting to form that the were in fact under driving lights which would account for the longer life and the low power consumption.. So I decided to go fishing in the
sponsor Q&A forums for Ice Cap and I found another link called "Here is one for the masses"( http://www.reefcentral.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=40017 ) now in this thread on the 5th of October some one asked about the power usage of the Different Ice Cap ballasts and the reply was finally posted on the 25th of October stating

" Here's a start:
Model 430 2-lamps
NO 48" T-12 = 143
NO 48" T-8 = 151
VHO 72" T-12 = 200
55-watt PC = 148

Model 430 3-lamps
NO 48" T-8 = 216

Model 660 4-lamps
NO 48" T-12 = 255
NO 48" T-8 = 268
VHO 48" T-12 = 269

Model 3000 2 lamps
NO 48" T-8 = 60

All wattage figures include total wattage consumed by the bulbs and ballast .
Andy"

On the 15th of November some one else thought that data looked funny and posted

"Andy,
Can you comment on the the data you posted earlier

Model 660 4-lamps
NO 48" T-12 = 255
NO 48" T-8 = 268
VHO 48" T-12 = 269

Last line 4 VHO T-12 VHO using only 269 watts on a model 660. Doesn't this strongly suggest that a model 660 significantly under powers these 48" VHO bulbs. Shouldn't it be 440W + the power used by the ballast?

What am I missing?"

8 days later (23 Nov) Ice Cap replied

"From IceCap:
Sorry, but thankfully we've been very busy. I will try to add to the list next week.

Regarding the under-powering, this is one of the reasons we never made a big thing about saving energy, because invariably people would say then there's not enough power. Truth is I've never had anyone post, my VHO's are dim when I use an IceCap ballast. High frequency output which adjusts its strength many times per second depending on the lamp load it senses is much more efficient than blasting lamps the conventional way, which also explains the longer lamp life we provide.

We are working on a higher output version of the Model 660 which will consume up to 500-watts on a larger load than currently allowed but it's not close to being sold as of yet. It's still in a 220V only version and runs too hot as far as I'm concerned.
Andy"

So from all that Ice Cap is admitting that is it under powering the bulbs to get the longer life. A few calculations to throw out at 269 watts of line current a Ice Cap ballast is only providing 65.9 watts to each 110 watt 48" VHO bulb you have hooked up.. And this is assuming a 98% efficiency in the ballast. That also means that your expensive VHO bulbs you bought are only being powered to 59.9 % of there rated capability. The interesting fact was that with a NO 4 ft T12 bulb a 660 would light 4 of them to 255 watts.. That means a NO bulb is being powered by 62.5 watts (assuming a 98% efficiency) this is incredible.. No wonder everyone says it makes NO as bright as VHO or does it.. Not really, it does increase the NO bulb by 1.5 times but it is still a far cry from what a VHO SHOULD be. But hey if you want to use NO bulbs this is great.

Now that we have gone through all this it leaves a question in my mind on weather I want a ice cap or not even if it was only to power my actinic.. I still have to wonder how bright the lights would be if they were getting the proper power..

StirCrazy

[Jayson]

I myself use nothing but Ice Cap products for lighting. I use the 660 with vho as well as the Ice Cap metal halide ballasts. I have have used cheaper ballasts in the past and was not happy at all. The bulbs last a long time, stay cool and have no trouble maintaining sps and clam growth. The company themselves are great and have the best product support in the biz.

[ASH]

From IceCap:
StirCrazy, I find it strange that you go around bashing IceCap Ballasts when you don't own one or plan on buying one. Below was from the same thread and my response to you.

http://www.reefcentral.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=49361&perpage=25&pagenumber=1

"From IceCap:
StirCrazy, It seems we've succeeded in fooling everyone, including the captive coral population into thinking we're producing a lot of artificial sunlight for them. We also fooled everyone into thinking they were using more electricity than they really were using. I suppose we also cheated the lamp companies by fooling all hobbyist that their bulbs last longer so they spend less on them and create less trash. We even dare to make a repairable ballast (only one I know of) to further rob the trash heap of needed junk.
When will IceCap stop all these horrible crimes? When we no longer sell a quality product backed up with excellent service with a loyal following of hobbyists.
Andy"

I don't know how many forums you have visited to spread your displeasure with IceCap but I think you either have: too much time on your hands, are doing the work of a competitor of ours or earned your user name by acting it. Rant away, I am through responding to you.

BTW, I'm no great speller but I learned to use spell check. Check out your home page with all the free time you have so it doesn't detract from your credibility any more than you've done intentionally.
Andy

[Greg Moore]

Ash/Andy

I don't own one, would like to, but don't. I can't say everyone, even those of us that don't own an Icecap would agree with the author of this thread you are talking about.

I wish Icecap were cheaper and I wish they had some competition (goes hand in hand I guess) however I have seen both enough data and enough live usage of the ballasts to know they work very well, and that they are a far better choice over conventional ballasts.

On the other hand, they do go 'the extra yard' in their advertising, for example, 'watts of light'.. Please show me any official text on either wattage or electricity that quantifies that term? It is used in a way in advertising that has led people to believe Icecap is more then 100% efficient, so much to the point that I have seen that very question raised on other boards and I even persued it once writing Icecap.

What Icecap has to realise is that most hobbiests getting into reefs are generally more read (on the hobby) then someone first starting out with a gold fish bowl. We tend to look very close at many options before spending the (usually large amount) of money to buy it. If their page showed something like "conventional ballast = 6100 lumins using 190w of elec, ours produces 6250 lumins using 135w of elec" then I would be thrilled to read it. All along hobiests have been handed very well defined information of most items we buy. We know exactly how much water a pump will push at different heights and how pipe size will effect that. We are given very exact proportions of chemical content in our salts and other items we may buy and we are starting to get some very informative numbers from bulb manufacurers regarding true lumin output and true colour spectrum (10K means nothing really when it is handed out freely to descibe a bulb, but a full spectura chart speaks volumes).

Why should one of the most advanced ballasts available in the hobby use non-specific terms like 'watts of light' and not go the extra step and provide us real numbers that can be researched? Most people agree Icecap (or any electronic) is far more efficient then tar, but at the prices, it is a huge investment, give us numbers we can swallow and that can't be argued..

Greg Moore

[ASH]

From IceCap:
Other than a banner at Reef Central, we don't advertise. I'm not familiar with the phrase 'watts of light' and other than being a poor excuse for a pun, what does it mean?

I'll run four NO lamps on two conventional electronic ballasts and then run the same lamps in the same fixture powered by a single Model 660. I'll provide the total wattage consumed (easy) and a light reading as best I can (not so easy). As far as lamp life and depreciation of light over time, I think it's generally agreed on that our ballast enhances lamp life of VHO lamps (like URI's) and will provide a year or more of near VHO light output on NO lamps.
I'll post the results by tomorrow at this time.
Andy

[Greg Moore]

The following is a quote from the Icecap page on Champion Lighting. It is from the link (only link) shown on the Icecap page for purchasing the 660 ballasts..

"Energy Efficient
440 watts of light consumes 260 watts of electricity.
320 watts of light consumes 190 watts of electricity"

Extreemly misleading, first off there is no such thing as 'watts of light' as you agree to yourself. Secondly, anyone not knowing that would assume that the 660 ballast is higher then 100% efficiient, which sadly, is also impossible.

If the ad were to state (the truth assumably) that a conventional tar ballast consumes 440watts and an Icecap running the same bulbs consumes 260watts, then it would be accurate. However even that would not inform a hobbiest unless it also included the par or lumin in each case.

There is no argument that electronics are more efficient, in most cases by a long shot, there is much less internal loss and most electronics drive the bulb at much higher frequencies the 60hz. Having less internal losses, lower heat is a given (the wattage has to go somewhere).. I just wish the advertising was accurate..

Maybe in this case the advertising fault is that of Champions, not Icecap, but since it is linked to directly and is the only supplier link on Icecaps page, Icecap should at least request that Champion use industry correct terminonlogy..

Greg Moore

[ASH]

From IceCap:
"Maybe in this case the advertising fault is that of Champions, not Icecap, but since it is linked to directly and is the only supplier link on Icecaps page, Icecap should at least request that Champion use industry correct terminonlogy."
Please visit out web site. Only Supplier?
http://www.icecapinc.com/sales.htm

I promised some numbers. Here's what I found.
Same four NO lamps run on:
1)Two MagneTek Universal 446L electronic ballasts (2 lamps per ballast).
Wattage used by lamps and ballast = 172
Light meter reading from three feet away = 143
L/W = .831
2)One Model 660 electronic ballast.
Wattage used by lamps and ballast = 258
Light meter reading from three feet away = 249
L/W = .965
or 74% more light, 16% more lumens per watt.

Better than I thought it would be, possibly because the lamps were used and we do better at getting light from older bulbs. Each setup was run for 1/2 an hour before readings were taken. I will repeat it today with different lamps.
Andy

[Greg Moore]

Ash

If you read my reply more carefully, you will find it says the following "It is from the link (only link) shown on the Icecap page for purchasing the 660 ballasts.. "

I went and looked at the page for the 660 ballast once again, and low and behold, as I stated, it is still the only supplier link shown on that page.

Does the page for 660's change several times an hour, or is in fact my statement correct? Please, I am trying to make a point using quotes as accuratly as possible, please try and argue them in the same fasion.. Besides, the issue at hand was the use of the term "watts of light" which you have not replied to...


Greg Moore

[ASH]

From IceCap:
Your point is well taken. I will relay your comment to Champion Lighting. I can only guess it was their way to convey that you will receive the same light output as if you were using that amount of wattage with a conventional ballast. In truth, a conventional ballast would use over 440 watts as that doesn't include what the ballast consumes.
All the numbers I posted earlier today are total consumption, lamps and ballast. That's why the MagneTeks total was over 160-watts even though they don't overdrive the lamps.
Andy

[Greg Moore]

So clearly Icecap is interested in hobbiests opinions and concerns. Maybe some day down the road there will be more closely comparable standards used for these types of things. Lighting is still a major investment in reef aquariums and probably one that finds many people wishing, or at least wondering if they should have done it differently.

Thanks for looking into it and possibly correcting it, as well as supplying info we can use. You may want to check out an experiment done in the DIY section over driving lamps. It kind of relates to output on electronics..

Greg Moore

[StirCrazy]

Hi Ash, thank you for the numbers but, it isn't the out put of normal output bulbs we are concerned about we all know and agree Ice Cap over drives a normal output bulb ~1.5 times. the comparisons we would like to see are between the IceCap ballast and other "electronic VHO" ballast. there question was never do you overdrive NO bulbs but rather why are you underdriving VHO bulbs so much. I also do apologize if my original post was insulting in anymannor, it wasn't meant to be.. a little blunt yes but never meant to insult.

as for your comment
"From IceCap:
StirCrazy, I find it strange that you go around bashing IceCap Ballasts when you don't own one or plan on buying one."

Actually I was planning on buying one.. two as a matter of fact.. not that the sale of 2 ballast would mean much to a company of your size. the reason all the questions came up was that I like to read and do research on things before I buy them. I want to make sure I am getting the best value for my money (and seeing the exchange rate on the Canadian money laitly you can understand why.

Now I sent 3 e-mails over a week to your company and none were replied to, I even then sent you a private msg, the post was a question about the power of the VHO's and how they stack up against other electric VHO ballast. I know they are reparable and simple to set up (which is real nice) but the price for a 660 here is 260.00 and that is just the bare ballast not the wiring. so before spending $500.00 + I wanted to read a bit about what the benefits were.. I found lots of info on the MH ballast but non on the 440 and 660 except stuff like "they Rock" "there customer service is awesome" and " My NO's are just as bright as my VHO's on them" but nothing about actual performance of VHO bulbs.

Now weather you belive me or not the fact is because of the lack of data and my frustration at getting some data from you I have gone out and already spent more than the cost of one of your ballast on some test equipment and I will be spending more on a PAR sensor after Christmas in order to conduct tests on several different ballast and find out for myself. 3 of my friends have IceCap's so I will be able to run tests on them also.

Steve

[Mitchell]

Well what can I say...

I own a 660 and wouldn't mind a second one. Love the output with my URI bulbs.
Very satisfied customer.

[DJ88]

Andy,


I don't know how many forums you have visited to spread your displeasure with IceCap but I think you either have: too much time on your hands, are doing the work of a competitor of ours or earned your user name by acting it.

Was that called for Andy???? He wasn't expressing displeasure. Tho his wording left something to be desired for clarity he was wanting information and trying to find out before he made a large purchase.

As a matter of fact I do know who Steve works for. The Canadian Navy. He doesn't work for a competitor. Not even close. He is a hobbyist who wants to make sure of every factor involved with the tank he is setting up. As do I. I am in the process of setting up a 120 and a 40 Breeder for a grow out tank. After these comments I don't see me buying anymore IceCap, in all honesty. I know I am just one customer, but that was not warranted.

And calling him crazy? tsk tsk... Won't go there..

As for time on his hands. .Yes he has lots right now. He recently had surgery on a knee so he could continue working.

Before you go after me for having too much time on my hands for questioning all of this as well, I'll let you know I am an ex-navy man myself. Pensionned early due to a service related injury.

As a large well known corporation in this hobby I was really suprised to see it's online rep saying these things about a potiential customer. :confused: Especially one who has such a good name for serive and replying to questions.

[ASH]

DJ88,
I was not reacting to this post but the fact that an ongoing thread on one forum was being fanned by posting in, I didn't know how many places.
As for being laid up, been there and don't mean to beat up on someone who's already gone through the mill.
We have a good product and I should have responded by supplying answers instead of jabs. I will try to respond to these issues and take the shots that will come if we don't.
Andy

[DJ88]

Andy,

We all know you have a great roduct. Of that there is no doubt. A repairable electronic ballast is awesome. I fix electronics for a living and all too many things are made to be disposable. To see a product that is infact repairable and made to be that way is great. As well the versastility of and Icecap flourescent ballast is second to none.

I know that the whole reason for all of this was to get hard numbers. Not bash you.. There has been extensive research done into MH lighting. Well not everyone runs MH's. Lots run VHO's. And are wanting to have the same data availble to them as the metal heads have ;) It is too bad that it turned into something it wasn't meant to be. This whole topic on all boards could have been a very interesting one with all parties working together. It is amazing how words written quickly can be mistaken and taken in the wrong manner. It works both ways.

As for posting in all manner of places, everyone does it to get their questions out ther to as wide a specturm of readers as possible.

I still think it can be an interesting topic.. That is why I will be doing some testing myself. Ordered my light meter and new testing equipment today.

[reefburnaby]

Oh no...it has spread to here....

Any who...I believe Icecap is a good product for those who want to DIY a little bit and get a good lighting system. Support a DIY product is not easy since not everybody is "electricity savy". I am sure Andy has a list of "most entertaining questions of the year". It costs money to do something like that...so I guess that's where the expenses are.

Like most equipment oriented for the reefers, most of this stuff is very expensive (take Southdown vs Caribsea - and that's just sand). $270 CAD...come on...that's cheap compared to live rock, sand, tank or a calcium reactor (okay...maybe a calcium reactor is bit more expensive).

Andy, I hope you don't take our "overdriving" adventure as a threat to your business. Quite frankly, I don't think many people will do it -- simply because it is quite risky.

As for your watts vs watts...the only true way to tell what's going on is to hook up the Icecap and other ballasts to a scope and see what is being driven to the lamps. Until then...we could dream up some theory... Anybody attempting to do that should realize that the signals going to a tube can be as high as 1kV...which can easily fry most scopes without special precautions.

Andy, I do have a question for you...the numbers that you quote for "Light meter reading from three feet away = 143 ", is that lux or footcandles or some other unit ?

- Victor.

[ASH]

From IceCap:
The readings are in LUX.

Latest installment.
1)Two MagneTek Universal 446L electronic ballasts (2 lamps per ballast).
Wattage used by lamps and ballast = 173
Light meter reading from three feet away = 182
L/W = 1.052
2)One Model 660 electronic ballast.
Wattage used by lamps and ballast = 269
Light meter reading from three feet away = 333
L/W = 1.238
or 83% more light, 17% more lumens per watt.

All tests this time were on brand new G.E. AquaRay Fresh & Saltwater 4-foot, NO T-12 lamps. I ran the Conventional ballasts 1st just in case the break-in caused them to drop off output quickly.
Andy

[StirCrazy]

Hi Ash, thanks for more numbers but I have to repeat myself in asking could we see comparisons using VHO bulbs being powered by IceCap ballast and other "electronic VHO" ballast.

I totally agree that your ballast putting 1.5 times the normal power into a NO bulb will be brighter than a normal ballast running the recommended amount through the same bulb but the #'s a lot of us are interested in is dealing with VHO bulbs and VHO ballast.

Thanks
Steve

[ASH]

From IceCap:
Steve,
I have little doubt that initial output from a conventional VHO ballast would be higher than on an IceCap for several weeks. They earned their fame by burning the candle from both ends, burn bright, burn out. The practice of replacing bulbs every six months didn't spring out of nowhere. It was a necessary evil.

I will look into setting up two identical stations where we can compare the lux reading over a period of months as less than that would prove nothing.
Andy

[StirCrazy]

ASH
That would be great.. thanks, might be interesting to see how fast the values fall off on the conventional and at what point the IceCap becomes equal (or better).

Steve

[Silverfish]

Hi Ash,
I am interested in seeing some tests on IC ballasts compared to other VHO ballasts as well. I have been following this topic around the boards and I have seen some interesting things said by many people ;)
I have to say that as far as quality goes IC sounds top notch, and is very versatile.
I would like to supplement my 250 Iwasaki 6500 with 3 VHO actinic on my 55g, so the results from everyones tests will be of interest to me!

Glad to see the issue finally being addressed!

Bruce

[ASH]

From IceCap:
There have been some new posts on http://www.reefcentral.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=46274 comparing NO and NOs run on an IceCap vs. VHOs run on an IceCap. It still doesn't address the question of VHO to VHO ballast but I don't think it's as important as it appears at first glance.
The numbers posted by someone independent of IceCap use NOs run on an NO ballast as a bases for comparison. One of the conclusions was: "It seems like by switching from a regular magnetic ballast to a ICECAP ballast one gets about a 3 fold kick in light output on most bulbs. the GE aquarays 10K seems to be overdriven a little bit less than that.". I don't think it's that good but it makes the point, that VHO is compared to NO output on an NO ballast. Since output usually diminishes on a per watt bases as you overdrive a lamp, getting 2X the output would be a feat considering how little wattage we use. Add to this the extended lamp life and I think we have a winner.
We continue to work on new applications with even better output per watt numbers and I'll post those results as I gain confidence in them.
Andy