Looks good, but an ICECAP 660 is only $10 more... I would spend the extra money myself...
Hey whats up fellas! Just wanted to get your opinion on this ballast. I think this may be the one I get, and retro-fit 4 VHO's into my canopy. It looks like a good deal, and quality ballast by Icecap, but I'd like to get an outside opinion. Let me know what you think. Thanks.
http://www.northcoastmarines.com/lighting.htm Its the URI A4 Ballast
Leddy
Looks good, but an ICECAP 660 is only $10 more... I would spend the extra money myself...
I would probably spend the extra money, too, but it's $29 more!Originally Posted by Poseidon
![]()
Ninong
Oops sorry should have mentioned I was quoting a price from www.oceanencounter.com
What would be the difference? I'm not really familiar with ballasts, but it seems the A4 is the 660, just under the URI name. I'll look around for the 660's, but I'm gonna keep that URI one in mind. Thanks for the replies.![]()
Leddy
The URI version loses the dimmer and the heatsink. Plus warranty would be URI not ICECAP...
Cool, now I see. 20-30$ isn't too much of a difference I guess. I'm gonna look into it a little more, plus I was just at work talking to my boss about a lighting supply company in town where I could probably find good deals on ballasts. I'm gonna give em a call to see if they carry Icecap's, figure it couldn't hurt to try. Thanks for the info.
Leddy
They are made and supported by IceCap. I run a dozen or so of them and they perform just the same as the IceCap 660 model. No reason to spend the extra money unless you plan on using the dimmer feature IMO.
Regards,
Kevin
SPSguy
On - On
Thanks kevin, thats good to hear. Is that dimmer port worth it? I don't think I'll really use it, all I want is 4 VHO bulbs, and if that URI ballast is pretty much the 660 Icecap, why not. Seems good to me. Thanks for the replies and input.
Leddy
The dimmer requires that you use a Solar controller, which is fairly pricey. The dimming is pretty touchy, requires that the bulbs be attached to a special ground plane, and antecdotally seems to be associated with premature ballast and bulb failure. I would personally avoid dimming like the plague, but some people successfully use this feature.
Originally Posted by Leddy
Thanks for the info doug. I appreciate it. That might be the one I go with, money is a bit tight right now though. Thanks again.
Leddy
If Kevin says it is good, then IT IS GOOD!!! I'd say go for it!Originally Posted by kevinpo
Cool cool cool. I'll order it up when I get my tax refund. How high above the surface should I mount them? I think I may have to shorten my canopy since its about 9-10" tall. That won't be a problem at all though. I read somewhere from like 4-6" is recommended. Excellent, thanks everyone for the replies and info.
Leddy
Also, would I be better off taking out the glass canopy when I get these lights mounted? It's on there now cause of the NO hood, but was wondering if it'd be good to remove it all together when the VHO's are mounted. Just thought I'd ask so I know down the road.
Yes definitely remove the glass tops. Not only will they reduce the amount of light that will penetrate into the tank they can reduce the amount of gas/oxygen exchange.
Scott Z.
Cool, thanks Scott.
Leddy
VHO's should be mounted as close to the water as possible if you're using them alone without MH's. The closer to the water the more intensity and pentration of the water. They are cool enough to lay right on the glass if you want.
HTH,
Kevin
SPSguy
On - On
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks