140 watt ballasts in ergo 600 - Page 2

vettes · 03-25-2003, 10:30 AM

Look into other companys mentioned that do the same 140 ballasts w/160 watt lamps.

bsmart · 03-25-2003, 01:24 PM

Some companies have devised a lead lag configuration using a capacitor in conjunction with the ballast and 'squeezed' a bit more power out of the circuit. This is a power factor 'tweak' and is being used effectively by some companies. Suncapsule for instance used this method prior to the development of the 200 and 220 watt ballast. They claimed 180W output from the 160W ballast/capacitor arrangement.

solarmeter · 03-25-2003, 11:11 PM

Quote from several above: "I give it 2 thumbs up, forget all the watts and that nonsence."

Boy have YOU got a LOT to learn! W = VA period. No getting around it. Not even Albert E. or Thomas E. could. Sorry.

Tan Talker · 03-26-2003, 09:34 AM

Solar, we could all use some education on this matter. I just had to change out a ballast in our UltraSun 5000. One lamp would not light and when looking under the hood we noticed a burned out side of one of the ballasts. I hope that is the reason. We ordered a new one and it is on the way. Help us out with this.

Roger a. Brown · 03-26-2003, 11:41 AM

The loss when implimenting a 160 lamp powered by a 140 ballast is much more than the 20 watts, as the driving power reduced wattage is factored to the resistance of the lamp with respect to the ballast... (the 20 watts is added by percentages)

The truth about wattage is that it only take so much to cause stimulation of the melanin and allow the "A" to produce colorization of the skin. However, the full story in by using the lower wattage ballast a manufacturer can save money on component costs. If you are powering utilizing a 140 watt ballast and match a 140 watt lamp you will obtain more efficient tanning power for a longer period. The lamp appear to have lost its power due to lack of wattage received. Even if the lamp has additional tanning life it is not receiving the optimum driving power to achieve its performance. Electricity does not increase when a higher than desired resistance factor is in the circuit.

Glorified units similar to the some of the other inferior systems may be made estetically pleasing, but do not offer efficiency in tan, operating expenses or output. Individuals are now beginning to notice this and other factors in th ehigh-dollar systems.

Roger A. Brown
puretna Intl.
800/338-8267/rogerb@puretan.net

Tan Talker · 03-26-2003, 12:31 PM

Thanks Roger.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
120 Watt Beds - Does this bother anyone else!!!	technotans	Open Forum	54	05-22-2005 07:25 PM
facial ballasts and bulb ballasts cheap	JTCHEY1	For Sale	1	03-06-2005 09:23 AM
New 160 Watt Cosmedico Ballasts!!	SUN	For Sale	1	02-22-2003 01:56 PM
State Regulations regarding Ballast	CancunRayz	Equipment	2	05-31-2002 06:41 PM

03-25-2003, 01:24 PM	#12 (permalink)
bsmart Join Date: May 2 2002 Location: 2621 W Main Suite 9 Posts: 771 Rep Power: 7	Some companies have devised a lead lag configuration using a capacitor in conjunction with the ballast and 'squeezed' a bit more power out of the circuit. This is a power factor 'tweak' and is being used effectively by some companies. Suncapsule for instance used this method prior to the development of the 200 and 220 watt ballast. They claimed 180W output from the 160W ballast/capacitor arrangement.

03-25-2003, 11:11 PM	#13 (permalink)
solarmeter Join Date: Nov 13 2001 Location: MI Posts: 634 Rep Power: 8	Quote from several above: "I give it 2 thumbs up, forget all the watts and that nonsence." Boy have YOU got a LOT to learn! W = VA period. No getting around it. Not even Albert E. or Thomas E. could. Sorry.

03-26-2003, 09:34 AM	#14 (permalink)
Tan Talker Join Date: Jan 18 2002 Location: Lake Mary, Florida Posts: 1,049 Rep Power: 7	Solar, we could all use some education on this matter. I just had to change out a ballast in our UltraSun 5000. One lamp would not light and when looking under the hood we noticed a burned out side of one of the ballasts. I hope that is the reason. We ordered a new one and it is on the way. Help us out with this.

03-26-2003, 11:41 AM	#15 (permalink)
Roger a. Brown Join Date: Aug 8 2001 Posts: 61 Rep Power: 0	The loss when implimenting a 160 lamp powered by a 140 ballast is much more than the 20 watts, as the driving power reduced wattage is factored to the resistance of the lamp with respect to the ballast... (the 20 watts is added by percentages) The truth about wattage is that it only take so much to cause stimulation of the melanin and allow the "A" to produce colorization of the skin. However, the full story in by using the lower wattage ballast a manufacturer can save money on component costs. If you are powering utilizing a 140 watt ballast and match a 140 watt lamp you will obtain more efficient tanning power for a longer period. The lamp appear to have lost its power due to lack of wattage received. Even if the lamp has additional tanning life it is not receiving the optimum driving power to achieve its performance. Electricity does not increase when a higher than desired resistance factor is in the circuit. Glorified units similar to the some of the other inferior systems may be made estetically pleasing, but do not offer efficiency in tan, operating expenses or output. Individuals are now beginning to notice this and other factors in th ehigh-dollar systems. Roger A. Brown puretna Intl. 800/338-8267/rogerb@puretan.net

03-26-2003, 12:31 PM	#16 (permalink)
Tan Talker Join Date: Jan 18 2002 Location: Lake Mary, Florida Posts: 1,049 Rep Power: 7	Thanks Roger.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)