EG

I was wondering if you were going to buy this ballast, or if you already own it. The GE ULTRAMAX ballast series has 3 versions - L(low)N(normal)and H(high), each with a different Ballast Factor(BF). The particular ballast in your link is a L(low) version. The BF is an indication of how many lumens the ballast/lamp combo will actually emit relative to the lamp's published lumen rating. For example: If a lamp is rated at 1000 lumens, and is powered by a ballast with a BF of .89, then it will put out 890 lumens when lit. Your "L" ballast has a BF of .77 - quite low. The "N" version has a BF of .87, and the "H" has a BF of 1.15.

The measurements that have been taken of overdriven(OD) 32wT8 e-ballasts have all shown a 1.7 increase in current per lamp. This can be multiplied by the BF of the ballast to predict the OD light output. So, for the ULTRAMAX series:
L = 0.77 x 1.7 = 1.31
N = 0.87 x 1.7 = 1.48
H = 1.15 x 1.7 = 1.96
Obviously, if you have the option, you would want the "H" version.

The question you want answered here is whether it is overdriveable. Normally, the 32wT8 e-ballasts on the market have a couple of different external wiring designs which all appear to be overdriveable, as experiments indicate. This is due to an internal resonant circuit design which allows their outputs to immediately sychronize and work together. The GE ULTRAMAX ballasts do have that same external wiring. There is one factor that makes these ballasts different, however - they have a "muti-volt power detection" function which allows them to be connected to any voltage between 120 and 277. I have not played with this particular ballast series, so I do not know if that special design has any influence in its ability to be overdriven. I have OD'ed a similar Advance "mutivolt" ballast, so that is good news. However, I did read of one individual who says he tried to overdrive an ULTRAMAX ballast, and he said it didn't put out as much light. He also stated that he wasn't sure if he wired it correctly, and that it wasn't damaged in the process (it still worked normally).

So there. If you want to try it, as klinko suggests, it probably will work. If you do, write back and tell us what happened.

Zink

This site could use a chellspecker.

Zink

If you try to overdrive with these instead of a brighter
light you get just a very dim glow.

EG

"This site could use a chellspecker."

Chuckle. Although GardenWeb does not have a spell checker, there are third party spell checkers that can spell check your message in the Message: text entry box here (and in text entry boxes elsewhere). If you are using Internet Explorer as your browser, ieSpell will do the trick for you. I am currently using Mozilla's Firefox, which has its own built-in spell checker. It puts a red line under words not in its dictionary and will suggest a correct spelling if you right-click on the word. A pop-up menu opens to let you select a correct spelling from a list of possibilities, or you can click to add the existing word to its dictionary, or you can just left-click off of the pop-up menu to close it and leave the word as-is.

Even with the aid of a spell checker, misspelt words do creep into my messages.

ZM