PFO ballast switch fix

[Anonymous]

I have a pair of PFO dual 400 watt standard magnetic ballasts. Every few days or so, one of the switches will fail to energize the unit when the timer kicks on. When this happens, the switch does not feel like it is clicking between the on and off positions. My attempts to contact PFO to discuss the matter have been unsuccessful.

Can I bypass teh switches? Each my ballasts are connected to an outlet that is with hardwired to a mechanical timer. Thus, I really do not need to have a switch on the ballast. But I don't know if there is some sort of circuit breaker that is integrated into the switch. I doubt it, but something tells me I read that somewhere.

 

[Len]

Hmmm. The switch is an analog on/off toggle, right? That's the only PFO switch I know. Don't you just leave it in the "on" position and have your timer handle the on/off process? Or does your PFO have a built-in timer switch too?

 

[Anonymous]

Hmmm. The switch is an analog on/off toggle, right? That's the only PFO switch I know. Don't you just leave it in the "on" position and have your timer handle the on/off process? Or does your PFO have a built-in timer switch too?

That's the point. It is an analog on/off switch and I do leave it in the "on" position all the time. But it is not unusual for me to come into my office (where my tank is) and discover one of the lights to still be off eventhough the timer has engerized the outlet that the ballast is plugged into. When I check the on/off switch, it moves back and forth without clicking into either position. But if I play with it enough, I can usually get it to turn the light on. A few days later, the same problem. And this happens with more than one of teh switches.

 

[Len]

If it's in the "on" position, it should always strike when the timer goes on. The fact that you can get it to fire up after playing with the switch indicates to me the electrical connection at the point of the switch is loose. You need to open up the ballast and re-solder the wire(s) to the switch. Loose wires are pretty dangerous too, so I recommend you inspect it ASAP.

I can't think of any other reason other than this. Maybe others can.

 

[Anonymous]

Here is a picture of the switches

 

[Anonymous]

If it's in the "on" position, it should always strike when the timer goes on. The fact that you can get it to fire up after playing with the switch indicates to me the electrical connection at the point of the switch is loose. You need to open up the ballast and re-solder the wire(s) to the switch. Loose wires are pretty dangerous too, so I recommend you inspect it ASAP.

I can't think of any other reason other than this. Maybe others can.

I doubt the wires to the switch are loose. I suspect the contacts within the switch are bad. Hence why i was trying to contact PFO for replacements. But that option appears to be gone, and I doubt I can find an exact replacement. So by-passing the switch seems like a reasonable option.

 

[Anonymous]

I'm guessing you've checked the grounding?

 

[Len]

Ya, the contacts on the switch could be bad. You can easily bypass it if you want by cutting off the ends that lead into and out of the switch, then splicing or connecting (e.g. wire nut) them together. Switches, in general, are pretty reliable and don't fail like this, so I still suspect a loose connection somewhere. However, one more possible source of switch conductivity failure is corrosion. This is made more likely if the ballast is close to the tank (humidity, saltwater). Some deoxit sprayed on the contacts can fix the conductivity.

Those on/off toggles look pretty conventional, actually. You can probably find them at any electronic supply/hobby shop.

 

[Ben1]

I had the same ballast and gad to replace the switchs, I did it myself new ones were cheap and easy to replace. Open it up and take a look at everything with the cover off.

 

[Anonymous]

I imagine you wont be hearing from anyone at PFO at all -they closed their doors last Friday- they are being sued by the aerospace company Orbital Technologies Corp.
Seems Orbitec owns the patent for LED lighting for Aquarium use.

link to the lawsuit:
http://www.reefbuilders.com/wp-content/ ... 8-220p.pdf

 

[Anonymous]

would a patent infringement really dictate a "suing out of existance" did they really put that much into their Solaris line of lighting systems?

Granted I didn't read the whole patent in question but from what I glanced at it was simply a general patent for LED lighting over an aquarium (why an Aerospace company would patent that however.... ) and not specifically linked to any particular technology other than "LEDs"

 

[Anonymous]

PFO, from what I've read since this subject hit the boards, had been investing more and more, proportionately, in the LED side of the business. Not sure if they were actually winding down the MH business. Would be odd if they had - they had a pretty good profile on that side.

 

[Anonymous]

would a patent infringement really dictate a "suing out of existance" did they really put that much into their Solaris line of lighting systems?

Granted I didn't read the whole patent in question but from what I glanced at it was simply a general patent for LED lighting over an aquarium (why an Aerospace company would patent that however.... ) and not specifically linked to any particular technology other than "LEDs"

it depends on how much money Orbitech is demanding - the amount is likely enough to destroy PFO's operating revenue, effectively forcing them out of existence.

 

[Len]

Wow 8O

That is a blanket patent if I ever saw one.

 

[Len]

This is the patent:
http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/72200 ... ption.html

So they're say no one else can build a LCD lighting system for aquarist? Nuts.

 

[Anonymous]

This is the patent:
http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/72200 ... ption.html

So they're say no one else can build a LCD lighting system for aquarist? Nuts.

not without paying them royalties.

 

[Anonymous]

Well they are pretty good in their description however...

2. The combination of claim 1 wherein said LED light source, when activated, is sufficient to support marine growth.

3. The combination of claim 1 wherein said LED light source includes at least one of chip-based, organic or discreet LEDs.

4. The combination of claim 1 wherein each of said light engines is capable of providing light intensity of from 0 to 1000 micro mols per square meter per second.

2. is very vague, defined marine growth, actual algae? or coral growth?

3. is quite vague, I didn't know they had organic LEDs back then, but if there is another LED that falls outside of that privy they're screwed on their patent

4. this is the kicker, if you can get a PAR above 1000 with your LEDs you might be able to overrule that, however I don't think the PFO one gets even close to that.

But yeah, very generic, very wide base, however its might be too specific. Want to sell LED for the aquariums? Then sell LEDs that aren't for the aquarium. Simply sell a rack that has various LEDs that also conveniently are useful for aquariums but don't market it towards aquariums. Hell isn't that how many aquarium products work? Someone grabs an already existing product and applies it to the aquarium?

Personally though, I think PFO needs to fight the patent itself, not the violation of it. I mean, hell why hasn't someone patented using the "Daylight" fluorescent flood light over a refugium?

 

[Anonymous]

Another thing, again not a patent lawyer here, I seem to recall an improvement on an invention itself that makes it more "useful" actually can gain a patent. Which in this case the wavelength of light has been seriously restricted (I hope).

I mean I seriously don't get it

Claim one - Use device to put over tank
Claim two - Said device operates anywhere in the entire electromagnetic spectrum
Claim three- something will happen

 

[Anonymous]

http://www.orbitec.com./LEDaquarium.html

Orbital Technologies Corporation, a small business with 70 employees located in Madison, Wisconsin, has recently been the target of inaccurate, negative publicity regarding its patent for a Marine LED Lighting System and Method.

As ORBITEC's president, I am an avid aquarium enthusiast. Back in 2003, the company combined my new-found passion for aquariums with our decade-long experience in LED lighting systems for plant growth, science research, underwater bioreactors and aerospace applications to create a new design for a complete LED system for marine environments. Working together with aquarium industry partners, our engineering team began developing high-quality, effective LED lighting systems for small and large marine applications, including aquariums.

ORBITEC's ability to launch its product line was delayed due to internal resource limitations and a challenge to its intellectual property. We take our intellectual property rights very seriously, and expect others to do so as well. We look forward, however, to working together with our aquarium partners to release a growing series of reliable, exciting products later this year. My excitement is most felt at home, when I experience the benefits of these units in my own aquarium systems.

We continually welcome any comments or input that you may have regarding these products and future capabilities and you are welcome to email us at [email protected].

Most Sincerely,
Tom Crabb, President

They wonder why they have negative press? What intellectual property do they have? Did they invent anything? According to the patent they used components that exist, and simply stuck them over an aquarium.

I mean christ I can do that... well I want a patent on this light bulb, because I'm going to put it over a chair... the wavelength of the light will be sufficient to READ by ...

Now if they invented some controller, or LED, or something that is "new and useful" then yeah I totally could get behind them. But it seems they simply wanted to get a patent for putting a specific light that already exists over an aquarium, and due to an inept patent clerk who was reviewing the patent, it was granted.

However going by the court filing they request a trial by jury, if PFO has the lawyers they need to attack this patent.

 

[Len]

Ya. This lawsuit will be the death of Orbitec in the aquarium circle. It's a REALLY stupid move on their part.