Okay, here's what I've been able to learn.
The confusion over the Baddass Ballasts is caused by them keeping the prototype ad up after the actual ads went to print. The way to tell the difference is the correct ads are for the "low frequency" ballasts.
Prototype Ad:
Correct Ad:
Looks like the whole Japanese thing was just in the planning stages, the new ad doesn't say anything about Japan.
For the record though, there's plenty of ballast builders in Japan. I don't think they build ballasts for grow lights, but then again everyone who does got started building them for something else (like cars, industrial lighting, etc).
The videos are misleading. That's pretty clear.
It doesn't show it for sure, but it looks like the ballast and the radio are plugged into the same outlet. That should be isolated if you want to really quantify how much interference the ballast puts out.
And you really ought to move them further and closer together to demonstrate the range of the interference. Practically anything pumping out power like that will create radio interference in a radio sitting less than a foot away. I mean c'mon, that's like shooting a watermelon from 6" away with blanks and concluding they're deadly. At that range almost anything would be.
Though if you REALLY want to be scientific you have to scan the output with actual scientific equipment (which a portable radio is NOT). Scan across all frequencies, record amplitude, the works.
I think
Advanced Nutrients has something here. That square-wave output is a new thing for digital ballasts. More time spent at peak output should translate to more light from the same bulb.
Time will tell. I'd like to see someone (not AN or a shop owner that pays someone to build ballasts for him *cough*Lumatek*cough*) run a side-by-side light output test. Same bulb, hood, etc. Just plugged into different ballasts.
That should put the debate to rest.
