125Gal 6 Foot with 400 Watt MH ? Please

[Alex T.]

You should be fine Jester, and you won't definitely need a chiller. I rarely go over 81 degrees with two 400 watt bulbs on a 6 foot tank at the height these reflectors need to be installed. If you do, a nice 8" clip on fan going under the bulbs and over the water will help. If it doesn't then add another on the other side to pull the hot air out and away. If that doesn't work, then add one to blow over the sump. You'll be able to evaporate more and top off with cool RO/DI water more often. If, then you see that it reached 83/84 degrees consistently, you could either lower the photoperiod or maybe then get a chiller.

JMHO

 

[JesterGrin_1]

I do not have a sump lol. But I also hope I will not need a chiller since the canopy will be suspended above the tank with an open top. And plan to install two Computer fans that blow air into the canopy from each end or maybe both on one end. Ok not sure on fan placement lol.

 

[allsps40]

With 3 400w MH a chiller will be needed or a fan running over the tank. I also dont run a chiller and I have a 2 250W over my 75g. Tank never goes over 80. On a tank that large with that much light heat a chiller is a good idea.

 

[consumed corals]

I am currently running two 400 watt 20k's and this is how I have mine setup. The 400's are off in this pic.

[/IMG]

[/IMG]
here is one with them running, I can get a good pic because of the light wash!

[/IMG]

 

[Alex T.]

With 3 400w MH a chiller will be needed or a fan running over the tank. I also dont run a chiller and I have a 2 250W over my 75g. Tank never goes over 80. On a tank that large with that much light heat a chiller is a good idea.

The OP has stated he is only going to be running two 400 watt lights over the tank. So, in essence, he will have less watts per gallon than your tank. A chiller will not be a necessity.

 

[JesterGrin_1]

Well Darn it I ran into a Hurdle today as my A/C went out. Which for me cost me a good bit of my funds to fix.

So for now I will have to run with the Bat Wing reflectors as some call them.

Thank You all for some very good information and some nice pictures as well.

But any further thought on the placement of the two or even one PC Fans for the Canopy?

In other words should I have two on one end blowing into the canopy or just one or one on each end blowing into the canopy? The top is pretty much open since heat rises.

 

[Alex T.]

One blowing across the tank length (under the light bulbs and over the water) and another fan on the opposite end pulling it out or up. One fan won't work well if you have a canopy. It will simply help to circulate hot air...sort of like trying to cool hot soup with a hair dryer.

 

[JesterGrin_1]

Maybe I should not just call it a canopy.

It does have four sides front back and two sides. The top is open except for mounting locations to be used by 4 Yo Yo's two on each end and places to mount the light assemblies. It is kinda tall at 17 inches as I was informed here that 12 inches might not be tall enough to help with light spillage. So with it hanging above the tank it will have a few inches above the top of the tank as well.

 

[RRaider]

Even select-a-watt 250 watt electronic ballasts will not fire the bulb properly and to spec. No 250 watt HQI bulb will truly shine on anything but an M80. Don't get me wrong...it will work, but will lose its' color spectrum and intensity much sooner. The added cost of $80 bulbs x 3 can answer that question.

You have some data to back up these statements? I have both a blueline dual m80 ballast and both the Galaxy and Lumatek versions of the select-a-watt ballasts and I prefer the select-a-watt ballasts. On the HQI setting I can tell no difference in coral growth, color, or the way the tank looks. RokelM was running the same combo and measured less than a 10% increase in par when he changed his bulbs at 10-11 months. So the bulbs last just as long. Yes, the m80 ballasts pull more electricity and I suspect run the bulbs at a slightly higher wattage, however since the magnetic ballasts have a poor efficiency of around 80% and the select-a-watt ballasts in the high 90's I have yet to find any real evidence that there is much of a difference at all.

So, you now know at least one person who has switched from magnetic ballasts with 250w radiums to e-ballasts and is totally happy with the choice.

 

[Alex T.]

You have some data to back up these statements? I have both a blueline dual m80 ballast and both the Galaxy and Lumatek versions of the select-a-watt ballasts and I prefer the select-a-watt ballasts. On the HQI setting I can tell no difference in coral growth, color, or the way the tank looks. RokelM was running the same combo and measured less than a 10% increase in par when he changed his bulbs at 10-11 months. So the bulbs last just as long. Yes, the m80 ballasts pull more electricity and I suspect run the bulbs at a slightly higher wattage, however since the magnetic ballasts have a poor efficiency of around 80% and the select-a-watt ballasts in the high 90's I have yet to find any real evidence that there is much of a difference at all.

So, you now know at least one person who has switched from magnetic ballasts with 250w radiums to e-ballasts and is totally happy with the choice.

Without PAR measurements your observations are purely observational. The select a watt ballast HQI setting is just driving more watts to the bulb. This has nothing to do with the way the bulb is fired. Simply driving the correct wattage to the bulb without the proper startup does in fact lower the life expectancy of the bulb and shift its' color spectrum. I didn't know I had to prove that since most know this. Lastly, I know of no Blueline ballast that was ever an HQi M80 ballast, so if you have a picture of that it would be great to see. The actual efficiency of the ballast has nothing to do with how the bulb is fired (pulse or probe start).

I never said that the bulb won't fire, but I did say it's not the correct ballast, and...it still isn't. You can argue about how great it looks and that your corals aren't suffering. That's fine, and I'm happy for you (not kidding). There is an entire thread dedicated to the Radium bulb, so if anyone would like to check it out, here it is: http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1802877&highlight=radium+primer

I asked a few questions on this thread regarding the 400 watt version, which does not require 400 watts. So, in essence, most e-ballast are seriously overdriving the Radium 400 watt bulb, but we know that going in. As for the Radium 250 watt version, it is, and always has been an HQI bulb that requires and M80 ballast.

HTH

 

[JesterGrin_1]

It is great to know this information. But honestly I never wished to start and argument.

 

[RRaider]

Without PAR measurements your observations are purely observational. The select a watt ballast HQI setting is just driving more watts to the bulb. This has nothing to do with the way the bulb is fired. Simply driving the correct wattage to the bulb without the proper startup does in fact lower the life expectancy of the bulb and shift its' color spectrum. I didn't know I had to prove that since most know this. Lastly, I know of no Blueline ballast that was ever an HQi M80 ballast, so if you have a picture of that it would be great to see. The actual efficiency of the ballast has nothing to do with how the bulb is fired (pulse or probe start).

I never said that the bulb won't fire, but I did say it's not the correct ballast, and...it still isn't. You can argue about how great it looks and that your corals aren't suffering. That's fine, and I'm happy for you (not kidding). There is an entire thread dedicated to the Radium bulb, so if anyone would like to check it out, here it is: http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1802877&highlight=radium+primer

I asked a few questions on this thread regarding the 400 watt version, which does not require 400 watts. So, in essence, most e-ballast are seriously overdriving the Radium 400 watt bulb, but we know that going in. As for the Radium 250 watt version, it is, and always has been an HQI bulb that requires and M80 ballast.

HTH

Sorry, I meant Bluewave not Blueline.
There is a lot of out dated information out there because everyone applies the data for the regular electronic ballasts to the new digital ballasts and it's not accurate. In the very thread you posted the link for is the proof that the new ballasts don't shorten the lives of the 250w Radiums.

Here is a quote from someone who tested the par on another forum.

Time for an update.
Bryan(agent462) stopped over today with his par meter and Bluewave 7 ballast. First we tested my lighting which consists of 2 250w radiums running on Lumatek adjustable ballasts and 2 3' SA VHO running on an icecap 660. The Lumateks are set to the second setting for 275w. This setting draws 290-291w at the wall.
We measured par all over the tank and it was excellent. It ranged from 150 in the bottom corners to 900 directly under the bulb just under water. We took 10 measurements to get an idea of the par at different spots in my tank.

We then turned off the Lumateks and hooked up the Bluewave 7 ballast. Except for the ballast everything stayed exactly the same. After letting the bulbs cool for 10-15 minutes we fired it up. It took a little longer for the bulb to get to it's normal color. I watched the wattmeter while it started up and it started around 250w and climbed over about 30 seconds and ended at 585w.
We then measured par all over tank and it was identical to the previous readings with the Lumatek. After checking the 10 spots we had noted earlier and confirmed they were essentially the same(within 10-20 par).
Lastly we compared the color of the tank under the two ballasts by eye and we could not tell any difference.