400 Watt Galaxy?

Alex T.

Active member
I've heard that the new Galaxy 400 watt electronic ballast runs the Radium 400 watt bulb to spec. Sanjay's tests show the bulb pulling 458 watts with a PPFD of 128, equalling some 10k bulbs on the market. It's just shy of what the PFO HQI ballast puts out, but not overdriving the bulb and having to replace it every six months is a nice tradeoff for almost the same par. All other electronic and magnetic (M59) ballasts really don't show why this bulb is so desirable (too blue, not ice white with a hint of blue actinic).

Anyone have experience or knowledge with this combination? Pictures would be great.
 
The radium 400 is not meant to be ran on a HQI ballast. 458 watts is above specs. The 400w is to be ran at about 360w. The closest and recommended ballast available in North America is a magnetic ANSI M135/M155 ballast.

The 250w is another story.
 
ganjero...Sanjay's tests were performed on the Galaxy, Lumatex and another newer form of electronic ballast whose name escapes me. Apparently, Galaxy and Lumatek have created these new e-ballasts to specifically run Radium and Ushio bulbs.

I realize what you're saying, just can't believe anyone would run these expensive bulbs on such a low par producing ballast.
 
ganjero...Sanjay's tests were performed on the Galaxy, Lumatex and another newer form of electronic ballast whose name escapes me. Apparently, Galaxy and Lumatek have created these new e-ballasts to specifically run Radium and Ushio bulbs.

I realize what you're saying, just can't believe anyone would run these expensive bulbs on such a low par producing ballast.

They fire them up but that doesnt mean they are running to specs like you mentioned on your first post.

Here is something about ballasts and those new e ballast (it's a quote from Paulerik)

"M80 is an ANSI (American National Standards Institute) code specification. Each ANSI specification states the following:

Lamp starting requirements and limits (open circuit voltage, starting current, starting voltage, starting voltage pulse height, pulse width and pulse position).

Lamp warm-up parameters (reignition voltage and sustaining voltage).

Lamp operating parameters (operating current, operating voltage, operating wattage, operating current crest factor, sustaining voltage and voltage rise effect).

Each ANSI code specification varies. Lamp and ballast ANSI codes should always be matched to assure reliable, safe and expected performance. The ANSI code system is designed for matching ballasts and lamps properly.

Magnetic ballasts are designed to limit lamp operating current. An ANSI M80 specification specifies a nominal 3.0 amps to the lamp. The lamp operating voltage is set by the lamp specification/design. The lamp operating voltage can be altered by the lamp's chemistry and discharge chamber (arc tube) size. The lamp operating wattage is set by both the ballast (available current) and lamp (set voltage). With magnetic ballasts it is important to match the ballast specification with the proper lamp. They both work very closely together.

Electronic metal halide ballasts are designed to output a specified wattage and maintain the wattage within a few percent. Generally electronic ballasts are designed to output the lamp's nominal rated wattage and designed to meet the other requirements for the specified lamp.

I personally do not see lamp manufacturers approving the use of some of these electronic ballasts. The switchable electronic ballasts are a nice idea but it still will not allow all lamps to operate as intended or designed. ANSI specifications state the lamp nominal operating wattage. ANSI M58 (probe start 250-watt), ANSI M138/M153 (pulse start 250-watt) and ANSI M80 (pulse start 250-watts) are all specified as 250-watts nominal. However some lamps are designed to a higher operating nominal wattage and some lamps are designed to a lower operating nominal wattage. Note when comparing magnetic ballast's input or even output wattage the ballast circuit type (CWA, CWI, Reactor or High Reactance Autotransformer) has to be taken into account. Each ballast circuit performs differently overtime and has different characteristics. One ballast may draw or provide less power when the lamp is new and increases overtime. Another type can draw or provide more when the lamp is new and actually decreases overtime. Light output initially and overtime will vary with each ballast type as well.

For example the Radium 250-watt lamp is designed to operate at 270-watts nominal when operated with a ballast designed to limit/provide lamp operating current to 3.0 amps same as an ANSI M80 ballast. The Radium 250-watt lamp is designed with a higher lamp operating voltage. When used with the recommended/approved magnetic ballast the lamp is allowed to operate at the designed wattage. The Radium 400-watt lamp is designed to operate at 360-watts when operated with a ballast designed to limit/provide lamp operating current to 3.5 amps. The closest and recommended ballast available in North America is a magnetic ANSI M135/M155 ballast which is designed to limit lamp operating current to 3.25 amps. The Radium 400-watt lamp is designed with a lower lamp operating voltage. When used with the proper magnetic ballast the lamp is allowed to operate at the designed wattage. The magnetic ANSI M80 and ANSI M135/M155 ballasts not only allow the Radium lamps to operate at the designed wattage but also meets all other parameters (starting, warm-up and operating).

Output wattage is only a part of an electronic ballast. An electronic ballast has to be designed to meet the starting, warm-up and operating requirements and limits for a lamp. Most of the electronic ballasts currently available in the hobby do not state which lamps or ANSI specification they are technically designed for or meet. It would be nice to have an electronic ballast that could meet the requirements and limits for all lamp types or ANSI specifications but this is unfortunately impossible. Commercial electronic ballasts from major North American companies such as Advance Philips, Sylvania, Universal and Venture Lighting state which lamps they are designed for and which specifications are met.

Input power and light output tests only show a part of the story. It appears some of these newer electronic ballasts available in this hobby might be pushing the limits. The numbers Sanjay has released do not add up correctly. In my opinion it seems some companies are pushing lamps above the rated lamp wattage to provide higher light output, which makes their ballast appear better than others on paper. Also note generally when you drive a metal halide lamp at higher wattages the efficiency goes up because the lamp's spectrum in broadened. This can also greatly increase the risk of a lamp violently failing. Major lamp manufacturers will not approve the use of a ballast that operates a lamp past the wattage rating because of the increased risk, light color shift and unknown long-term performance. A test showing the output power (lamp operating power) would be nice but it would not be easy unfortunately. The voltages and frequencies these ballasts operate at make it more difficult to get reliable readings and require specialized equipment and testing rigs. Some of the major lamp manufacturers I've personally spoken with haven't been able to test these newer ballasts for approval. It seems as some ballast companies are not wanting to.

If you know which lamp you want to use, it would be best to use the recommended and approved ballast. This assures reliable and safe operation overtime. Not every ballast is the same. With magnetic ballasts you have different circuit types and with electronic ballasts you have different designs but more importantly both magnetic and electronic ballasts should be match with the proper lamp. Each type has its own ups and downs.

Hope that helps some"
 
I appreciate the information. For the most part, I agree with you that there is a correct ballast to bulb combination for every possible scenario. I personally think Radium is at fault for selling bulbs across many different wattages in this country that don't support ballasts available to us in the states. If they recognized the cult following of their bulbs, they'd make a mint creating a Radium Ballast for the USA.

However, after seeing some of these tanks with overdriven 20k Radiums, it's very hard not to follow suit when the results are proven. Keith Berkelheimer's March 2009 TOTM is a perfect example of the benefit in overdriving a Radium 400 watt bulb on an HQI ballast. It's very confusing that we have a 250 watt single ended HQI Radium but its big brother 400 watt is not. At the cost of replacing bulbs more often, it's probably something I'm just going to have to live with until something better comes along that can provide that look.

As for running the 400 watt radium on a M135, it would really be a waste of electricity, money and a poor representation of this bulb's appearance on an HQI or Galaxy eballast. The par numbers are absolutely abysmal with that ballast. Operating a 250 watt Radium on a M80 ballast would give you the same par rating, the "radium look" and save electricity. This truly would negate ever using a 400 watt bulb, and if there were no proven results, it would render the 400 watt Radium obsolete. I know you're simply stating the facts of ballast/bulb combination, but in the end it's much like putting aftermarket parts on your car. They're never approved by the manufacturer, but man can they boost performance.

Many people I've spoken with have had tremendous success running the 400 watt Radium on a Galaxy eballast. It's been stated that it's the closest representation to running a 400 watt PFO HQI ballast. Now, I don't claim to be a technically proficient person by any means. I can not speak to the finer points of ANSI Codes and the like. But I'm also not naive enough to believe that Galaxy has done anything special other than allow this bulb to be overdriven past what eballasts were set out to do anyway. They've simply allowed bulbs to be overdriven, therefore achieving "the look" many of us are after.

Thanks for your input.
 
I contacted sunlight supply today and spoke with a tech concerning their new Galaxy multi-watt ballast. It has a 400w "turbo" switch. He explained that it was designed for the Radium bulbs.
 
I appreciate the information. For the most part, I agree with you that there is a correct ballast to bulb combination for every possible scenario. I personally think Radium is at fault for selling bulbs across many different wattages in this country that don't support ballasts available to us in the states. If they recognized the cult following of their bulbs, they'd make a mint creating a Radium Ballast for the USA.

However, after seeing some of these tanks with overdriven 20k Radiums, it's very hard not to follow suit when the results are proven. Keith Berkelheimer's March 2009 TOTM is a perfect example of the benefit in overdriving a Radium 400 watt bulb on an HQI ballast. It's very confusing that we have a 250 watt single ended HQI Radium but its big brother 400 watt is not. At the cost of replacing bulbs more often, it's probably something I'm just going to have to live with until something better comes along that can provide that look.

As for running the 400 watt radium on a M135, it would really be a waste of electricity, money and a poor representation of this bulb's appearance on an HQI or Galaxy eballast. The par numbers are absolutely abysmal with that ballast. Operating a 250 watt Radium on a M80 ballast would give you the same par rating, the "radium look" and save electricity. This truly would negate ever using a 400 watt bulb, and if there were no proven results, it would render the 400 watt Radium obsolete. I know you're simply stating the facts of ballast/bulb combination, but in the end it's much like putting aftermarket parts on your car. They're never approved by the manufacturer, but man can they boost performance.

Many people I've spoken with have had tremendous success running the 400 watt Radium on a Galaxy eballast. It's been stated that it's the closest representation to running a 400 watt PFO HQI ballast. Now, I don't claim to be a technically proficient person by any means. I can not speak to the finer points of ANSI Codes and the like. But I'm also not naive enough to believe that Galaxy has done anything special other than allow this bulb to be overdriven past what eballasts were set out to do anyway. They've simply allowed bulbs to be overdriven, therefore achieving "the look" many of us are after.

Thanks for your input.

You are missing my point. I'm not saying is not doable, or what gives better results. Im just saying running a Radium 400w on a HQI ballast is not running to specifications like you stated.
You cannot talk about the "true color" of the bulb when you are not running it to manufacturers specifications. That you like the color of an ovedriven Radium is a different thing.

BTW You can overdrive almost any SE bulb out there and get a lot more PAR, but the bulb will wear faster no matter what. Also more PAR is not always better.



I contacted sunlight supply today and spoke with a tech concerning their new Galaxy multi-watt ballast. It has a 400w "turbo" switch. He explained that it was designed for the Radium bulbs.

That ballast was not created to run radiums, that's just telling people what they want to hear. That ballast simply overdrives bulbs which some people like to do and get great results.
 
Last edited:
Neither the Galaxy or the Lumatek "dimmable" ballasts have any affect on par readings on the 250 hqi,superlumen settings(Radium 250, Iwasaki 250). I got the same readings on both settings. The 400 radium gained about 5% on the superlumen setting.
 
So....

So....

I can safely assume that the Galaxy electronic ballast will drive a Radium 20k 400 watt brighter allowing for growth with a blue tint to make the corals stand out?
 
That's what I'm hearing as well Pondwater. Sanjay's tests showed that it produced par within 5% of the PFO 400 watt HQI ballast, pulling in well over 400 watts, which is obviously overdriving the bulb to the white light with blue tint that so many are raving about on HQI. The drawback is obviously earlier bulb replacement. More money replacing bulbs to keep that look. But then again, what in this hobby winds up being cheaper than we thought anyway (lol)?
 
Also Pondwater, I noticed you were bummed about the PFO HQI not being offered anymore. They don't have them, but Hamilton does! Their website has 400 watt HQI. I emailed them a couple nights ago and the response was that they are essentially spec'd the same as the PFO. So, if you really want to go that root, it's still available to you. They're surprisingly cheaper than I would haver guessed as well.
 
Also Pondwater, I noticed you were bummed about the PFO HQI not being offered anymore. They don't have them, but Hamilton does! Their website has 400 watt HQI. I emailed them a couple nights ago and the response was that they are essentially spec'd the same as the PFO. So, if you really want to go that root, it's still available to you. They're surprisingly cheaper than I would haver guessed as well.

Hi Alex, do you have a link to Sanjay's article? Thanks.
 
One more question. It appears there are two different 400 watt Galaxy ballasts on the market. One is the regular 400 watt Galaxy and the other is the switchable from 250-400 watt with some sort of turbo 400 watt button. Do both ballasts overdrive the 400 watt Radium or does the "turbo" switchable ballast overdrive it even further?
 
Maximus, Sanjay Joshi's information is posted on manhattanreefs.com

If you want to know more about the Galaxy ballast you can find his information on Advanced Aquarist magazine online. He recently tested the new electronic ballasts that boast the abilities we're referring to.
 
Thanks Alex. I just ordered the new Galaxy 400 watt adjustable ballast with the "turbo" switch. I am currently running the 400 watt SLS Bluewave 1 which is the pulse start ballast. It will be interesting to see the difference. I will report back as soon as I get it.
 
Thanks Alex T and Maximus for the info. I will be ordering two of the Galaxy 400 ballasts and let you know how they work. After losing my business and being unemployed, I sold off all of my equipment and am slowly getting back into the hobby. Fortunately finding another job after three months helps.
Maximus, please let me know how the Galaxy works out.
Good luck t both of you
 
Oops, totally forgot about this thread. Anyways, the 400 Galaxy is definitely much brighter than the Bluewave pulse start ballast. I don't have any way of measuring light output but I can say that the light is much whiter with a hint of blue on the Galaxy ballast set on the turbo setting. I recently switched back to the pulse start ballast and it is now much too dim for my taste after getting used to the Galaxy. The pulse start ballast runs much bluer than the Galaxy though. I think I will stick with the Galaxy as I prefer a brighter, albeit whiter light.
 
Hello all.....just stumbled upon this thread and would like to know (after a couple of months of use/testing now) how everyone is making out with the Galaxy and other ballasts? I have been literally pulling my hair out trying to find the right bulb-to-ballast combination for my new 180-gl. build. Right now running 250w CoralVue ballast with XM 10k bulbs and not liking what I am seeing out of my sps corals.

Any insight would be greatly appreciate.......many thanks.
 
Back
Top