Robert Patterso
New member
Will the Radium bulb last longer on a Electronic ballast such as Sunlight Supply Galaxy or the Coral Vue? Between the HQI and an electronic which will burn whiter?
Lighting Website Updates
- Thread starter JohnL
- Start date
PaulErik
Premium Member
Useable lamp life will vary with ballasts and is a very controversial subject because no long term testing has been done on aquarium lamps and ballasts available in the aquarium industry. There are many variables that affect lamp performance overtime (lamp wattage regulation, current crest factor, lamp starting methods and operating frequency).
The Radium 250-watt lamp will how ever be under driven on electronic ballasts. The Radium 250-watt lamp is actually rated at 270-watts. Electronic ballasts are designed to output a certain wattage within a certain percent. Magnetic ballasts work differently. The ballast limits current to the lamp and once the lamp reaches an equilibrium the lamp sets the operating voltage. The Radium 250-watt lamp has the same lamp current specification as a 250-watt nominal rated lamp but the voltage specification is higher allowing the lamp to operate at a higher wattage on a magnetic ballast.
Radium the lamp manufacturer only recommends high current (HQI type) European ballasts and ANSI M80 ballasts for this lamp. Other ballasts do not meet the designed lamp current, voltage and wattage spec. Many people have used the Radium 250-watt lamp on electronic and magnetic pulse start (ANSI M138/M153) 250-watt ballasts but no testing has been done to determine the long term effects.
The Radium 250-watt lamp will how ever be under driven on electronic ballasts. The Radium 250-watt lamp is actually rated at 270-watts. Electronic ballasts are designed to output a certain wattage within a certain percent. Magnetic ballasts work differently. The ballast limits current to the lamp and once the lamp reaches an equilibrium the lamp sets the operating voltage. The Radium 250-watt lamp has the same lamp current specification as a 250-watt nominal rated lamp but the voltage specification is higher allowing the lamp to operate at a higher wattage on a magnetic ballast.
Radium the lamp manufacturer only recommends high current (HQI type) European ballasts and ANSI M80 ballasts for this lamp. Other ballasts do not meet the designed lamp current, voltage and wattage spec. Many people have used the Radium 250-watt lamp on electronic and magnetic pulse start (ANSI M138/M153) 250-watt ballasts but no testing has been done to determine the long term effects.
Robert Patterso
New member
Thanks Eric. I would assume that holds true for the 400 watt also? I ask cause thats what I am running now. 400 watt Aquaconnect on PFO HQI. Building a new tank and thinking of going electronic ballast. Won't be running the Aquaconnect on the new tank. To Expensive. Running the Reeflux 12K. Heard alot of good things hear on RC about them.
PaulErik
Premium Member
The Radium 400-watt 20,000K lamp is different. This lamp is rated at 360-watts. It has the same lamp current specification as a 400-watt nominal rated North American lamp but the voltage specification is lower allowing the lamp to operate at a lower wattage on a magnetic ballast. The only ballasts Radium recommends that allows the lamp to operate at the designed wattage is pulse start (ANSI M135/M155) and low current (ballast lamp current: 3.25/3.50A) European magnetic ballasts.
Robert Patterso
New member
Thanks PaulErik. So will the Radium 400w still operate safely on a Electronic ballast or do you not recommend it.
PaulErik
Premium Member
Many people use the Radium 400-watt on an electronic ballast. Generally electronic ballasts will drive the lamp at an increased wattage (approximately 400-watts to the lamp) but they will not drive them as hard as a HQI type ballast. I personally can’t recommend other ballasts for the Radium lamps because the manufacturer does not recommend them and no long term testing has been preformed showing the difference between the recommended ballasts and others.
Robert Patterso
New member
Thanks again!
hahnmeister
In Memoriam
I too know of a few people who used to run Radium 400's on e-ballasts like the icecap. They ended up replacing them every 6-9 months... not that much better than on HQI. I trust his perceptions because the other keeper of the tank (his wife) also happens to be a lighting engineer who really seemed to know her stuff (and was thankful when I finally convinced her hubby to try T5s as well, in case anyone else finds that interesting).
On one guy's tank, there was a 400 in the center, but flanked with 250 watt radiums also on icecaps.
Over time, he ended up swapping out all the ballasts for HQI's and just running the 250's. He did this because he noticed that after a few months running side by side, the 250's were brighter, which is most likely true. If you check Sanjay's archive info, the 250 on a HQI ballast has a PAR of 85. The 400 watter, although not shown tested on an icecap, has a PAR of 93 when run on a M135 ballast, which I would imagine is pretty similar to the output of the bulb on an icecap as well, perhaps a little lower. But we all know how much halides can dive in output... esp these 400's. The 250's were giving the guy a good year of service, if not a little more (15 months at most), while the 400's were crapping out in about half that time... so you have to assume that at some point, perhaps halfway into the 400's life (which wasnt that long to begin with) that the 250 might surpass it in output (in that its keeping more of its output over time).
I never had the chance to whip out the PAR meter and check at the time, but visually, yes, the 250's did seem to be brighter (not so much whiter though). They also look a little different... trading a little blue for a little more actinic (which isnt a bad thing really since the 400's could use a little more IMO).
If you want a nice 400 that is more 'radium' than a radium, check out the Aquaconnect 14,000K. Its a HQI rated bulb with a monster output... it rivals many 10,000K-ish bulbs in output.
On one guy's tank, there was a 400 in the center, but flanked with 250 watt radiums also on icecaps.
Over time, he ended up swapping out all the ballasts for HQI's and just running the 250's. He did this because he noticed that after a few months running side by side, the 250's were brighter, which is most likely true. If you check Sanjay's archive info, the 250 on a HQI ballast has a PAR of 85. The 400 watter, although not shown tested on an icecap, has a PAR of 93 when run on a M135 ballast, which I would imagine is pretty similar to the output of the bulb on an icecap as well, perhaps a little lower. But we all know how much halides can dive in output... esp these 400's. The 250's were giving the guy a good year of service, if not a little more (15 months at most), while the 400's were crapping out in about half that time... so you have to assume that at some point, perhaps halfway into the 400's life (which wasnt that long to begin with) that the 250 might surpass it in output (in that its keeping more of its output over time).
I never had the chance to whip out the PAR meter and check at the time, but visually, yes, the 250's did seem to be brighter (not so much whiter though). They also look a little different... trading a little blue for a little more actinic (which isnt a bad thing really since the 400's could use a little more IMO).
If you want a nice 400 that is more 'radium' than a radium, check out the Aquaconnect 14,000K. Its a HQI rated bulb with a monster output... it rivals many 10,000K-ish bulbs in output.
prugs
Moving Out
Hahnmeister,
I'm switching over to M80 ballasts from the EVC electronic ballasts. If you want to stop by & do some PAR testing, give me a jiggle. Friday I'll be doing any eyeball check to see what I like better using M80 or EVC electronic ballasts on a DE/HQI Ushio 14K.
Happy Easter everyone!!!
I'm switching over to M80 ballasts from the EVC electronic ballasts. If you want to stop by & do some PAR testing, give me a jiggle. Friday I'll be doing any eyeball check to see what I like better using M80 or EVC electronic ballasts on a DE/HQI Ushio 14K.
Happy Easter everyone!!!
Robert Patterso
New member
"If you want a nice 400 that is more 'radium' than a radium, check out the Aquaconnect 14,000K. Its a HQI rated bulb with a monster output... it rivals many 10,000K-ish bulbs in output."
Hahn, that's what I'm using now. And yes it's a monster for sure. It's in a large LA111. Just don't think I can keep paying the price. $150, That's pretty steep. Definetly a nice bulb though
Hahn, that's what I'm using now. And yes it's a monster for sure. It's in a large LA111. Just don't think I can keep paying the price. $150, That's pretty steep. Definetly a nice bulb though
hahnmeister
In Memoriam
Considering I know people running Aquaconnects for 18 months and beyond... $150 is a good price. A radium is more than half that and only lasts what... 6 months about? So even if you just use the Aquaconnects for about a year, you are still ahead, not to mention their greater/higher output.
Robert Patterso
New member
You have a point there. They are a great bulb for sure, and I love the color.
Maybe I should have posted this question here as it did not get many replies on the main equipment board.
Would 2 250 watt DE MH bulbs in good reflectors (mini-lumenarc) be as good or better than 3 250 watt DE bulbs in so-so reflectors (cheap PFOish units)? In addition the tank is 6 feet long so would the two 250s provide enough light spread if centered better?
Thanks in advance
Would 2 250 watt DE MH bulbs in good reflectors (mini-lumenarc) be as good or better than 3 250 watt DE bulbs in so-so reflectors (cheap PFOish units)? In addition the tank is 6 feet long so would the two 250s provide enough light spread if centered better?
Thanks in advance
paulsilver
In Memoriam
I assume you tank has ribs across the top, about a third in from each side, yes?
If so, be careful not ensure that the plastic ribs do not interfere with the coverage too much...
On my six foot tank, I use 3 250s and 8 T5s... about 1100 watts, and I would use more if I were housing SPS corals in there... this is slightly better than 5 watts per gallon on my system, and I would aim for somewhat more, when I upgrade, in the DISTANT future when LED fixtures are available and reasonably priced for this size, assuming I can get the equivalent of about 1500 to 2000 watts... Sanjay can tell you lux, etc...
I think the general trend is to go for more than 5 watts per gallon, for stony corals... at least that is the rule I have heard... but it depends on the depth of the tank, and the livestock you plan to house...
If so, be careful not ensure that the plastic ribs do not interfere with the coverage too much...
On my six foot tank, I use 3 250s and 8 T5s... about 1100 watts, and I would use more if I were housing SPS corals in there... this is slightly better than 5 watts per gallon on my system, and I would aim for somewhat more, when I upgrade, in the DISTANT future when LED fixtures are available and reasonably priced for this size, assuming I can get the equivalent of about 1500 to 2000 watts... Sanjay can tell you lux, etc...
I think the general trend is to go for more than 5 watts per gallon, for stony corals... at least that is the rule I have heard... but it depends on the depth of the tank, and the livestock you plan to house...
JCTewks
In Memoriam
the reality is that watts per gallon is a totally useless term in reef aquaria....You can put 1000w of iwasaki 6500K over a tank or 1000w of cheap ebay 20k over a tank and hav radically different results. PAR is a much better suited measure for what we are trying to keep in our tanks.
that tank with 1000w of 6500k light would need close to 6000w of some 20k bulbs to come near the PAR of the 6500k bulb....talk about wasted energy!
that tank with 1000w of 6500k light would need close to 6000w of some 20k bulbs to come near the PAR of the 6500k bulb....talk about wasted energy!
hahnmeister
In Memoriam
Light Movers.
K ratings of the bulbs you want to use as far as their efficiency goes.
Reflectors.
Daily Photoperiod.
Height of the tank.
These are all things that can throw any XXX/gallon rules out the window. I use less than 500 watts on a 125g on an SPS dominant reef.
K ratings of the bulbs you want to use as far as their efficiency goes.
Reflectors.
Daily Photoperiod.
Height of the tank.
These are all things that can throw any XXX/gallon rules out the window. I use less than 500 watts on a 125g on an SPS dominant reef.
I am currently running a single mini-lumenarc over a 3' wide tank - light coverage is definitely not as bright towards the sides of the tank. If I was going to use two bulbs over a 6' long tank, I'd go with full size lumenarcs. However, your cross-braces may interfere with this.
You will definitely get better results with lumenarcs over spider type reflectors. The 3' wide tank with the mini-lumenarc used to have a PFO spider - I went from a 10k 250W bulb in the spider to a 12k 175W in the MLA. I haven't done actual light meter readings, but perceptually, the tank is much brighter with the MLA and the light coverage is much better.
Sango-chu
New member
Sorry to just drop in like this, but I just read somewhere else in another post the that PAR of T-5 is better that that of MH's. I am about to run 4 Lumiarcs with 4 12k 250w reeflux bulbs on a 9 foot tank 24 inches high and 24 inches deep...Did I just make a BIG mistake???? HELP calm my insanity!!!!! please... sorry ~ was talking to myself again...sigh...
ReefEnabler
Premium Member
I think you will be fine Sango. Thats alot of light and MH will look great. I love shimmer lines myself.
Are you doing anything with supplemental lighting? you could do some actinic or really blue T5 supplements and that would be nice too.
Are you doing anything with supplemental lighting? you could do some actinic or really blue T5 supplements and that would be nice too.
Similar threads
