Lighting Website Updates

Hello,

Im currently setting up a 72 x 36 x 27 deep dimensions tank.

If will be a mixed reef, but will definately feature a large amount of SPS.

For lighting I am inclined to go with luminarc reflectors or lumanmax elite reflectors.

I love th color of the radium SE bulbs, so that will likely be my bulb of choice.

My question is should i go with 250 or 400 watts?

There seems to be a significant jump in par between the two (obviously).

However, after reading through the good doctors graphs and other info, the ballasts clearly are vastly different.

With all the new balasts that are now available, which do you feel will be best ballast for the job?

thanks very much

Junior
 
When possible, 400's are the better buy for efficiency it seems... but you had better have close to a 30" tall tank to really warrant their use... I think 27" works... If you use 400's, you just use less bulbs... Dual 400 watt HQI or 3x250wattHQI are so similar in wattage after all.

As for 400's, I would stick to HQI rated bulbs and run them on either HQI or HPS 430 ballasts (what most US made '400 watt HQI' ballasts are inside... pulse start sodium ballasts).

Also consider spectrum when looking at various wattages... most 10,000Kish bulbs have 2x the output of a 20,000Kish bulb.

While I could see Aquaconnect 14,000Ks in 400 watts over a tank like yours... Giesemann 14,500Ks (a more daylight bulb) might be too much. Ushio 20,000Ks might look nice, but pretty much make 400 watters needed since many 250watt 10,000Ks can rival them in output.
 
hahn-

Which 400 SE's are HQI rated anyway? I think Aquaconnect is. But most of the other I was consdiering running are not (Radium, Reflux 12k). I'm currently trying to decide what 400w ballast I should really get that would offer the most flexibilty with 400w bulbs. It doesnt seem to be HQI honestly.

My choices are the Bluewave 7 HQI 400w and the Galaxy electronic 400w. I'm leaning towards the Galaxy now with the good things I have been hearing about them and what seems like more flexibility in bulbs.
 
hahn-

Which 400 SE's are HQI rated anyway? I think Aquaconnect is. But most of the other I was consdiering running are not (Radium, Reflux 12k). I'm currently trying to decide what 400w ballast I should really get that would offer the most flexibilty with 400w bulbs. It doesnt seem to be HQI honestly.

My choices are the BLuewave 7 HQI 400w and the Galaxy electronic 400w. I'm leaning towards the Galaxy now with the good things I have been hearing about them and what seems like more flexibility in bulbs.
 
You are correct... most 400 bulbs in the US here are not HQI rated. The list is small:
Aquaconnect 14,000K

Ushio Aqualite/BLV Nepturion (non-CWA models) in 10,000K, 14,000K, and 20,000K.

Giesemann Megachrome 13,000K, 14,500K, and 20,000K.

I would say that for you, the Aquaconnect 14,000K is the 'bulb of choice'. The thing is, with 400 watt HQI's... yes, its a short list, but they are perhaps the best bulbs on the market as far as longevity, spectrum, and output.

Also, in the US, 400 watt HQI ballasts are nothing more than HPS 430 ballasts, so you can shop the horti suppliers and save some money.

You CAN run probe start bulbs on HQI... some like to (Radiums, Helios, etc)... but they do burn out faster. The ideal ballast for most of them is just a M59 ballast, or maybe an electronic. M59's are dirt cheap... electronics not so much. Then you can run your helios, coralvue reeflux, and others. Its just my take on it, but these are all cheaper bulbs for a reason. You can find which ever spectrum you really want from the HQI's mentioned above IME... only an Aquaconnect can go almost 2 years without replacing.

But the 'ballast confusion' is one reason why I like T5's now too... a 9 x 5' bulb config on your tank running on Icecap 660 ballasts would provide light levels as high if not higher than what you have now, of course, maybe without the shimmer... you have bulbs packed in that thing from front to back, left to right... you have a 'shimmerless halide' system right now though anyways...lol.
 
hahn-

Still, I do hear a lot of people seem to like Radium on electronic.

How would a 400W Aquaconnect do on a galaxy ballast anyway?
 
Radium on electronic... it is a classic combo that was very popular for a long time... I think that might be part of why its still seen today. The bulbs are toast every 5-6 months still. An e-ballast is still overdriving the Radiums after all... you would need a M135/155 ballast (low current) to run a Radium properly.
http://reef.eldersign.org/?cat=9

I dont know about Radium on a Galaxy as far as long term. It seems to me that according to Sanjay's long term tests, the electronics dont hurt the bulb too bad over time. IMO, the biggest drawback to underdriving a blue bulb is that you are often left with a very monochromatic result. A pheonix on a HQI ballast for instance is alot 'fuller' than on an e-ballast.

I would also suspect that the US HQI/HPS 430's are overdriving the Aquaconnect a good deal. When you compare the PFO HQI to the Taiwan HQI here (the PFO being a HPS ballast) you can see quite a difference:
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/issues/jan2005/feature.html

The Taiwan HQI, a 'spec' HQI ballast, is at 448 watts with a PPFD of 134.8... and the PFO HPS 430 HQI is at 536 watts with a PPFD of 170.

Perhaps a good deal of the 'glory' that this bulb has is not because of the bulb itself, but from how it behaves on a HPS 430 ballast. Still, I hear from people going on 2 years with this combo w/o a problem.

But from that article, it seems like the Reef Fanatic ballast might run the bulb closest to HQI spec (448 watts, 141.5 PPFD)... of course we dont know if this bulb has any 'reactions' to being run at a higher frequency like Ushio 10-14,000K's do (usually not so much with bluer bulbs). Perhaps a call to Aquaconnect is in order...lol.

I cant recall... is the Galaxy supposed to be one of those higher power e-ballasts? Who knows.... it might be closer to true HQI spec than the HPS/PFO route. The only thing that worries me with HQI's on e-ballasts is the high frequency operation.

Gosh... halide gets confusing, doesn't it? Even those who should 'know everything' still cant because every bulb and every ballast combo has its own little quirks. All I can say is that I have seen the AC 14,000K on the HPS ballast, and know people who are running it for almost 2 years straight (last I checked) on those PFO/HPS ballasts and they are still going strong. They have a monster of an output as well... and their spectrum seems 'fuller' on the HQI ballast... less of that 'monochromatic blue' like you get with 250 watt pheonix, aquaconnect, and radium bulbs. Thats a tough call... thats why I defected to T5's...lol.
 
I've done a couple of searches and see some folks saying the galaxy ballast was actually DESIGNED to run 400w radiums. I dont know if this is really true, but it has me interested.

Also, another search turned up some info on the 400W galaxy ballasts saying it drives the bulbs at 425W. I dont know how this would compare to other e-ballasts.

If it really is driving the bulbs at 425W, I dont know ewhat this means for other bulbs like the Aquaconnect. Is it overdriving those too?
 
WOW, and for a second there i thought i had a clue....

tragic...

Howabout a great combo that you would use on tank my size?

I will have T5 suppliments, so it doesnt have to be 20k by any means...just pretty=)
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13565877#post13565877 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by johns
I've done a couple of searches and see some folks saying the galaxy ballast was actually DESIGNED to run 400w radiums. I dont know if this is really true, but it has me interested.

Also, another search turned up some info on the 400W galaxy ballasts saying it drives the bulbs at 425W. I dont know how this would compare to other e-ballasts.

If it really is driving the bulbs at 425W, I dont know ewhat this means for other bulbs like the Aquaconnect. Is it overdriving those too?

Thats what I seem to remember too... the Galaxy ballasts were lower current/power than most, but I could be confusing them with the Blueline, which is a known 'underdriver'. Just because they are 425 watts doesnt tell you everyting (it is likely running the bulb at 400 watts if the socket is at 425w... its the operating current that matters most. Still, Radium only suggests the M135/155 for use with these bulbs... those are low current ballasts that run the bulb at the 360 watt operating spec:

http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1469108

http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1449975

http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1447205


PaulErik is really the guy to ask on this sort of stuff. In those links above, you can read his posts regarding the Radium. I know the Lumatek e-ballast overdrives most bulbs as well... perhaps another good one more for the Aquaconnect.

Johns, do you run your radium/pheonix on HQI or Icecaps right now?

onetrick, the HPS ballast you want is the 430 watter, not the 400, to run 400 watt HQI bulbs:
http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1417408

"The PFO 400-watt HQI is a Son Agro (HPS) 430-watt ballast"
 
Johns, do you run your radium/pheonix on HQI or Icecaps right now?

HQI

If the galaxy drives the bulbs at 425W and the HQI 'horiculture' ballasts drive the bulbs at 430W, what is the big difference between these? I dont know that much about ballasts, so I'm wanting to understand. How will one be that much different from the other?
 
My interpretation is that if the galaxy uses 425 watts, its most likely driving the bulb at about 400 watts. With the PFO HQI/HPS430, the wattage used can be over 500 watts (536 watts with the AC 14kK)... so the bulb is getting something like 430 to 450 watts...

http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2005/1/feature/view

Your Radium SE bulbs are actually considered 270 watt bulbs, not 250's so much... because on a M80 ballast, thats what they get.

I was wondering if your current 250's are on icecaps or M80's though, because IME, the bulbs have a much 'fuller' spectrum on HQI ballasts, where on icecaps they are somewhat monochromatic blue.

When you look at the graphs of the spectrum, you will see the spectral plots are almost like someone is just moving the whole graph up and down, but the curve/plot stays the same. With blue-spike bulbs, this means that as you go up in wattage, you are raising the levels of 'daylight' by a hefty percentage. On an icecap, the bulb may have little to no red-orange at all, but on a HQI, you might see an increase of 100% or more, simply because there is so little to start with... where the blue spike seems to shift up just as much, this is really a small percentage of blue... maybe 5%-10% at best. It seems like the spectrum is 'fixed', but when you compare relative percentages of wavelengths, there is a considerable difference in the way the bulbs look. Even though the 400 watt version of the AC looks like it just dominates in blue and actinic (even over the Radium, which it does), if you compare the other 'full' spectrums, there is a considerable hike in the levels of red through green as well. To your corals, this being 'less monochromatic' can be the difference between 'chalky washed out' colors, and vibrant ones. I hate the pheonix 14,000K on icecap/e-ballast for instance, but love it on HQI/M80. Its a totally different bulb, esp after a year of being run like that. On the M80, it looks more 'white', after a year and staring at it for a bit, you swear you can actually see red and yellow out of it. After a year on e-ballasts, the things seem to get very dull, and monochromatic blue... they look more like a 20,000K... and my corals started looking 'chalky'.

Depending on if you overdrive or underdrive, you will likely see the same relation on 400 watt bulbs as well. Its why some people still prefer to run the Radium on HQI ballasts, even though running just a probe start bulb on a HQI ballast tends to cause parts of the bulb to unweld themselves and cause some nasty failures. But in general, most 400 watt 20,000Kish bulbs tend to have more daylight... not just the monochromatic blue spike with a little actinic like alot of 250's or even worse, the 150's. Thats also how many bluer 20,000Ks actually start to regain a PPFD/watt ratio and some like the Aquaconnect can actually compete with 10,000Kish bulbs. Heck, at 1000 watts, 20,000Ks can compete with 10,000Ks.

But just look at these PAR levels recorded off of a 8x5' T5 (run on Icecap ballasts) array and compare to the composite I did of your tank. This is a 60x24x24 tank, and the white balance was screwey on the guy's camera... but those PPFD levels are just shredding!
150g60x24x24with8x5footat100wattsT5.jpg


Here were the levels from your tank:
JohnScomp2.jpg

JohnScomp1.jpg


So thats 3x250watt bulbs with 4x54wattT5's over a 180g (60x30x24) for you vs the T5 array above...

Although if you went with the 400's, I would say that dual 400's would most likely be enough... esp if you used dual lumenarc 3 full size units, although I know you are partial to SLS if nothing else for size reasons. With 400's you would see some slightly higher levels up top on your tank, but the spectral quality is what would change the most IMO.
 
Sanjay, i am having problems using your guide. the page wont come up for me. so here is my question if you could help me that would be great. i have a current outer orbit with 1 150w DE MH bulb. i am looking at the following 2 bulbs as of right now and would love some spec on them like what is the difference in the PAR outpu between the 2, wich is going to be more intese at 21" and finally what color patterns they put out.

150W DE pheonix 14K
VS
150W DE ushio 14K

thanks alot for your help.
 
Seems this is the professional lighting info thread.
Well I have a question. I am ready to buy new lighting for my 90 gal. I figured I would need about 400-450 watts I am wanting to use T5's No MH to much heat.( i have a canopy) My question is,are individual reflectors better than one whole reflector?
And what combo would be ideal in bulbs?
 
I am running a single 150 watt 14k bulb now w/o actinic. I'm not planning on adding any actinic due to the tank only being 26 gallons. Should I go with a 20K bulb due to no actinic supplementation, or should I stick with a 14K bulb? Thanks
 
OK, I've been dealing with a few tank issues that I've finally (hopefully) resolved, and my bulbs now need to be replaced. I had AB 10K first (nice and bright but too yellowish) and now I have Phoenix (all 250W) which are a nice blue but tend to wash out some other colors, and are a bit underpowered for my 36" deep tank. My fixture has 4x250W HQI and 4 36" T5, so I can't overload the T5s to blue up the yellowish 10Ks. According to Sanjay's site, the Megachrome 13500 looks spectrally very much like the ABs I had before. I'm guess that Megachrome Coral is bluer (lists at 14500 I think) but its not a choice on the comparison tool. Its an expensive bulb, so I don't want to buy 4 and regret it for the rest of the year. Can anyone comment first hand about the apparent color and output of these bulbs compared to the others mentioned?

Apologies if this has been discussed in the thread already...I tried to look but wasn't able to find anything about it.

jds
 
Back
Top