Reef Central Online Community

Home Forum Here you can view your subscribed threads, work with private messages and edit your profile and preferences View New Posts View Today's Posts

Find other members Frequently Asked Questions Search Reefkeeping ...an online magazine for marine aquarists Support our sponsors and mention Reef Central

Go Back   Reef Central Online Community > General Interest Forums > Lighting, Filtration & Other Equipment
Register Blogs FAQ Calendar Mark Forums Read

Notices

User Tag List

Reply
Thread Tools
Old 03/07/2008, 10:21 PM   #151
JCTewks
Moved On
 
JCTewks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Wilmington, Ohio
Posts: 3,040
Quote:
Originally posted by GeoB
I thought this would be a simple question with a simple answer. Any takers here?
THere are other threads on here where you can get an answer to that question and others. This thread is about Sanjay's reef lighting info. Sanjay to my knowledge does not ahve any tests on T5 fixtures. The Grim Reefer is the man to ask about T5's. There is a thread titled "The T5 Q&A thread" where A LOT of questions like this have been answered.


JCTewks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03/19/2008, 02:13 PM   #152
ReefEnabler
Premium Member
 
ReefEnabler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Cary, NC
Posts: 3,760
quick question...

Why does the lighting website allow me to view data for the Radium Single Ended 250w bulb with the PFO HQI Ballast? I thought all HQI ballasts are double ended? Am I missing something?


__________________
- Ryan B

"that is enough skimmate to ruin lives." - GSMguy

Current Tank Info: 220g Display, 70g sump, 35g frag, 50g fuge, 2x250w MH, 1x400w MH, 2x80w T5, 2x140w VHO Actinic
ReefEnabler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03/19/2008, 02:30 PM   #153
PaulErik
Premium Member
 
PaulErik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: North Charleston, SC
Posts: 1,701
The Radium 250-watt lamp is built to the same electrical standard as most Double-Ended lamps. This article has a recommended ballast/lamp compatibility list (table 2): http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2007-03/sj/index.php


PaulErik is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03/19/2008, 02:57 PM   #154
ReefEnabler
Premium Member
 
ReefEnabler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Cary, NC
Posts: 3,760
but how does one go about physically plugging a DE lamp into an SE ballast? are we talking about electrical mods to the ballast?


__________________
- Ryan B

"that is enough skimmate to ruin lives." - GSMguy

Current Tank Info: 220g Display, 70g sump, 35g frag, 50g fuge, 2x250w MH, 1x400w MH, 2x80w T5, 2x140w VHO Actinic
ReefEnabler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03/19/2008, 03:17 PM   #155
PaulErik
Premium Member
 
PaulErik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: North Charleston, SC
Posts: 1,701
I not sure I understand what you are saying.

The Radium 250-watt lamp is a single ended lamp but is electrically built like a double-ended lamp. Single ended ANSI M58 ballasts can sometimes light double-ended and single-ended lamps built to European / M80 /HQI specifications but they will not operate properly and reliably. An ANSI M58 does not have the proper starting voltage and operating lamp current for DE and SE lamps built to a European /M80 / HQI specification. You can not mod an ANSI M58 ballast to make it compatible with these lamps. An ANSI M80 (HQI) ballast will light any 250-watt lamp because the starting voltage is highest on this ballast but not all lamps are designed for this higher starting voltage and higher lamp operating current. Table 3 in that article shows the electrical differences.

Each type of ballast is built to a different electrical specification. In North America we use ANSI codes for lamps and ballasts. To assure proper and reliable operation the ANSI codes/standards should be matched.


PaulErik is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03/19/2008, 03:24 PM   #156
ReefEnabler
Premium Member
 
ReefEnabler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Cary, NC
Posts: 3,760
ok let me rephrase my question.

the Radium 250 SE is a single ended bulb.
the PFO HQI ballast is a double ended ballast. so all premade pendants with the PFO HQI would have a double ended fixture.

so you are telling me you can plug a SE lamp into just one of the avilable plugs in that HQI ballast? or do they change the connectors to be SE?


__________________
- Ryan B

"that is enough skimmate to ruin lives." - GSMguy

Current Tank Info: 220g Display, 70g sump, 35g frag, 50g fuge, 2x250w MH, 1x400w MH, 2x80w T5, 2x140w VHO Actinic
ReefEnabler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03/19/2008, 03:41 PM   #157
PaulErik
Premium Member
 
PaulErik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: North Charleston, SC
Posts: 1,701
The connectors are the same on the ballasts, pendants (DE and SE) and retro sockets from the same company.


PaulErik is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03/19/2008, 03:44 PM   #158
BreadmanMike
Moved On
 
BreadmanMike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Illinois
Posts: 4,886
PaulErik,

Any idea why vendors list Helios SE bulbs as HQI rated? I'm pretty sure they are not HQI bulbs.


BreadmanMike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03/19/2008, 04:58 PM   #159
PaulErik
Premium Member
 
PaulErik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: North Charleston, SC
Posts: 1,701
The company lists all of the lamps HQI metal halide lamps. It’s just a general term that is used for many different things and the meaning differs by companies and people. Some companies list lamps as HQI but they are just standard lamps. HQI and metal halide get missed used, misunderstood and sometimes like in this case mean the same thing.

The Helios single-ended lamps are just standard probe start lamps built to North American specs (ANSI M57, ANSI M58 and ANSI M59 standards). A true European/M80/HQI standard single-ended lamp does not have a starting circuit within the lamp (a starting electrode connected to a bi-metal switch and a resistor) because the starting voltage for this standard is too high and is not needed. The Helios lamps are equipped with a starting circuit making them standard probe start metal halide lamps.


PaulErik is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03/19/2008, 05:04 PM   #160
BreadmanMike
Moved On
 
BreadmanMike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Illinois
Posts: 4,886
Nice explanation, thank you.


BreadmanMike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03/19/2008, 07:19 PM   #161
Robert Patterso
Registered Member
 
Robert Patterso's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Denton, Tx
Posts: 711
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?


Robert Patterso is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03/19/2008, 08:22 PM   #162
PaulErik
Premium Member
 
PaulErik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: North Charleston, SC
Posts: 1,701
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.


PaulErik is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03/20/2008, 07:11 AM   #163
Robert Patterso
Registered Member
 
Robert Patterso's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Denton, Tx
Posts: 711
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.


Robert Patterso is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03/20/2008, 01:05 PM   #164
PaulErik
Premium Member
 
PaulErik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: North Charleston, SC
Posts: 1,701
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.


PaulErik is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03/20/2008, 01:17 PM   #165
Robert Patterso
Registered Member
 
Robert Patterso's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Denton, Tx
Posts: 711
Thanks PaulErik. So will the Radium 400w still operate safely on a Electronic ballast or do you not recommend it.


Robert Patterso is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03/20/2008, 02:02 PM   #166
PaulErik
Premium Member
 
PaulErik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: North Charleston, SC
Posts: 1,701
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.


PaulErik is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03/20/2008, 02:03 PM   #167
Robert Patterso
Registered Member
 
Robert Patterso's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Denton, Tx
Posts: 711
Thanks again!


Robert Patterso is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03/20/2008, 02:43 PM   #168
hahnmeister
Moved On
 
hahnmeister's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Brew City, WI
Posts: 10,156
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.


hahnmeister is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03/21/2008, 12:08 AM   #169
prugs
Moving Out
 
prugs's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: San Tan Valley, AZ 85140
Posts: 4,898
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!!!


__________________
A Picture Is Worth A Thousand Words.

Current Tank Info: Getting rid of the last equipment :{
prugs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03/21/2008, 12:38 AM   #170
Robert Patterso
Registered Member
 
Robert Patterso's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Denton, Tx
Posts: 711
"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


Robert Patterso is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03/23/2008, 01:35 PM   #171
hahnmeister
Moved On
 
hahnmeister's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Brew City, WI
Posts: 10,156
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.


hahnmeister is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03/23/2008, 03:19 PM   #172
Robert Patterso
Registered Member
 
Robert Patterso's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Denton, Tx
Posts: 711
Quote:
Originally posted by hahnmeister
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.
You have a point there. They are a great bulb for sure, and I love the color.


Robert Patterso is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03/30/2008, 03:27 PM   #173
kodyboy
Moved On
 
kodyboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 2,990
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


kodyboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04/01/2008, 12:59 AM   #174
paulsilver
Moved On
 
paulsilver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Portsmouth RI
Posts: 201
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...


paulsilver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04/01/2008, 01:06 AM   #175
JCTewks
Moved On
 
JCTewks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Wilmington, Ohio
Posts: 3,040
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!


JCTewks is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
led aquarium light

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:59 PM.


TapaTalk Enabled

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Powered by Searchlight © 2019 Axivo Inc.
Use of this web site is subject to the terms and conditions described in the user agreement.
Reef CentralTM Reef Central, LLC. Copyright 1999-2014
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging v3.3.0 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.