Insides of a bluewave ballast?

[Canadian Man]

So just as the title says. What is inside the bluewave? Is it a sonagro ballast? I am considering radiums in the future and wondering weather to choose on of my 3 options.
1. purchase bare sonagro ballast's and put them in my pfo box and diy box.
2. purchase pfo dual 400w ballast
3. purcahse bluewave ballast. Is it worth the $349.95 from SWC?

What's the answer's all you smart people?

[StirCrazy]

#1 is the most cost effective and makes the most sence if you already have the stuff. probably take you 10 min to swap the ballast

Steve

[Aquattro]

Jon, as far as I know, the Bluewave for Radiums contain a M135 Pulse Start ballast. I'm sure you can confirm this on RC.

[Canadian Man]

Thanks,
Most of you radium users are running the Sonagro ballast's correct?

[Aquattro]

I am, yes.

[wayner]

Blueline Electronic

[Canadian Man]

Hey Wayne where did you get your electronic ballast and how much?
PM me if you wish.

[DJ88]

What is inside the bluewave?

Which model?
One?
Two?
Three?
Four?
Five?
Six?
Seven?

One is a magnetic ballast in either 175, 250 or 400W. Pulse start or Non.

Two is a Dual Magnetic Ballast in either 175, 250 or 400W. Pulse start or Non.

Three is an HQI in 175 and 250W.

Four is an electronic 175 or 250W.

Five is a Magnetic 1000W.

Six is a Magnetic 175, 250 or 400W.

Seven is a Dual Electronic 150 or 250W.

HTH

PS the ballasts(magnetic) can be either Venture, Advance or Magnatek. Electronic is an ICECAP.

[Delphinus]

Ok, hmmmm. So the Radium users using Bluewave's must be using the model 1, 2, or 6 then. Well here's a question then for you Darren (sounds like you've been doing your homework :) ) : Is the only "dual" version for 400W the model 2? Because I know that some people are using the dual ballast for the 400W Radium. .... Which must mean it's the model 2 (only the model 2 I mean) that they're using .... and THAT, in turn .... meannnnnsssss .... mmmmmmmmaybe ... that therefore it must be a M135, or a M155 under the hood??

Has anyone tried the Radium on a M135 yet? I haven'tbeen able to find any examples. I'm keen to try this, but I don't know how to enumerate my results since I don't have a PAR meter.

Hey ... um ... Darren or Steve, how much beer would I have to buy to get you guys to come out here (and bring your PAR meters :D ) and participate in an experiment? ?????? :lol:

[Aquattro]

If you call Perry at Sunlight supply, he will recommend a Bluewave ballast containing a M135 ballast for the 400w radium bulb. This is the same ballast sold to Jeanna by Jayson for her 400w radium bulbs.
So the original post asked what was inside a blue box from Perry if running a 400w radium. The answer is a M135. That was the question, right?

[Delphinus]

I thought that Perry was somewhat secretive as to whether it really was a M135 or a M155 or a M131 (or an EIEIO for that matter). For example you can't crack those cases open without voiding the warrantee. But maybe I'm wrong about it being a "secret", I just stumbed upon this thread where he mentions in passing that the M135 is the best domestic ballast for the Radium ....

http://www.reefcentral.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=93807

So ... um I guess that does answer my question (I think it answers Canadian_Man's as well :) )

I didn't really want to call Perry and ask him that ... um .. hey can you tell me what's in your ballast, so that I don't have to buy it from you? :lol: Great way to start off in a good "light". :)

Thank you much for the info (for me this is academic I have no cash to switch over my lighting today, but maybe down the road I'll jump on this Radium bandwagon).

[Aquattro]

Tony, there is no secret at all. Here is a note from Perry about radium ballasts.

"Many people do in fact use the SON AGRO ballast for this lamp. It lights because it has an ignitor, being that it is a HPS ballast. There are some problems with this configuration. 1) it shortens lamp life. 2)It causes severe spectral shift in 5-8 months 3) radium says that overdriving the lamp by this much can actually cause the lamp to blow up (I wouldn't worry about that, I've never seen/heard of it happening before).

The fact is that the SON AGRO puts about 70 more watts through the lamp than should be. The Radium lamp is an 'energy saver' and is rated at 360watts. Radium Has said it will not warrant the lamp for the above stated reasons.

The m59 does burn more blue, and the firing is not always consistent.

What radium has told us to use is the m135 ballast. Its a 400w pulse start MH ballast. It does burn more blue than the HPS, but less so than the M59. So far it looks like burning with this ballast will add about 2-3 months to usable lamps life (this is just per a source, and should be verified).

We don't sell the SON AGRO for aquarium use because it is misleading, and has a higher inherent risk. The pulse start is the ballast we use for 400w pulse start lamps.

Regards,

Perry
"

[StirCrazy]

what should also be mentioned, is that PFO claims almost the same thing about the son agro ballast, so all this is one companies truth against the others.

so wha we have is to companies both saying that radium said there ballast is the best.. see why it have been trying to figure out lighting for so long :roll:

Steve

[Jayson]

Here is the deal on the Bluewave ballasts: They come with the recommended ballast for the Radium bulb. I can also get you a dual or single Blue Wave ballast with the Son Agro ballast. As the above posts states this is not the ballast recommended for the Radium and Radium will not warrenty the bulb when used on this ballast. If you have more questions I will try to answer them for you. Thanks

[Aquattro]

Jayson is of course correct. Perry has stated that the SA is available in their cases, but the are not recommended for the Radiums. PFO has also recently offered a M135 pulse start, which is their recommended ballast for the Radium.
The SA is used regardless as it gives a whiter look that many people, myself included, prefer. I am aware that bulb life may be shortened. I accept this as a cost of my hobby. I have seen the radiums on M135 Bluewave ballasts and don't like them. I heard the real correct ballast is a S51 HPS, although I have no idea what that looks like.
I'm not sure if PFO is still recommending the SA since offering the pulse start. Maybe someone else knows?

[Jayson]

PFO is now recommending the pulse start ballast after they have had alot of complaints about broken bulbs and premature failure of the lamps. Now you have 2 major manufacters recommending the pulse start ballasts. I think the choice should be clear. Just my opinion.

[Aquattro]

From PFO's site. (HQI for PFO is the SA)

Pulse Start or HQI style Ballast?

The standard ballast has a transformer and capacitor in the circuit. The HQI ballast has a transformer, capacitor, and an igniter in the circuit. The pulse start has a transformer, capacitor, and an igniter in the circuit.



The European lamps work best with an igniter in the circuit.(Ushio, AB, Radium). The HQI ballast generally simulates the European ballast closer than the pulse start ballast does. However, the pulse start ballast is a lot less expensive than the HQI ballast. If you are on a budget and want the European lamps than get a pulse start ballast to ensure these lamps will fire. However, the light output will probably be reduced.



As a general rule we do not recommend the pulse start ballast on European bulbs. If you are trying to make a decision on running a European lamp on a standard ballast or a pulse start ballast, choose the pulse start ballast.

[Aquattro]

Jayson, question if I may. I have seen the Radiums running on a Blueline E-ballast and the color is very close to the color when running on a SA ballast. Do you have any ideas why this is? Is the e-ballast overdriving the bulbs also? Just curious.

[Canadian Man]

Awsome Info To All! My mind is spinning.
So could one also get a PFO ballast from J/L for example, BUT can you get a pfo ballast from j/l with a m135 ballast in it?
That's my new question.
:D

[Aquattro]

Jon, I believe you can. I sent Pat, the owner of PFO, an email this evening to see if he can clarify all of this. I'm fairly certain that if they have the PS ballast, it is a M135. Jayson indicates that they do in fact offer this option, and I imagine Jayson would know better than most people here.

[Doug]

I also run a duel pulse start. Although I assume by posts like some here & some from RC, that my ballasts does not drive them as bright as the HQI does.

They however, drive them a lot brighter than my regular ballast does. Yesterday, I fired up a new Iwasaki, in my PFO. Besides ugly, its not that much brighter than my Radiums. And yes, I have read all the tests. :)

My Radiums are bright enough to bleach new corals. I cannot say which is better, as mentioned, I have never seen them on HQI in person.

[StirCrazy]

Doug, if your getting that much brightness out of a radium don't ever sell them. a 10000K 175watt easaly over powers a radium bulb and make the tank more white than blue again..

I have seen radiums on normal ballast and on the son agro in 3 different tanks now and they are not that bright.. I have see a 400 watt Iwasaki and it is bright (ugly but way brighter than the radiums)

the deal with the radiums, which I am sure you know, is the prettyness not the brightness, even on the son agro they are not brighter... just less blue, well ok that could be construed as brighter.

my point is unless you have a burnt out iwasaki, as ugly as they are, they are way way brighter than a radium could ever be.. well unless we try hooking it up to 220 directy :twisted: hmm...

Steve

[christyf5]

Whats with this Iwasaki ugliness? You talking about the light or the look of the ballasts?? Just wondering.

Christy :)

[ron101]

They're talking about the relatively yellow light spectrum of the Iwaski bulb output.

[Doug]

Steve,
They are not brighter, thats just a figure of speech comparison. The Iwasaki does not drown them out however.

There is no way, that 175w 10K German bulbs, run on a normal ballast or Icecap, is brighter than my pair of 400w Radiums. Especially to the corals. I just sold my 175 10K system. No comparison. As a matter of fact, many of the corals that are now bleaching, came from an extended period under those 175w bulbs.

Dont get me wrong. I like them. I think they are the best 175w bulb and one of the best all round aquarium bulbs.

I know after seeing the Iwasaki again, I would not switch. As you know, I was thinking of running Iwasaki bulbs in my Bluewave ballasts, so that I could get away with only a pair of 400,s over my 6ft tank. That ended with the firing up of the PFO/Icecap/Iwasaki pendant. I will however run it in the center of the Radiums, so at least one freakin bulb will last more than a year. :lol:

Nowwwwwwww, all that being said, Am I a huge Radium fan? Not really. I love the colour though. If I was to start over on my tank, I would run 3- 250 watt Iwasaki bulbs and a pair of vho actinics. :)

[Acro]

Ok, now I'm really messed up. I thought it was all figured out and the agro ballasts were the ones now is it m135 ps. ????? Ah ge wis I'm confused. Oh and Doug (kidding of course) You seem like a very confused man. Will you ever figure out what you want?? :wink:

[StirCrazy]

Steve,
There is no way, that 175w 10K German bulbs, run on a normal ballast or Icecap, is brighter than my pair of 400w Radiums. Especially to the corals. I just sold my 175 10K system. No comparison. As a matter of fact, many of the corals that are now bleaching, came from an extended period under those 175w bulbs.

actualy a 175 is brighter.. does it have more PAR.. no, but it is visualy brighter.
here is a prime example in One_Divided's tank

with just the Radium
http://www.canreef.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=3174

and with the radium and a 175 Ushio (much whiter looking and the 175 actualy gets rid of much of the blue.)
http://www.canreef.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=3728

Steve

[DJ88]

here is a prime example in One_Divided's tank

Steve,

One problem with taking pictures of tanks is that unless both pictures were taken with the exact same camera with it set on manual with its f-stop set at the identical settings and the shutter speed identically, two different digital images can't really be used to represent lighting differences between two different pictures.

actualy a 175 is brighter.. does it have more PAR.. no

So by that statement it appears to me that the Radium puts out more PAR. Which is what the corals use for photosynthesis is it not? Would a sudden(read massive) increase in useable light(PAR) cause the corals to undergo some form of shock? If the corals were to undergo a major shock to the system by a large change in intensity would they not exhibit signs of bleaching?

And I have to ask? are you basing your statement that a 175W is brighter on what your eye sees? If that is the case how does your eye know what is or isn't brighter to a coral? Can you see UV-A? UV-B? Are you able to determine what spectrum of that light being put into that tank will or won't cause problems with a coral?

How else did you determine that the 175W is more intense? Other than the PAR readings that showed the 400W radium was more intense? Lux meter? Spectrum analyzers showing which frequencies are putting out a higher intensity than the others? or just your eyes? I'd say what you are basing the 175W being more "intense" on is that due to the make up of the light frequency (spectrum) of the 10KK, which makes it noticeably whiter in appearance, it is appearing, more intense. This whiteness doesn’t imply that it is more intense. It just means that it is whiter. With the Radiums putting more of the power into the blue wavelengths (which are more difficult (dimmer) for our eyes) if you were to compare a blue light to a much smaller white light, the white will appear "brighter". When in fact it isn't. Being a combination of all the frequencies on a much more balanced scale (intensities of each spectrum mixing with each other out producing the white light). With some reading of the breakdown of visible light by its frequencies you will find that blue is one of the most powerful of the frequencies (as you shift towards purple from red) purple having the most. This is why when you dive into water, as you get deeper it gets bluer and bluer. All other frequencies making up the white light we see above water are being absorbed at a much faster rate due to less power contained.

Sooo.. with that.. A white light may appear more intense.. Mathematically tho. it isn't. Blue is. And thus causing bleaching in Doug's tank due to higher intensity.

Personally after watching corals under various light setups, if I were to see corals bleaching after a change in ballasts and bulbs in a long term existing tank owned by a long term experienced reef keeper.. I'd tend to agree with him that it was the new radium causing bleaching due to a higher intensity level. Even with all the facts about the make-up of light and how the various frequencies work.

my .02

[Aquattro]

I'm not sure how all this relates to what is inside a bluewave ballast, but I'll play along :D . The 400w radium bulb is very bright. It is way brighter than a 175w. I can tell this with my eyes by how long I can stare at the inner envelope ot the bulbs (don't try this at home folks, I'm a trained idiot!). I'm not inclined to give a hoot about meters and PAR and onandon. The bulb is brighter. I had a 400 Iwasaki installed once...it was the brightest bulb I've seen and I knew this because it lit up more of my livingroom than any other bulb.
So yes, switching to a new Radium can and will certainly pose the risk of bleaching. Doug is right, 175w Ushios are really nice bulbs. But no way are they anywhere near as bright as 400w anythings!! Soooo, you take a coral from an extended stay under a 175 and put it under a 400, it will run the very real risk of going white!! Period.
Man, all this rambling made me feel like Tony. And I noticed my left and right hands fighting for keyboard control....scary!! :wink:

[Aquattro]

I sent Pat, the owner of PFO, an email this evening to see if he can clarify all of this.

And Pat's reply.

"Brad,
I have a whole box of Radium bulbs that have been run on all sorts of
ballasts. Everyone I've talked to who sells these bulbs eat the
defectives. So what will Radium Warrant? Currently I think none.

Which ballast is correct? Ah a European ballast. So that means none of
the American ballasts.

Which ballasts do I recommend they run on? For maximum light output as
well as color output we recommend our HQI style ballast."

[StirCrazy]

I'd say what you are basing the 175W being more "intense" on is that due to the make up of the light frequency (spectrum) of the 10KK, which makes it noticeably whiter in appearance, it is appearing, more intense.



If you read it more closely, I can quote my self in saying
" actualy a 175 is brighter.. does it have more PAR.. no, but it is visualy brighter. " (you need to quote the whole sentance when you are roasting me please, not just what suits your purpose. As in this case it changes the over all meaning)

I never said it was more intense, you are the one who actulay used that word in your explanation. I said it can make the tank more white than blue (which is a visual observation.

if your going to bust my chops then at least stay on what I said, not what you think I said :?

Thanks for your time
Steve

[DJ88]

Steve,

My apologies for cutting off that one part of the quote, when I was editing the post to fix a spelling mistake, I must have cut off that part. I had intended to place the entire sentence in there as it is relevant in my explanation of why the 175W may appear brighter but that is an illusion due to the different frequency make up's of the 10KK vs. the 20KK. Even more relevant actually.

And I stated why in my opinion, experience and knowledge that doesn't work. A 175W is whiter yes. Brighter or more intense? No. It appears brighter or more intense due to the fact that the frequency make up of a 10KK light is such that the various frequencies are balanced out so that the light "appears white. Which is more readily taken in and seen by our eyes. Sit and stare at that same 175 and the radium as Brad did. You'll see which is brighter. There is over DOUBLE the energy being put out by radium. Due to it's frequency make up it doesn't look like that because our eyes don't perceive the blue as easily.

a 10000K 175watt easaly over powers a radium bulb and make the tank more white than blue again..

I’ll clarify this one as well while I am at it now.

The 10KK doesn’t over power the radium. All that happens is that when the two light sources each emit their individual light the two mix and then create what in essence is a combination of frequencies. One doesn’t overpower the other. They add together to create a new color temperature light being seen by our eyes. One that is more visually pleasing and is more readily understood by our eyes.

This is why I decided to post. Clarification of what is going on was needed. Without it some newbie that had not the first understanding of lighting would read this thread. See you saying that the 175W was brighter and then say “well why the h3ll am I going to run out and buy a 400W setup if the 175 is brighter?”. And don’t say it won’t happen. It happens in all areas of this hobby. Not just lighting. People see something. Read it. And take it as gospel. Then when things go wrong and something happens they get upset and mad at what they feel was an “obvious” attempt to mislead them.

I said all of this for one reason only. Not to roast your a$$ but to let people know why a 175W may look brighter or more intense but it isn't. In the last year since you have started reef keeping you have amassed a fairly good-sized knowledge bank, which you are able to dig into and spread your knowledge around. With that said many people who don't know the first thing about this hobby and the lighting that goes along with it will read what you say and take it as 100% truth and gospel due to the fact that you have a PAR meter and can pass along the numbers that you are able to take. This is reinforced with the fact you are able to build things that most aren't capable of due to your qualifications as from past experiences, people don't bother to look at all possible sources of information. I have provided a counter point. Nothing more.

You chose to directly challenge Doug in his statement that the Radium is brighter than the 175 due to his experiences. And I am challenging and providing a counterpoint to yours. In Doug’s experience and personal views with the corals in his tank bleaching he is saying that the 175 is NOT brighter than his dual 400W Radiums. And I agree.

When I used to buy corals I would try to find out what size lighting system it came from so that I could properly acclimate it to my lighting. If you take a coral that was under a 175W prior to entering your tank would you not prefer to give it the best chance at living by letting it get used to a higher wattage light setup? You probably do. It becomes a habit. If it came from a higher wattage system than your own, no worries. Lower wattage. Start it low and far away. Then gradually move it into place. That gives you the best chances for survival.

More of my .02

[StirCrazy]

apologies accepted, and i will apoligize for comming across so brash.

Having tested both a 400 watt radium on a son agro and a 400 watt 10K ushio on a regualr M58 ballast, I can say that they do put out roughly the same par.. i think it was with in 3% of each other on 2 differen bulb of each type on two different sets of ballasts..don't ask why so many combanations.. goes back to the green eye thing :wink:

yes you are right.. power wise either blows away a 175 watt in real power, but as you said visualy the 175watt looks/appears brighter and does make for a more pleasing look when used in conjunction like Adam has done. I think his tank looks very nice that way also, but that is a personal statement.

anyways. I guess this got started from my lack of making it clear that I was talking visualy and not real numbers, thanks for pointing that out and I will watch myself for that in the future. :oops:


Steve

[stephane]

I was with iwasaki 250 when I change for the radium even reduce light ing period to 4 houre a day and get it up slowly over couple of month and some coral have take very long time to focus on the radium some even could just not do it candy cane is almost ded after 6 month

green frog spawn just start to look good 1 month ago even a brown clam have slown is grow for couple of month but now it is ok

On the other hand all hight demand coral blue and purple clam love it and grow like mad and improve in color like notting els could do it

to my eye I could tell they are more brighter than my saki and all people came home tell the same you allmost need sunglass to look at the tank 8)

(I run them on the Agro)

[Aquattro]

Stephane, although I can't say Radiums are dim, they are not as bright as my 400 10k bulbs. I think the color is awesome, but I do not need sunglasses. And I once tried a 400w Iwasaki...THAT was bright!!
Of the 400w bulbs I've tried, the Radiums are the least bright (to my eyes). However, coral growth has continued and the colors do look like they're improving.

[DJ88]

Steve,

Apology accepted.. :D

Don't let it happen again. ;) hee hee. :D

[stephane]

Brad my saki was the 250 one and IMO the radium are a way stronger

I never light any other 400watt than Radium so I realy can't tell but I have no douth your are right on the Hushio and the saki 400 watt anyway
I run 400 watt only for the radium if not I will have keep my 250 saki since they realy looking good and IMO they are still realy great bulb for the price

[Doug]

Jamie, what would be the fun then? :) Thats one reason I "usually" speak from experience. I have tried them all. :lol:

I switched to Radiums, because everyone was saying how awesome they were. The main reason I sold my 250w Iwasaki set up, was because I never had an Icecap ballast anyways, I got a good deal on the 400 pendant and a 12K bulb, and I already had a pair of 175w bulbs on Icecaps, to supplement the 400 12K with. I still say that combination of 175-10K, 400-12K, 175-10K, over my 4ft. 170g gave the nicest light and coral colours I have seen.


I would switch back to 250 Iwasaki/vho combination, because its very intense, the 250 version is a nice crisp white and most of all the freakin bulbs last a couple years. Tired of dropping several hundred per year on bulbs. :)

Thanks Darren. Thats what I was trying to express. Just so busy, redoing the tank, to try rid it of the flatworms.

Steve, I personally have no problem with you stating your views on lighting and respect your opinion & testing in this field. Thats why I e-mailed you with a lighting question, instead of the other gazzillion internet aquarists I know. :)

Back to the question at hand. I was thinking of using an HQI/Radium, in the center of the other Radiums. But I decided to go with the 65K instead. Makes a nice mix and as mentioned, gives at least one bulb some longevity.

What I would really like to do, is to run a 400 HQI, in the center of my pulsestarts, just to see for myself, how much brighter, if any, they are.