Nano sapiens Posted November 3, 2014 Author Share Posted November 3, 2014 And not in the way that most 'products' in the hobby are magical I think we've all being drawn in by the 'magical' marketing at one time or another Of note is that this is an iPhone 5 vid with a Yuma sitting in mostly indirect lighting. Considering, it's not too shabby. Limes soon ...crud, 1-1/2" connectors that came with these LEDs are too short Quote Link to comment
xiaoxiy Posted November 4, 2014 Share Posted November 4, 2014 Limes soon ...crud, 1-1/2" connectors that came with these LEDs are too short I lol'd hard at this. Sorry Quote Link to comment
Nano sapiens Posted November 4, 2014 Author Share Posted November 4, 2014 I lol'd hard at this. Sorry No worries, laughter is always usually good Quote Link to comment
Nano sapiens Posted November 8, 2014 Author Share Posted November 8, 2014 Ran across a very interesting series of articles that endeavor to look at DOC (Disolved Organic Carbon), TOC (Total Organic Carbon) and the quantity of bacteria in reef aquaria. So as not to loose track of these Advance Aquarist gems: Total Organic Carbon (TOC) and the Reef Aquarium: an Initial Survey, Part I Total Organic Carbon (TOC) and the Reef Aquarium: an Initial Survey, Part II Bacterial Counts in Reef Aquarium Water: Baseline Values and Modulation by Carbon Dosing, Protein Skimming, and Granular Activated Carbon Filtration Unfortunately, we (typical hobbyists) don't have access to the equipment required to perform TOC testing or water-column bacterial counts, but such information would be very interesting and informative in determining how close a system runs to a typical natural reef in regards to these items.But what we can do is get a Triton test and I should have results in 10 days or so 4 Quote Link to comment
Red_Blenny Posted November 8, 2014 Share Posted November 8, 2014 I thought about doing a Triton test to see what's my exact parameters for my tank. Quote Link to comment
Nano sapiens Posted November 8, 2014 Author Share Posted November 8, 2014 I thought about doing a Triton test to see what's my exact parameters for my tank. Whether a tank is doing well, or not, it's of interest IMO. If nothing else, with enough test results from a multitude of tanks an overall picture can be formed as to whether the lack or over abundance of certain elements is of concern or not. 1 Quote Link to comment
Nano sapiens Posted November 14, 2014 Author Share Posted November 14, 2014 Triton Test Results: Thought it might be interesting to see an element analysis on this old nano. Specs: 12g Nano AIO (no sump) - 6-1/2 years old 50/50 Reef Crystals/Instant Ocean <- for the last year...previously MicroLift) 15%/wk water change No mechanical or chemical filter media (live rock & live sand only) Additives: Kalwasser, Kent Concentrated Iodine (3-4 drops/week) and ESV B-Ionic Magnesium Would be nice if they could test salinity and alkalinity, too, so maybe something for the future. (Update: Chemist Randy Holmes-Farley was able to determine a salinity of around 35ppm based on the sodium level) Those elements in RED deviate strongly from a saltwater reef norm: SN (Tin), Br (Bromine). Li (Lithium) - all are 'high'. I find this interesting, but when a tank is doing well it's certainly not something to get one's knickers in a knot over . SN (Tin): Not very soluable in many forms, but soluable in others. Toxic in some forms, not in others. Can't tell from this test which form(s) are present. Br (Bromine): Very reactive and is used as a disinfectant in concentrated doses. But at this concentration, it likely doesn't play much of a role except *possibly* limiting some microorganism growth. Li (Lithium): Lithium is generally not considered a threat unless doses are very high. Li has been showing up in elevated levels in many Triton tests of US tanks, but not nearly so often in Europe. Anything that's 'YELLOW' is mellow in my book Ca (Calcium): The sample water that I sent in I tested at 460 (Salifert kit, low res) and Triton shows 491. Hmmm... Mg (Magnesium): The sample water that I sent in I tested at between 1325 and 1330 (Salifert kit), yet the Triton results show 1532. I have seen this same high Mg level issue on other Triton tests on other threads, so if we assume that Triton's testng is accurate, the Salifert test kit (at least) is under reporting this element by quite a bit. Letting the Mg drop a bit is the only change I plan for this tank. I (Iodine): I expected it to be higher since I dose it. This tells me my dosing regimen is in the ball park. Si (Silicon): Lower levels, so explains why I don't have too many diatoms on the glass walls. K (Pottasium): This one I was concerned about, but it is fine, too (just saved myself a $45 Potassium test kit) P (Phosphate) & PO4 (Inorganic Phosphate): How in the world can it be lower than a typical coral reef when the tank has no chemical or mechanical filter? I actually need to bump this up just a bit, so backing off from 15% to 10%/wk WCs for now. Edit: The phosphate values are Triton's 'should be' recommendations, not 'typical coral reef' values. 7 Quote Link to comment
markalot Posted November 15, 2014 Share Posted November 15, 2014 They don't even bother to translate? Quote Link to comment
Nano sapiens Posted November 15, 2014 Author Share Posted November 15, 2014 They don't even bother to translate? I've seen some other posts with Triton results and they are in English, so it is possible. I lifted my results directly off their German website. Since German is my second language, not an issue 1 Quote Link to comment
Nano sapiens Posted November 16, 2014 Author Share Posted November 16, 2014 Lime LEDs: I managed to get a hold of a few longer connectors for these Philips Rebel 'Limes' and had some fun experimented for a few hours with them today. Since my array is very simple with dimming of each DIY LED strip as the only feature, the number and type of LEDs has to be just right for this to work well. Unfortunately, the Limes in addition to the NWs (or WWs) washes out the tank as I expected. I could get a decent result by removing a NW (or WW) and replacing with a Lime, but the look was just not balanced to my eye. To be clear, Limes can be an asset to many LED arrays (especially those with separate color channel controls), but like anything else there are exceptions 1 Quote Link to comment
jedimasterben Posted November 16, 2014 Share Posted November 16, 2014 Yes, when you have individual control, limes are a much better asset. Quote Link to comment
Nano sapiens Posted November 16, 2014 Author Share Posted November 16, 2014 Since our eyes are so sensitive to green, these things just dominate! On a side note, messing around with the array today I managed to come up with an even more appealing distribution of LEDs, so it's all good Quote Link to comment
jedimasterben Posted November 16, 2014 Share Posted November 16, 2014 When using a much larger source of blue, they become much more welcome. Right now on my array I'm using 4x Vero 10 4000K 90CRI at 100mA, 8x lime at 600mA, and 8x Luxeon M royal blue at 850mA, and the color is quite divine. Nice bright white with a slight blue tone. Almost stings the eyes Quote Link to comment
Nano sapiens Posted November 16, 2014 Author Share Posted November 16, 2014 When using a much larger source of blue, they become much more welcome. Right now on my array I'm using 4x Vero 10 4000K 90CRI at 100mA, 8x lime at 600mA, and 8x Luxeon M royal blue at 850mA, and the color is quite divine. Nice bright white with a slight blue tone. Almost stings the eyes Sounds nice! Front: (1) WW, (1) HV, (1) RB, (1) OCW (minus Red), (1) Blue, (1) RB, (1) HV, (1) WW Rear: (1) NW, (1) HV, (1) RB, (1) Cyan, (1) OCW (minus Red), (1) RB, (1) HV, (1) NW (2) RB Stunners & (1) B+CW Stunner in between plus (1) B+CW Stunner right up front. This setup has just a touch more blue than previously, so it's a bit more 'ice-i-er' . A good compromise so as not to loose fluoresence while still stimulating non-fluorescent pigments. 2 Quote Link to comment
Nano sapiens Posted November 25, 2014 Author Share Posted November 25, 2014 Chemistry 101: One of the major benefits of the Triton test is that it can point out inaccuracies in our hobby grade test kits (the assumption I am making here is that a lab grade ICP-OES device is much more accurate than a hobby test kit). Once the discrepancy is known, it's a simple matter to adjust the result of the test kit reading (plus or minus). When test kits are changed, then one can be compared against the other to see if a discrepancy exists and then adjusted to match the Triton results. In regards to the Triton test, I was surprised to see the elevated level of Ca (calcium). My Salifert kit tested the sample water sent to Triton at 460 mg/l (twice tested), but Triton indicated 491 mg/l. This is a bit on the high side, so over the next 2 months I'll drop this down to ~430 (~ 400 with my Salifert test kit) by keeping Kalkwasser just a bit on the low side while adding an alkalinity buffer to maintain this parameter at around 9.0. Shooting for Ca 430 and Alk 8.8. Also surprising was that Mg tested much lower with Salifert than the Triton test (1330 mg/l vs.1532 mg/l, respectively). This one I'll let drop naturally over time to around 1200 reading (Salifert). To more easily maintain these lower levels over the long term (and hopefully lower the elevated Tin and Bromine levels as well) I'll be gradually blending in Red Sea salt (closer to NSW parameters than my RC/IO blend) over the next few months. In other news...status quo for the tank and inhabitants. Only incident was a minor bleaching event with my wild Yuma when I moved it into more direct light (very sensitive to too much light, too quickly). In mostly indirect light, pigment is ~90% back to normal. According to the vendor, this coral was collected at ~18 ft. depth, which is still quite bright, but I'd bet good money that it was positioned at an angle instead of horizontally. 2 Quote Link to comment
Sk8n Reefer Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 Interesting to see the variance- not only the numbers but the fact that one test reads higher than Triton - one lower. Isn't there a company in the states that can do this type of testing also? Do you think the shipping time of the water can have any adverse affect to the data? Quote Link to comment
Nano sapiens Posted November 25, 2014 Author Share Posted November 25, 2014 Interesting to see the variance- not only the numbers but the fact that one test reads higher than Triton - one lower. Isn't there a company in the states that can do this type of testing also? Do you think the shipping time of the water can have any adverse affect to the data? Actually, both Ca and Mg were high based on the Triton test. There are a few labs that will test here in the US, but from the numerous posts I've read 'inconsistencies' are reported as well as the fact that they are quite a bit more expensive. The machine that Triton uses is really quite expensive and uses verified element samples as standards for calibration. The odds are overwhelmingly in favor of it being much more accurate compared to our hobby-grade test kits. For what is being tested, the travel time would have very little, if any, effect (per Triton's coments). As I gradually bring levels down more towards NSW, I'll be keeping a close eye on the stony corals, especially, to see if there are any effects on pigmentation. 1 Quote Link to comment
Sk8n Reefer Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 Actually, both Ca and Mg were high based on the Triton test. There are a few labs that will test here in the US, but from the numerous posts I've read 'inconsistencies' are reported as well as the fact that they are quite a bit more expensive. The machine that Triton uses is quite expensive ($200,000+) and uses verified element samples as standards for calibration. The odds are overwhelmingly in favor of it being much more accurate compared to our hobby-grade test kits. For what is being tested, the travel time would have very little, if any, effect (per Triton's coments). As I gradually bring levels down more towards NSW, I'll be keeping a close eye on the stony corals, especially, to see if there are any effects on pigmentation. Thanks for all the information- this seems to be worth it just to know where the test kits are off- as you said once you know that you can adjust. Interesting to see how your corals react to changing the chemistry . Do you think you'll test with triton again after you make adjustments and see how accurate your new levels are with the test kits? Quote Link to comment
Nano sapiens Posted November 25, 2014 Author Share Posted November 25, 2014 Thanks for all the information- this seems to be worth it just to know where the test kits are off- as you said once you know that you can adjust. Interesting to see how your corals react to changing the chemistry . Do you think you'll test with triton again after you make adjustments and see how accurate your new levels are with the test kits? I'm particularly interested in the long term effect on my two Acros ('Red Planet' and a Granulosa). They are healthy and grow, but pigmentation has always been a bit odd/lack-luster. It is possible that either the high Tin and/or the continuously high Ca and Mg have not allowed them to reach their potential, pigment wise, Since I've manipulated lighting and nutrient levels across a broad spectrum over the last few years, without much change in the pigmentation, correcting these parameters may be helpful. I'm planning on testing again in a year's time...and each year thereafter. 1 Quote Link to comment
Nano sapiens Posted December 4, 2014 Author Share Posted December 4, 2014 Yuma vs. Sponge: Have been increasing food input for the last few weeks and have had a few older sponges grow rapidly as well as a few new ones pop up. Nothing new there, but I noticed one of my Yumas not expanding well. Looking under the skirt today I found a nickel sized sponge next to the Yuma foot and what appeared to be dead tissue inbetween. The Yuma foot had been half dissolved by the sponge, so this was one really toxic organism! This is the first time that I've seen damage to a Ric by one of my sponges, but this sponge was unlike any of my others (creamy whitish/yellowish, lots of large holes and tough like old shoe leather when I removed it). 3 Quote Link to comment
Sk8n Reefer Posted December 6, 2014 Share Posted December 6, 2014 Yuma vs. Sponge: Have been increasing food input for the last few weeks and have had a few older sponges grow rapidly as well as a few new ones pop up. Nothing new there, but I noticed one of my Yumas not expanding well. Looking under the skirt today I found a nickel sized sponge next to the Yuma foot and what appeared to be dead tissue inbetween. The Yuma foot had been half dissolved by the sponge, so this was one really toxic organism! This is the first time that I've seen damage to a Ric by one of my sponges, but this sponge was unlike any of my others (creamy whitish/yellowish, lots of large holes and tough like old shoe leather when I removed it). What type of food are you increasing? Quote Link to comment
Nano sapiens Posted December 6, 2014 Author Share Posted December 6, 2014 What type of food are you increasing? Everything I'm feeding the fish 2x/day until they have full bellies (flakes, pellets, mysid, Rod's), the LPS twice a week (mysid & Rod's) and Reef-Roids 3-4x/week for the SPS, Zoas, etc. I'd say I've doubled the food input since the Triton test, but the only result I see are more sponges (algae/cyano has actually declined slightly). I've let the tank temp go down to 77F for the winter and the corals' metabolism has slowed (a lot less Kalk is needed compared to the summer temp around 80F). Interesting... My poor rose Yuma couldn't hold onto the rock with it's half disolved foot and it's now recovering on the sand bed. Good news is no infection noticeable, so the chances are decent that it will mend. 1 Quote Link to comment
Nano sapiens Posted December 10, 2014 Author Share Posted December 10, 2014 Spoke too soon, had to dispose of the rose Yuma due to lots of slime, a hole in the center of the foot and a brown jelly infection on the rim. Had this one for 1-1/4 year so really a shame, but best not to endanger the other Yumas by keeping it. It appears that once the sponge toxin had eroded the foot, infection took hold. I had bathed it in Tea Tree Oil twice, but didn't work so well this time. One of my orange Yumas started to slime around the foot a few days ago and I cleared it off every day. The last two days it's been slime free. This morph has been with me since 2001 and has proved to be quite hardy, so fingers crossed. The one I'm most concerned about is the latest wild Yuma, but it's looking okay so far. To play it safe, I've reduced light output by about 20% so there'll be less stress on these for the next week or two, upped the iodine dosing slightly and angled the water flow to distrub more of the water surface (greater gas exchange to promote more O2 at night). What is interesting is the sequence of events leading up to this: 1. Triton test determines that NO3 and PO4 are below natural oceanic reef levels. 2. Increased feeding to nearly double to 'dirty' the water a bit (fish feedings, Reef-Roids, Aminos). NO3 up to 5, PO4 still undetectable (Salifert). 3. Sponges and Colonial Hydroids multiplying and spreading. 4. Toxiic sponge damages Yuma which developes a terminal infection. 5. *May* be the start of a cascade effect where other Yumas are effected. For this particular tank, it runs best when it runs clean, so back to my former reduced feeding routine. Events like this remind me that in a reef tank seemingly small changes can have unintended consequences... 4 Quote Link to comment
Nano sapiens Posted December 24, 2014 Author Share Posted December 24, 2014 Traditional 'Happy Santa Dendro' pic Macro photo capture of an Orange Rhodactis in the beginning stages of longitudinal fission. The Messenterial filiments are in the process of dividing into two separate sets for each soon-to-be newly created polyp: In other news, I only lost two Yumas total due to infection and all the others seem to be just fine. Could have been a lot worse... 12 Quote Link to comment
Rehype Posted December 24, 2014 Share Posted December 24, 2014 Awesome shot nano....Im glad you were able to contain the outbreak and the rest of your system is healthy Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.