MrAnderson Posted October 15, 2007 Author Share Posted October 15, 2007 isn't is surprising how dim tank lights are compared to natural sunlight? when i look at my tank at night, i think it looks bright. then when i happen to catch my tank when it's getting sun i'm shocked how bright it is, and how dim the tank is without it. Link to comment
Hinecken Posted October 15, 2007 Share Posted October 15, 2007 Tank looks great Mr. A Down here in FL sunlight hitting a tank can be a real "kiss of death." It tends to grow algae something fierce and the temp swing if you don't have a chiller can be terrible. Question for you regarding your sandbed, what type of sand did you end up with, and what particle size do you prefer? Link to comment
MrAnderson Posted October 15, 2007 Author Share Posted October 15, 2007 yeah, the sunlight here isn't too strong, and people like tinyreef have had great success with sunlight nanos, so i wanted to sort of dip my toe in the pool. if he hadn't done the experiment here on NR and showed his daily progress, and complete lack of algae, i probably wouldn't have tried it. the sandbed is aragamax oolitic sugar sized, #00093. i supplemented this with about a half cup of premium aquatics' "rock pool sludge" and made a final bed of about 1". and thanks bro - hey i thought you were from shaolin!!? Link to comment
Hinecken Posted October 15, 2007 Share Posted October 15, 2007 and thanks bro - hey i thought you were from shaolin!!? 10304 was back in the day..then I did my stint in Dirty Jerz for the tail-end of highschool and the sickest 4 year party ever that I like to call Rutgers. Now I'm relaxin down here in South Florida. Gave up on the cold and slush about 5 years ago, you can keep it. Nothing like walking outside in the middle of January wearing nothing but boxers and some flip flops to smoke a cig.. Not mention the availability of reef stores is absolutely ridiculous down here compared to the tri-state. I can think of no less than 10 of them within a 30 minute drive from my house. I like to layer the oolitic sugar aragonite over aragonite of the next granule size up, I've had really good luck with it over the past few years... then again, I run minimum 4" beds. I think I'd probably stick with straight sugar size like you if I were going with a shallower sandbed. Link to comment
Caesar777 Posted October 16, 2007 Share Posted October 16, 2007 Anytime you stack different grades of sand, it all inevitably mixes together. I always hated my deeper-sandbed tanks; they always had crazy-high phosphate despite low stocking capacity, and always ended crashing. Even when I changed to heavier protein-skimming, better lighting, and more WC's. I can't stand anything more than a quarter-inch of sand, and sugar sand is TOTAL SUCKS because you can't gravel-vac it, and get all the crap out of it. (And yes, my sand still had "critters" despite gravel-vaccing; apparently they can locomote somehow and escape the siphon! ) Lookin' good, eh. JMO, I concur on the Monti id. Link to comment
MrAnderson Posted October 16, 2007 Author Share Posted October 16, 2007 which one? ray said confusa, cmador said blue ridge... Link to comment
Caesar777 Posted October 16, 2007 Share Posted October 16, 2007 I meant that I concur with your id. Yes, a subject would have been helpful. LOL! Link to comment
MrAnderson Posted October 16, 2007 Author Share Posted October 16, 2007 aw thanks. it's really liveaquaria's Link to comment
Caesar777 Posted October 16, 2007 Share Posted October 16, 2007 Yeah, my post was going to say "I concur with your concurrence of LA's id", but thought it was just too much of a mouthful. Sentence-ful. Heh. Link to comment
MrAnderson Posted October 16, 2007 Author Share Posted October 16, 2007 well i concur with your concurrence of my concurrence of liveaquaria's id, if it helps. Link to comment
spanko Posted October 16, 2007 Share Posted October 16, 2007 well i concur with your concurrence of my concurrence of liveaquaria's id, if it helps. AW!!!!!!! Link to comment
Hinecken Posted October 16, 2007 Share Posted October 16, 2007 I always hated my deeper-sandbed tanks; they always had crazy-high phosphate despite low stocking capacity, and always ended crashing. This generally occurs when the sandbeds aren't given adequate time to mature on their own, 6+ months. I've used them in all my tanks and have never had any detectable readings of phosphate or nitrate. If the layers are thick enough (2" per layer at least) they generally do not mix completely either, I'll start a new thread and dig up some pics for you. Now letting your tank cycle with just sand and rock for 6 or more months and no light isn't exactly most people's idea of fun, it works spectacularly if you can hold out. If you read Dr. Ron Schimek (Sp), Anthony Calfo, or Daniel Knop, you'll find they are all big proponents of DSB's, and some of the most respected members of the hobby. Sorry for the hijack Mr. A, now back to the bangin little tank you have going. Link to comment
c est ma Posted October 16, 2007 Share Posted October 16, 2007 oh - one other thing i totally forgot to mention... ever since seeing tinyreef's "sunlight pico" i wanted to set up my next tank so that it got at least SOME direct sunlight. the way i have it set up, it gets about 2 hrs of direct sunlight from the side. a couple shots: horrendous chromatic aberration on this shot, but interesting nonetheless, you can see the light go through the skeleton: a side shot of the tank, from the direction of sunlight. not a great shot, but give an idea of the exposure: That coralline variety and coloration is out of this world! Is the green (top pic) a coralline, too? What a gorgeous palette...hope they persist for you. Agree about the sunshine--how much brighter it is than our lights, which are just inches away...have yet to have a SW tank in sunlight but have had a frog viv that got afternoon light through the front door transom...even tho the sun was then low in the sky, the brilliance was amazing. --Diane Link to comment
Caesar777 Posted October 16, 2007 Share Posted October 16, 2007 I've seen all the sides of the lots of sand/no sand/some sand/plenum/etc. It's a topic that always gets heated, but ime, dsb's are not what they're purported to be. But yes, long cycles/maturation time are by far pwnage that most people don't realize. People are so impatient. Link to comment
Hinecken Posted October 16, 2007 Share Posted October 16, 2007 People are so impatient Truer words have never been spoken. Link to comment
MrAnderson Posted October 18, 2007 Author Share Posted October 18, 2007 Hinecken may have been right about sunlight being the kiss of death... Everything in the tank still looks good, the M. peltiformis and Sinularia as well. But the M. spumosa started closing it's polyps yesterday and today is shut up tight. I tested all params, and things have never looked better - completely colorless results for ammonia, nitrite, nitrates, and pure yellow without the slightest tinge of green (positive), in other words a solid negative for phosphates. Ca and KH also normal for what my tank has normally maintained - the same values as the freshly mixed saltwater (7.0 dKH and ~410ppm Ca). Even so, i did a water change last night in case there was some other form of contaminant present or chemical warfare from my Sinularia. All other corals look good, really good actually, even after the water change. So because today the coral is still closed up i'm leaning towards the idea that maybe the direct sunlight has shocked the coral, particularly since it is the one parameter that is different for this coral alone. hopefully it snaps out of it. so far no bleaching or tissue recession.... ugh. fingers crossed and shades drawn. Link to comment
Caesar777 Posted October 18, 2007 Share Posted October 18, 2007 Bump that alk way up. Too low imo. Link to comment
MrAnderson Posted October 18, 2007 Author Share Posted October 18, 2007 no way - i've always maintained natural conditions in all my tanks. i'm a firm believer in mother nature knowing best. the corals evolved and lived at those conditions for millions of years, i see no reason to put them in a different chemical environment. Link to comment
aparker Posted October 19, 2007 Share Posted October 19, 2007 no way - i've always maintained natural conditions in all my tanks. i'm a firm believer in mother nature knowing best. the corals evolved and lived at those conditions for millions of years, i see no reason to put them in a different chemical environment. 410 ppm and 7 dKH are pretty close to balanced for aragonite deposition. Maybe 7.5 would be closer, if you think your test kit is that accurate..... I'm running at 415 and 8 right now and everyone looks very happy, thank you.... Link to comment
MrAnderson Posted October 19, 2007 Author Share Posted October 19, 2007 410 ppm and 7 dKH are pretty close to balanced for aragonite deposition. Maybe 7.5 would be closer, if you think your test kit is that accurate..... I'm running at 415 and 8 right now and everyone looks very happy, thank you.... i like those values as well - they're very close to natural, and very well might be, particularly if you allow for test accuracy and technique variation. i was talking about the school of thought where people keep things really elevated, above 9 or 10 dKH, and Ca over 450. that's too far from natural conditions for my taste. that strategy can be employed successfully, no doubt. just not keeping in rhythm with my "experiment". Link to comment
RayWhisperer Posted October 19, 2007 Share Posted October 19, 2007 Could be the sinularia. I used to keep all types of corals in a mixed reef type environment. Everything always did fine IMO. However, when I re-did a tank, I decided no more leathers. Polyp extension was never more after removing the leather. I was amazed at the difference, especially with SPS. It is my belief that leathers constantly exude/excrete/ emit/send out chemicals. I think it gives them an edge to outcompete other corals in an area. Note, this is JUST MY OPINION and I have nothing to back it up, other than personal observances. Just so no one asks. No, the leather wasn't touching anything. Yes, I skimmed and ran carbon. Link to comment
MrAnderson Posted October 19, 2007 Author Share Posted October 19, 2007 very interesting!!! IN YOUR OPINION, or have you heard, if it might kill off a coral in a small volume like mine? or does it just make it "unhappy"? but nothing really changed after the water change i did my weekly 50%. same before as after. :\ Link to comment
Hinecken Posted October 19, 2007 Share Posted October 19, 2007 My money is on sunlight. Link to comment
Caesar777 Posted October 19, 2007 Share Posted October 19, 2007 I think 50% is too much to do at once; but I think that was a typo...? I like calcium to be around 350-400 and alk at 3.25-3.75meq/L. Link to comment
MrAnderson Posted October 19, 2007 Author Share Posted October 19, 2007 those values are ionically very off-balance. for 3.5 meq balanced Ca is around 430. keeping Ca lower should drive non-biological precipitation and a self-fueling cycle of carbonate consumption. and no, my 50% is on purpose. i intend to keep the water as close to the baseline of freshly mixed as possible. Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.