Caesar777 Posted September 17, 2005 Share Posted September 17, 2005 It's been done before, CG, all too many times. If it was something innovative, then I'd think it was "cool", but it's just a case of "I want an animal that requires better care [equipment] than I want to pay for". Looking forward to seeing your new lighting setup, pez. Link to comment
Reef_Mad_Man Posted September 17, 2005 Share Posted September 17, 2005 " have to dissagree with you here CGNano...it was not meant to be an experiment and now he is just trying to prove us wrong because he is just plain stubborn " FINALY!! Someone who CAN see the forest for the trees. If I have to explain it to you dont ask. LOL! Link to comment
il0vepez Posted September 17, 2005 Author Share Posted September 17, 2005 Thanks for the support CGnano. Link to comment
il0vepez Posted September 17, 2005 Author Share Posted September 17, 2005 Originally posted by Caesar777 It's been done before, CG, all too many times. If it was something innovative, then I'd think it was "cool", but it's just a case of "I want an animal that requires better care [equipment] than I want to pay for". Looking forward to seeing your new lighting setup, pez. I think that my setup will cost more than a decent MH. I've got a 3x3 9gauge sheet of silver, a power supply, and a luxeon flood 18. Also, who has done this before? I would like to see a reference so I don't make too many mistakes. Oh wait, I forgot that no one references anything here. They simply assert and arugue based on authority or maybe just steal others' work and present it as their own. Silly me. Link to comment
il0vepez Posted September 17, 2005 Author Share Posted September 17, 2005 Originally posted by Fishfreak218 i have to dissagree with you here CGNano...it was not meant to be an experiment and now he is just trying to prove us wrong because he is just plain stubborn I am stubborn as hell, no doubt. I am not trying to prove anyone wrong. I am trying to make my aquarium look cool, and I don't believe that MH is the solution. I know you think I'm wrong, I know why you think I'im wrong. I don't really care because I also know that you have nothing to base your assumptions on other than anecdotes and personal experience as a hobbyist. I've asked for actual evidence as to why I should not proceed, and I recieve half baked arguements based on internet forums, blogs, and outdated publications for hobbyists. Something tells me that none of my critics have ever cracked a scientific journal about anything much less about anything pertinent or read anything about luxeon floods from any source. The fact of the matter is I've presented a fairly well grounded theory with simple algebra, and no one has been able to poke a hole in it. Not saying I'm right, but no one presented a good reason as to why I'm wrong. BTW, the green luxeon is ****ing blinding. I literally could not see for a good 5 seconds after looking directly at it. Luckily its only green light and no UV. I can't wait to get a cyan one. Link to comment
baris90 Posted September 18, 2005 Share Posted September 18, 2005 I was waiting for such a nice-punch reply from you to all these "6-years experienced" so called "non-newbies"!!! I don't think they are even reading your posts. they are like a bunch of parrots, "LEDs won't work... LEDs won't work.. it has been done before..." I wish they keep their promises when they say "Bye" to this thread and never come back again... applauds applauds il0vepez... Link to comment
Snoop Posted September 18, 2005 Share Posted September 18, 2005 I think leds will work but how many leds Link to comment
lgreen Posted September 18, 2005 Share Posted September 18, 2005 If you think you can do it, then go for it. Part of all good science is criticism lead the way Link to comment
il0vepez Posted September 18, 2005 Author Share Posted September 18, 2005 I appreciate you support CGNano and baris90. Criticism must be eloquent and insiteful to be useful, it must present something that the originaly statements have ignored or assumed. The only criticism I know of so far pointed out that I would need some type of light metering data to be legit. I'm still working on a method I can afford for that. If anyone has anymore criticism, then please share. I've stood in front of a roomful of peers and taken harsher criticism than the worst on this thread, and on topics slightly more dear. The funny thing is that the hasrshest criticism is said with a smile, kindly and clearly. Link to comment
fish04 Posted September 28, 2005 Share Posted September 28, 2005 I have been at this forum for a long time and have seen posts and threads like this come and go. Pez is going to do what hes going to do, and nothing you say is going to change that. Everyone will step on their soapbox to preach the gospel of good fish keeping to no avail. These animals, as stated in the beginning of the post, are usually eaten in thier "home waters", so why get so philosophical about him slowly pi$$ing away his $70? It's his choice, In the mean time he gets his rocks off watching everyone get hot and bothered because he's doing something so "controvercial". Let it go man, it's not worth it..... BTW when this forum started back in 2001-ish a nano-reef was also considered controvercial. "Real" reefers (those who had 55gal+ tanks) would come in here and tell us how irresponsible we were...well here we are, aren't we? Nano's are now an accepted part of the hobby. But Pez, really, no matter what anyone said to you, you kept asking for proof. Beyond dragging a marine biologist in here and have them pull out a Doctoral discertation, no one is goign to be able to provide data that is going to prove you wrong, but that doesn't make you right either. There is a lot of experience here, take it or leave it, no need for an attitude. I can give you my personal experience.. 55 reef ,2 year old tank, 220W VHO lights and a Derasa Clam, it lasted about 4 months. not enough light...but you make the call, I have no empirical data to back it up, experience is worth pages of data. Link to comment
deacon hemp Posted September 28, 2005 Share Posted September 28, 2005 I tried a gold max under 175MH in an 18 gal and failed!They really are hard to keep in a nano,my tank was over a year old.I'd say try it but stong lighting or not they are hard either way so good luck! Link to comment
fish04 Posted September 29, 2005 Share Posted September 29, 2005 Originally posted by CGNano I am very interested to find out what is going to happen. This is a great experiment! For all those that keep putting him down, stop. Its a scientific study. A scientific study implies that there are standards involved, there are no standards involved with this. A scientific study requires data to be kept, regular observations made, and most importantly a control to compare against. None of which are happeing here. In Vegas they have a name for what is going on here...a crap shoot, some people do win, but it's not because they have any control of their fate or know what they are doing. Link to comment
il0vepez Posted October 1, 2005 Author Share Posted October 1, 2005 No doubt this isn't science. No doubt what so ever there is no control experiment. A trip to the local library would substitute for a marine biologst just fine. I spent a good bit of time searching databases, not search engines, before I began this whole project, despite what others assert. I am not trying to get my rocks off. I am trying to document my project. To my knowledge no one has done anything quite the same as this. My light shipped again today. Hopefully it will not be green. Link to comment
Caesar777 Posted October 1, 2005 Share Posted October 1, 2005 Why didn't you set everything up and THEN get the clam? That would imply that it was a planned experiment and not just a stubborn-ity. (I know..) Link to comment
il0vepez Posted October 3, 2005 Author Share Posted October 3, 2005 Update: The 2nd shipment is lost in the mail. Future electronics is shipping me a 3rd on Wed. Hope it works this time. If anyone wants to try this for themselves, then I would truly recommend Future. The first time they handled the wrong color thing, apparently the manufacturer mislabeled a whole bunch and it never got straightened out fully. This time, they straightened out everything with UPS in about 45 minutes. Third time is the charm. Clam has new colors, just to let everyone know. Although, he has firmly attached himself in a very awkward position. Link to comment
il0vepez Posted October 3, 2005 Author Share Posted October 3, 2005 Oh, and they sell them for $89 instead of $350 Link to comment
Caesar777 Posted October 3, 2005 Share Posted October 3, 2005 New photos? Now, for the eightieth time, this was a true experiment, wouldn't you have set everything up--INCLUDING THE LIGHTING--and THEN bought the clam? : Link to comment
il0vepez Posted October 4, 2005 Author Share Posted October 4, 2005 Originally posted by Caesar777 New photos? Now, for the eightieth time, this was a true experiment, wouldn't you have set everything up--INCLUDING THE LIGHTING--and THEN bought the clam? : This is not an experiment. No doubt. So, right after zero comes eighteen? Nice. Link to comment
Caesar777 Posted October 4, 2005 Share Posted October 4, 2005 Oh, okay, so it's again just foolishness realized, then using foolishness to try to fix the situation. Gotcha. Link to comment
Snoop Posted October 4, 2005 Share Posted October 4, 2005 woooooooooooo wooooooooooooooo didnt need to see that much skin Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.