Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Cyber-goby

  • Rank
    Nano Reefer
  • Birthday 04/13/1987

Contact Methods

  • Website

Profile Information

  • Interests
    Reefs, music, RC planes
  1. Cyber-goby's 10 gallon

    Thanks! Imagine what I thought when I came back from X-mas to see all this life already in there! That red algae has already found its way into a couple of friends' tanks:D.
  2. Cyber-goby's 10 gallon

    Here are some pictures of my 10 gallon. It's sort of a "lagoonal" tank, with zoanthids and macroalgae. A very nice contrast to my higher-energy tanks. Unfortunately, the picture quality is pretty poor. Some of the red algae; this stuff actually grew out of the rock. I just had to trim it, because it was taking up too much space! I also have a big stand of Nemastoma. Here are a couple of zoanthid colonies. The really pretty one wouldn't produce a nice picture, so I will wait on those. That one pagoda was doing poorly in my 75, so I put it in the nano where it's actually doing much better. System profile: 96 W Coralife Quad. I'm very happy with the light choice. Prizm Deluxe skimmer. In all honesty, it's mainly a place to put the carbon. A 110 gph pump, rarely turned all the way up. 10 lbs of live rock and about the same of crushed coral. Two fish, a clown goby and a yellow watchman. A pistol shrimp that totally ignores the watchman 5 colonies assorted zoanthids. 1 plate coral 1 pagoda 1 leather frag from my 75.
  3. Using a 20" light fixture over a 24" tank

    If you go to the "Member tanks" forum and look at Tigahboy's 15S, you will find that it looks (with his temp. light) a lot like what your tank could look like (light shorter than the tank and whatnot). You could model your tank after that, or just look at it. It's pretty nice.
  4. Custom tank poll

    Same here. Short people like shorter tanks, even if the difference is only four inches.
  5. 10g Lighting

    Depends... A lot of the SPS keepers have metal halides. It's very difficult to get the necessary intensity in the small space over a nano without MHs. A lot of the shroom/softy/zoos people (like me)use PC. I personally use the 96w Quad from Coralife. It seems that thing was made for people like me (and tanks like mine). A lot of people also use the 80w Current USA fixture. That one has the advantage of seperate bulbs, so you can do dawn/dusk. It's also more expensive, which is why I got the other one.
  6. Using a 20" light fixture over a 24" tank

    Well, the lighting would be enough for your corals. In fact, if they're in the same position relative to the light, they won't notice a thing. The only problem is that there will be a little space on each side that is fairly low light. This would end up being very little space, though. If you get a taller tank, you might want more light so that you can put more light-intensive stuff on the bottom (should you want it), but shrooms should do fine under your light even near the bottom. As far as aesthetics, it wouldn't necessarily be the prettiest, but I've seen some tanks that have a light set-up like yours that are absolutely gorgeous. It's really up to you. The only problem I could foresee is -possibly- heating issues.
  7. GRR! When fads go horribly wrong....

    I'm not going to comment on the keeping of octopi/-uses, but I have to point out, that if we were following the standard Latin rules, the plural would indeed be octopi. Adding "-es" for the plural is the rule for 3rd-declension Latin nouns (I don't know of any scientific names that are 3rd declension). Octopus would likely be a 2nd-declension noun, so its singular nominative ending of "-us" would be changed to "-i" for the plural. Ahh, the good old days of Latin class. So useless except for trivia. I'm taking a real language now:).
  8. 10 gal sps reef a pipe dream?

    With a tank like yours, who can blame you? All the color of SPS (in my opinion), but it's different. You're tank makes me reconsider setting up an SPS nano (still not sure anyway; not sure I will have the time with college and whatnot) . Way cool tank!
  9. New way of measuring light intensity?

    Whoops, did the math wrong; VHOs do produce a higher output. I'll have to look at how I made that mistake. Probably punching too many buttons too quickly. That puts them ahead of most PCs, but I can't give a single value for T5s because, like you said, you can just cram so many of them into a given space. This is an interesting article I just found. I can no longer claim my idea as original, but I now have backing (cut and paste; my links never work right): http://www.c-sea.org/members/brad/articles...light/#lumanpar So, instead of watts/sq. inch, you just have PAR (or lumens)per square inch. Fairly simple; you just have to find the PAR rating for your light/ballast combination. That shouldn't take too long given the wealth of information online. Note, however, that I am NOT trying to come up with a way to say a tank of dimensions xyz will need either a or b light (that would be called the watt-per-gallon "rule"). What I'm giving people is a way to say, "ok, this light will give me x intensity at y depth, allowing me to keep z coral in this part of the tank." without a lux meter
  10. New way of measuring light intensity?

    It seems to work out in such a way that it models reality. That is, it predicts that metal halides haved the highest penetration (and intensity), followed by, I believe T5 and PC (lots of little tubes in a small area), then VHOs (lots of wattage, but it's fairly spread out - not as good penetration), and finally NOs. The beautiful thing is that it doesn't matter what size tank it is. To illustrate this, consider the following problem: You have a 900000000 gallon tank (absurdly huge). Over this tank is a single 150 W metal halide (the corals in the rest of the tank are probably glad this is only a thought problem). Though the tank is certainly underlit using a wpg, in the column below that metal halide, we can predict that there is enough light for corals, and we can predict where in the water column the light dies off to an unnacceptable level. Now let's say you have a much, much smaller tank (a 30 cube, for instance) with the same single metal halide. We predict(using the formula that this water column (assuming the lamps were at the same height) will have the same exact light intensity as the one in the huge tank. That is a more accurate representation of the way light works. Light doesn't care how big the tank is; it is concerned only with the size of the area it is illuminating.
  11. New way of measuring light intensity?

    Like I've said multiple times, I'm not trying to come up with a totally accurate model. I'm trying to come up with a model that will quickly estimate the intensity of light at a given point. The W/sq. inch (or candela/sq inch), though far from perfect, is nonetheless somewhat accurate, especially if you are a newbie trying to plan a tank. It's certainly far, far better than watts per gallon, and it allows you to predict, to some degree, where, if anywhere, a particular coral can go, once someone (possibly myself, if I get the grant that I'm seeking) finds with experimentation what defines low light, high light, etc. If you want to get exact, you need a lux meter, bottom line. The only problem with that, as I see it, is that you can only test a certain system once it's set up, which means there's not much you can do to change it (of course, you can still use a lux meter to determine what areas in a tank are appropriate for what corals). With all the headache involved in finding an appropriate light source, and generalization, however imperfect, that still models reality somewhat, will be of benefit.
  12. New way of measuring light intensity?

    Depth of the tank itself is not taken into account in the W/sq inch. It is taken into account later when I said you could multiply the intensity by the percent loss with depth. "Concentration" is just a term I used because I didn't have a better term. What I mean is that it takes into account the fact that certain systems concentrate more light into a given area. This would of course predict that metal halides give you more concentration than the same wattage of anything else, because the anything else's wattage would be spread over a greater area. The formula assumes that the reflector is of good quality. Distance between the lamp and the water is taken into account, and here's why: if you take x-lamp, and have it y-inches away from the water, then your intensity will be z. However, if you move it out to 2y inches, the new intensity will be .25z. The new intensity is the old intensity divided by the radius squared. Elementary geometry. One thing that needs to be changed is that lights really need to be in candelas, not watts. However, for the purpose of A QUICK ESTIMATE, watts actually seem to do okay. Ok, though, is not good enough.
  13. New way of measuring light intensity?

    If we can just work on a simple but accurate-enough definition, I think that would really help people. It might not be doable in one's head, but the math is still pretty straightforward. And anything is better than wpg. I will keep thinking about it.
  14. New way of measuring light intensity?

    If you think about it, most of the variables (depth of tank, "concentration" of light, etc.; everything except clarity of water-still working on that) are taken into account. This would even allow you to consider where in a given tank a certain coral can go, if anywhere. The only thing we lack is a definition (in W/sq. inches) of what is high light intensity, what is low light intensity, etc. I am coming up with a plan to verify my idea. Again, though, all thoughts are appreciated.
  15. New way of measuring light intensity?

    Actually, watt/sq inch inch is a power per unit area, which is actually the scientific definition of intensity (I wonder why that didn't occur to me before). What my idea takes into account is the fact that, for instance, an x-watt light that is y-inches long produces more intensity for a coral than a light that is also x-watts, but is 2y-inches long. The idea is still very rough, but it could be hammered into working.