• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Paleoreef103

  • Rank
    Nano Reefer
  • Birthday 06/05/1984

Contact Methods

  • Website

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Iowa City, Iowa
  1. That's fantastic! What are the plans for the three tanks? I always wanted to do something like this so I could have a species tank without feeling like I was giving up so much diversity.
  2. Depending on your coral situation, dwarf/pygmy angels. My old pygmy angel in my 40 was in constant motion and definitely picked at the rock. Suitably sized wrasses will also behave in a similar fashion. That being said, nothing is really going to replicate the full tang experience in a 40 gallon tank.
  3. What kind of corals are you trying to keep? How controllable do you need them to be?
  4. Abyss Peninsula. I'd take the drop off portion of it and put a few inches of sand down there and use it to house a pair of jawfish, a garden of M. digitatas, and a royal gramma. Love the give away!
  5. Well, I will tell you that my gorgonian only really started growing well and was happy when it was getting NAILED by flow so honestly, I'd probably put it on the left island under the filter.
  6. Nice set-up you have going there. The height to depth of the 29 makes it hard to aquascape, but you've done a pretty good job with it. Might I suggest you pick up some photosynthetic gorgonians to fill more of the vertical space without using much horizontal space?
  7. Easily your best option as a budget piece
  8. Honestly? Do yourself a favor and pick up a Jebao RW-4. They are a bit more than a Koralia evo 850, but they are smaller, stronger and controllable. The small Koralias always seemed to under-perform and the big ones take up a huge amount of space.
  9. I'm very interested to see how that shape of ATS works out for you. I had an idea for one pretty similar to that one, but considering I only set up tanks once every four to five years, I've never got the opportunity to put it into practice. Tank looks like that move was smooth! Those deep blue 80s are basically the perfect step up from 30 breeders.
  10. Sorry, I moved out of freshwater in the 90s and haven't been back since. During that time, I kept a pair of corys and goldfish in a 5 gallon tank and that wasn't unheard of. They eventually moved to a 20H and lived about 10 years. Good to hear that has changed.
  11. I'm not going to lie to you. This is a very bad idea. They are really hard to keep and don't take that as a challenge. Cut your teeth on fish that are much easier to keep before giving Mandarins a shot. To put this into context, I've been keeping reefs for well over 10 years, have a 4 year old 40 breeder with a 10 gallon fuge and I doubt I'd be able to keep it happy without several hours of work a week purely for the benefit of that specific fish or a huge monetary commitment to have pods shipped in a few times a month. They are also pretty smart for a fish which means they'll stress out in a very small environment like a 5 gallon pico. If you want a fish that is constantly searching for food, pecks at rocks, and is colorful upgrade to a minimum of 15 gallons and pick up a four or six-line wrasse or a pseudochromis. They're colorful, almost idiot proof if you have a cover, active, and engaging. If you want a fish for your five gallon tank, you really should only look into a small goby (green banded or neon and no bigger) or a pair at most. Maaaaybe a small yellowtail damsel instead. Keep in mind that saltwater is NOT the same thing as freshwater for comparing bioloads. A five gallon freshwater tank could easily handle a few corydora catfish and a small school of small tetras. A five gallon reef would be bordering on overstocked with a pair of 1.5" neon gobies. Please take everyone's recommendation and do not try to keep a mandarin in your tank.
  12. I had a set up similar to yours. My solution was 3-ups of lime, 2700K warm white, and cyan. It makes a big difference. Much better oranges, reds, purples, and yellows. For reference I started with 28 XP-E RBs (the base fixture was made in 2011), 14 xp-g NW, and 4 xp-e blues. Since then I have added 9 430nm HVs, 4 410nm TVs, 3 XP-E2 Blue (465nm), 3 Rebel cyans (505nm), 3 Limes, and 3 2700K warm whites. The look is almost perfect though adding 3 more limes and 3 more warm whites while turning the neutrals down slightly would probably be even better. If I had to start again, I'd just use 1 Lime:1 2700K warm white as the base and move from there.
  13. The first part is definitely something you can easily accomplish. The second is basically ignoring Jedimasterben's points. Here are somethings you need to consider. The human eye sees greens and reds extremely well, but the shorter wavelength blues and violets don't "pop" as brightly. In particular, barely visible 395nm light is going to be many times VISIBLY dimmer than almost any other LED. To the eye, a single Rebel ES Lime at 500mA is going to be far brighter than at least six 410nm true violets at 500mA (could be more like twelve 410nm TVs) and 410nm is easier to perceive than 395nm. Also consider that there really aren't highly efficient LEDs at that 395nm mark. It's like comparing a V6 from the 80s to a V6 of today. You don't get as much light for the energy than other LEDs. It is also important to note that just because your human eyes don't perceive it, your corals will. You could easily bleach corals with a handful of 430 and 410nm LEDs that put out hundreds of PAR and still looks dim. This is definitely true for 395nm light as well. In short, if you want to see a big difference, you're going to have a TON of 395nm LEDs that will cost you a lot, be barely perceivable, and could easily put out too much light for your tank to the detriment of your corals. You are much better off of with a few 430nm HVs and a few 410nm TVs to run with your normal lights and then a few 395nms LEDs to run by themselves for an hour before and after your main lights.
  14. Hi. I just submitted my dissertation that included a section on global climate change. It's real. It's happening. It's mostly man made. It's not that the planet hasn't been warmer in the past, it's the rate in which this is occurring that should scare the begeezus out of everyone. Let's think about it in relationship to earth's past. We have an extremely accurate record of the climate dating back to 800,000 years ago based on various ice cores (Dome C ice core with collaborating evidence from Vostok dating to 400,000 years). We know that in these ice cores the coldest the mean average temperature recorded by these ice cores got was during the longest ice cores at about -8o C from what we called baseline (though today's average is about 0.5o C up from the baseline). Doesn't sound very big at the moment, right? Well, consider that that 8o C is the difference between it being a nice 45 degree day where I live and living within spitting distance of a massive continental glacier and you might begin to see how much difference a few degrees can make. How long did it take from that 8 degree shift to happen? A few thousand years. That's a nice long time for animals to adapt and change their ranges. When you are talking about 4o + C in a century, you're forcing things too quickly for things to really adapt. A single degree or two in a century is enough to drastically change the world's environment. Please examine the IPCC and NOAA's findings on the subject. Can this rapidity be found in the rock record? Possibly at the PETM due to (most likely) methane hydrates (which scientists are becoming increasingly worried about us destabilizing) and we REALLY don't want a repeat of that event. Much like rapidly breaking a car from 25 mph is not going to hurt you, but slamming into a parked car going that speed might give you some reasonable injuries, the rate of change (velocity or temperature) is absolutely an important aspect to consider when discussing ramifications. We're also talking about thermal expansion of the oceans and ocean acidification. The melting of glaciers and the increased volume of the oceans caused by the oceans heating up (not just at the surface, but also at depth) means the water level is rising. We're already starting to see islands being submerged by the increasing sea level causing people to move off entire islands. A few small islands aren't that big of a deal. The problems are going to be really bad when major coastal cities have to be abandoned and the amount of climate refugees starts climbing. I'd like to also point out this is not really even an issue in other countries and is definitely not a major source of contention in academia. 97% of scientists working in disciplines that contribute to climate research (not even scientists that directly work on climate, just ones that happen to be in a field that CAN study climate) accept that climate change is caused by human activities (Doran, 2009). You ever try to get 97% of people to agree on anything let alone a bunch of scientists? It's nearly impossible. I've seen respected scientists nearly come to blows over the interpretation of a single rock unit or if two populations should be counted as different species. At the same time, even the most hard-nosed skeptics accept the conclusions when actually presented with the data. The most notable was Richard Muller who was a physics professor and a hard-nosed climate denier until he actually replicated the studies he thought were questionable and was forced by the data to conclude exactly what the original studies found: global climate change is happening and was likely entirely due to human activity. As for the satellite data (you listened to Ted Cruz didn't you?) you should look at the newest data. Actually, you don't even have to look at the newest data. 2006 will suffice. The original discrepancy was actually instrument error (Christy and Santer, 2006) and when actually calibrated do not show this discrepancy. A lot of Al Gore complaints on this thread. That's fine. He's a blowhard and I won't argue on that point. If you want an actual documentary that is less theatrical and emotional and more about the facts, look into "Thin Ice" by Simon Lamb. It explores the root causes, the evidence, the climatic history, the physics, the projections, and the alleged scientific impropriety in climate science. I'd also recommend Merchants of Doubt if you want to look into the journalistic and political side of things.
  15. I've always been tempted to add a strip of LEDs angled toward the back to the front my fixture for this reason.