Coral Tank from Canada (1350gal Display Tank)
- Thread starter nineball
- Start date
- Status
nineball
Active member
Very good Dave except I believe that you would be Octactically squared if you counted all the appendages but still symmetrical to the rest of us.
Peter
dave.m
Active member
Well, comatulids are still crinoids, which means echinoderms. Supposedly you're supposed to be able to take all the branching arms apart and finally pare them back down to a multiple of five original arms. Or you could just sit back and enjoy them.
Nice article about keeping feather stars here.
Dave.m
Nice article about keeping feather stars here.
Dave.m
thediscusman
New member
Amazing tank !!!!
mr.wilson
.Registered Member
We are going to use 120˚ lenses for the middle row of LEDs on Peter's tank for this same reason. On these outer margins, the light needs to travel 30" deep in the water and over a few inches to illuminate the centre of the tank. These outer lights are mounted higher and at an angle towards the centre.
The middle row that will be replacing the metal halide fixtures needs to be suspended below the cooling duct so the clearance is limited. As a result, we can't simply raise the LED fixtures to spread the 90˚ spread of light. The 120˚ lenses will not concentrate the beam of light as much as the 90's. The centre of the tank has mostly high peaks of reef structure so most corals are within 6-12" of the surface.
It is important to keep in mind that there are no easy rules of thumb when choosing reef lighting. It is easy to fall into traps like "my tank is 24 x 24, so I need a light that covers this area uniformly". In reality, you are illuminating your reef, not the footprint of your tank. You don't want to cast light on the glass where you have to clean or spotlight an ugly overflow box or powerhead. A 24 x 24 area likely has only a 12-18" x 24" area to light up. If you angle/tilt the light fixture back toward the back wall, you will direct light away from the viewing panel (less algae to clean), minimize shadows on fish (better colour rendition), illuminate the sides of corals (better pigmentation and growth), and the light footprint is increased.
Square fixtures cast uniform light footprints along the X and Y axis (front to back & left to right). In some cases, this means that you are wasting resources over illuminating the sand and front glass. With a wide tank (30-48") it looks best with open sand areas. Narrower tanks (18-24") look fine with wall to wall corals covering the sand right to the front glass and have more or less the same light demands as wider tanks. Standard optics (90˚) will have no problem covering narrow tanks. It is the wider tanks where 120˚ optics are needed.
The type of corals you want to keep will also dictate the light intensity you will need. Peter has some SPS that require the high PAR delivered by the 90˚ optics. To answer your question, for a 48"x24"x24" mixed reef tank, I would recommend two PR156 with 120˚ optics. This will give you viable real estate anywhere in the sand for clams etc.
nineball
Active member
Dave, Apple has SIRI and this thread has DAVE. Excellent reference, thank you very much. However you really hit the jackpot for me with an article I found linked at the bottom of that very same page on ideal temperatures. When I started this thread one of the first questions I asked was what was the ideal target for a salt water mixed reef tank. I remember at the time that there was no consensus and the margin was quite wide. Taking all the information I could get at the time I settled on 27 C or 80.6 F. The article from Coral Magazine is probably the best reference on the subject I have seen to date. It is incredibly coherent and down to earth for both the novice as well as experienced Aquarist. I would like to have that link included on our web site (hint, hint) as a best practice. Bottom line is that a target range of 25C to 28 C or 77F to 82F is probably the most achievable and practical range for folks in our hobby. There is even a strong argument for a brief spike once very two weeks (84f) to 'prepare' the animals for an inevitable foray into an excessive heat wave. I won't repeat the entire article here but I highly recommend it to our community as a best practice.
Perhaps Dave you can post the link here as I can't figure out how you do it......
:deadhorse1:
Peter
dave.m
Active member
Here is the article Peter asked to have a link to:
Reefs Magazine - Summer 2011 -The Great Temperature Debate, Part IV by Chris Jury
It has also been added to the Links page on Four Masters.
Cheers!
Dave.M
Reefs Magazine - Summer 2011 -The Great Temperature Debate, Part IV by Chris Jury
It has also been added to the Links page on Four Masters.
Cheers!
Dave.M
nuccadoc
Member
Peter I hope you don't mind, I have found the putty you and Mr Wilson used to assemble your rock structure here in the U.S. I know a number of us were interested in purchasing it, and at the time it was not available. I found the link on another reef forum.
http://www.jimsreef.com/estore/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=9_76&products_id=146
http://www.jimsreef.com/estore/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=9_76&products_id=146
othercents
New member
Thanks for the recommendation and the explanation of how to choose the correct lighting. With the need for two PR156s I think I won't be allowed to get them vs MH, or T5s.
I personally like peninsula aquariums and open areas of sand since I hate not being able to see all that space behind the rocks, so angling the lighting doesn't really work for me. It would be nice if lighting manufactures built the lighting to correctly fit the tank since for most of us are using standard tank sizes. The LEDs would be best designed with middle rows of lights at 120 degree optics mounted straight and outer rows angled (or repositionable) to the center with 90 or 120 degree optics. However based on how they designed the older technologies, I don't see this happening.
Thanks,
David
glparr
Waterbox Keeper
Unfortunately, I've had to remove the photos I made of Peter's tank. Activity on this thread has blown the lid off of my bandwidth allowance and is now costing me more money than I'm willing to spend on my website. I'll look for another way to share the images in this thread.
Gary
Gary
nineball
Active member
Dave, perhaps there is a way we can kill 17 birds with one balloon and help Gary Parr. Could you reach out to Gary and provide a folder for him for fish photos that he has taken? Since I have unlimited space and bandwidth on Phanfare we can make a folder titled "world's best marine aquarium photographer' :beer: and perhaps transfer photos there? Is this possible? We could make them available both in the website and here?
Thoughts?
Gary??
Peter
dave.m
Active member
Peter, I do not have admin permissions on your photo album site, but this is certainly something you could do. Create an album on Phanfare, perhaps "Images by Gary Parr". Have Gary email you each image, one per email, and probably compressed so as not to blow out your email service. Save each image onto your PC, uncompress it, and then upload it to your Phanfare site. Delete the images from your PC when completed. Then create a new post on this thread with a link to either each image, or to a slideshow you could create of Gary's images.
Dave.M
Dave.M
arctictwist
Member
why cant he just use photobucket?
dave.m
Active member
For the reason that Gary stated, that the load RC is putting on the bandwidth for his account is more than he is willing to pay for.arctictwist said:
As Peter noted, he has his own photo server and can well afford the load that RC puts on it. There is no reason that Gary should ever be put out of pocket for the fine photography he has demonstrated to us. That was never the intention.
Don't worry, we will have this all sorted within a day or two.
Dave.M
arctictwist
Member
sry, i must have not read well enough. I didnt know you had to pay for use on PB. i use it all the time.
chingchai
Premium Member
If you don't pay, they will have limited space for you to load picture.
- Status
Similar threads
