Coral Tank from Canada (1350gal Display Tank)

[mr.wilson]

Mr. Wilson, just curious on your CA reactor setup. i see your using standard CO2 regulators. have you looked into the AquariumPlants electronic ones?
i am sure you have been doing this long enough to where you have the standard ones down pat, but us newbies seem to do better with the AP ones. just a suggestion to look into if you ever have a problem or something.

also your comment on lighting, what are you wanting information on? color, brightness, ect....
i think its hard to give opinions when its not my tank... i always ran 20K 400w XM's on my tank, and loved everything about them. i just picked up some 12K reeflux bulbs and them make everything look totally different. (im currently running 20Kxm's on one side of the tank and 12K's on the other..... it has been like this for a while now and i still cant decide which i like the best... so i am supplementing to see what looks better as a combo. mainly because i dont want to burn 400w bulbs all day. )

i know that wasnt the answer you were looking for, but its my opinion......

I had never heard of that brand, but it looks promising from the company website. The price also looks fair for what you get.

The Schuran reactor controls the feed from the influent rather than effluent so there is no back pressure or pressure change like other reactors. For this reason, standard (non-electronic) regulators are "set it and forget it".

As far as lighting goes, I was asking about the general "look" of the light. We have taken our measurements but we are also factoring in appearance. Everyone will have a personal preference, so I was curious what is "popular".

I have tried 20,000K, and now 14,000K bulbs in the 250w MHL, but I think they are still a little too blue (Phoenix). If we went with MHL, I would likely mix and match a few colour temperatures abd brands so it doesn't look too homogenous.

The 400w MHL looks too white, but it could easily work with VHO T5 (95w/48" bulb) actinic supplementation. I agree with Dave's "white sand" rule of thumb.

We have two LED lights arriving soon from Aqua Illuminations and Orphek for testing. Both are very good lights, it's just a matter of which is best suited for our application.

 

[mr.wilson]

Good progress.
Hats off to you guys.
For lighting,
Due to limited space, I think you should go for LED.

Thank you Sir... well there you go, it's decided - LED

I like your 400 watt MHL, but we can't mount them high enough to get the kind of spread you have. On the plus side, we are getting minimal algae growth on the glass due to bulb orientation.

 

[mr.wilson]

Shawn

Have you taken any par readings with the different bulbs.
I had the Ushio 400w 14k bulb on the PFO HQI Which are actually 430w.
At about 1ft directly down from the bulb the Quantum Par meter maxed at 2000. therefore over that by how much I won't know. I did notice that the bulbs after 6months the spectrum shifts over to the yellow side. I you have either alot of T-5 to of set the yellow that will work.
Then I tried the Ushio 20k, less par but still good numbers
1500-1600 same location. A little to blue for my taste, but because I am not running supplemental lighting , I am stuck with the 20K , but if you do have supplemental lighting I would work with the 14k. You do need quite a bit of it, the 14k are overpowering.

IMO

No shortage of PAR with the MHL and plasma lights so far, but the LED we have isn't suited for a deep tank like ours. The Aqua Illuminations light is an excellent selection for most tank, but time will tell if it can truly hit 200 PAR on the substrate everywhere.

One of the problems with LED fixtures is they don't have a huge coverage area, especially since our clearance is minimum. It's hard to wire in (and pay for) multiple fixtures. We are looking at 3 x 6' fixtures for MHL, compared to 15 - 54 LED fixtures. That;s a lot of cords and a lot of ca$h

 

[mr.wilson]

Shawn I found my manual, here it is

Thanks. They sent one when we requested. Ours is the larger JS 2, but more or less the same animal.

 

[CalmSeasQuest]

Spectacular, simply spectacular. Congratulations Peter, Shawn et al....

I can't imagine this build being duplicated, much less surpassed. Beyond the overwhelming splendor of the tank, you'd have to replicate the home to create such a perfect space (i.e. all-side and multiple floor viewing...)

 

[mr.wilson]

It used to be, all you needed was the rubber insert for the specific probe size you were going to use. Also Shawn I would highly recommend against using that type of calcium for that reactor, it is very efficient in the use of co2, use the large grain stuff as recommended by Schuran.

The model we have is rated for tank between 800-2,500 gallons. Our application will have a very high demand so we are looking at the lower number and possible beyond.

It doesn't make sense to run a calcium reactor, then dose chemicals to help it keep up. In anticipation of this shortcoming, we are planning ahead with faster dissolving media. If it doesn't perform up to our expectations we will try the recommended larger media. If it dissolves too quickly, we will simply raise the PH and use less Co2.

I am considering using Rowalith C+ which is a combination of fast dissolving (soft) and slow dissolving (harder) media designed for fluidized bed calcium reactors. Adding some dolomite (calcium magnesium carbonate) for higher magnesium is another plan. We will be adding some dolomite to our magic mud for the mangroves as they use mag to osmotically filter out salts.

Let me know if there is something you know about the larger media that I am missing. To my knowledge it is slightly softer than standard aragonite and larger to avoid clogging. Clogging is less likely with a fluidized bed and finer media will dissolve much faster due to increased surface area and agitation. Co2 bubble have nowhere to be trapped in a fluidized reactor.

 

[nuccadoc]

Simply fantastic Peter! It's a shame you can't remove the pillar.


Scott

 

[Crisis64]

The model we have is rated for tank between 800-2,500 gallons. Our application will have a very high demand so we are looking at the lower number and possible beyond.

It doesn't make sense to run a calcium reactor, then dose chemicals to help it keep up. In anticipation of this shortcoming, we are planning ahead with faster dissolving media. If it doesn't perform up to our expectations we will try the recommended larger media. If it dissolves too quickly, we will simply raise the PH and use less Co2.

I am considering using Rowalith C+ which is a combination of fast dissolving (soft) and slow dissolving (harder) media designed for fluidized bed calcium reactors. Adding some dolomite (calcium magnesium carbonate) for higher magnesium is another plan. We will be adding some dolomite to our magic mud for the mangroves as they use mag to osmotically filter out salts.

Let me know if there is something you know about the larger media that I am missing. To my knowledge it is slightly softer than standard aragonite and larger to avoid clogging. Clogging is less likely with a fluidized bed and finer media will dissolve much faster due to increased surface area and agitation. Co2 bubble have nowhere to be trapped in a fluidized reactor.

Hi Shawn, the Schuran has a gas/water separator at the base that is designed to recirculate the co2 within the reactor as apposed to other reactors that just allow it to escape, this is the reason they recommend the larger media. These reactors are tricky to setup & stabilize, but once done properly they work perfectly. I've only used the recommended media along with ZeoMag.
I have never tried it with smaller media, would be curious to know the results.

 

[mr.wilson]

Hi Shawn, the Schuran has a gas/water separator at the base that is designed to recirculate the co2 within the reactor as apposed to other reactors that just allow it to escape, this is the reason they recommend the larger media. These reactors are tricky to setup & stabilize, but once done properly they work perfectly. I've only used the recommended media along with ZeoMag.
I have never tried it with smaller media, would be curious to know the results.

Smaller media that is not fluidized would definitely cause problems, but a fluidized bed will allow Co2 to flow freely, more so than the peanut size media they recommend.

What I don't know is how hard the sugar fine sand is. It may be difficult to dissolve by nature, regardless of the rubbing and maxed out surface area. I contact Caribbsea to find out what it is comprised of. If it has fewer shells, which I suspect it does, than the calcium to phosphate ratio will be better. Media rich in shells dissolves fast, but has higher phosphate. Time will tell.

 

[canyousee]

Shawn from the pictures I like the lights at the over flow section, then the lights at the end of the 8' section I do not like the lights at the 90 deg. heading to the over flow. Great team work every thing just soooooooooooo sweet. Those pumps are unbelievable can you buy them in North America or did you buy them in Europe?

 

[mr.wilson]

Shawn from the pictures I like the lights at the over flow section, then the lights at the end of the 8' section I do not like the lights at the 90 deg. heading to the over flow. Great team work every thing just soooooooooooo sweet. Those pumps are unbelievable can you buy them in North America or did you buy them in Europe?

Thanks, the feedback helps. I bought the pumps from Europe.

 

[Marcelo_Brasil]

I´ve just found the topic.....i remember your posts at Chingchai´s topic.....i´ve been away from RC for months, personal problems, already been solved. I just return to watch Chingchais tank two or three weeks ago, but only today i read the topics list and found this...
I only read the first 3 pages....but feel that i have to post right now....than i will right back to read the hole thread...
Peter, i´m sure that i´ll find a amazing project. As soon i went trough all the pages will talk to you again.
Thanks for the effort to share with us...As a Chingchai´s fan, i´ll love to have another "guru" to follow...
A big hug from from Brazil...

 

[elijaher]

Things are looking great.

 

[t kish]

Simply fantastic Peter! It's a shame you can't remove the pillar.


Scott

Would it not be possible to replace the pillar with some kind of glass or acrylic
blocks or pole ?
Something that would give the support needed but be some what invisible.
There has to be something out there that would work.

Tim k

 

[crazzy]

Holy Thit!!

Holy Thit!!

That is truly remarkable Peter, congratulations to the you and your chosen team:beer:

As for Mr. Wilsos request regarding lighting, I like the left hand part of the tank in the shot below. IMHO it is between the extremes to the left and right of this part and more "natural" looking

As promised. I can only post ten at a time, so three more posts to go. Video needs at least week before I can find time to edit it.

 

[NexDog]

Who Wants To Be A MillionAire?

(yes, me, please)

 

[mr.wilson]

Would it not be possible to replace the pillar with some kind of glass or acrylic
blocks or pole ?
Something that would give the support needed but be some what invisible.
There has to be something out there that would work.

Tim k

I'll look into a crystal stripper pole, this may take some time

 

[Briney Dave]

Mr. Wilson and Peter, I don't think you can get meaningful feedback on lighting from us arm chair guys. between camera errors and then errors in each of our own monitors, the real color of each section is lost. When I moved my lighting from my old 240 2'wide and tall to 30" tall and 36" wide the spectrum to the eye went from a very nice white (not too harsh) to a much more blue look that I do not like

The rambling point I am trying to make is that advice about a particular fixture from someone not using the same width and depth will not look the same at all.

Now if you fly me up there and toss in a bottle of wine I will gladdly share my lighting opinion LOL

 

[t kish]

I'll look into a crystal stripper pole, this may take some time

:dance: :thumbsup:

Tim K

 

[mr.wilson]

Mr. Wilson and Peter, I don't think you can get meaningful feedback on lighting from us arm chair guys. between camera errors and then errors in each of our own monitors, the real color of each section is lost. When I moved my lighting from my old 240 2'wide and tall to 30" tall and 36" wide the spectrum to the eye went from a very nice white (not too harsh) to a much more blue look that I do not like

The rambling point I am trying to make is that advice about a particular fixture from someone not using the same width and depth will not look the same at all.

Now if you fly me up there and toss in a bottle of wine I will gladdly share my lighting opinion LOL

True, but it always helps getting a fresh, unbiased(ish) eye. We have been staring at the tank too much and have watched the evolution. The contrast of the different lights both helps and hinders the process.

I'm either getting used to the 150 watt HCI MHL lights, or they are colour shifting (which is unlikely for HCI), or they don't look so yellow with the plasma beside it, or the Phoenix 250W MHL are too blue. I think it's a combination of these. Those fixtures still pose the problem of tank access as they are bulky and double wide. The other issues are they have a very narrow beam of light which offers high PAR per watt, but at the cost of hot spots and dark shadowy areas.

I will try some 250W MHL HQI Giesemann bulbs next week to try something less blue than Phoenix 14k.