Numbers for Succes!?

[Antonais1391]

Hey every one i got really bored the last couple of nights and decided to punch some numbers on the chemical levels and photo periods of the last 5 years of reef centrals TOTM SPS keepers. I decided opon there TOTM's because they went back so long (back to 2002 to be exact) please remember that this is only observations i have made for discussion with the other members.

Here is the chemical aspect of it i did not include P04, N03, or PH as the first to should be non exestant or minimal and Ph should be correct if alkalinity levels are correct

Calcium 411.94
Alkalinity 9.09
Magnesium 1338.33

These numbers seem very close to what is suggested for most tanks, but a tad lower in calcium and magnesium. I say this because from my experience 450 and 1400 for calcium and magnesium where the "magic numbers". i found that aspect interesting as we are all trying to reach our givin "magic numbers".

I also recorded temperature as this is also a very important aspect of reefkeeping, Especialy SPS in my honest oppinion. here it is

26.026 °C
78.846 °F

This is close to what i try to keep my tanks temperature at (78.5 °F) and it seems like the optimal for grow and motabolism as well if im correct (BTW pleas feel free to correct me )

On to the photoperiods!!! im interested to read comments about this as i was surprised with the results. On to the stats then shall we

Average Metal Halide Photoperiod - 9:45 Hours
Average T5 Photo Period - 12:01 Hours
Average Dawn and Twilight Period - 18. 46 Min before and after the T5 period

In my mind these numbers seem a tad high I would more like likely use - 9:00 hours MH - 11:00 hours T5 - And 15 or 20 Min before and after main T5 photoperiod.

So the most important part is what the forum thinks! i enjoyed spending my weekend nights putting this writeup together for every one and i hope every one finds this usefull in some way as well!
Happy reefing everyone
Antonias1391

 

[cloak]

Very cool!

:thumbsup:

 

[strike2867]

For the average MH period, is that total or how long each of the MH's are on. It would also depend on how high the MHs are above the water.

 

[Antonais1391]

For the average MH period, is that total or how long each of the MH's are on. It would also depend on how high the MHs are above the water.

yes thats very true there where some that had the halides come on at diferent periods and that could be throwing it off a little. wondering how i could fix that issue

 

[mudskipper1]

^You might try just averaging the total for each bulb. Like if 2 bulbs were on for 10 hours, and a 3rd came on for like 4 hours in the middle, you could sum them...24 hours, and divide by the # of bulbs...3 to get an 8 hour average. Not perfect by any means, but might help.

Calcium is indeed lower than i expected. Maybe some tanks have reached their peak, and the owners aren't quite as interested in super rapid growth anymore? just a thought, probably dead wrong. Thanks for putting the time in.

 

[Antonais1391]

^You might try just averaging the total for each bulb. Like if 2 bulbs were on for 10 hours, and a 3rd came on for like 4 hours in the middle, you could sum them...24 hours, and divide by the # of bulbs...3 to get an 8 hour average. Not perfect by any means, but might help.

Calcium is indeed lower than i expected. Maybe some tanks have reached their peak, and the owners aren't quite as interested in super rapid growth anymore? just a thought, probably dead wrong. Thanks for putting the time in.

Ya i redid the numbers for the MH period and got about 8:47 hours. thats a interesting point on the calcium looking at some of them your correct and others still kept it very high. 420 is the number i shoot for personaly :bounce3:

 

[strike2867]

^You might try just averaging the total for each bulb. Like if 2 bulbs were on for 10 hours, and a 3rd came on for like 4 hours in the middle, you could sum them...24 hours, and divide by the # of bulbs...3 to get an 8 hour average. Not perfect by any means, but might help.

Calcium is indeed lower than i expected. Maybe some tanks have reached their peak, and the owners aren't quite as interested in super rapid growth anymore? just a thought, probably dead wrong. Thanks for putting the time in.

Or just take the average per bulb. But I missed out on a few more factors. How many watts is the MH, what wavelength and how deep is the tank. That 9+ hour just seems so off.

 

[mudskipper1]

WHat I described was just taking the average per bulb. This is the average of many successful tanks, so in order to answer those questions, it would be a lot more averaging, and a useless result for the most part. My guess is that many of these tanks use just MH, so their photoperiod is longer than those who use T5 or other supplement as well. How did you factor in the LED TOTM? or did you just skip it?

 

[BuckeyeTodd]

good job on the homework, you get an A...for the T5 I'm assuming that those are the actinic supplement and not for main light source

 

[Antonais1391]

good job on the homework, you get an A...for the T5 I'm assuming that those are the actinic supplement and not for main light source

haha thanks nothing to do over the weekend nights when i couldnt sleep :spin2:
and yes that is for supplementation not for main lighting. most of the tanks where setup that way only 2 where pure t5 and only one was LED