Whalehead9
New member
I am not familiar with specific types of HPS lamps and fixtures. What kind are you running , and where did you get them?
RDSB v Chaetomorph
- Thread starter jriechel
- Start date
liveforphysics
New member
These are the 2 setups I'm running. The brown weather resistant fixture on the left is something I picked up at home depot for about $40-50.
The white unit on the right is an HPS setup is from a hydroponic site. I think I paid around $80-100 for it. Honestly it doesn't seem to work any better than the homedepot unit.
Best Wishes,
-Luke
The white unit on the right is an HPS setup is from a hydroponic site. I think I paid around $80-100 for it. Honestly it doesn't seem to work any better than the homedepot unit.
Best Wishes,
-Luke
Aquarist007
New member
great reefers---I would really appreciate it if you could add your thoughts on this thread---I am attempting to get alot of small bits of great information on dsb, refugiums and macro algae on a common thread for easy reference:
http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=12170485#post12170485
http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=12170485#post12170485
Chris2500DK
New member
If the chaetomorpha is all "photosynthesised out" after 6 hours, how long does it take before it's recovered it's potential?
I'm planning to make a lit fuge with a lighting schedule something like this
8am - fuge lights on
2pm - fuge lights off, main lights on
10pm - main lights off, fuge lights on
4am - fuge lights off
That'll give the fuge two 6 hours photoperiods in a day with 4 and 8 hours of darkness in between them.
Hopefully that'll give me optimal growth, and save me a bit of electricity compared to running 24/7.
I'm planning to make a lit fuge with a lighting schedule something like this
8am - fuge lights on
2pm - fuge lights off, main lights on
10pm - main lights off, fuge lights on
4am - fuge lights off
That'll give the fuge two 6 hours photoperiods in a day with 4 and 8 hours of darkness in between them.
Hopefully that'll give me optimal growth, and save me a bit of electricity compared to running 24/7.
Aquarist007
New member
chaeto isn't exhausted at 6 hrs---I don't think any one has said that
IMO
The ideal is to run the light for 12-14 hours
eg from 9pm to 9 am in opposite to the tank lights. This helps minimize the nightly fluctuation in pH due to carbon dioxide build up when the chaeto isn't photsynthesizing.
Aquarist007
New member
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=12160160#post12160160 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by liveforphysics
These are the 2 setups I'm running. The brown weather resistant fixture on the left is something I picked up at home depot for about $40-50.
The white unit on the right is an HPS setup is from a hydroponic site. I think I paid around $80-100 for it. Honestly it doesn't seem to work any better than the homedepot unit.
Best Wishes,
-Luke
why the two lights--esp on the right--do you have macro in that side of the fuge also--hard to tell from the picture
Chris2500DK
New member
This is what I was going from.
Aquarist007
New member
I am not knocking the poster---and I glad they posted their findings because we all learn that way but------
the first statement was slightly exaggerated for effect--not a defintive statement that chaeto only needed a 6 hr period
Plants grow with sunshine--we know that--in the summer the day is between 12 and 15 hours. Plants need the dark time to process or store all the food thats been made.
My own personal observation is that if I leave the lights on 24/7 then the chaeto starts to yellow on the surface and cyano builds up. At 14-16 hours the chaeto is a nice green colour and no cyano
As far as the experiment---many factors affect the pH of your tank--the main being the amt of carbon dioxide in your house -an in the room where gas exchange occurs for the tank.
I removed the DSB from the fuge today. It was 300# dry, and ....heavier....wet. My fuge is 3' off the floor which makes it 5' high. As a bonus, it is behind my sump and not that easy to get to. I cant begin to tell you how much fun it was taking out the sand!
Anyway, its done. I put the LRR back in from my old fuge. Just enough to cover the bottom. There is a lot more room for the chaeto to grow now. I'm thinking I may need a stronger light. Right now I use a Lights of America 65W compact fluorescent floodlight (500W incandescent equiv).
Thanks for the great advice!
Anyway, its done. I put the LRR back in from my old fuge. Just enough to cover the bottom. There is a lot more room for the chaeto to grow now. I'm thinking I may need a stronger light. Right now I use a Lights of America 65W compact fluorescent floodlight (500W incandescent equiv).
Thanks for the great advice!
Aquarist007
New member
curious why you took it all out and didn't leave 3-4 inches for some inverts, aglae and bacteria that would inhabit that area?
liveforphysics
New member
capn-hylunur- My pH begins to fall around the 6hr mark with fuge lights on or off. If I stagger them, when the second bank turns-on, it holds pH solid clear until morning.
Also, I have an idea that could be a possible explaination. HPS is an extremely intense high intensity discharge lighting method. It has higher intensity than metal halide. My lights also sit just 2" above the surface of the fuge.
What I'm suggesting is that perhaps the intensity of the lighting inversely relates to the time quanity required before the plant is saturated and starting to begin the dark-cycle time.
Best Wishes,
-Luke
Also, I have an idea that could be a possible explaination. HPS is an extremely intense high intensity discharge lighting method. It has higher intensity than metal halide. My lights also sit just 2" above the surface of the fuge.
What I'm suggesting is that perhaps the intensity of the lighting inversely relates to the time quanity required before the plant is saturated and starting to begin the dark-cycle time.
Best Wishes,
-Luke
Aquarist007
New member
thanks for the explanation Luke and it sounds very plausable
however I would think that it might be more advantageous for phosphate and nitrogen export if one was to go with a lower intensity bulb and allow the chaeto to work over a longer photoperiod
just a thought
Chaeto doesn't need a substrate. The LRR will house bacteria, and I'm not really trying to make it an invert haven, but the LRR will give them a place to live anyway. I dont need sand sifters if I dont have sand. Kind of the cart before the horse I guess. My "fuge" as I stated previously is final stage filter system for the display. The idea is to have a large growth of macro as a filter for N&P.
Last edited:
second_decimal
Member
luke, what do you have in mind as far as a super skimmer? i am somehow very dissapointed with the efficiency of the skimmer concept. sure some work better than others, but it seems there must be a more efficient way. so whats build for a super skimmer look like?
do you think ionizing the water before entry into the skimmer would have any effect? if i remember correctly, the water molecule has a memory capable of maintaining a polarity charge of + or - for several hundred linear feet. i have read in several places that depending on the polarity, it is possible to actually increase the "wetness" or lubricity of water. ie. to make it "softer" i dont know if this would increase the effectivness of the bubble interacting with the water, but it might be worth measuring. i am assuming that the orderly nature of the ionized molecules would revert to their chaotic nature after spending some quality time being tossed around in the bubble chamber. thoughts?
Last edited:
do you think ionizing the water before entry into the skimmer would have any effect? if i remember correctly, the water molecule has a memory capable of maintaining a polarity charge of + or - for several hundred linear feet. i have read in several places that depending on the polarity, it is possible to actually increase the "wetness" or lubricity of water. ie. to make it "softer" i dont know if this would increase the effectivness of the bubble interacting with the water, but it might be worth measuring. i am assuming that the orderly nature of the ionized molecules would revert to their chaotic nature after spending some quality time being tossed around in the bubble chamber. thoughts?
That is nonsense spouted by people hawking devices that do nothing but remove money from your wallet. There is no way to ionize water with magnets and such. Water also does not have polarity memory like that. Someone recently posted this link in an eco aqualizer thread, and it deals with the above issues:
http://www.chem1.com/CQ/index.html
I discuss how skimmers work here:
What is Skimming?
http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2006-08/rhf/index.php
That is nonsense spouted by people hawking devices that do nothing but remove money from your wallet. There is no way to ionize water with magnets and such. Water also does not have polarity memory like that. Someone recently posted this link in an eco aqualizer thread, and it deals with the above issues:
http://www.chem1.com/CQ/index.html
I discuss how skimmers work here:
What is Skimming?
http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2006-08/rhf/index.php
Last edited:
According to Calfo & Fenner a DSB should be no less than 3", recommending 6".
I also read somewhere (I think it was Marine Fish and Reef USA 07) that when using a plenum (which, I believe, also uses a generous amount of sand) there is no characteristically nasty smell nor development of black spots in the sand bed.
I use a DSB in an inline 20g deep tank. I've also put about 3" in part of my main tank but more for aquascaping.
I have cheato in a 'mud' fuge that has been T'ed off from display water before it hits the skimmer chamber (currently I'm running no skimmer). My cheato is stationary, barely any flow in the fuge. I normally run a reverse light cycle. I believe it is recommended to use a 24/7 light 'cycle' for caulpera to avoid it reproducing sexually.
In another inline tank I'm developing a vegetable filter; I have rolling gracilaria and some more cheato (which is stationary but receives lots of flow)
I also have red grape which is growing nicely. I also think that chaeto is a wonderful habitat for growing creepy crawlies.
I also read somewhere (I think it was Marine Fish and Reef USA 07) that when using a plenum (which, I believe, also uses a generous amount of sand) there is no characteristically nasty smell nor development of black spots in the sand bed.
I use a DSB in an inline 20g deep tank. I've also put about 3" in part of my main tank but more for aquascaping.
I have cheato in a 'mud' fuge that has been T'ed off from display water before it hits the skimmer chamber (currently I'm running no skimmer). My cheato is stationary, barely any flow in the fuge. I normally run a reverse light cycle. I believe it is recommended to use a 24/7 light 'cycle' for caulpera to avoid it reproducing sexually.
In another inline tank I'm developing a vegetable filter; I have rolling gracilaria and some more cheato (which is stationary but receives lots of flow)
I also have red grape which is growing nicely. I also think that chaeto is a wonderful habitat for growing creepy crawlies.
second_decimal
Member
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=12209326#post12209326 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Randy Holmes-Farley
That is nonsense spouted by people hawking devices that do nothing but remove money from your wallet. There is no way to ionize water with magnets and such. Water also does not have polarity memory like that. Someone recently posted this link in an eco aqualizer thread, and it deals with the above issues:
http://www.chem1.com/CQ/index.html
sorry to hit a sore subject... the link you posted basically said that the science and was inconclusive and the general thought behind classifying said information as "quackery" is that if it worked it would already be in widespread use. while that argument (although not very scientific) certainly holds a certain amount of truth, it is and should not be used imo as a definitive to determine whether something is valid or not. in this particular case, i am sure you are much more up to date and informed than i seeing as you are a chemist working drug discovery at genzyme. thanks for the clarification.
thank god im not "hawking" anything
nice articles on skimmers though. makes me wonder how anybody was/is able to keep a system w/o. (i use a skimmer too)
my apologies for going off topic in someonelses thread.
widmer
Drug Enthusiast
liveforphysics
High five for being beyond the paradigm everyone gets stuck in, feeling like they need a protein skimmer. I will personally never employ a protein skimmer in my reef for the exact reason you have presented.
I'm not sure if anything has been proven regarding the subject, but I can't help but wonder what beneficial microscopic life may be pulled from the water column by a skimmer. No I'm not going to pretend that I'm culturing phytoplankton or anything like that, but I'm thinking potentially something along the lines of periodic pod larvae that could float into a coral that would benefit from the snack. Or maybe some other beneficial organism's progeny etc...
But I do know, from browsing the DIY forum, that there are at least some people out there who feel strongly enough about whatever life might be floating around the water column, that they're not even using conventional water pumps, and instead are using such devices as peristaltic pumps to move the water around.
High five for being beyond the paradigm everyone gets stuck in, feeling like they need a protein skimmer. I will personally never employ a protein skimmer in my reef for the exact reason you have presented.
I'm not sure if anything has been proven regarding the subject, but I can't help but wonder what beneficial microscopic life may be pulled from the water column by a skimmer. No I'm not going to pretend that I'm culturing phytoplankton or anything like that, but I'm thinking potentially something along the lines of periodic pod larvae that could float into a coral that would benefit from the snack. Or maybe some other beneficial organism's progeny etc...
But I do know, from browsing the DIY forum, that there are at least some people out there who feel strongly enough about whatever life might be floating around the water column, that they're not even using conventional water pumps, and instead are using such devices as peristaltic pumps to move the water around.
the link you posted basically said that the science and was inconclusive and the general thought behind classifying said information as "quackery" is that if it worked it would already be in widespread use. while that argument (although not very scientific) certainly holds a certain amount of truth, it is and should not be used imo as a definitive to determine whether something is valid or not.
I agree to some extent, but I'm personally basing my opinion on my own understanding of water and how it works.
I agree to some extent, but I'm personally basing my opinion on my own understanding of water and how it works.
Last edited:
Aquarist007
New member
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=12216737#post12216737 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Randy Holmes-Farley
the link you posted basically said that the science and was inconclusive and the general thought behind classifying said information as "quackery" is that if it worked it would already be in widespread use. while that argument (although not very scientific) certainly holds a certain amount of truth, it is and should not be used imo as a definitive to determine whether something is valid or not.
I agree to some extent, but I'm personally basing my opinion on my own understanding of water and how it works.
that does it for me
Randy, I could use your opionion on a substrate choice for my macro and mangrove refugium
http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1349443
Similar threads
