chris wright
In Memoriam
Bummer with the Tunze, I hope you get that sorted. Tank is looking really good.
The inwall 380 starfire reborn
- Thread starter JohnL
- Start date
Well, I got some advice from the Tunzes from several sources (many phone calls and Emails from around the country 
). I may give them another try this weekend, turning the Streams upside down on the magnets.
Tank has been running back on the VTs for a little while now and everything has settled back down, so I need to really soul search if I want to muck around with it any more. I already lost 2 corals (both zoas).. I don't mean they died, I mean they are literally lost.. I have no idea where they are... they got buried and I could never find them again. One small group (3 - 4 polyps) weree smallish orange creamsicle colored w/ bright, light orange fringes. Those are the ones I am really the most upset over..
A couple of days ago I swapped the front 2 T5s back to the AquaBlue bulbs. I don't think that some of the front corals were getting enough par from the BluePlus bulbs. So far everything seems happy with the change back to the lower kelvin, higher par bulbs.
I bought one of NYVPs old dual PFO 400W HQI ballasts. Hopefully it will show up sooner than later and I can replace our IC ballasts with it to see how it impacts our lighting and coverage.
Not much else to report at this time.. I may try to get some more pictures this weekend, if time permits.
). I may give them another try this weekend, turning the Streams upside down on the magnets.Tank has been running back on the VTs for a little while now and everything has settled back down, so I need to really soul search if I want to muck around with it any more. I already lost 2 corals (both zoas).. I don't mean they died, I mean they are literally lost.. I have no idea where they are... they got buried and I could never find them again. One small group (3 - 4 polyps) weree smallish orange creamsicle colored w/ bright, light orange fringes. Those are the ones I am really the most upset over..
A couple of days ago I swapped the front 2 T5s back to the AquaBlue bulbs. I don't think that some of the front corals were getting enough par from the BluePlus bulbs. So far everything seems happy with the change back to the lower kelvin, higher par bulbs.
I bought one of NYVPs old dual PFO 400W HQI ballasts. Hopefully it will show up sooner than later and I can replace our IC ballasts with it to see how it impacts our lighting and coverage.
Not much else to report at this time.. I may try to get some more pictures this weekend, if time permits
.
jnarowe
New member
dude, I have lost so many corals in my tank and sometimes they show up 6 months later. Every ricordia I have ever put in my tank has "disappeared" never to be seen again. Then the other day I was messing around behind the reef wall and found a colony of blue zoas...I had forgotten I even had them and they were just hanging out behind the wall minding their own business...
xinumaster
reef addict
Are you replacing your vortecs with tunzes?
chris wright
In Memoriam
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11673592#post11673592 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by jnarowe
dude, I have lost so many corals in my tank and sometimes they show up 6 months later. Every ricordia I have ever put in my tank has "disappeared" never to be seen again. Then the other day I was messing around behind the reef wall and found a colony of blue zoas...I had forgotten I even had them and they were just hanging out behind the wall minding their own business...
Amazing what you find when you clean your tank :lol:
Bummer losing your corals. I hope you sort out the tunze problem soon. It would be a shame to lose more corals over such a simple problem
well, that sort of ties in with my overdue update (no, no new pictures yet.. hopefully soon).
The PFO HQI ballast showed up last week and I threw it on the tank on Thursday. I can tell a difference in overall light output and think that the ACs are just a bit whiter on the HQI over the slightly blue output on the IC ballasts. So far we really like them still, but are considering "experimenting" a bit when it comes time to replace them. When running them on IC ballasts there is nothing that comes close to the PAR + CCT combo. For a higher PAR it sacrifices for a much lower CCT.. int he distinctly yellow ranges, and higher CCTs have abysmally low PAR levels. But now that we "bit the bullet" and are running HQI ballasts, there are other options to consider. We will incur approx $21 per month more to run the HQI ballast, which is an almost 35% increase in expense with less than a 20% increase in light output, so those last few lumens are at almost double the cost of the first 140+ ones.. but when you need the extra light, sometimes you have to just swallow the cost
. But all in all I really like the ACs.... hmmm, no, wait.. they really stink.. I will do you a favor though and take those used ones off of your hands before you get disappointed by them 
Also, cleaned out the fuge last week... took huge handfuls of macro algae out (an empty firelog box full), and there is still almost wall to wall macros in our 150g fuge, but now almost 100% chaeto (we weeded out the other macros that had a tendency to go asexual on us). We wondered why we had so much macro growth when we employed such oversized filtration means and were told that it is likely due to our calcium reactor. We dump the effluent from the reactor right at the beginning of the fuge, to let the macros soak up as much of the excess CO2 as possible... and aparently they have been doing just that, and thriving from it. i thought that the limiting factor of nutrients would play a role but they are finding sustenance (sp?) somewhere.
The 3rd blenny, the smallest that I thought we had lost to the overflows months ago, made an appearance yesterday afternoon, to my extreme surprise.. Now all 3 of them are swimming around and making sure no food morsel goes un-eaten
Once the new ballast has been running for a week or so, I will try to take some more pictures to show any color or growth chages/improvements
The PFO HQI ballast showed up last week and I threw it on the tank on Thursday. I can tell a difference in overall light output and think that the ACs are just a bit whiter on the HQI over the slightly blue output on the IC ballasts. So far we really like them still, but are considering "experimenting" a bit when it comes time to replace them. When running them on IC ballasts there is nothing that comes close to the PAR + CCT combo. For a higher PAR it sacrifices for a much lower CCT.. int he distinctly yellow ranges, and higher CCTs have abysmally low PAR levels. But now that we "bit the bullet" and are running HQI ballasts, there are other options to consider. We will incur approx $21 per month more to run the HQI ballast, which is an almost 35% increase in expense with less than a 20% increase in light output, so those last few lumens are at almost double the cost of the first 140+ ones.. but when you need the extra light, sometimes you have to just swallow the cost
. But all in all I really like the ACs.... hmmm, no, wait.. they really stink.. I will do you a favor though and take those used ones off of your hands before you get disappointed by them Also, cleaned out the fuge last week... took huge handfuls of macro algae out (an empty firelog box full), and there is still almost wall to wall macros in our 150g fuge, but now almost 100% chaeto (we weeded out the other macros that had a tendency to go asexual on us). We wondered why we had so much macro growth when we employed such oversized filtration means and were told that it is likely due to our calcium reactor. We dump the effluent from the reactor right at the beginning of the fuge, to let the macros soak up as much of the excess CO2 as possible... and aparently they have been doing just that, and thriving from it. i thought that the limiting factor of nutrients would play a role but they are finding sustenance (sp?) somewhere.
The 3rd blenny, the smallest that I thought we had lost to the overflows months ago, made an appearance yesterday afternoon, to my extreme surprise
.. Now all 3 of them are swimming around and making sure no food morsel goes un-eaten Once the new ballast has been running for a week or so, I will try to take some more pictures to show any color or growth chages/improvements
Oh, and I forgot to add that we have given up our pursuit of swapping over to Tunzes from our Vortecs. The experiment only lasted a week or so, with the Streams only in the tank for 2 - 3 days (and the rest of the time spent trying to figure out a way to make it work out). We have been running our 4 Vortecs again now for the past week or two and have a brand new wet end on it's way to us to try to figure out where the noise is coming from (IE: the wet end or dry end). I suspect the wet end, but to be thorough and safe we are exploring all options and opportunities. For noise level the Tunzes were amazingly quiet, but I just could not get them setup in such a way to match the flow patterns of the Vortecs (that we have designed our rockwork around). There were other issues with the Tunzes cables "propping" up our mesh top and concerns over the stability of the brackets holding up the streams (especially with the pulse mode making the streams literally dance on the bracket holders). The search continues for a middle ground between the looks and convenience of the Vortecs and the quiet of the Tunzes. But for now the tank seems happier with the Vortecs back in play. Hopefully ETM will come up with a quieter wet end (and a decent swapout plan that won't break the bank for those of us with multiple VTs).
No updates for a while, mainly because I goofed up and it negatively impacted the tank. A couple weeks ago I had noticed that the Ca RX effluent output was barely trickling, so I adjusted it to a stronger stream. I had no way of knowing how long it had been like that since my work schedule had bumped to close to 60 hrs per week (and still w/ an infant that is not yet sleeping through the night.. *sigh*). So I cranked the output to bring the levels up. I assumed they were low because I noticed some color loss in a few of our corals. I meant to run a test on it, but life threw a couple of curve balls and I didn't get to it for over a week and a half. When I finally did the alk was over 18 and Ca was over 475 (I stopped testing at that point.. both were with Elos test kits). Obviously I was also seeing some burnt corals in the tank. I immediately unplugged the CO2 solenoid from the controller and am attempting to let the levels drop normally. I had considered buying some cheap fish only (non-reef) salt w/ hopefully low Ca/Alk and doing a large water change with it. I am not sure if the Ca/Alk losing balance would be worth it (those brands never seem to have them in proper balance). I am going to give it a couple more days before I start doing anything that drastic. There were three odd take aways from this event :
1. There were several corals that colored up better than I had ever seen them, and also appeared much healthier in general (but I also changed ballasts around that same time and originally had attributed the changes to the ballast). Either way they are definitely not impacted by the higher than normal Ca/Alk levels.. but others are definiteling feeling it.. we already lost 2 small colonies
2. The PO4 and NO3 levels are almost non-existent. I base this statement on a quick test that I have backed up with a test kit before (but didn't this time around sine it was always accurate in the past). We dose sugar. I have always been able to tell our DOC levels by how the tank reacts to the sugar addition. A little cloudy means low to mid levels, very cloudy means I waited too long. I dosed a fairly large amount (based on previous dosing history) for the first time in almost a month (normally I do it twice weekly) and there was 0 bacterial bloom reaction. Not even any more film than normal on the front glass by the end of the day (I dosed in the morning).
3. The tank water is the clearest I have seen in a long time (except for right after sugar dosing in the past). The water is consistently clearer, and the front glass has required less maintenance to keep it clean also.
Anyways, enough about that. The fish all seem to be doing jsut fine. The new VT wet end arrived, but I honestly have not had the time to test out our VTs to see how the new one shapes up against them.
On a livestock note, I have been considering a dussimer tang. Another club member Perry has one in his 375 w/ an orange shoulder, which is what stopped me in the past since both are acanthurus
1. There were several corals that colored up better than I had ever seen them, and also appeared much healthier in general (but I also changed ballasts around that same time and originally had attributed the changes to the ballast). Either way they are definitely not impacted by the higher than normal Ca/Alk levels.. but others are definiteling feeling it.. we already lost 2 small colonies
2. The PO4 and NO3 levels are almost non-existent. I base this statement on a quick test that I have backed up with a test kit before (but didn't this time around sine it was always accurate in the past). We dose sugar. I have always been able to tell our DOC levels by how the tank reacts to the sugar addition. A little cloudy means low to mid levels, very cloudy means I waited too long. I dosed a fairly large amount (based on previous dosing history) for the first time in almost a month (normally I do it twice weekly) and there was 0 bacterial bloom reaction. Not even any more film than normal on the front glass by the end of the day (I dosed in the morning).
3. The tank water is the clearest I have seen in a long time (except for right after sugar dosing in the past). The water is consistently clearer, and the front glass has required less maintenance to keep it clean also.
Anyways, enough about that. The fish all seem to be doing jsut fine. The new VT wet end arrived, but I honestly have not had the time to test out our VTs to see how the new one shapes up against them.
On a livestock note, I have been considering a dussimer tang. Another club member Perry has one in his 375 w/ an orange shoulder, which is what stopped me in the past since both are acanthurus
chris wright
In Memoriam
G'day Tom,
I wouldn't use a cheap salt to drop any of your parameters. The chemical make up of the salt is obviously different, but if it contains impurities, I think you'll have even more drama's. I'd just top off with fresh water that is not buffered to much, and let the levels drop slowly.
Good to see that you have no po4 and no3, great what macro algae can do for a closed system.
60+ hours isn't much fun, I've been there, but not with a youngster not sleeping, so I feel for ya!
Just a question about dosing sugar, I'm just after your opinion here, is it worth dosing sugar? and how much do you dose to your system? I understand that when dosing sugar that you need a decent skimmer, so is this true also?
Cheers
Chris
I wouldn't use a cheap salt to drop any of your parameters. The chemical make up of the salt is obviously different, but if it contains impurities, I think you'll have even more drama's. I'd just top off with fresh water that is not buffered to much, and let the levels drop slowly.
Good to see that you have no po4 and no3, great what macro algae can do for a closed system.
60+ hours isn't much fun, I've been there, but not with a youngster not sleeping, so I feel for ya!
Just a question about dosing sugar, I'm just after your opinion here, is it worth dosing sugar? and how much do you dose to your system? I understand that when dosing sugar that you need a decent skimmer, so is this true also?
Cheers
Chris
We dose a shot glass full of sugar once to twice weekly (except for these last couple of weeks, due to my work schedule). I am not sure what that measures out to, but a standard size shot glass is pretty universal .
Yes, a good, preferrably oversized skimmer is a must. The reason is simple enough. The sugar provides a carbon source for certain bacteria in our tank that eat NO3 and to a smaller extent PO4. These bacteria are carbon limited meaning that they have everything they need to thrive and multiply (NO3, PO4, Oxygen, etc), but have used up their useable carbon sources. So once sugar (or vodka) is added the bacteria takes off. This will do two things (both of which benefit from a quality skimmer). First the bacteria also use Oxygen and can suck it right out of a tank if there is not sufficient aeration, surface aggitation, etc (which a skimmer provides plenty of.. so long as it is sized properly). That is why oversized is recommended because it will need to make up for alot of lost dissolved oxygen in the water. The second, although I think smaller reason for a good skimmer is the waste left behind by the bacteria after eating all of that "garbage" out of the water. It needs to get exported somehow. The byproducts are highly skimmable, from what I have read, unlike the individual garbage the bacteria ate to produce it (IE: the NO3, PO4, etc).
I saved the "is it worth it" question for last. As I have stated previously I have typically never seen the tank so clear as after we dosed sugar. Especially so if we did several back to back, daily, doses (but then the water really starts to look too clean.. almost sterile, and I have seen the corals suffer a bit from that.. i suppose we could supplement aminos etc, but I prefer to just not strip out so much rather than strip out too much and have to put some back). Sugar is prety inexpensive here, so I would definitely say it is worth it
HTH
.Yes, a good, preferrably oversized skimmer is a must. The reason is simple enough. The sugar provides a carbon source for certain bacteria in our tank that eat NO3 and to a smaller extent PO4. These bacteria are carbon limited meaning that they have everything they need to thrive and multiply (NO3, PO4, Oxygen, etc), but have used up their useable carbon sources. So once sugar (or vodka) is added the bacteria takes off. This will do two things (both of which benefit from a quality skimmer). First the bacteria also use Oxygen and can suck it right out of a tank if there is not sufficient aeration, surface aggitation, etc (which a skimmer provides plenty of.. so long as it is sized properly). That is why oversized is recommended because it will need to make up for alot of lost dissolved oxygen in the water. The second, although I think smaller reason for a good skimmer is the waste left behind by the bacteria after eating all of that "garbage" out of the water. It needs to get exported somehow. The byproducts are highly skimmable, from what I have read, unlike the individual garbage the bacteria ate to produce it (IE: the NO3, PO4, etc).
I saved the "is it worth it" question for last. As I have stated previously I have typically never seen the tank so clear as after we dosed sugar. Especially so if we did several back to back, daily, doses (but then the water really starts to look too clean.. almost sterile, and I have seen the corals suffer a bit from that.. i suppose we could supplement aminos etc, but I prefer to just not strip out so much rather than strip out too much and have to put some back). Sugar is prety inexpensive here, so I would definitely say it is worth it
HTH
chris wright
In Memoriam
That helps alot Tom, thanks mate. I thought as much, but it's nice to have it clarified. I doubt my current hang on tank skimmer would handle this increased O2 useage, so I might try it on my next tank, but the stripping of the water sounds pretty harsh on the inhabitants. I may go with a lower dose and see how it goes.
Thanks again,
Cheers
Chris
Thanks again,
Cheers
Chris
spazz
New member
Hi Tom,
Sorry to hear you over dosed the tank. did something happen to the ca reactor to make the flow slow down???? or is there something else that factored into the reactors flow getting less???? i just want to make sure there is no problems with the reactor. also are you dosing kalk to the system. if so you might want to take that off line for a while. it would explain the higher than normal alk levels.
also what is the PH in the tank? did it go through the roof????
small doses of vinigar will reduce the PH in the tank and help counter the affects of the high alk in the tank.
Sorry to hear you over dosed the tank. did something happen to the ca reactor to make the flow slow down???? or is there something else that factored into the reactors flow getting less???? i just want to make sure there is no problems with the reactor. also are you dosing kalk to the system. if so you might want to take that off line for a while. it would explain the higher than normal alk levels.
also what is the PH in the tank? did it go through the roof????
small doses of vinigar will reduce the PH in the tank and help counter the affects of the high alk in the tank.
Last edited:
Chris, I feel some clarification is needed here
. You should always start off small and slow with the dosages and build up to whatever your "standard" dose ends up being. This helps you not to overdose your tank and also helps the tank not get shocked into a too sterile environment.
I also agree that the stripping effect can be harsh, which is only witnessed by us if I do several back to back (daily or better) doses. This is why I only dose twice weekly, if even that often
. We have only seen good responses at the lower doses, none of the negative responses associated w/ a "stripped" water column.HTH
spazz
New member
it is only bad for the system and its inhabitants if you dont feed heavy. if you feed the tank alot of good fresh foods that are high in protiens that the corals and fish can digest with ease the water being stripped does not matter. your removing some food but replacing it with better foods.
chris wright
In Memoriam
Cool. Thanks for the input. I do feed the tank well, with a home made mix that is target feed to some corals, the finer bits to all the tank. The fish are well feed as well.
I understand what you guys are getting at now. I'm happy with the clarity of my water a present, but I going to add a little out of curosity. Thank's for sharing your experience, looking forward to seeing some more pictures when you get a chance
I understand what you guys are getting at now. I'm happy with the clarity of my water a present, but I going to add a little out of curosity. Thank's for sharing your experience, looking forward to seeing some more pictures when you get a chance
Long story short is that the output from the reactor is into our fuge, right over the macro section.. which by definition also means that it gets a good amount of light when the fuge lights are on (over night when the tank lights are off). That coupled w/n a slow flow rate (set by me to "tune" it to our tank) added up to algae build up in the end 1/2" (or less) of the output pipe (which for clarification is a 3/8" or 1/2" line.. I forget which, but either way it is not "small").
My PH meter for tha tank is out of whack and I have not had time to calibrate it yet, so I don't know about the PH, but you are probably right.. Since I have not seen any livestock impact (outside of certain acros) I don't think the PH is too high though (and coming down each day I would think).
PH is another topic that came to mind as I mulled over the drop in NO3 and PO4. That event coupled with Chris's comment about the benefit of a fuge and macros. Since the Ca Rx dumps right into the macros we do get a fairly aggressive bit of growth from our macros (chaeto currently) to where the 150g sump (2/3 of is sectioned off for the macros) is packed with chaeto currently, and I had culled out alot of macros from it just a month ago too, to give it more "room to breath". Since the Rx was basically working overtime, that would mean that alot more CO2 was making it's way to the macros, spurring on even greater growth. Perhaps this is what led to the low levels of PO4 and NO3 in our tank ? Bear in mind that we have quite a few tangs, some of which are not small at all, all of which eat like pigs. And don't forget the school/shoal of 14 anthias.
Anyways, that is just a working theory and one that is as of yet unsupported by any true metrics (since I took no readings with a test kit before hand, didn't measure macro mass before or after and have no growth statistics). But it sounds good, in theory
We do have a kalk reactor in line with our ATO, but I have not added any kalk to it within the last 2+ months. The water in it is as clear as a bell
I am not sure if the alk/ca levels are that out of whack, since Ca is close to 500 (which I used to scoff at people who said their tank read that level since it is so close to "pure" calcium in the water it is next to impossible.. at least that was what I thought I read in the chemistry forum
). Once the Alk drops a bit I will start trying to get them back into balance. Upping Alk is so much easier than upping Ca (at least around here where the Ca flakes are harder to come by). Anyways, time will tell on that one for us. and I have been trying to post this reply since early today.. who knew it would take an entire day to post a simple darned post ?!?! *sigh*
