to fatal morgana from newbies thread

[Fatal Morgana]

The physic behind the efficient of bulb as a function of tub diameter is well studied, just like the chemistry of oyster shell solubility in sea water. If people just don't accept science and argue by saying "This is what I experienced" or "I understand, but disagree" there will be little point in continue the conversation further than 4 pages.

 

[Fatal Morgana]

Oh, ignore anything beyond page 4.

 

[Anonymous]

PC lighting is more efficient then T12 fluorscents, no matter the amperage type (NO, HO, VHO). The same is true for T5 lights, and even T8s. Basically, the smaller the diameter of the tube, the more efficient it is. A NO bulb overdriven by a VHO ballast is not only discouraged by UL/CSA, but it will also not yield remotely the same output as a VHO bulb driven by a VHO ballast. How do I know? I have an Apogee PAR meter and have measured this before. If people want to send me the bulbs and ballasts again, I'll gladly test them and post measured data.

BTW, lumens is a pretty irrelevant unit of measure for lights intended for reefkeeping. Use PAR.

Well I didn't overdrive to vho levels. Just used the $7 fixture with an electronic ballast to fire one tube instead of two. 55w/bulb..

Gee that explains why the t8 were brighter than the t12. But the t8 were rated at 30 watts instead of 40w.

Do you have the actual measurements on t12 t8 and pc? I am interested.

Bob

 

[Anonymous]

Oh, ignore anything beyond page 4.

:lol:

Is that like nothing counts before morning coffee?

 

[Fatal Morgana]

I havn't had any coffee for a few years...

 

[Len]

I compared T5 to T12 recently (last year or so). I do not have the actual measurements, but I would be happy to test them again should I have the necessary bulbs and ballasts. I didn't test T8, but as Fatal Morgana said, it's well known the direct relationship of bulb diameter to efficiency.

How are you able to fire one tube with a ballast designed to burn two? If the ballast powers the lamps in series like Icecap ballasts, your single lamp is going to only see the same amount of power that it would if you were running two bulbs.

 

[HClH2OFish]

On the civility post, I actually think he was talking to me Bob....From my other posts, I'm sure Len was seeing the temperature/frustration meter rising on my side and wanted to ensure I turned it down

We wubba u Len! :lol:

(And I promise to be nice)

 

[Len]

I wasn't directing it to anyone specific. Just a general reminder that I throw in, just in case

 

[HClH2OFish]

Which is why you're the moderator
Seeing some of what you've moderated in the past, I dunno how you can do it....must be Prozac or Valium...

Nah...u pry just sit down and stare at your tank for a few hours each night

 

[HClH2OFish]

One quick question in regards to lighting and then I'm outta here to spend the day with my kids:

18w standard flourescent on my 10 gal.
Got a variety of bulbs I can use -- now, on a low flow tank with extremely low bioload - jellyfish (Cassiopeia sp.), what bulbs would be best to help keep down cyano? 10k, 20k, 1/2 and 1/2 (6500k and actinic)
I'm waiting to get some crate matl and put a small in tank fuge in there w/some macros which should help, but till I get that, what would be best way to go?

 

[Anonymous]

Ok will try to let this wind down. but I did want to respond to this post. then keep the mouth shut so we all can get back to better things. PM are here if anyone is interested.

*sigh*

*sigh*

Let me try to make this simple so there can be no misunderstanding...
What *EVERYONE* on here is trying to do is hope you will refrain from posting UNTESTED, UNPROVEN methods on a REEFKEEPING board. It doesn't matter what results FO or Fresh has shown...they are different systems (and please don't start a side argument over this)

For a BRAND new person starting into reefkeeping they have 2 options:

1)Go with tried, true setups that are easily reproducible and can provide baselines....hence RO/DI==you know what's in it whereas tap water, you don't unless you spend $$ to get it fully tested.

2)Go with any method that is untested & unproven - but when things go wrong there have no good basis to determine where the problem started since you don't know for sure what may be going on in your tank. What if the local municipality just added something else to the mix that you weren't aware of when you started your tank? What if you're getting a slow buildup of toxins from the tapwater?

I simply disagree. And newbies should not be told that unless they use their mechanical device or someone else's mechanical device to strip everyting out of the water, that method is untested and unproven. Mechanical devices fail and cost money. There are simply too many highly sucessful full reef tanks in private homes and public aqauriums for the use of un treated water to constitute a unproven and untested method. And water striped of everything is not the best water to use in a reef tank. After all mag, calcium carbonate, and trace elements are essential to reefkeeping.

The idea is simple -- start with the purest water you can get and you don't need to worry about it. This is a *great* idea for a beginning reefer.

The idea is simple. The tank water should be capable of supporting reef life. That does not absolutely require filtered treated input water. It requires the tank water be capable of supporting reef life.

Using tap water can be great...no worries. I use tap myself...just topped off my 25 and 15 with it. But those systems are FOWLRS...I have no corals in them, hence I don't need to worry about certain tank parameters that I would need to if it were a REEF tank.

So what parameters are not fitting of reef?

You have been keeping a reef tank for 1 year. The majority of corals have been in your tank <6 months.
This alone, gives you NO basis to recommend your methods to someone entering the reefing hobby IMVHO, other than pointing out to them the fact that keeping macros in a 'fuge is prolly a good idea -- and it's an idea that has been around a long time and NOBODY is disputing.

and others have been keeping reef tanks for year and years. BTW How long does one have to keep a reef before they become an official expert to advise newbies? 2 years? three, 6? Meanwhile a SWF poster has used tap for 25 years no water changes with plant life in the display. two years on current tank. Oh yea he doses. So if I remove the crushed oyster shells and dose does that make me an expert? After all he has done it for 25 years. Another poster used tap but did water changes. Excellent tank after 1.5 years. So if I do water changes then can I be an expert? A Denver public aquarium was reported (swf thread) as using tap on their reef tanks but RO/DI on South American FW fish. I guess that certainly does not make them an expert.
I think the newbie can sort through all this. The only thing that is obvious to me is the exact same method the ocean uses to maintain itself is unproven in your eyes. And if you think it is simply dilution then you don't understand where all the clean ocean water comes from. I just put my plant life closer to the fish and corals. But the process is exactly the same.

So if you push the idea of a fuge to someone in the NRF, I don't see an issue. Pushing the idea that standard, practiced methods are unnecessary , costly bunk is OPINION nothing more.

/rant off, with apologies to Len, et. al.

And I thank you for you opinion also.

 

[Fatal Morgana]

>...One quick question...

HIJACK ALERT! HIJACK ALERT!

 

[Fatal Morgana]

>...what would be best way to go? ...

Plant life :?

(sorry bob, can't help it...)

 

[Len]

One quick question in regards to lighting and then I'm outta here to spend the day with my kids:

18w standard flourescent on my 10 gal.
Got a variety of bulbs I can use -- now, on a low flow tank with extremely low bioload - jellyfish (Cassiopeia sp.), what bulbs would be best to help keep down cyano? 10k, 20k, 1/2 and 1/2 (6500k and actinic)
I'm waiting to get some crate matl and put a small in tank fuge in there w/some macros which should help, but till I get that, what would be best way to go?

One personal attritbute I'm proud of is the ability to say "I don't know." In my experience, cyano will grow under all sorts of lighting, but usually starts to take off when the bulbs are old. I suppose if it were me, I'd go with the higher kelvin-rated bulbs.

 

[Anonymous]

A reminder to keep it civil and constructive.

Of course.

I see nothing actually uncivil here. No bad language, no name calling, just an honest exchange of ideas.

And it is through those exchanges that people learn. hopefully that is what the board is all about.

I think Bob is a nice guy. He's misguided, lacks experience, perspective, and empirical data on established methods, but he's an even tempered fellow. I commend him on that at least. Having said that, I think this thread should die.


Jim

 

[Len]

Hey bob, the dynamics of an open body of water in the trillions of gallons is going to behave differently then 50 gallons of captive water. And tapwater is not the same thing the ocean sees.

Does Denver's public aquarium have a website or contact information. I'd like to inquire their methodologies and see the success of their tanks. Similiarly, it would be nice if you could show us photos of your aquarium as validation for the success of your methods. I don't doubt that tapwater can work in some areas whose municipal water is of higher quality. I'd imagine Denver would have very good quality municipal water. Still, it is not sound advice to go tell new hobbyists that tapwater is not only okay, but preferred. I rather use purified water (and add back what is needed in quantities I can control) instead of using water of unknown quality.

My main concern isn't short term effects. What I'm concerned about is long term acculumation. With that in mind, it's a bit premature for you to conclude your method works (a claim that has yet to be validated).

By the way, plants fail too. And when they do, it's rather catastrophic for captive ecosystems. I have had more macro "fail" then protein skimmers.

 

[Anonymous]

By the way, plants fail too. And when they do, it's rather catastrophic for captive ecosystems. I have had more macro "fail" then protein skimmers.

Absolutely. From direct experience, when macro fails, it isn't pretty.

 

[Anonymous]

I simply disagree. And newbies should not be told that unless they use their mechanical device or someone else's mechanical device to strip everyting out of the water, that method is untested and unproven. Mechanical devices fail and cost money. There are simply too many highly sucessful full reef tanks in private homes and public aqauriums for the use of un treated water to constitute a unproven and untested method. And water striped of everything is not the best water to use in a reef tank. After all mag, calcium carbonate, and trace elements are essential to reefkeeping.

Just for reference, here's a photo I took during a behind-the-scenes tour at the Newport Aquarium. This is the filtration system for their primary display tank, a huge shark and mixed-reef display. Anyone that thinks public aquariums don't filter their water is simply out of their gourd or woefully uninformed. The halides in the foreground are hanging over the top of the display tank. The huge drums in the back are approx 15-20ft high and about 15ft in diameter. It's been a couple years, but I think I remember them saying they were some sort of chemical filtration. Also notice the approx 20ft tall protein skimmer, pulling out all the nice green/brown skimmate.

 

[Anonymous]

I simply disagree. And newbies should not be told that unless they use their mechanical device or someone else's mechanical device to strip everyting out of the water, that method is untested and unproven.

I don't see the point bob; in the discussions with you on this board no one has advocated such a position. You are arguing against a position no one holds.

Mechanical devices fail and cost money.

And when some popular macros go sexual they often cause the death of the entire tank.

There are simply too many highly sucessful full reef tanks in private homes and public aqauriums for the use of un treated water to constitute a unproven and untested method.

No one has made that claim that 'un treated' water cannot be used. You are arguing against a position no one holds.

And water striped of everything is not the best water to use in a reef tank. After all mag, calcium carbonate, and trace elements are essential to reefkeeping.

Again, you are arguing against a position no one holds.

The idea is simple. The tank water should be capable of supporting reef life. That does not absolutely require filtered treated input water. It requires the tank water be capable of supporting reef life.

Again, you are arguing against a position no one holds.

and others have been keeping reef tanks for year and years. BTW How long does one have to keep a reef before they become an official expert to advise newbies? 2 years? three, 6? Meanwhile a SWF poster has used tap for 25 years no water changes with plant life in the display. two years on current tank.

At least long enough to learn that there are lots of things that work in a FO system that don't work in a reef.

So if I remove the crushed oyster shells and dose does that make me an expert?

No, but it will give us more information, where now we basically have none.

After all he has done it for 25 years. Another poster used tap but did water changes. Excellent tank after 1.5 years. So if I do water changes then can I be an expert? A Denver public aquarium was reported (swf thread) as using tap on their reef tanks but RO/DI on South American FW fish. I guess that certainly does not make them an expert.
I think the newbie can sort through all this.

No one has argued that tap cant be used. Again, you are arguing against a position no one holds.
Link to the Denver aquarium information?

The only thing that is obvious to me is the exact same method the ocean uses to maintain itself is unproven in your eyes. And if you think it is simply dilution then you don't understand where all the clean ocean water comes from. I just put my plant life closer to the fish and corals. But the process is exactly the same.

That shows a shocking misunderstanding of how the ocean 'maintains' itself.

So if you push the idea of a fuge to someone in the NRF, I don't see an issue. Pushing the idea that standard, practiced methods are unnecessary , costly bunk is OPINION nothing more.

But that isn't what you do bob. You portray your 'method' as anything but an opinion.

 

[tazdevil]

Righty posted:

No one has made that claim that 'un treated' water cannot be used. You are arguing against a position no one holds.

Anyone living in my water district might hold that position, as the water from our taps the nitrate and phosphate levels are off the scales! Plus the hardness is over 18.