Pies

20cm? Your reflectors much be just about touching the water?

Exactly. So the point of measuring it and saying its the same as natural light is...? If you think the problem is how close they are, could I suggest lifting them up higher?

Having used 150watt, 250watt, 400watt halides, T8 & T5s my experance is a dramatic improvement in colour and growth when moving from 250s to 400s. My bulbs are approx 40cm from the water surface, I use 4. I currently only use the halides and have disconnected by T5s. I notice that where the light is most intense (the middle strip) is where colour and growth is the fastest. Colour is dull at the edges of my tank, which is where I grow LPS and softies. If I was to setup a new tank, it would use 400watt MH in lumenarc style reflectors. I can't imagine a better lighting setup. I remember seeing Zeovit NZs tank a few years ago, small cube about 2ft square. Without a doubt the most stunning coral colours i've even seen in a tank in real life. He had 4x 400watters over that tank. I'd be surprised of 3x 400watt halides over a 5 foot tank was providing anywhere near the same amount of light that the sun provides. You only have to look on RC totm to see tanks of similar size with twice the lighting, T5s squeezed into every free space to maximise the light provided to the tank.

I've recently got a bio-wheel skimmer setup on a tank. I was super skeptical, however having witnessed it in operation it pulls out tonnes of crap, dark then skimate. Its hard to imagine how the thing can work so well, but its awesome.

lol

There is mention about this on RC by Eric Bourneman, where it has been witnissed that bleeched coral can change colour, but from memory it was rare and no replicateable. I think it may also be mentioned in his Corals book, if not Reefkeeping magizine.

I don't understand, can you plot that on a graph for me?

Beware of the extra bioload:

OK. We = Everyone - Layton.

So we agree then: more water = good.

Layton - It is clearly wrong, WASP has shown us this. Pie

Hahahahahahahaha.

Great looking corals and great photos. Whole tank pic? Pie

Exactly. Layton, take some of your own advice, be realistic... Pie

Mine is pinker than yours...

Maybee Layton doesn't expect anyone to read the above links pointing to evidence, I read the first one, it doesn't have anything to do with the proof about how it 'bleaches corals' but goes like this "hi I am going to try Zeovit again". More rubbish? I think so. I used Zeovit and was very happy with the results and would reccomend it to anyone who is struggling to get the colour they want from their SPS. It is important to follow the instructions (Layton didn't when he used it) and I found ZeovitNZ very helpful with questions I had at the time. Note I don't use Zeovit anymore. Simply put I can't afford to run it on a tank of my size, otherwise I would still be using it. Pie

You can, and from I see often do, you just convince Layton himself Pie

Q - If you don't feed the refugium. The pods survive on any waste from the tank. Turning the waste into a pod factory. The fish in the display eat the pods. Isn't that a good thing? Isn't that another form of nutrient control?

Proof is in your results. I have sand, a refugium & a CA reactor. I would reccomend and encourage others to have the same, they work extremely well. If I was setting up a new tank, all 3 of these things would be present without question. Nothing wrong with the balling method, its a high maintenance soultion to the CA reactor, and does't provide as stable an environment as a reactor however (Layton can draw a graph to prove this). I fill my C02 bottle and reactor every 6-9 months, thats it. Piezola

Layton - I don't disagree with you. Which isn't the same as agreeing with you. I am indifferent to the point of 'purity'. Regarding the refugium question, to me, its a place to let my little critters get a bit bigger before my fish and corals eat them. I think this is good, I have no way to prove it, and its not that important to me either way. I am confident however that this extra volume helps me with the stability of my system, and this is of paramount importance to me. And stability may be related to Cracker saying 'dilution', but it would depend on how you interpret it, hence my indiference. Pie

I brought a 1200 gallon per hr bulge pump of trademe. I plug it onto the car batt, chuck it in the water, and fill my containers. Much easier and cheaper. Cost $39 + hose ($12.00 Mico Pipelines). Beat that. Pie

I agree with that bit, at least thats why I have one. I want a place where things can survive away from the predation in my display, specifically pods and mysiss, as food for the tank. No mention of macro algae. The intention of my Refugium is to allow for pods to survive, sponges, things that wouldn't in the display. The effect is an unknown, however I do partitally credit it to my tanks success. What isn't an unknown is that I have more water, my water volume per fish load is higher, more water = good, less water = bad. Stability is increased, the great circle of life continues, simple. Pie

Be realistic? Of the 3 tanks I visit regulary (including my own) all 3 have a refugium, none have macro-algae. Just because you make an assumption doesn't mean it counts for everyone. As for the pressence of macroalge being a negitive, maybee so, but this doesn't make the refugium a negitive, simply the presence of macroagle. If it was in the display it would be just as damaging as if it was in the refugim. Realistic enough for you? pie

You thought wrong. A refugium is simply a place deviod of predators found in the main display. The pressence of sand or algae has no bearing. Its from the latin, Refuge, which means 'place of shelter'. Your right, its not a very good book, I did buy it from you on your recomendation though, any chance of a refund? Pie

In the book 'ULTIMATE MARINE AQUIRUMS'' featuring 50 of the worlds best setups, it shows that 40% of all of these setups use some form of Refugium (page 12). The fact is, a refugium simply adds more water without fish/coral/predators into the system. To argue that they are not of value is the same arguement as saying more water volume per fish is worse than less water volume per fish, which is, to be frank, a stupid position to take. To add more volume to the display, without fish or a heavy coral population to allow a different type of ecosystem to develop is benificial. Note: I am not talking about using the refugium for macro alge growth and harvest (something that in my experance is a 50/50 proposition), simply a portion of the system deviod of the life that dominates our crowded display systems. Pie