lduncan

No problem jolliolli. The fish and shrimp are all settled in and looking happy. Layton

I can see the posters already wasp ;-)

Take your pick:

Unfortunately a lot of the pictures towards the end are no longer up. You're not doing anything wrong, they're just dead links now. There are still some at the beginning and towards the middle pages. Layton

We've got clasifications for little nanos, tiny picos. What about rediculously large tanks? Meet the tera tank: http://thereeftank.com/forums/showthread.php?t=90861 There's an unfortunate ending to it. Some of the photobucket pic links appear to be broken, but the final few equipment pics show the scale of this tank. I've been following it for a while. So close yet so far away... Layton

I think the phpbb search feature will be fixed at some point, which will help a lot with searching.

I suspect they don't particularly care. They just post there because they were pestered to by some people. Some might say that's a sign that there is a deficit of expertise over there. As far as the best local forum, fnzas goes, I'm in favor of starting off with a few separations, and then add more as the need arises. Maybe • Starting Out • Reef Discussion • Chemistry • Think Tank (Advance Topics) • Marine T/E (subforum of general T/E) • Separate Sponsors forums (may help keep discussions contained) Layton

I usually leave ASW over night to settle after mixing. Needs a bit of time for the chemistry to stabilise. But i'd only keep about 50% of the old tank water. Make sure the new water is lower or equal temp, and match the salinity to the old tank water and you'll be right. Yeah, or Instant Ocean. Personally I just get the regular red sea salt, not the pro version (I think it's unnecessarily high in calcium) Layton

Salifert are most common in NZ for marine. PO4, NO3, Ca, Kh and Mg are the ones you'll need ongoing if you're interested in corals. Iodine is unnecessary. That's it more or less. Lucky there are no fish, Corals are quite hardy, and can take ammonia spikes, which can happen when you move tanks, unlike fish, you would have to be more careful. Don't know what you mean there. Hmm, depends what you're looking for out of the book. If you're looking for a reference for fish, then Scott Michaels Pocket Guide to Marine Fishes is good. Coral wise, there's Eric Bornemans book "Aquarium Corals", which covers most corals available in the hobby. As far as a general guide on how to setup and run a reef tank, I haven't come across one which I would really recommend. Maybe the recent one from Julian Sprung and Charles Delbeek might be worth a look, "The Reef Aquarium: Science, Art, and Technology, Vol. 3". I haven't seen or read it. But if I were buying, it would be one I'd take a look at. Have fun and ask questions, ignore the shenanigans above, same old suspects again. ;-) Layton

There is another option for higher flow rate pump which would give up to 40mL/min But the 5mL one is ideally suited to dosing. Surprisingly expensive. But they are quality Japanese made pumps. They are original equipment manufacturer (oem) pumps (designed for other companies to incorporate into their own products), they're not a plug and play unit. I'm bringing them in because they are a component in my product. They are just the pump module, not a product in themselves. More or less useless without some sort of power control circuitry. Layton

Electrically and software wise it's complete. I've just got a quote back from a manufacture for the housing today. That seems to be the most time consuming part to sort out. Been through a few design iterations to minimise tooling costs, plus they have long lead times etc. From 0.5mL/min variable up to a max of 5mL/min, prime from up to 1 meter below pump, vertical pumping head approx 6 meters. Initially aquarium uses (easy to sell into). Precision liquid metering, hydroponic dosing etc. But there are also other application which the control part can be adapted to. I've got a bunch of oem peristaltic pumps arriving soon. Layton

You forget the people who were pointing out all the nice tanks which run reactors, as part of their argument. Were they winding me up? I don't think so. ;-) No, no one was saying that. People were however using the fact that a nice tank happens to use a calcium reactor as a rational for using one (like they tried to here in this thread). Those "jibes" were necessary to illustrate my point at the time that that isn't particularly relevant in evaluating which to use. I was illustrating a point, not bashing reactors. Layton

Cookie has mentioned about skewing of chemistry when using two part dosing schemes. Mainly the buildup of chloride ions. A legitimate concern, worth looking at. So exactly how quickly does this build up of chloride happen? Randy has crunched the numbers in his article: http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2006-02/rhf/index.php A 0.5% increase in chloride ions over a year, dosing 41mL every day to a 200L tank, and assuming no water changes at all. Alternatively, there is a more complete two part dosing method, called the Balling Method, which incorporates a sodium chloride free salt, used in conjunction with the two parts, to keep ions in perfect balance, if you want. It just substitues for a part of the water you'd normal use in water changes. So some of the info in that article might be a little exagerated: I also wouldn't class that as a disadvantage, as it's entirely avoidable with proper use. It's kind of like saying if you don't put CO2 into your reactor you won't be able to maintain you cal and alk levels. Layton

That won't work. The solubility of baking soda is 78 grams per Litre at room temp / pressure. To get the 300g to completely dissolve, you need it in 4 litres of water. Mix as best as possible. Like i say, if there's a little left on the bottom, it will dissolve to form a saturated solution by itself in a couple of days. Layton

wasp, that wasn't winding people up. That was making a point to those people who were saying at the time of these discussions, that most nice sps tanks use calcium reactors. I was making them aware, that there are quite a few nice high demand sps tanks which don't use reactors. It wasn't bashing reactors, or winding people up. Just backing up my previous claims. My first question is, are you baking the baking soda? If you are, i wouldn't bother. It's harder to dissolve if you bake it first. There's no need to boil it. All you need is a saturated solution. Mix it up as best you can (around 300g to 4 liters). It's not a major if there is a little left undissolved, even if it sits on the bottom, it will reach equilibrium to form a saturated solution by itself in a few days. The stuff I get from medchem dissolves easily, without too much effort. Other forms may be more time consuming to dissolve, and may have some insoluble impurities in it. 300grams of pure sodium bicarbonate completely dissolves in 4 litres. Layton

But we aren't talking about measuring and controlling pH. We're talking about measuring and controlling calcium and alkalinity. Keeping the effluent pH at a certain level is not going to help maintain calcium and alk if you don't have an appropriate drip rate. That's where the guesswork / trial and error comes into it. It's harder to correlate effluent pH, drip rate, and bubble count to a certain usage of calcium and alkalinity. Layton

Actually that's pretty much the history in that thread I posted. As for good options for a soft coral tank? Two part is probably most versatile, in that you can dose calcium and alkalinity at different rates. Remembering that some bacteria are significant consumers of alkalinity. (7ppm alk used to process 1ppm ammonia). And that in a tank with low calcification use for alk / calcium, that usage imbalance might be more pronounced. Kalk is another inexpensive balanced method, but not as versatile, or scalable as two part. Layton

I don't really want to drag this out, and I can see you're trying to be diplomatic wasp, but all I said was and And some people take that a reactors are so complex as to be virtually impossible to use :-? I just think some are getting overly defensive over this for whatever reason. Layton

Well, I stick on topic. Make some logical statements, backed up by real information. Questioned some peoples rational. Then cookie posts a pot shot at me, tries to make out that i've said that a reactor is a "crappy thing, which is just useless and hard to work", when i've never said or implied it. But i'm just out to cause "shit"? I'm just trying to help people out with accurate information. Challenging stuff which doesn't make sense (and showing why). Why are people so offended by me asking questions of them? It's meant to get them thinking about things from a different perpective. The only aim of this is to put people in the best possible position, with the best possible information, to make a choice for themselves in what they want to do. If some people take offence to that, then unfortunately there's not a whole lot I can do about that. Remember it's about making sure information is accurate, it's not a "my way is the only right way" attitude. Layton

I've already backed up my statements. That's more than many people do. Then you get people taking that as me just making "pointless comments". Or Cookie who come out with a post like that in reply. How is that constructive? I'm just trying to put some logic into the discussion, that's all. Layton

No one has said either of those two things. No one has said calcium reactors don't work. No one has said you can't grow corals with calcium reactors. So I'm struggling to see the point to your post? Are you trying to imply that you can't be as successful using two part? Layton

If by "rubbish" you mean question them when people's experience contradict them, then probably. There are valid reasons why someone might choose a reactor over two part. But they don't seem to have anything to do with what's most efficient, or simple. But then people have different priorities and criteria in mind when choosing how to do something. Layton

Well all these methods "work". So the question is how do you choose one over the other? ... then, by that same logic, taking note of what unsuccessful tanks use must be highly relevant to you too. No doubt there are some unsuccessful tanks using calcium reactors. Which kind of negates that whole rational. So again the question is how do you pick one over the other? So... do you want me to post some example of tanks which use two part? I don't see what the relevance is really. The reasons i've outlined stand on their own merits. A picture of a tank neither supports or invalidates them. No, i'm just highlighting why using a tank which happens to use a particular method, is not particularly relevant in making a rational decision. Coming up with some rational reasons to use a reactor over two part might be more useful than just pointing out which tanks use CR and which use 2 part. Layton

What's pH got to do with calcium and alkalinity levels? What pH and drip rate do you set your reactor to to add 0.5dkH of alkalinity per day? It's just guess work. Not that it's not possible to work it out. It's just too convoluted to work out, so tuning a reactor ends up being just an exercise in trial and error (guessing). Anti calcium reactors? We'll I've spelled out why I'd personally would never use one, with real reasons. The fact that a lot of very nice tanks run reactors, isn't that relevant. If that's seen as some sort of reason for running a reactor, what would you say If I said that there are some disgusting tanks using calcium reactors too? Personally I make my decisions looking at specifics of how these methods and systems work, I don't base it on who uses them, or what their tank looks like. Layton

Personally I wouldn't go that high with calcium. Anything around 400 is fine. Calcium doesn't generally become limiting until it's under 350. Alkalinity is more important. The higher you have calcium, the harder it is to keep alkalinity levels up. There's no real advantage in having it that high. Layton