lduncan

no

I'm not the one talking about personal issues, you guys are. Incidentally wasp, you were the one who sidetracked the thread to begin with, with your "personal issues". Layton

Chimera, you're more or less saying what i'm saying. Which is why I don't understand this: How is that wrong. The best solution by definition IS the one which works best given your priorities requirements etc. You just said this yourself. Again there is always a single best solution to a problem. Layton

Well, like i've said it all depends on your priorities and requirements. Try reading what I've said, instead of making up what you think I've said. Layton

All those things factor in to determining what the best solution is. So the best solution is the one which works best based on your priorities, requirements etc.

... as long as people are finished making assumptions about what they THINK i'm saying.

I said there is always one BEST solution to a problem. Which is undeniably true. I not saying, and never have said, that the solution is the same for every situation. It depends on the persons circumstances, requirements, and priorities. Looking at all the possible solutions objectively will lead you to find the SINGLE best solution for your particular problem. Layton

My skimmer doesn't put any bubbles in the sump, guess it depends on design.

Who said my way is the only way? Not me. One thing which i find kind of pointless is this phrase "there are many ways to skin a cat" Sure there are, but the fact is, is that there is always one BEST solution to a problem. The fact that there are many ends to a means is irrelevant, what matters is that the way you chose is the best for your situation. If the idea is to keep it as simple as possible, is using a durso which introduces bubbles, then using baffels to dissipate them the simplest solution? Or is a full siphon, with no need for baffles in the sump the simplest solution? Layton

:-? No anger there. Just discussion. Ignoring, or shifting focus away from flaws is not constructive. In fact it's the MOST important and constructive thing to do, especially during the planing stages. How many people wish they knew ALL of the ramifications of something, before they did it, rather than being surprised by some of the pitfalls after the fact. If people get their "back up" when I say things like this is that my fault? Should I stop, just because people don't like the sound of it? Is what i've said, incorrect, or opinion? No. People seem to be a little too precious about me dissecting the reasons behind different design or methodology decisions. Maybe it's because they see some truth in it? I state fact as fact, when i'm talking from opinion, I try to make sure I say so. Layton

Why can't I discredit ideas? I gave perfectly reasons for it. Surely it's part of making an informed decision? Layton

I thought we were trying to keep it simple? Why bother with complex overflow systems? Why bother making a sump with baffles if you don't need to? Just offering suggestions, which happen to have good reasons behind them. Layton

That's a lame attempt at a justification if ever i've heard one. :-) Air is also noisy in an overflow. Wasn't that the reason the durso was created to begin with? If air was so good in the overflow, the durso wouldn't exist. ;-) Layton

... and some people have trouble differentiating fact from opinion. :-) Durso intentionally introduces air into the overflow --> more air bubbles in the sump Full siphon systems, require no air in the overflow --> no overflow introduced air bubbles in the sump. Common sense really.

But wasp, usually there is an overwhelming consensus, with a couple of rouges who are just chasing funding money :-) Also, just because superficially they may appear to be opposite extremes, it doesn't necessarily make one right and the other wrong. It may just mean that we don't understand the details of what is going on well enough. Layton

5 or 6 years without the need for a mop here. Layton

I agree, keep it simple as possible. Both in terms of equipment, and methodologies. A simple glass box is more than sufficient for a sump. No need for baffles at all, so long as your overflow design is right (don't use a durso), you won't get micro bubbles.

As far as photosynthesis goes, there is such a thing as too much light. I think it's called excitation quenching or something (from memory) where excess photons are converted to heat which changes the chemistry of those processes which make up photosynthesis. I don't know too much about it, but apparently it's possible. I don't know how that links with calcification, but remember that zooxanthellae and the corals themselves are competing for alkalinity. All in all, I don't think you'll find a lot of info on this. There isn't a lot of consistent info around on the links between zooxanthellae, photosynthesis, and calcification. For every study you find saying one thing, there's another which says the opposite. My gut feeling, and opinion, is that 400W halides are overkill. Also could what you're seeing be a result of changing bulb brands? Some bulbs, as bright as they may be, are crap for growth, others are excellent, all depends on PSD's Layton

I'm sorry. See this euphemism instead:

If this is the particular coral I'm thinking of, it's meant to be brown. If it is the same fast growing brown with blue tipped stag which is up and down New Zealand, when it's healthy, it will have a mahogany brown colour (vibrant brown with a hint of red, as opposed to "dirty" mud brown), with bright blue growth tips. If you got it tan, then it probably wasn't in good condition. It might just be recovering after being in a zeovit tank. Don't bother getting tied up in all those additives. The things that these corals need are clean water, light, calcium, alk, magnesium. The rest they are more than capable of making or farming themselves. Layton

Despite what you think wasp, my postings don't revolve around you. All i've said is that I doubt that too low nutrients cause this problem. Why? Because of they way these animals are built, and the way they get their food, for them to show effects from too low nutrients is not going to be possible in a practical aquarium. Doesn't it help people to bring this up? I think so. So I don't see your problem with it? Layton

Wasp, I'm just making an observation. Look at how these corals are built, how they get their food. For a coral to have something like that occur from lack of "nutrients" is practically impossible. Layton

I doubt it's lack of nutrients. That is one thing which is practially impossible to achieve in a tank, no matter how hard you try, especially when talking about acro's. It's seems one of those things which people say when they're lost for another explanation. ;-)

That efflo is awesome! I want one.

I would suspect nudibranchs. They are small. Look for them at night, they seem to hide underneath the coral during the day.