lduncan

UV Basics: • The UV light breaks chemical bonds within molecules. Specifically carbon double bonds. This results in smaller molecules. • Bacteria are more efficient at using these resulting smaller molecules than the bigger ones which were there before the UV zapped them. • With this smaller food now available, bacteria populations increase faster and hence more skimmate is produced. (Bacteria and phyto are major components of skimmate) • Many of the chemicals released by algae and corals which are used in chemical warfare between species are neutralised by UV. • UV kills (or maims) living things which flow through it. (Including bacteria, phyto, parasites, and zooplankton) But these would be removed by a skimmer anyway, so what does it matter if they are dead or alive. • UV promotes denitrification by boosting bacteria activity and populations within rocks and on surfaces throughout the aquarium. This is the hardest thing for people to grasp. UV actually increases the bacteria you want in your tank. All this comes down to one thing. Transforming waste within the tank into a form which can be permanently removed by skimming efficiently. Basically it makes your skimmer skim more. Removing more waste faster. Layton

Careful what brand you get. Not all UV's are created equal. You need a HO one. Many of the Asian brands use bulbs which have glass envelopes, but then use quartz sleeves. You need one which has bulbs which have quartz envelopes and sleeves. Normal glass blocks a significant amount of UV. The Deltec ones are one of the least expensive ones I have seen. Emperor in the states also make good ones, but I don't think they do 240V versions. Fay, i'm putting together an answer for you. But most of what you want to know is probably here already: http://www.fnzas.org.nz/fishroom/1-vt10335.html?start=0 Layton

Yes those chemical dehumidifiers are usually always 100% calcium chloride. The correct term for that property is hygroscopic. (Hydrophilic has to do with H bonding, it's slightly different)

I've seen the exact opposite. People use electrical current passing through a metal grid sunk in the ocean as a reef restoration method. It significantly increases settling and growth rates. I think it's referred to as bioaggregation.

I don't determine what people use or how they chose to run their tank. I give the information which means that they can make that decision for themselves. People have different requirements and different standards for their tanks than what I might have. For my tank and the type of animals I keep, UV is a very useful component. Layton

24/7, no real reason to run it any less. You might as well get the most out of it. Layton

Yes. The UV made a significant impact on skimmer output. I empty the cup on the 902 everyday. It's usually bubbling over by the next morning. I need to get a second one to keep up. Layton

I do: http://www.fnzas.org.nz/fishroom/1-vt10335.html?start=0

Personally, despite what Optus say, I think B1 is a dead duck. That satellite model doesn't have the best reliability record. http://www.fnzas.org.nz/fishroom/sky-di ... 12456.html

:lol: Exactly: are a significant problem.

I think that is how unsubstantiated rumours begin.

Any DNS tool like DiG or nslookup will give you that. But in this case the DNS setup is screwed (otherwise zeovit.com would load normally) so it's not so straight forward. A quick whois on zeovit.com to find it's name server addresses, a reverse lookup using dig of ns.zeovit.com gave the ip address above, which happened to be the same ip address as the webserver, which was also conveniently not hosted virtually by domain name. Simple as that. Layton

Actually they reduced nutrients far too quickly and wiped themselves off the internet. Try http://216.55.183.207/ (It looks like they have major DNS issues, don't know why they can't sort it)

:roll: So again, what was wrong with my advice? ( I can spell, i did notice it, it just wasn't worth editing after I checked it. ) You've neglected the initial situation which was calcium was 480 and alkalinity was 4. I said After that, we found that calcium was 380 and magnesium was 1050, I said: Then you said: I repeat. You're an idiot. Layton

Well calcium is super saturated in saltwater. The only reason why it stays in solution is because there is enough magnesium to poison calcium carbonate crystals as they form which stops it precipitating out. So magnesium stops calcium falling out of solution. If magnesium is low, the calcium can fall out of solution, and that's where kH comes into it. It precipitates out as calcium carbonate. But if calcium isn't falling, and kH is falling, magnesium is not going to help, as it only directly affects calcium. The extra kH is going somewhere else. Layton

Magnesium does not directly affect kH. It affects how much calcium can stay in solution. If your calcium is staying level now, then magnesium is not going to stop kH depleting. Magnesium of 3 times you calcium is balanced. That's were you seem to be at the moment. Layton

You say the advise I gave was wrong. Your an idiot. Read what it was, and what he's doing.

Well if alkalinity wasn't dropping faster than calcium, how did he get in the situation where Alk was 4 and Calcium was 480 in the first place?

Total cost would be interesting, cast acrylic tube is not cheap! Layton

Ahh, the line right before I criticised the tank saying: What I said was a valid criticism. It's not particularly low. In fact it's a level which is close to 10 times the upper limit researches use as indicator on the reef of significant changes for the worst happening. I completely understand this is within a common reading range. However that does not make it a low reading in my opinion. A low reading is not relative to other tanks, it's relative to what is required by the animals you're keeping. And I know people who think their orthophosphate level is 0.02 because a electronic meter told them it is. Both these people are wrong. Because you consider it to be the best commonly available, doesn't make it useful for the purpose you're trying to use it for here. You do it already every time you do a phosphate test with your Hanna meter. It would actually be of more value than the orthophosphate reading. But the test is not exactly practical for a hobbyist to perform. Especially if they have no knowledge of the chemicals involved. What I consider a phosphate problem and what you consider a phosphate problem are two different things. In all the years I've been running tanks, i've only had a two week period where I could detect phosphate in my water at all, every other time, it's been undetectable. I wasn't forced to completely strip down my tank. I've not had massive problems with hair algae, only small isolated patches, mainly on newly introduced rock. So relative to other people I haven't had significant phosphate related problems. Hell i've never even used phosphate remover! What didn't I understand about phosphate that cause zeovit to be a disaster? I didn't lose any corals when I used it. I could see that zeovit was causing changes in my tank, which were not what I wanted happening. Layton

I admit it was not absolutely clear. However you still don't seem to have grasped the concept. Also if you had a deeper understand of phyics, chemistry and scientific process in general, you'd soon realise that these sorts of simplified statements are commonly made, when you delve deeper you find that technically they are incorrect, but they still serve a useful purpose. You can't always explain every single little detail when you're trying to get across a concept. You've obviously taken it literally, maybe because it's convenient for argumentative reasons. Layton

...or keep animals which don't care about phosphate levels.

So how is he to fix the problem of his KH dropping much faster than calcium? Is he meant to stop add sodium bicarbonate? What's causing the KH to drop? How do you fix it? Layton

It's bacteria which are using this alkalinity. They need carbon, and that's the source which is available. So how do you correct this "problem", you can't. You have to wait untill the bacteria have done the job that they are clearly doing, as calcium levels are fine. Only time solves this. You have no choice but to add baking soda in the mean time. Layton

Not exactly. Nothing is "wrong" in that there is nothing you can fix directly. Corals aren't the ones using all this alkalinity, if they were, then calcium would drop in proportion. Layton