lduncan

http://www.fnzas.org.nz/fishroom/1-vt85 ... sc&start=0 you couldn't see any there either. So what examples do you have wasp?

Just wasp trying to take another shot a me.

Jees, grow up. I know what you're talking about, and it was more than obvious those photo's had saturation levels altered, others agreed with me too. It has nothing to do with how people choose to run their tanks, and comments like that piss me off. Just because it's not obvious to you doesn't mean it's not obvious to others. Especially those with significant experience in the industry. Layton

I've said it before (and got shot down for it), it's a common practise to photoshop pictures, for the very reason you've said. It's hard to get a true likeness of a tank with a digital camera. A few adjustments in photoshop can can result in a picture which gives a more true likeness to the real thing. Some people just got a bit over the top on the saturation though. :lol: Layton

I would agree with that. Especially if your running low nutrients. Plus you'd almost definitely have to get a chiller if you ran 400's. Another $900. Layton

I thought I had seen this tank before: http://www.zeovit.com/forums/showthread ... ight=danny Apparently he uses zeolites, vodka, and bacteria cultures (not zeovit branded stuff, but similar) Layton

I think he uses zeolite, not zeovit. Not 100% sure though.

Holland: http://www.marineaquarium.nl/OHC.php

No need to. Aluminium keeps it's reflectivity, even with the small layer of oxide on it.

Yip, it's aluminium, it always has an oxidised surface in air. It keeps it's reflectivity though.

It's one impressive tank! I wonder what the 18' curved glass front panel is worth! Layton

I recon 400's are overkill, i'll be downgrading to 250's at some point.

Jees Fay, you've had a pretty bad run this year, hopefully next year makes up for it.

I'd get a couple of 250's. Mainly because they'll be reusable for when you upgrade again Layton

I was round at Steve's the other day, and was thinking I need some of these! Looks good Pies! Layton

And the assumptions and crap continues...

And the inability to read continues...

More rumours and pure rubbish wasp...

Got rid of it months ago. As I predicted, it started to cause problems, so dumped it, as I had planned too. Layton

I knew someone would say that. There's an awful lot of water volume and bugger all coastline. Sediments have a huge part to play in the oceans nutrients supply, as well as sinks.

Algae gets all the nutrients they require first, before it has a chance to get anywhere near the skimmer. That's a problem. When it starts releasing the nutrients, you get virtually uncontrollable algae growth, until it's run it's course, and then the bed starts absorbing nutrients again. Layton

Maybe you should shut up then. It's hard to discuss something with someone who is completely ignorant on the subject, and has no inclination to learn anything about it. Read a link, and tell me what you think it is saying. Read the links, that's what they are. I'm not against sand beds, for some tanks they are fine. Personally I wouldn't chose to run one as filtration however, been there done that, it's too much work. Really? How many fish did I lose and how long did I have them? Pure rubbish. Clearly a blatant lie in an attempt to discredit what I say. What's wrong with telling the truth? That's all I'm doing. How are you going to prove it, when so many scientist and anecdotal evidence conclusively shows that they cycle nutrients. How are you going to disprove this? Especially seen as though you have no inclination to even read what it is your trying to disprove. Well that's your personal taste, fine. But you don't see skimmers on a Fiji reef either. Layton

You haven't looked very hard, it's all here in this thread. All you have to do is take a little time and read some of the links I posted. What's your definition of crash? It's all there in those links, they CYCLE NUTRIENTS, it's the release cycle (eutrophication) which creates an environment which promotes problem algae growth, and conditions which are, to some types of corals, lethal. Other corals could care less that nutrients are cycled, and all you have to contend with is problem algae. I don't have to prove anything to you. These people have done all the work: http://www.fnzas.org.nz/fishroom/2-vt10 ... =15#109090 Funny how people don't ask Dr Ron for proof of what he says. People just believe him, because they assume he knows what he's talking about. But there are lot of scientist which disagree with him, haven't seen one yet who does, as well as anecdotal evidence. Doesn't yours perform de-nitrification? How do you look after them? What do you have to do to them? How do you stop them cycling nutrients? Layton

Sorry wasp, i'll remember next time to run all my post past you so that you can censor them. Why did you post a post subject like "It CAN be done. Pretty SPS tank with DSB" and not expect discussion on it? So Chimera, how do you know when a DSB is full? What problems can a full DSB display? All the DSB tanks I have seen, including reeftec's one, are consistent with all the scientific evidence posted. What if someone told you how Plan A works, and that while in the beginning it could be beneficial, after a period of time it starts causing frustrating problems? Would you skip plan A and go to something more predictable and long term? Layton

I thought this was too good to pass up: http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showt ... ost5699764 The same processes which go on in the ocean, also go on in tanks. So this is comparable. Timeframes may be different though. No, poor husbandry will just make it cycle nutrients faster. Chimera, tell me exactly which part of the process which occurs in nature doesn't occur in tanks? Have you even read any of the links posted? Do you understand the overview of what is going on? Layton