chimera

well here's a top down look of two options, top one is acrylic tank and bottom is glass. Dimensions are whatever you want them to be, but I was thinking 1200 long, 500 high, 600 deep. Brian - I think 400 high is too low - you will always lose about 50mm (25mm glass bottom and substrate, 25mm from top of tank for water level) Two holes in the bottom (1 & 2) for closed loops, each feeds an eheim 1060 (or better). First outlet to eheim feeds spray bar, second outlet to eheim feeds SCWD which alternates between top outlets (3 & 4) Overflow (5) is built outside the tank to provide more physical space in the tank. The acrylic tank has bow sides so waterflow moves around the tank smoother, of course this would cost alot more to make. Otherwise the second tank could be an option, more joins but simply done like this for uniqueness rather than the usual boring rectangular shape! It should give quite a unique view from the front having bowed or hexagonal shaped sides. Perhaps better reflection of light too? Anyway, hopefully this should give you some ideas at least. Another option I was thinking was having 'boxes' (similar to the overflow on the back) on the sides so you could fit a stream or other type of powerhead in there without it being (overly) visible from the front. I'm just trying to think outside the square,... excuse the pun

i'll draw it up later and post here. it may or may not be feasible, but it's an open minded approach!

better lighting to the bottom if it's shallower. more surface to air ratio for better aeration. perhaps more aesthetically pleasing. yeah why not! why dont you design your tank completely different?! i have some ideas that you could ponder

that still aint small!!!

I realise this, hence why I prefixed the comment with "food for thought" as reef mentioned ozone. Was just pointing out it's predominantely negative effects for anyone who was unaware. (BTW, what I posted was from Dr. Leo G. Morin (PhD) owner of SeaChem Laboratories, Inc. (originally an associate professor in the School of Medicine, Emory University, Atlanta then became full time operator of Seachem. Since then he passed away and his son took over, Dr. Greg Morin) I am personally not knowledgable on the subject of redox, therefore cannot and wont argue any of the points above. However the post above hopefully maintains some form of open mindedness on the subject - none of which "markets" seachems products - so perhaps not biased in anyway. Just some interesting comments I thought.

nothing like using photoshop to sharpen up some of ya images! :lol:

awesome mate! they look fantastic! whats the camera?!

i believe cyano is a mix of more than just high nutrients (although nutrients, specifically phosphates, is the limiting factor!), it includes poor lighting, poor water flow, high temperature and poor maintenance as well.

well you would certainly hope not after reading that

speaking of Cyano, something I read from a reef guy with a PhD in science - maybe something someone could try next time they get Cyano? Do not use red slime killing products, usually erythromycin. Aside from jeopardizing nitrification and denitrification, antibiotics just kill off all susceptible strains of algae or bacteria, then a few weeks later the resistant survivors take over. Your slime killer stops working. The safest way to suppress red slime is with light, specifically with the long UV available in actinic sources. Increase the actinic light or other UV source and remove any glass or thick acrylic between the light and the water. UV sterilizers do not help with this because they do not illuminate the aquarium

speaking of ozone, food for thought... Ozone is a very unstable triatomic form of oxygen and is a very powerful oxidizer. It is often recommended for use with skimming. In freshwater, ozone oxidizes organic material and ultimately breaks down to free diatomic molecular oxygen. In sea water, however, ozone reacts instantly (microseconds!) not only with organics, but first with iodide, bromide, and chloride ions to form hypoiodite, hypobromite, hypochlorite (bleach!), also iodine and bromine. The latter two are just as bad as chlorine. Ozone also reacts with available manganese, iron, magnesium, and even calcium ions and depletes them from solution. Ozone is non-discriminating and destroys useful amino acids, vitamins, and other deliberately added nutrients as well as the undesirable organics. Ozone cannot escape into the tank itself, being too short-lived, but its byproducts, predictable (bleach) and unpredictable (what did that unidentified organic released by that anemone incompletely break down to?) can. With all the proper caveats in place, ozone can be used safely, but is it worth it? and you thought I thought of that too?

Redox is another poorly understood measurement in the hobby. Redox is measured with an electrode, very much like pH is measured with an electrode. Just as electrode pH measurements are very much dependent on a properly functioning and calibrated electrode, true redox measurements are even more dependent on function and calibration of the electrode. Unfortunately, redox calibrators do not have the stability characteristic of pH calibrators. While accuracy and precision are dependent on electrode function, many hobbyists have the natural inclination to assume that digital read-outs are highly accurate, regardless of the condition of the electrode.The assumption behind redox measurements is that organics depress redox and the removal of organics raises redox. All organics are assumed to be harmful. High redox is associated with oxygenation and good water quality. In fact, redox is a measure of the ratio or equilibrium between oxidizing and reducing substances in the water. It does not address the issue of whether these oxidants or reductants are harmful or beneficial. The underlying assumption is that oxidants are good, reductants are bad. Redox measurements can be useful if they are made reliably and the aquarists is aware of what can alter measurements without necessarily reflecting a decline or improvement in water quality. The addition of strong oxidizing agents, such as ozone, peroxide, permanganate, persulfate, or hypochlorite, will produce an immediate rise in redox of themselves, and this has no particular benefit. Ultimately, these oxidants will oxidize something oxidizable and that may be of benefit, but the benefit was not reflected by the initial rise of redox from the oxidants themselves. Likewise, the addition of reductants, such as vitamin C, other vitamins, amino acids, some nutrients, dechlorinating or ammonia removing compounds, will cause a drop of redox, but this does not reflect a decline in water quality. Even innocent fluctuations, such as pH, alkalinity, or temperature rise, will cause a drop in redox. Day or night, feeding, filtering media, water changes, all of these have innocent effects that are not faithfully reflected by redox changes. High nitrates are undesirable, yet nitrates will cause an upward swing in redox. Redox measurements are a tool. Used intelligently they can be helpful, used compulsively they can be dangerous. Provided an aquarium is well oxygenated and well maintained with water changes and some form of chemical treatment such as skimming and organic filtration, it is more likely that damage will be caused by too high a redox than by too low a redox, usually because someone feels compelled to raise redox by adding some strong oxidizing agent. Using a redox meter is a lot like investing in stocks. If you follow the normal ups and downs too closely, you will probably end up losing it all. It is very possible to maintain a successful reef aquarium without ever taking a single redox measurement And you thought I came up with that...

your tank is not that old though is it brian? about 9 months? if so, probably just a normal phase

http://www.google.co.nz/search?hl=en&q=diy+bubble+counter&meta=

true that, i assumed she meant rock

i've only got "the successful mini-reef aquarium" - cant really compare but its a great book so far!

seriously doubt 95%? but you dont know... but then neither do i... apparently eggs are unharmed so a good thing getting those to the main tank as they'll eventually hatch. i wonder how you could test something like that...!!! good plan. i think splitting flow is a good thing if its planned well. sounds like you're on track. when are you getting the rest of your garage sorted?

pink stuff (assuming pink, not red) is coralline algae. good sign tank is running well. is the green an encrusted algae or hairy/slimey algae? if coralline is growing in abundance, the green is less likely to be an issue.

depends on the purpose of the refugium (taking the word "refugium" in the general sense of the word), if for nutrient export then prior to sump, if to feed the main tank, then after the sump. see previous page post on methods. i guess the perfect setup would be two fuges, first fuge having caleurpa, then to a sump with skimmer, then to sand/LR fuge for pods and returned. theory being the nutrients from the main tank are taken up by caleurpa, anything else is skimmed, good water passed to LR where pods are, which get fed back to main tank.

$400 - $450 new. if you can get for $300 2nd hand, go for it. just be aware RO needs replacing probably every 6mths - 1 year? and DI every year or more, depending on use. also pre-filter and carbon filter obviously needs changing every now and then too. RE: Diatoms, read here: REF: http://saltaquarium.about.com/cs/algaecontrol/a/aa091100.htm but then they go and contradict themselves and call it an algae later on. go figure!

mine closed up for about 3 weeks when i increased water flow (closed loops). i moved it to the refugium and it came back the next night. perhaps just lucky?

depends, 4 stage i'd guess around $400 - $450? thats prefilter, carbon filter, RO then DI.

yes, most likely. i dont think they like strong current directed straight at it but will handle a fair amount of current in time.

light brown and short - sounds like diatoms? not actually an algae if it is but still a nuissance for RODI systems, try Anthony Preston Limited in Howick

Just as an aside, an in-sump skimmer would make a difference to this as not all water passes through it. So a percentage of pods would get passed back to the main tank. Not disagreeing with you Pies, just giving a different perspective.