spooky

I have a similar, but smaller, tank of the same design. In general it is fine, Pros: - It is nicely integrated and reasonably quite (good for a living room tank). - The filters are really easy to inspect and change. - The lighting is good, my one came with good lighting for plant growth. Cons: - Access into the tank is limited. The main hatch is a quarter of the top but doesn't let me reach everywhere. You can remove the lights and the filter if you need to, but removing the filter is cumbersome. - There is a strong current. This may not be a bad thing, but should be kept in mind for the fish you get. This will probably be less of a problem with the bigger tank. - The cables have to come out the side, which make them harder to hide. - The cabinet isn't anything much. Sort-of typical TV cabinet quality. In short it is not optimal, but it is convenient.The main reason I won't be buying one again is a desire to keep my options open in terms of filtration and I want good access since I am planning an "experimentation" tank. Experimenting with the decor and plants that is, not the fish.

Your photo is almost certainly a low-light/long exposure problem. The streaking of the bubbles is a dead give-away. Since a lot of the movement is the photographer if I'm stuck in these situations I will take two or three photos of the same scene. With luck one of them will involve less movement than the rest. Fortunately digital camera's allow you this luxury. The bad news is of course that the fish won't stay still for you. More light is the best answer, just remember to light from above to avoid reflections off the glass if you're using an external lamp.

Yes, they are almost excluisvely feeding from the surface. I'll try the release under-water thing. The floater seems to be recovering a bit, he's spending less time at the surface and is swimming down deeper. The only flaw with the air theory is that the fish was eating a sinking flake some 10cm below the surface when it suddenly went sky-ward.

Wardley Total Tropical. They also get blood-worms about once a week and occaisionally there is a pleco-tablet thrown in too (but not for a couple of weeks).

I was feeding my fish earlier today (with the standard flake food I usually feed them) and one of my tiger barbs suddenly started flapping around on its side and then shot to the top of the tank as though it was a cork. It appears to be suddenly lighter than water. I had perviously noticed that some of my other tiger barbs had seemed to have been fighting excessive bouyancy, but usually when I checked them again an hour later they were fine. Any ideas what this is ? I assume it's some sort of swim-bladder problem, but what is the treatment ? Other relevant info: The fish could possibly be described as slightly bloated, but not beyond what I would have considered the normal body shape of a tiger barb. Water conditions are good (i.e. Ammonia not on the scale, nitrates OK, pH stable), although up until that point it had been a while since I did a water change (I did one shortly afterwards for other reasons). Nothing has changed in the tank for a few weeks, the last fish having been added about a month before-hand. There had been trouble with the Kribensis harrassing some of the other tiger barbs in the last few days, but this particular fish has no fin damage.

I don't know what voltage power supply you are using (or what the voltage drop of the LEDs you brought is) but it will work. As fins says, it may be too dim, but there are several things you can do: Firstly, only use one resistor for every chain of LEDs in series. You will get the brightest results with only one LED in the chain at that particular resistance, but you are better off getting a lower resistor and having more LEDs in the chain. Secondly, don't go out and buy more resistors yet, wire up a single chain of LEDs, say four (I'm assuming something like a 9V supply and 1.5V drops across LEDs, for white LEDs you will need fewer LEDs, I don't know about blue). Have a look at the brightness, if it makes you happy then go for it. If not, solder (or even just touch) another resistor across the one already in there so it is in parallel. This will double the current and hopefully the brightness. If that is good then you can go ahead and wire the rest of the chains like that, i.e. two resistors in parallel in series with the LEDs (did you follow that). You can even go out to four or five resistors, but then you're better off getting smaller resistors. If the resistance gets too low then one of two things can happen: you are trying to disipate too much power in the resistor, in which case the first sign is that it starts developing a black band around it's center (the second is that it starts smoking). Other wise you just shorten the lifetime of the LEDs (and waste power). The only way you are going to do this with what you have is by not using a resistor, or by feeding it main voltage. It may even be possible to get away without the resistor *if* you put in a lot of LEDs. Too many and it won't work at all, too few and it will damage the LEDs. I would build up a chain of LEDs that is guaranteed to be too many and then remove them one at a time until it works. After that you could get away with one more (assuming there are still four or so left) if it isn't bright enough for you. This may fall into the category of too much like hard work though. If you find the light hard too look at, then it's too bright.

Because that would be simple, and if we wanted life to be simple we wouldn't be in this hobby.

Ah, something I can almost claim expertise on ! Chimera's link is failry good. As it says at the end, if you have a lot of LED's you run groups of them in series and then those groups in parallel. Once you have designed and tested one series set you can add other parallel sets at will (or until your power-supply runs out of current, which won't happen quickly). The important points are: i) Too many LEDs for the voltage will result in no light. ii) If the LEDs are too dim, either remove one from the chain or lower the value of the resistor. iii) The exact value of the resisitor is unimportant, the example in the link is for 135 Ohms, anything between 100 to 200 Ohms will give the desired result. iv) No resistor and you burn out the LEDs, too big a resistor and the LEDs too dim. v) The flat edge on the LED goes on the negative side. In circuit diagrams there is an arrow and a flat bit, the flat bit in the diagram matches the flat bit on the LED. You could put a variable resistor in place and tune the brightness top whatever you felt like. As far as mounting them goes you can use anything that doesn't conduct. I have used printed-circuit board (i.e. fibreglass), wood, cardboard, and polystyrene at various times. All you need is something insulating, stiff and not too thick: i.e. it shouldn't short out the LEDs, it should support them and it should be easy to put holes through. Assuming you don't have access to, and don't want to make, a printed circuit then you could try veroboard. It's like a pre-built printed circuit board with a grid of holes and copper strips on one side. You build the circuit by soldering the LED's in place and cutting the tracks you don't need. Dick Smith stocks it (although I forget what they call it, I just know which shelf to go to at the Dunedin branch).

Another thought: Try using a tripod (or just a stable surface). High zoom doesn't just magnify the image, it magnifies the shaking of your hands which blurs the image (a large aperture/lots of light helps this since the exposure time can come down, you're still shaking, but you take the photo before things have moved too far).

Brianemone, the aperture trick, while it does alter the outcome of the photos, will also alter what the camera can focus on. For example, if the camera can only focus as close as 30cm (at a given zoom), but you reduce the aperture then it will extend the area in focus towards (and away) from you. So something closer comes into focus, even if it isn't in the center of the area that is focussed. It is quite possible that the camera is just not capable of zooming in close at short distances (the designer was assuming you wanted to zoom in on things at a distance, being what the average person taking holiday snaps wants). This is why I suggested also trying the wider aperture, because you might then get into a regime that the camera was designed for. By the way, I wasn't joking about moving closer and using a lower zoom (unlike the comment about bigger fish). In theory the zoom is the same as moving closer, but it doesn't always work as well, so you may be able to win a little bit that way. Also, at four megapixels, you may not need the zoom. If you turn the picture quality up / compression down the fish will still be small in the overall picture, but when cropped down the remaining image will still be big enough (and high enough quality) to keep you happy.

I don't have much experience with aquarium photography specifically, but you could try playing with the aperture. Reducing the aperture will increase the depth of field and bring more into focus. Unfortunately this requires either more light or a long exposure (= blurry fish) and everything in the tank comes into focus, which may result in photographs which are a bit stark. Conversely the lens system might be better set up for wide aperture close-ups since that is what people normally want with close-ups (charp face/blurry background). This is better for shooting the fish anyway, but I assume you already have the camera set for close-ups. Some other obvious options: 1) Get the camera closer and use a lower zoom ... 2) ... or lure the fish to the glass. 3) Get bigger fish.

Bilbo, if you've already used the water for the tanks then you have probably already done everything you're going to do to the fish. I say go for it (the paranoid person would only hook it to one tank at first though).

You could add metal reflectors behind the lights and still use a wooden hood. The reflectors shield the wood from too much heat and sends the light in the right direction (although you might get too much light). In terms of wiring, lights are almost the easiest thing around to wire up. Some tips though: if you are colour-blind get someone else to check the wiring. When you are finished get hold of a voltmeter, turn the lights on, and check the voltage of the exposed metal parts before you touch them with your bare hands. Never be tempted to leave any exposed live wiring or contacts thinking "I'll never touch that there", because one day you will find out otherwise. Wire the switch in on the phase (positive) side of the lights, this minimises the amount of live wiring when it is switched off. I will add that I haven't had much experience with wiring aquarium lights, although I've wired a lot of other things, so I'm not sure how to deal with moisture issues. Most aquariums I've seen seem to have just a single piece of glass or perspex between the water and the light, so it should be OK if you already have a glass top.

Surely what you get off the radiator can't be that bad. If you accept tap water (sans chlorine) then the metal content off the radiator is going to be far lower than that (albeit different metals). Similarly for rain-water off a galvanised roof. The surface area and length of time the water is in contact with the radiator doesn't amount to much by comparison. I will add the caveat that my experience with dehumidifiers was some time ago, but they are a great source of a steady stream of water at volumes that should suit a fish tank just fine.

Getting some Otos (otoclinicus) will cure the algae problem. Three of them cleaned my tank out of red algae overnight. They don't grow very large either (unlike bristlenoses). The only down-side is that they aren't a very pretty fish.

I like that idea Shar, now all I have to do is find some time ... The stop gap solution until the weekend is to rearrange some of the plants so that the areas around its favourite hiding place are shielded from view from below.

Does anyone have any suggestions for making hiding places for the upper half of the aquarium. I have plenty down low, but here is my problem: I have a single community tank which I have been slowly introducing fish to. I recently introduced a honey gourami and it is not getting along well with the kribensis. Basically the kriibensis will chase the gourami and nip its fins whenever it sees it. The kribensis cruises around most of the lower half of the aquarium (without arguing with the other fish) and so this confines the gourami to hiding in the upper half. Unfortunately there aren't many hiding opportunities in the top of the tank right now since the plants haven't grown up that high. So the gourami is usually hiding behind the plumbing. I'd like to provide it with more opportunities to escape. Failing that, is anyone in the Dunedin area on the lookout for a small, slightly nipped, honey gourami ? Still eating well. Would consider a swap for plants or that overly boisterous community fish that is causing your other fish problems. I think I'm going to have to give up trying to introduce "peaceful" fish to this tank.

Thanks Robbo, that was the sort fo reassurance I was looking for. I think it can stay an only child.

In my tank I have a skunk loach (Botia morleti) that came free, it hitched a lift in the plants when I first planted the tank. Desite this traumatic experience it seems to be healthy. My problem is that it is an unplanned addition. The advice I can find on the net suggests it should be kept with a few of its own kind. However, I don't really want to add more to the tank. Partly because I don't want to risk adding another aggressive fish to the tank and partly because I have other plans for the remaining space in the tank. I'm also not in a position to start another tank either. The species also seems to have a reputation for being agressive but my one doesn't seem to be causing trouble (its only tank mates at the moment are Tiger Barbs and Otos). What are peoples experiences with this fish ? Does anyone have experience with keeping one on its own ?

Your suggestions for fish are pretty much what I was thinking of, the bristlenose is going to be essential anyway since the otos ignore the green algae on the gravel. Thanks for the info on the fish club. The time and place is going to be quite convenient.

Hi, I'm returning to the hobby after some ten years away. I'm currently in the process of setting up a new tank (about 100 litres). It cycled quickly, perhaps suspiciously quickly, I did use bacterial starter though. The fish I currently have are fine and healthy, so I figure it's worked OK. I've only half-stocked the tank so far. I have a small school of five tiger barbs, three otos (to keep the algae down) and a skunk loach. I didn't mean to get the skunk loach, but it hitched a lift with the plants I bought (it surviving half an hour with only the moisture on the plant leaves to live on !). It mostly hides during the day but comes out the moment you turn the lights down (its nocturnal of course). It has a large shell to hide in. The shell itself does not seem to have had a major effect on the water chemistry, perhaps raising the pH slightly, but within the error of my test kit. I've been adding fish gradually and am still thinking about what to add next. Iwant to add a second school of fish and one or two largish single specimens. The problem is I can't decide what. I'll need more bottom feeders too, it's too much work for the loach alone.