wasp

Yikes! What in heck is that!!?

That all sounds good Duke, green is sometimes the first colour and other colours come later. The difference between kh and Mg/L is just 2 different ways to measure alkalinity, like temperature can be measured in celsius or farenheight. Good the hair algae is starting to receed. Even though you have nutrients very low in the water, the hair can continue to draw on stored nutrients in the rock. So can take a while to eradicate all the hair but as long as you keep the water at low nutrient levels, the rock will gradually leach clean and hair algae will die. Many zeovit users find this process can take a few months. TN is Tissue Necrosis. It happens to sps corals if the flesh comes off and you can see the exposed skeleton. It is mostly caused by something wrong in the water. If calcium and alkalinity are out of whack with each other, TN can start around the bottom of the coral, and slowly work it’s way up, eventually killing the coral. In high nutrient tanks sometimes we can get away with ca and alk being wrong, but in a low nutrient tank like yours now is, ca and alk should be kept at NSW levels. So at present, your ca is too high, and alk is too low. What Cookie Extreme said is correct, if you are using a ca reactor. However IMO you should really get these levels sorted. The calcium is able to get up to 500 because the alkalinity is too low. Easy way to sort this is to dissolve a teaspoon of baking soda (not baking powder) in water and add to the tank each day. This will raise alkalinity. As alkalinity gets higher, it will start taking out the calcium to a lower level. Just test your kh until it gets a bit over 7, then test the ca and see where it is. If it is still at 500, raise kh to about 8 and keep it there, ca will slowly come down over time, til you reach the desired level of ca 420 – 440, and kh 7 – 8. Don’t take kh over 8. ( in a low nutrient tank ). The relationship between calcium and alkalinity is quite important. Here is an excellent article that should be compulsory reading for all reefers http://www.advancedaquarist.com/issues/nov2002/chem.htm

Hi Duke, tested the latest water sample it came out at 0.03. That's a real low number, a big improvement on last time! A properly running zeovit tank should ideally be running between 0.02, and 0.05, so you're right on target. Hows the tank looking? At this level of phosphate the hair algae should be beginning to decline, and the front glass should not need cleaning very often, if at all. So all that stuff you are doing is paying off. A word of caution, now nutrients are low, your sps can TN if calcium and alkalinity are very far away from natural seawater levels. You should endevour to keep alkalinity at dkh 7 to 8, ( DKH, not Mg/L ) and calcium 420 to 440, the same as found in the waters of a coral reef. You could also if you wish, now look at feeding the sps with Pohls CV, and you should also be seeing the sps becoming more colourful. Hope all that's happening, but if not, just stay the course and keep nutrients down. Watch the sps carefully for any sign of TN, and if there is any, stop all dosing of zeo products for 3 days and then re assess. Need any more of that fish food? if so I'll send some more.

Actually I've had a look at the " Combo Shopped" pic of my tank on a pc with a better monitor than mine, it is pretty clear it's been altered, I think I'll stay with my ordinary pic. What you did Combo, has certainly made some things more realistic, but the shaded areas of the tank are almost black, where in the actual tank it does not look like that. Perhaps it's not possible to make a perfect pic out of one that was not right in the first place? BTW, still a few tanks we haven't seen yet, come on guys....

My QT works like this - It is a large plastic tub that used to hold a fishing net. ( Commercial snapper one ). There is a cannister with that eheim glass media that is excellent base for bacteria but don't adsorb copper. In the tub is a bunch of garden variety rocks, dunno what they are but they not calcerous. The cycle in the cannister has completed & there is currently 3 medium sized fish in the QT, no nitrite buildup. Surprisingly little nitrate buildup also, but when it happens I'll do a massive WC. Rocks provide ample hiding the fish are not overly stressed. If PH gets a little low i dump a bit of kalkawasser in manually. I think this is an easy way to do it because there is very little work to it & it provides a relatively stress free environement to the fish. When there are no fish in it I'll turn everything off bar the cannister, and I'll throw the odd pinch of fish food in to keep the biological filter activated. BTW if anyone local needs anything QT'ed / copper treated, welcome to put it in mine for a while.

Becketts work well it is rare to find a user who is not happy with them. They must by design, create bubbles of many different sizes. This causes more "chaos" in the reaction chamber than in a needlewheel, and less efficient skimming than an even bubble size would produce. On the other hand, for those who are into "wet" skimming, many becketts can be set quite low, and the irregular bubble size can cause some spitting at the top of the riser tube, allowing pretty effective wet skimming. But there is no question that a Beckett will require a powerful pump and more electricity to run it that a similarly rated needlewheel skimmer. While I've never seen much comment from owners saying they did not like their beckett, I have seen over the last year or two several comments on RC from people who have switched from a becket to a needlewheel, saying they are happier with the needlewheel. However Bomber, the owner of arguably the most famous tank in the world, ( why I don't know ), has a beckett, and swears by it.

That sponge you've got wedged against the pipe in that last pic, do you have any more of that? It looks fairly open weave. If you have some more, and can put right across that section of the sump, below the base of the pipe, in such a way that all water has to pass through it, that will eliminate nearly all the bubbles. In time the sponge may clog and need a wash, so do it in such a way that there is a small gap water could go through if it clogs. Plus I second the sponge on the return pump inlet, but do the other sponge too. Actually, the use of sponges is second best, because they have some drawbacks like needing cleaning, and not reducing nitrate. The better way is to design a sump with baffles in such a way the bubbles are eliminated without use of a sponge. But your sump is very small & I think you may not have room to do it with baffles alone, you may have to resort to sponges also.

Well Hey! we're in agreement!!! Something I said is actually true!! First time for everything :lol: :lol: :lol:

To be fair ( on all I hope ) there is nothing to stop Reef selling any kind of skimmer he wants. If he thought Becketts were the best he'd be selling them, but he thinks Deltec is, so he sells that. However on the testing front, Reef wouldn't the best test between them be to run both on a tank at the same time until one shuts the other down? IE ones pulling crud after the other one can't get any. That would be pretty conclusive. I even offer myself as an independent observer so it could not be said the test was biased.

Thanks Combo! BTW I must congratulate you on your English. For someone from Slovenia you talk like you've been living in NZ for years!

Well in that case with your permission Combo, I'll download that photoshopped version of my pic to use next time i edit my tank section

So we need a "dig' Smiley We should also have a "not digging" smiley, so that paraniod people can tell the difference.

Then you'd have to use a formula like skimmate produced/electricity consumed = (Biggest number is best). Just a thought though, becketts are known for producing bubbles of various sizes. But if your one seems to be producing exceptionally large ones, is your pump high pressure enough?

Ok Pies, your pics look genuine enough to me. Tell us what you do, and what you think the boundaries should be.

Well I met up with Helifax & we all got our water. Very nice guy with two very cute little daughters.

Helifax, I'm going to be there tonight (Takapuna) around or shortly before 8.00 pm. If you're heading down, give me a call on 027 4725 914 shortly after 7.00 pm, I'll have a better idea exactly what time I'll be there.

Hmmm... Well looking at that tree pic I can certainly see how a drab tank could be made into a stunner!! :lol: As to your last post Combo I'm guessing the bottom ones photoshopped? Only because it seems unusualy highly coloured? Come on spill the beans Is it or isn't it? How do you know? BTW just to illustrate my previous point about false accusations, on that mammoth thread of Bombers on RC, even HE was accused of photoshopping, and the pics had been taken by Gregt! I just don't believe it.

You want me to spend an hour running around looking for them? Can't be bothered. No need either as most people on the board will remember it. The photoshop allegation has been used several times and I certainly thought it was a wild claim in some cases.

I guess what this is about, to me anyway, is that Combo's "photoshopped" pic of my tank is actually more accurate than the other one. I'd like to substitute the pic if it was "ethical". But is it? It certainly looks more photoshopped than some I've seen critisized, because even my non expert eye can see it.

Thanks Feelers. What is saturation anyway? As to the previous post, I’ll re state that I’ve seen the cry PHOTOSHOP! used to discredit a pic of a nice tank, because the complainant did not like the method of filtration used on the tank. Not once but several different times. No I’m not an expert in the industry but I could see no evidence of photoshopping at all in these cases. It is this mentality why I am reluctant to do it, even for a genuine purpose. Plus I’m sure photoshop could be abused anyway. How much is too much.

Exactly right. i've seen some people crying PHOTOSHOP when a nice pic of a tank is shown but the person complaining does not like the filtration method used for the tank. This despite me being unable to see any sign of it being photoshoped at all. That's why I'm a little reluctant to do it. It then becomes subjective wether it's been photoshoped "too much". So how would you suggest photoshoping an image to make it more true to the actual tank, but not be able to be accused of "photoshopping". Bear in mind many people see their own tank in a better light than neutral people do.

Time of day is not important unless like Feelers you're trying to get plankton and stuff. More important is wind, tide, etc.

Well some of us have dude! My QT is using that eheim glass media stuff in a cannister to avoid this problem

Wow Combo that's awesome! I had to take heaps of shots just to get the one that's shown, the others are even worse. Trouble with doing what you say, it is "photoshoping" the pics, I'm not sure I would want to go there, but it is certainly a better likeness of the tank. I'll have to check out the cammera & see if this can be done at camera settings level.

Actually, it does appear to have a DSB. Conclusive proof - DSB = incredibly clean tank