wasp

One thing to bear in mind is that shorter, is by definition, less efficient. The taller the skimmer, the longer it takes the bubble to get to the top. The longer the bubble spends getting to the top, the more time it has to collect crud from the water.

You can safely start adding now, don't even need to add only hardy ones, 20 ppm nitrate is well within tolerance range for fish. Just do it gradually, and start with the least aggressive fish, adding the aggressive ones last. If you add the aggressive ones first they will get established then pick on any new ones added later.

Dunno, could be many things. However from what he has stated calcium is dropping like a stone, and of course As Mg is low, this is the obvious place to start. However I can understand you will have trouble learning anything from me, perhaps it will be better if someone else explains why alkalinity can appear to drop proportionately much greater than calcium. Here it is - Quote "One of the interesting features of seawater is that it contains a lot more calcium than alkalinity. By this I mean that if all of the calcium in seawater (420 ppm; 10.5 meq/L) were to be precipitated as calcium carbonate, it would consume 21 meq/L of alkalinity (nearly 10 times as much as is present in natural seawater). In a less drastic scenario, let's say that calcium carbonate is formed from aquarium water starting with an alkalinity of 3 meq/L that it is allowed to drop to 2 meq/L (a 33% drop). How much has the calcium declined? It is a surprise to many people to learn that the calcium would drop by only 20 ppm (5%). Consequently, many aquarists observe that their calcium levels are relatively stable (within their ability to reproducibly test it), but alkalinity can vary up and down substantially. This is exactly what would be expected, given that the aquarium already has such a large reservoir of calcium. So the first "deviation" from the rule of calcium and alkalinity balance really isn't a deviation at all. If an aquarist is supplying a balanced additive to his aquarium, and calcium seems stable but alkalinity is declining, it may very well be that what is needed is more of the balanced additive, not just alkalinity. This scenario should be assumed as the most likely explanation for most aquarists who should look for more esoteric explanations for alkalinity decline only if calcium RISES substantially while alkalinity falls. Likewise, if alkalinity is rising and calcium seems stable when using a balanced calcium and alkalinity additive system, the most likely explanation is that too much of the additive system is being used." Hope this helps

Cool! Yes in a small tank it can be tricky adjusting Ca and Alk.

I doubt he would want you in his tank Layton

The imported rock has to be left dry for 3 weeks to ensure any pests on it will die. However the rock is very porous, and becomes "live" again after it's been put in a tank for a few weeks and becomes colonised by bacteria. The bacteria eat the crud floating around in the water, hence liverocks usefulness for filtration.

Wouldn't get too worried about the 20 ppm nitrate at this stage. It actually takes a lot longer after cycling before the nitrate removing bacteria fully kick in, likely several months. But eventually you should be shooting for nitrate below 10, lower if possible. And heed trinitys advice, an excellent piece of advice! However as you have had the patience to wait till cycling is finished, and then actually seek advice before charging down to the lfs and "loading up", you obviously have the needed patience to succeed.

I'm impressed TM! Very professional. Can't tell by looking, how is the air injected? If I was clever enough to do something like that, I would.

KH dropping faster than calcium? Not sure you understand what he has been saying. Please remember that a drop of 100 in calcium will drop alkalinity proportionately much more. At this stage I would recommend a conventional approach to fixing the problem, as everybody else has suggested, and put your baking soda eating bacteria very much in the wild card basket.

Me too, I'd like to see it.

How's those sps going?

Yes I'll admit I can be argumentative when I'm right. But really my issue was with this statement, said when you were critisizing the lovely reef that was the subject of this thread. You don't understand this is quite a common, even better than average, level in an average reef tank if tested with an accurate device. Not ideal I'll give you, but nonetheless, the way it is. I know many people think their orthophosphate level is zero, that's because that's what their Salifert kit tells them. I also know you dissagree with that, so when I offered to test your own water, you switched to critisizing the instrument I use, the best commonly available to the hobby. Yes the Hach is good, but who is going to dissolve the contents of their tank in acid to see how much bound phosphate was there? :lol: Only a small sample can be tested and the resultant number will not be of great practicle value. However you and I will never agree on any of this. I accept that. But considering all the phosphate related problems you've had, including RTN, and being forced to completely strip your tank and spend months cleaning up your rocks, I'll just do things my way in regard to phosphate, thank you. Not to mention the disaster when you tried to use Zeovit, again caused by not properly understanding phosphate. But instead you now blame the Zeovit. Laughable. OK, so that was pretty vicious but that's how I see it. Now you can pull everything I said apart as you always do, but you won't catch me adopting your theories and methods.

I know what it means, it's a buddhist monk training his sidekick in martial arts :lol: :lol: Nah just kidding, I know what was meant Anyhow, there's pros and cons with a skimmer, but they do make life easier ( In my humble opinion ) Nevertheless, anybody who can make a tank really hum without one, has my respect. One way of doing it is to run a phosphate removing resin, or a fuge, or have an ultra low stocking level, or all three.

Here we go again - another Layton versus somebody thread. Layton what Cookie said is correct, and the advise you gave to Chimera is wrong. Just let Chimera fix his tank as per advise everybody else has given, which will work. No need to doggedly defend your position, that's not really what this whole thing is about.

It's sad Layton that you have to argue with every last thing I say, it's a habit with you. To read your last post, a person would think that just about everything I had said was wrong. In fact there is not one thing in the post you criticised that is incorrect. And to justify your own mistakes you keep re-qualifying what you say, and pages of argument and fudging. For example this - "For all intents and purposes" ? You never said that at all. What you said was literal, and that's how me and everyone else took it. If what you said was not literal, you would not have had to spend 3 pages arguing and fudging trying to defend your position, would you? :lol: And nor would you have needed to be so intent on trying to prove what I said was wrong, if you had not in fact said the opposite, would you? :lol: Sadly you ar playing with words again, I have during the thread tried to meet on our common ground, something you are never prepared to do. I knew you would argue with what I said and I said you would, and of course I was correct. If you made a mistake, or let's be kind and say you were not clear, you should fess up, not spend 3 pages trying to fudge it.

"Everything boils down to balance" Hmmm.... not quite sure what that means? However I don't really agree with the no skimmer idea, even for a small tank. My first tank many years ago had no skimmer. Then when I started up again in 1999 again I had no skimmer, in fact I did not even know what one was. But eventually as I learned more I decided to try one, even though it was just a Queen, the transformation in the tank was major, and left me in no doubt skimmers are the way to go. There are some great tanks with no skimmer, and even certain advantages with no skimmer such as leaving small organisms that can feed coral. But my own feeling is that these great tanks could well be even greater if they had a skimmer.

This will absolutely not help. The way it works is the calcium and alkalinity in your water are constantly trying to precipitate each other out. But magnesium performs a function that slows / prevents this. If Magnesium is low, calcium and alkalinity can be near impossible to maintain at high enough levels, they will keep dropping like a stone. Try to maintain magnesium in the safe range, which is higher than 1250 and lower than 1400. I suspect you may find your other problems will go away, but you will still have to get calcium and alkalinity in the right balance to each other as it sounds like at the moment they are out. BTW if you want some cheap magnesium chloride it can be bought for $14.00 for a 25 KG sack at Anchormart, Albany, behind the Speights building. It's probably not totally pure however I've used plenty of it with no ill effects at all.

Now you really are being silly Layton. The only thing I've been saying throughout is that "orthophosphate exists in all tanks", and you've responded with post after post of scientific sounding argument, and quotes from articles, attempting to prove me wrong ( as always ). :lol: Trouble is there is not one thing in what you have said that actually does prove me wrong, which is why I've not bothered to debate any of it. I’ve simply restated the fact that “orthophosphate exists in all tanksâ€. If there really was anything out there that proved me wrong, I'm sure you would have found it. But you haven't been able to. Does that tell you anything? Hi Steve, Always thought it was Joe! To get a Hanna digital colorimeter you would have to import it, or ask one of the marine importers to specially bring one in for you. Which they will do, Reef uses one of these himself. They are battery operated so power supply is not an issue. Not sure on cost now but maybe somewhere around NZ$400.00. Once you have the actual unit, the ongoing running costs are cheaper than using something like a Salifert, just the initial cost is high. But to me, it was not about money but more about accuracy now I am using zeovit and need a fairly precise reading at low levels. I will add though I’m not here to sell them, I’m very happy with it, there is obviously at least one person here who has decided they are rubbish, each to their own, do I care? No. Hi Sharkey, to give Layton his due his chemical formulas are correct. Just that to some people myself included a whole bunch of chemical formulas can get a bit meaningless, good to have though. So in the language of common folks like me, orthophosphate could be called “free†phosphate, floating around in the tank, waiting to bind with something or be used by some living creature. So in many tanks, most of the phosphate will already be bound, either chemically onto the surfaces of substrate etc, or being held within living organisms such as corals and algae, all living organisms need phosphate. Why is it Important? Well it is very, because it is needed for life, and too little of it can starve corals and damage them, Layton will dispute that but that’s my belief. Too much of it is also harmful, in three main ways, 1. Fuelling unwanted algae growth, and 2. Interfering with calcification as corals are trying to grow. Coral skeletons are built of calcium carbonate, but if there is excess orthophosphate in the water some of it will bond to the surface of the calcium carbonate and slow down / stop further calcification, so corals can’t grow. 3. Too much orthophosphate can also over stimulate the corals zooxanthellae, causing the coral to lose the ability to regulate them and making the corals brown and unhealthy, if this condition is kept long enough the coral may even die. So the testing dilema is that we can only test the water for orthophosphate, as phosphate that is bound chemically to substrate or held in algae or suchlike, obviously cannot be tested. This is where the two different viewpoints come from, one viewpoint ( Laytons ) being that as much phosphate may be in a bound form in the tank, testing the “free†phosphate is relatively meaningless as it does not tell the whole story. The other viewpoint ( mine ) is that at least some useful information can be had by testing the free phosphate.

Me Stubborn! Well I guess I sometimes get that way when I'm right :lol: :lol: All I'm saying is there's orthophosphate in every tank, and since Layton has now admitted this ( It was like pulling teeth though) I don't know why the argument still continues. However for Jeroens information, the instrument i use is a Hanna colorimeter, regarded by everybody except Layton as the best available to the hobby. The claimed accuracy is +/- 0.04 mg/L plus +/- 4% of the reading, plus and EMC deviation of +/- 0.01, which in real life exceeds anything else sold to the hobby. However, in fact, I have found the tolerances much better than that, as can be established by doing multiple tests on the same sample, I have found it highly accurate, it is great to see manufacturers conservative in their claims. BTW Layton has a lot to say about how worthless Hanna colorimeters are, in reality he's never even seen one If I test garuanteed nil phosphate water, such as RODI, I will always get a zero reading. I have never had a zero reading from any reef tank. But hey, amazing how such a small thing can turn into pages of argument. Because sticking to what I know is the facts is just being stubborn, I'll leave it there, unless Layton comes out with anything else really outlandish that is too hard to resist! And saying orthophosphate does not exist in a reef tank IS outlandish, it's impossible!

Oh I see. THAT'S where I screwed up! I thought when you said "does not exist", it meant "does not exist". That's what I was saying, it does exist. And if bombers theory is that it doesn't, then bombers theory, or your interpretation of it, is wrong. Very simple now. Now we both appear to be saying that IT DOES EXIST, perhaps we can leave it at that, rather than continue a silly argument which just seems to be a word game. But if you wish to continue, please don't. As previously stated I am happy, with your cooperation, to prove it to you, which to me anyway, makes a lot more sense than pointless arguing. As one who considers himself an educated man, you will surely be open minded to this and ready to learn.

Were they heavily advertised in fish magazines? :lol:

No idea really. I don't know much about fresh water. If they are being advertised, then presumably they are being sold. But so are jebo skimmers. I don't believe they serve much useful purpose in a well equiped reef tank, but neither will they do much harm, if you want to use one, go for it. Especially if a person has a cheap / no skimmer, or is otherwise lacking in good filtration, they may help.

You still say Bombers theory is not wrong! You just don't make any sense. Every tank I've ever tested has orthophosphate. Either they all have, in your words "saturated sinks", or bombers theory is wrong. This is because bombers theory is that orthophosphate does not exist in a tank unless it's "sinks" are "saturated" Now there have been some nice tanks, I just don't believe they all have "saturated sinks" ( Whatever that really is ). However if you don't believe this I stand ready to prove it with your cooperation at any time. Easily done, as I think you may accept evidence from your own tank. You've just spent months cooking your rocks, and I suspect you now think that your "sinks" are no longer "saturated". Send some of your tank water for testing, I will find orthophosphate in it. That will prove it to even you, no further argument required.

Yes that's the one. I always envied the coral, and he told me everybody wanted a frag but he refused to do it as he wanted the coral to develop. Fair enough. So when he offered me a frag I was :bounce: . Barry himself may decide to sell some frags as his is a good size now, but I doubt they would come cheap.

Well thanks for the effort Layton, I did think the pic did not give enough detail but it's the best I can do. I've taken probably 20 shots just to get that good. When it gets a bit bigger I may be able to do a better shot, if so I'll post it up. Sell it? well this coral would certainly enhance any aquarium, but as stated, it would be years away before I would have any frags available, so not planning on selling it any time soon. When fragging time does come, for a little beauty like this it would be gifts or exchanges with friends, not sale for money.