jewels

I tried three bulbs A crusty Eiko, a brand new Eiko and a Marine-GLO. @ twelve inches they were consistantly between 15 and 20 PAR.

What bulb did you go with ? Your ten gallon - it is 12 inches high? Fixture/bulb sit close to the water line? Is there a reflector? - or flat white backing ? I am only asking because I have similiar equip @ home. If you could provide me with the answers to those questions - - - I could sous up how much light you really have there. AND/OR I have found @ times Liebig needs a kick in the pants. Do you ever use a trace mix? Your sig shows DIY C02 - still using it? PS - As I sit here and look @ the photo - I can see the blue-eyes swimm'n 'round in there. :hey:

The first photo shows about three feet of a four foot tank. The rock on the lower right is about as big as your my head. The Pl*co is a common (Hypostomus plecostomus ?) he is about fourteen inches (TL) in that photo.

absolutely true - in outerspace http://www.woodrow.org/teachers/esi/2001/CostaRica/la_selva2/light_intensity/intensity_image/luminosity.gif . . This chart shows an instance where light travelled about 150 million KMs and then lost over % 90 of it's intensity just making its way slanted through the atmosphere. Within the last 100 feet; as the light penetrates the canopy - only @ noon will %1 reach the floor. After 4 pm you are left with %20 of the remaining %1. Thats % 0.2 . . The intensity cannnot be readily obtianed from other light sources. There are many tutorials around that one may follow in order to obtain 40-60 PAR @ the [barren] substrate . The short coming there is the fictitious belief that that value will still be there after decor, planting, and growth. The unknown factor is how to put down 40-60 par after the aquarium is stuffed with plants. This just cannot happen regardless of how many CFL's one puts over a tank.

What wattages do you have availible? I am not sure you will find advantages in an unplanted tank. Two ten dollar clip lights will allow you to view your fish. Why try harder? By retrofitting - your intending to convert an existing t-tube hood to accomadate moguls ? Overhead clearance my present challenges there - some bulbs prefer to burn "base-up". A single ended bulb is enveloped; whereas a double ended bulb will typicly require UV shielding. Do you have central air ? These can run hot - consider cooling fans. Personaly, I will not abide light spill. If you are overpowered the simplest solution is to raise the fixture. This (pre-meditated) is counterproductive. Why pump in extra electricity when it requires shackling to handicap the output? Short answer - yes, it can be done. The highly penatrative light will allow you to produce displays unachievable with other light sources. Ideally you are constructing a fixture that will allow you to produce a light intensity {read - PAR value} that you can manage. From personal experience - below 10 Par only mosses and possibly Naja grass will increase in size below 20 Par ferns will increase in size below 30 Par stem plants can be maintained sustained below 40 Par stem plants will grow with fertilization above 40 Par fertilization and carbon become warranted + 100 Par pressurised CO2 and daily ferting required to abate algae + 200 Par becomes a plant only tank - required CO2 levels will gas fish and the intensity will eventually blind them. Also @ this point you will be dumping about a pound a month of KN03 It can be done - and it can be a beautiful thing.

I have kept these for a few years. My fourth generation should be along in about a month or so. They are certainly a hoot to watch. The males are constantly displaying, and the females establish a pecking order as well. They will enjoy as much cirulation as you can provide -even after they get blown around the corner they will come back for more. I prefer to set up two males with four or five females in a heavily planted tank. Eggs can hatch in a week ; so I pull every one out after the sixth day. Don't believe everything 'ya read- mine have bred @ 17-18 C. I have never spied on with an 'egg sack' proper. They sure are tiny. Mine get by on high quality skunge until I notice them. As I have never used live foods for them, they get by on krill fines and homemade food. Not that I feel this is the ultimate and singular path to success - its just all I have been prepared to do. I lose a few from time to time. My vitality meter is askew as I am more familiar with livebearer fry; which are notoroiusly hardy. Blue-eyes are more fragile in comparision. Parents are highly predatory, although fry may 'appear with adults' they certainly won't be making a long apperance. Fry are slow and spend to much time in the open. I had a three week old guppy fry wipe eight out of a thirty gallon overnight.

Nice set-up !! Do you use an auto water top-off ?

I did not write the book on this stuff; however, I am willing to read them. I ask these questions because I genuinely lack the knowledge I am curious to learn Searching, I find very little material about - accumulation. I find a plethora about - reduction. The only facts I have found (posted ) here are that these mystery constituents are being introduced from the water supply. Although I am not certain if those afore mentioned could even be found therein, for the sake of exploration lets look @ some specificly. Mercury It can be uptaken by plants Asenic It can be uptaken by plants Even the ' big nasty ' Cadmium "a heavy metal toxic to all organisms " is uptaken by plants Copper - its a trace element essential to all plants. Further reduction "Plants absorb water and carbon (as carbon dioxide) in molecular form; all other essential nutrients as charged ions. There is evidence that plants can effectively deposit the necessary heavy metals (e.g. iron) and even absorb undissolved nutrients from the substrate. The plant matter we discard from our tanks is effectively an action of reducing As it would speak to the OP - there are valid reasons neccessitating water changes. Even the water itself is being reduced in hardness; Calcium and magnesium uptake or modified by redox described as the ability for the loss of an electron by a molecule, atom or ion to the gain of an electron by another molecule, atom or ion during by photosynthetic processes. True enough there are a few things increasing within the aquarium - some of them beneficial. Humeric acid comes to mind. In all honestly I have found myself one substance that increases over time that is detremental to the sans souci movement. That would be DOC and its relationship with redox Notice the cast is familiar So, again I will ask . Not to be a smarty pants; simply because I want to learn more. Peer pressure allows us to nod our head and agree with everyones elses response. The fact I have not fails to imply that I am being facetious. If my deductions are so far off base as to be seen as laughable then it should be a simple task to redirect me in the right direction.

How do minerals "build-up" in an aquarium ? What specifically are these accumulating minerals? How are they aquired - by what action do they increase in number?

Perhaps there is a fin nipper in the same tank? I had a pair of gold barbs for about four years in an uncovered aquarium. One day - there he is all dry I blamed the Ameca's, as I had observed them pestering the barbs in the past. Although, in the end, like Cate said, any number of reasons.

Apply this advice to any egg-scatterer; still the best way imho , , , usually how I end up with fry from any given egg-layer - including my danios. BTW - with an under temp. water change the danios stress(?) and flush their colour. When they are washed out like that I regard some of them are grey/silver whilst others of the same brood retain a 'fleshy' pink colour. Is this a identifying feature between sexes? - I do not know; and also cannot spot any differences otherwise.

His stay was short; although I thin "MrMagic" nailed it The nifty thing about these metres are that they are also data loggers. Even on an intermittent device (like a heater for example) the meter will track energy usage over time. That would allow one to record a whole month of consumption, allowing you to look @ Febuary as a whole and make comparasions to other months - like August. If one were to put an entire set-up on one power bar, the kill-a-watt could give you a snapshot of consumption @ that moment. 24 hours later it will tell you the total consumption for the day. , , , and for the record - I am involved in some things waaaay creepier than fishkeeping. :shock:

I have no 'mad graphic skillz' so a little imagination will be required. Imagine , , , a broccoli :chair: sorry best I could do I have a lovely mound of Rotala and for it happens to cast an identical shadow as a crown of broccoli. The top of the crown is less than an inch from the waterline it receives 170 PAR. That is the end of the happy part of the story. underneath the crown - ( where the broccoli stalk would end and the crown begins ) is below six inches of water. If i put the sensor there; up against the "stalk" I get 16 PAR. It gets worse from there. Where the "stalk" enters the substrate the available light has been reduced to 1.2 - 1.5 PAR. Still keeping the sensor on the substrate yet moving it less than four inches from that point the reading returns to the afore mentioned 51 PAR. Regard that these readings were illuminated by a single source. Strange thing about shadows is they dimish as the distance increases between source and subject increases. Perhaps one could push more light down below by simply distrubuting the same intensity over a larger source. Like 2- 13W bulbs rather than 1- 23Watt bulb This is where flouresents shine. Weak intensity - large distrubution

Where'd the cheese go ? These measurements are from a 20 Gallon - twelve inch deep aquarium with a moderate amount of duckweed cover @ 12" 20 PAR @ 6" 40.5 PAR @3.5" 67.5 PAR When I removed all weed I get @ 12" 38 PAR @ 6" 68.5 PAR @3.5" 162 PAR Immediately under the duckweed ( 3.5" from the bottom of reflector) I got only 67.5 PAR. By simply removing the weed the value went up to 162 - HUGE improvement ! Consider there were other factors involved. The tank is "well" planted [30-40 % of the foot print has a canopy within two inches of waterline]; readings @ the compost were still reduced due to shading from other plants. By trimming ( the volume - not overall height) I was able to increase the PAR @ the substrate up to 51 PAR. Original reading @ substrate 20 PAR After removing weed and a little trimming 51 PAR With a little housekeeping I was able to more than double the amount of light delivered to the substrate. With a better reflector I could triple it again.

Apogee SQ-120 sensor

I have been very curious lately about delivering light into aquariums. Specificly - how much light is being supplied in relation to how much ( intensity ) actually reaches the substrate. I have a homebuilt half gallon nano. It is fitted with a DIY LED fixture. This thing is chockablock with naja-grass. Under this gastly canopy I measure 2.0 units, , , Two units of what ? To determine the PAR (Photosynthetically Available Radiation) I measured PPFD (Photosynthetic Photon Flux Density) at the substrate and it turned out to be 2 microMol/m2/sec @ a depth of six inches. I will call this 2 PAR (because its a shorter acronym & I won't associate it with a lifejacket) So, next I wonder just how much light could I put down there if the plants did not obscure the light ? Easy enough to determine - just tug it all out and measure again. With the plants out my reading shot up to a surprising 35 PAR. :shock: Espresso'd as a percentage . %95 of the available light never made it to the compost . Alterantively . The aquarium was 17X brighter without the plants. I did not play with this sensor for very long before I began to realise there are many things we I assume are going on in there that are actually just not happening. The numbers I posted above are the only ones I recall from memory @ the moment. I will post more observations from my data @ home. A few things I have learned so far. Light diminishes exponentialy when diffused/ obstructed. A layer of duckweed can reduce PAR by more than %50 A good reflector can direct 50X more light than without. The human eye is absolutely useless in judging PAR intensity.

This Ameca is good to go! Ameca ♀ or ♂ will NOT predate fry. Find her a quite retreat - they will do fine.

http://www.apogeeinstruments.com/conversions/lux-ppf.html

Quite a broadrange of lighting there. If my math is correct - and it seldom is , , , The values in table one illustrate light @ 23, 90, and 253 Table one shows greatest growth @ over 250 ( extrapolated ) PAR. Thats a pile of light - even for me. Can we apply the same (LUX) values to figure #3 ?

Ubr0ke posted a very interesting article a ways back in the plantedtank forum. Authored by Diana Walstad. http://www.bookmasters.com/marktplc/00388Shrimp.pdf Page #2 - recognize? I won't drink all her kool-aid; but her shrimps look fine.

Whats Killing My Shrimp? Pseudepiplatys? Give him time; perhaps he cannot finish his breakfast in one bite. :shock:

You forgot to check on your shoes today. I saw them over there , , , on the other side of the fence. -ham-

Of all the algae I have encountered; that one is the toughest to beat. . . I managed to beat it by doing two things. unobstructing flow within canister filter adding more Nitrate ,,, may or may not apply to you. I have not seen it return since 2008. This is a good read http://tinyurl.com/3jpgej6

Yes, Sulphur is a macro required by all plants.. . read on, Took a bit to find this one. The trouble with remembering everything 'ya read is remembering where you read it ! "I don’t recommend the use of potassium sulfate (KHSO4). There are some reasons. The first one is that if you add this macro, the NO3 will be uptaken and as soon as you reach zero you will have algae issues. The main goal I think is to avoid this situation. The idea, , , is to have a stable water chemistry where we know we are always close to GSA. If we add K this stability disappears. On the other hand, it is better to do not add sulfur when we can avoid it. Bacteria oxidation may produce sulfuric acid. Of course, if you add a lot of Fe you alter the redox ratio and this problem is neutralized but it is simpler just to limit the addition of sulfur. If you have hard water, you probably already have more that enough sulfur and adding more with the fertilizing may produce Grey Hair Algae ." found here Post 211 C) Potassium

Potassium Chloride + moss = Magic :flex: Its the un-lethal injection :ph43r: Avoid potassium sulfates , , , all sulphates for that matter.