|
Posted by Marc Levenson on August 25, 2005, 8:13 pm
Please log in for more thread options
No worries, Benjamin. I'm really not into heated debates anyway. Too
many people hope to just get a reasonable answer to their questions, and
I try to help when I can.
My 280g is open top. I've not even gotten the woodwork done around the
top of the tank, and it has been running for a year this month. The
surface of the tank drains into two large overflows, and these drain
down into the skimmer section of my sump where a large quality skimmer
is pulling out all it can daily. Dust is definitely being exported,
along with other vile stuff. Let me find you a picture of some recent DOCs.
http://melevsreef.com/pics/0805/skimmate_12hrs_b.jpg (Enjoy.) ;)
I used to have 3 x 55w PC bulbs over my 29g and it again was without
glass although Hamilton was adament that I keep the barrier there to
avoid moisture entering the endcaps. I didn't follow those directions,
and my tank never had heat issues. I did have condensation in the
winter months that caused me some trouble, but I worked around that as
best I could.
Marc
Benjamin wrote:
> Marc,
>
> It is amazing anyone can keep a tank running with all the various debates.
> I hear what your saying though, and follow the logic, just not sure of the
> actual facts is all. I was just commenting on what I had seen elsewhere.
> I hope I wasn't taken as implying that I thought all of it was in fact bunk?
> I meant only that I heard it was bunk. I certainly wasn't trying to come
> across that running without tops is a bad thing, but point out what I had
> heard and what I had noticed. I also saw somewhere some calculations of
> skimmer bubble surface area. Wow, that was some serious surface area.
>
> Maybe somewhere there is something related to dust effects and whatnot, but
> I haven't gotten that far. For all I know any semi decent skimmer should
> have no problem pulling all the dust out, then again what I don't know is
> more than I do know.
>
> As for filtering the light... I had a set of 55watt PCs, tossed em on the 10
> gallon... loosing a little in my case isn't an issue, nor can I say loosing
> a little is a benefit either, it's just what I had available.
>
--
Personal Page: http://www.sparklingfloorservice.com/oanda/index.html
Business Page: http://www.sparklingfloorservice.com
Marine Hobbyist: http://www.melevsreef.com
|
|
Posted by Fjord on August 25, 2005, 3:25 am
Please log in for more thread options
> Seeing how our lights will *never* come close to what the sun puts out,
It's a manner of magnitude. you can certainly put enough lights over
the tank that you'll be surpassing sunlight illumination.
I want to thank Don Geddis for the article at:
http://www.advancedaquarist.co m/2005/8/lines
There's some good info in there, but most importantly it led to this
article:
http://www.advancedaquarist.co m/2005/8/lines
A table towards the end of the article allows me to estimate the amount
of light I was seeing at around 70 feet. His table "only" goes to 20
meters or nearly 66 feet, which would be a PAR reading of 160-190
depending on the type of reef environment we're speaking of.
Incidentally, this is nearly a 10-fold reduction from the amount of
light seen in 1-2 meters of water, even though I've seen some of the
same species at both depths (mostly brain corals, mind you, elkhorn
types seem to have tapered off).
The tank readings from this second article had a pretty big variation
on PAR, yet all of the corals seemed healthy (this is an assumption I'm
making, though). These ranges were often higher than 160-190 PAR and
also often less than that.
I'm not seeing anything that says "no don't use a glass hood". It
looks like this will be a trade off between 1) light intensity needed
2) evaporation and 3) heat.
80 watts of CF 3-4 inches over a 10 gallon tank should be plenty of
light even with a glass hood whether it removes 6-8% or 30% of the
light. I do see Marc's point about the money to generate that amount of
light being wasted, however.
--
Fjord
|
| Similar Threads | Posted | | emailed all glass | March 13, 2008, 10:50 am |
| Fish tanks - glass | October 15, 2008, 7:59 am |
| Snowflakes creatures on glass? | March 24, 2005, 9:10 pm |
| Glass Aquarium - Glasscages.com | July 31, 2005, 10:25 pm |
| Re: Glass Aquarium - Glasscages.com | August 5, 2005, 12:37 am |
| Re: Glass Aquarium - Glasscages.com | August 5, 2005, 12:48 am |
| Tall Tank Glass Thickness.. | March 18, 2005, 2:19 pm |
| Tank Choice - Glass vs. Acrylic | July 23, 2005, 10:28 pm |
| Scratches on inside of tank glass | August 27, 2005, 5:11 am |
| overflow box question in flexi-glass tank | April 14, 2005, 2:16 am |
|
|
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML Sitemap
>
> It is amazing anyone can keep a tank running with all the various debates.
> I hear what your saying though, and follow the logic, just not sure of the
> actual facts is all. I was just commenting on what I had seen elsewhere.
> I hope I wasn't taken as implying that I thought all of it was in fact bunk?
> I meant only that I heard it was bunk. I certainly wasn't trying to come
> across that running without tops is a bad thing, but point out what I had
> heard and what I had noticed. I also saw somewhere some calculations of
> skimmer bubble surface area. Wow, that was some serious surface area.
>
> Maybe somewhere there is something related to dust effects and whatnot, but
> I haven't gotten that far. For all I know any semi decent skimmer should
> have no problem pulling all the dust out, then again what I don't know is
> more than I do know.
>
> As for filtering the light... I had a set of 55watt PCs, tossed em on the 10
> gallon... loosing a little in my case isn't an issue, nor can I say loosing
> a little is a benefit either, it's just what I had available.
>