The Skimmate Podcast
- Thread starter Thales
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Brew12
Electrical Gru
I do have outside air to my skimmer.... this is exactly why I hope you cover it! I've never heard anyone say they haven't had a pH
U
User1
Guest
Seems like in your case it would be easy to calculate the return on investment of taking one off line and bringing the other up. Include personal time of refilling dosing containers and purchasing / sourcing 2 parts or time spent making your own. Using just ALK alone of a 2 part that is what 3785 ml / gallon? So 3785 ml / 250 ml dose day = 15 days? ESV 2 part is 40 bucks or so? 80 bucks a month? You need to migrate to a calc reactor...
Brew12
Electrical Gru
I use the BRS 2-part and I also know I can source it cheaper so cost isn't the driving factor. The fact I can't go 3 weeks without mixing new chemicals (1 gallon at a time) is the issue. I'm a fan of low maintenance.
U
User1
Guest
Agreed. When I did the rough math above the 15 day replacement is when I would have drew the line
Cost comment was just to maybe off set the initial sticker shock when pricing reactors. That always seems to startle most people but when you look at the bigger picture it changes. Like you the 15 day thing.That would be a deal breaker when I'm on a heavy travel project
In either case - sounds like maybe you are ready to make that plunge 
Brew12
Electrical Gru
I am ready to make that jump but only if it is the best thing for my reef. I don't want to take a step back in where I am just to save some maintenance time.Agreed. When I did the rough math above the 15 day replacement is when I would have drew the line
That would be a deal breaker when I'm on a heavy travel project
Flippers4pups
Fins up since 1993
Rich, love the pod cast! "It's delicious"!
I'm sorry for you and Terrence's losses. They are family for sure.
I just got my next article for the forum written, "The Psychology of Reefing, Part 2, "The therapeutic effect". It's not posted yet.
Maybe you guys could cover the therapeutic effects of keeping a reef tank on the show?
I'm sorry for you and Terrence's losses. They are family for sure.
I just got my next article for the forum written, "The Psychology of Reefing, Part 2, "The therapeutic effect". It's not posted yet.
Maybe you guys could cover the therapeutic effects of keeping a reef tank on the show?
Brew12
Electrical Gru
Fantastic! Something worthwhile to listen to on the treadmill tomorrow!It is up now on Itunes. I am trying to find time to update the web page and FB
Peace River
Thrive Master
Staff member
Super Moderator
Reef Squad
Reef Squad Leader
Partner Member 2024
Excellence Award
Article Contributor
Hospitality Award
Article Administrator
Reef Pumpkin Carver
Yep, next up here too!
Dr. Dendrostein
Marine fish monthly
Dr. Dieter Brockmann has a great article on NPS corals, especially on dendronephthya and scleronephthya. Nicest guy you ever meet.
Anyone know where the NPS forum is on Reef2Reef, I can't seem to find it. Please help
Anyone know where the NPS forum is on Reef2Reef, I can't seem to find it. Please help
mrpizzaface
Well-Known Member
I am trying to decide what type of lighting to use on my current build. There are some theories that posit using LEDs don't save too much on power consumption over T5 or metal halide. What type of lighting do you and Terrence utilize and how much power does that lighting use?
Dr. Dendrostein
Marine fish monthly
that's very interesting you brought up the subject just the other day I was speaking to a fellow reefkeeper, and like 10 years ago he had some maintenance accounts in Long Beach California. Well one of them was at a church that had neighborhood kids that would come over and they had a tank and it would help them therapeutically.
OP
OP
Thales
Valuable Member
It's not a theory - a watt is a watt, so a 250 watt MH will draw the same as a 250 watt LED. The idea was that you could use less wattage LED to equal what a MH puts out, but that doesn't really hold up. The good thing about LED is the don't have to be all the way on like other lights. So, I end up using less electricity now than I did with MH because of how I have the lights programmed to ramp up and down over the day. I am currently using Radions and T is using Phillipps.
I would love a myth busters episode from you that simply reinforces or kills this notion:
-a reef tank using typical rocks and sand cannot have low level ammonia (.25) hold for days at any stage of cycling or during any stage of maturation-
the claim goes directly against a core paradigm in our hobby so imo it is worth looking into using accurate measuring gear.
rationale for the challenge:
titration kits are the sole source of measure for the claim of .25 ammonia holding, perceived bacterial weakness or incompletion permeates every reef forum since inception. The notion of a stuck cycle and how to undo is 1000% common daily posting across all reef forums.
retail sales are falsely driven by the notion, zero seneye or mindstream users report the phenomena. when posted in a forum, .25 measures are accepted and reasons bacteria need reinforcement are listed. Bottle bac purchase are driven in part by the notion of a stuck cycle. nitrite is claimed to cause a stuck cycle if not factored carefully.
With no .25 or .5 holding pattern stated, forums will agree the bac are ready, the test has the final say. Low level ammonia detection accurate or not causes massive movement in our hobby....it drives retail purchases and controls how we spend money.
Even a dead fish registers on accurate testers as a peak and then back to steady state...never holds. the command for ammonia is simply too high to ever allow a tail-end unoxidized portion to remain. Digital testers will not show free ammonia in the tenths as a holding pattern.
all google cycling charts do not allow for a stuck cycle in either ammonia or nitrite and they use the same time axis site to site.
even a new tank cycle, a ramp up period, doesn’t have an extended .25 holding portion of ammonia. When the typical reef surface area becomes activated, the result is ammonia compliance in a given system almost immediately as activation and biofilm attachment occur and are amplified by typical reef surface area rock and sand. Without medication events, or physically removing surface area below critical mass, a sustained .25 can’t even be generated on purpose in a reef tank. Why aren’t bottle bac makers telling us this
if you can find a way to get natures ocean wet pack sand, and dry rock to hold at .25 for days using a seneye or mindstream, then I’ll slink back away quietly for a little while. If it’s true that cycles don’t stall and people using accurate testers never have stuck cycles, then I have some fun article ideas + call outs to be written.
-a reef tank using typical rocks and sand cannot have low level ammonia (.25) hold for days at any stage of cycling or during any stage of maturation-
the claim goes directly against a core paradigm in our hobby so imo it is worth looking into using accurate measuring gear.
rationale for the challenge:
titration kits are the sole source of measure for the claim of .25 ammonia holding, perceived bacterial weakness or incompletion permeates every reef forum since inception. The notion of a stuck cycle and how to undo is 1000% common daily posting across all reef forums.
retail sales are falsely driven by the notion, zero seneye or mindstream users report the phenomena. when posted in a forum, .25 measures are accepted and reasons bacteria need reinforcement are listed. Bottle bac purchase are driven in part by the notion of a stuck cycle. nitrite is claimed to cause a stuck cycle if not factored carefully.
With no .25 or .5 holding pattern stated, forums will agree the bac are ready, the test has the final say. Low level ammonia detection accurate or not causes massive movement in our hobby....it drives retail purchases and controls how we spend money.
Even a dead fish registers on accurate testers as a peak and then back to steady state...never holds. the command for ammonia is simply too high to ever allow a tail-end unoxidized portion to remain. Digital testers will not show free ammonia in the tenths as a holding pattern.
all google cycling charts do not allow for a stuck cycle in either ammonia or nitrite and they use the same time axis site to site.
even a new tank cycle, a ramp up period, doesn’t have an extended .25 holding portion of ammonia. When the typical reef surface area becomes activated, the result is ammonia compliance in a given system almost immediately as activation and biofilm attachment occur and are amplified by typical reef surface area rock and sand. Without medication events, or physically removing surface area below critical mass, a sustained .25 can’t even be generated on purpose in a reef tank. Why aren’t bottle bac makers telling us this
if you can find a way to get natures ocean wet pack sand, and dry rock to hold at .25 for days using a seneye or mindstream, then I’ll slink back away quietly for a little while. If it’s true that cycles don’t stall and people using accurate testers never have stuck cycles, then I have some fun article ideas + call outs to be written.
Last edited:
mrpizzaface
Well-Known Member
The theory is not about watt vs watt, but about the perceived potential savings of LED over other forms of lighting.
What is the wattage draw for your lighting set up?
Brew12
Electrical Gru
I'm going to mostly agree with this but there is a bit more to the story. While a 250w MH "may" draw the same as a 250w LED, that doesn't mean the PAR output of both fixtures is the same. I use the term "may" because my experience is that lighting manufacturers may advertise their fixtures as being 150w based on the max ratings of the LED's but typically use much less power than advertised.
And, there is more. If a MH is pulling 250w that doesn't mean it is putting out the same amount of PAR, PUR, Lumens or Lux as an LED pulling 250w. Much of that power isn't being converted to light energy, but to heat. If we are talking strictly PAR and PUR, LED's may have an advantage because they are single wavelength so all of the light they emit should be useful.
To me, the more useful measurement would be PAR or PUR per watt. I suspect that the MH delivers fewer PAR per watt, but I'm only guessing.
This also doesn't factor in that if you live somewhere that you run heat more than AC, the hotter fixture may save on heating bills. If you live where I do and AC runs 10 months of the year, the cooler fixture has an advantage. And if you keep your windows open 8 months of the year, I doubt it really matters.
So much goes into this....
Similar threads
