180 gallon rimless Starfire wood scape thus far

2wheelsx2

Lifetime Members
Lifetime Member
Apr 4, 2006
109
0
16
56
Burnaby, BC, Canada
VaughnH;23543 said:
The problem would be to have the arm strong enough not to deflect with the fixture weight, nor the stress from raising and lowering it. I have been designing it in my mind for some time now. (I'm not there yet!)

One way to do it would be to have a the arm be supported by second buttress below, forming a truss (a triangle), thus minimizing the deflection. Of course, would make some part of the support visible from in front. The way to deal with that would be to build a "sleeve" for the light to increase the frontal area larger to cover up the moment arm when viewing from the front.

Sorry for the diversion from the original topic, but I found that idea very intriguing.
 

naman

Prolific Poster
Nov 12, 2005
57
0
6
Tom,
thanks for data in micromoles! I have been waiting for that data from you long time ago :)
What is the T5's ? Is it 4 lamps 96W PLL compacts = 384W total?

khoile;23470 said:
Tom,
Could you elaborate further on plant maximum light consumption. If your light was translated to wpg it would be 4.6 wpg, and from what I've read so far isn't that too much light by MH/Large tank standard? Also what do you use to measure light amount? I wonder want how many micromoles is sunlight at noon, and would the amount decrease with water?
Thanks.

khoile
I don't have "Barr Report light edition", but have some data...
What is low, mid, and high light for aquatic plants, Sun light intensity - Comparison of the Photosynthetic Characteristics of Three Submersed Aquatic Plants (pdf 1.3Mb)
see saturation levels (esp. pic.6 and light reduction under water - pic.2).

If you look carefully, you will see that max. levels (PUR) at the water surface 450 µmol·m²·sec, minimal 20-80 µmol·m²·sec.
You simply don't need PUR>300µmol·m²·sec at 30cm depth and >400µmol·m²·sec at the water surface.

There are also good data on CO2 compensation point - 44ppm for one species, and 19ppm for the others.
More will give *nothing*.
If you use combo fixture (HQI+pc's) and ADA's light management 15-20ppm would be enough (much easer to maintain, even with atomizer).

WPG is not an indicator - use PUR and daily PPF, see A Comparison Between Light Sources Used in Planted Aquaria by Ivo Busko.

Sun gives daily PPF~50 µmol·m²·day in midsummer and "25 inside a good glass greenhouse", "10 in midwinter
5 inside a good glass greenhouse" (Apogee).
See also tests and theory behind light, decrease under water (in the tank!) Underwater Light Field and its Comparison to Metal Halide Lighting, By Sanjay Joshi, Ph.D..
See DefBlog.se PUR-efficiency list.
...and some pictures and links at the bottom of the page here.
See also very interesting data daily PPF - Table "12-HOUR PHOTOPERIOD".

Light management - see PJAN threads/posts at APC.

Most folks and T. Amano hanging combo pendants a little bit higher than 25cm and use more MH/T5 ratio (less T5 power).

naman
 

Tom Barr

Founder
Staff member
Administrator
Jan 23, 2005
18,695
736
113
I have custom cuts made with the glass lids to accommodate the wood on the end.

Regards,
Tom Barr
 

Tom Barr

Founder
Staff member
Administrator
Jan 23, 2005
18,695
736
113
naman;23555 said:
Tom,
thanks for data in micromoles! I have been waiting for that data from you long time ago :)

Well, I just got the light this week:)

What is the T5's ? Is it 4 lamps 96W PLL compacts = 384W total?

Yes, 6700K, I wanted a mix of 6700 and 9235K, but they only make 6700 and 10,000K 96W lamps.

I will be using ADA 8000K HQI bulbs.
So that will optimize color very well even without the 9235K GE's.
On the 4ft and 2 ft tanks, I will have these bulbs and a 8000K 2ft bulb as well as the 8000K HQI.

I really liked the color of a 5000 and 8000 mix. I'd be interested to see what the 5000K+ 9235K PC light with an ADA 8000K HQI would yield.

I think that might be ideal.

khoile
If you look carefully, you will see that max. levels (PUR) at the water surface 450 µmol·m²·sec, minimal 20-80 µmol·m²·sec.
You simply don't need PUR>300µmol·m²·sec at 30cm depth and >400µmol·m²·sec at the water surface.
[/quote]

Actually most species top off at 600micromol. I know Van and I know George Bowes etc, they both discussed the paper in depth with me in person when I was a grad student at UF. It was one of the papers referred to and I have discussed many times over the years. Not many new papers sadly have really come out since however.

"Need" would suggest the min, not the max.
LCP and little above it.
I get this just fine with the PC's alone.

[/quote]
There are also good data on CO2 compensation point - 44ppm for one species, and 19ppm for the others.
More will give *nothing*.
[/quote]

Careful.
You need to realize that the study was with just a few species, not all 300-400 aquatic plan species:cool:
Some might have higher or lower.
But 30ppm of CO2 seems like a good target for most light levels.
Which I've been suggesting for well over a decade now.

If you use combo fixture (HQI+pc's) and ADA's light management 15-20ppm would be enough (much easer to maintain, even with atomizer).

I have no issues with maintaining CO2 at 30ppm:)
I also question CO2 ppm's, your best error range will be 5ppm + or minus.
That would be in an ideal case. add tannins from Aqua soil, wood etc, carbonate issues in tap......different plant species.........

My goal is not really slow growth for this tank either.
I can slow things down two ways: use just the PC's or and raise the light fixture up.

Easy.

So I can garden and grow when I want and I can slow and neglect when I want as well.

No change in CO2 or nutrients are needed.
I see no gain if I have no issue maintaining higher CO2 by lowering it, I have to adjust it up higher if I use more light.

If I have non limiting values and no fish issues, it's no more an issue than excess Ca or excess K+, which few complain about.

The point is to use light, not the other nutrients to limit growth rates.
George Booth and myself have been saying this since the late 1990's.
ADA does it and uses a little high light spike in the midday.
But many folks think it means lots of light all the time.

And I really have serious doubts about the CO2 data, anyone's.


I know Ivo personally.
He called me up and asked a few things.

(Apogee).
See also tests and theory behind light, decrease under water (in the tank!)
[/quote]

And that's why I use a LiCOR as well as the Apogee submersed probe to measure it. I do this a lot at many different sequential depths out in the field sites. More than I care to admit. The LiCor has a spherical integration probe.

Underwater Light Field and its Comparison to Metal Halide Lighting, By Sanjay Joshi, Ph.D..
See DefBlog.se PUR-efficiency list.
...and some pictures and links at the bottom of the page here.
See also very interesting data daily PPF - Table "12-HOUR PHOTOPERIOD".
Light management - see PJAN threads/posts at APC.

Most folks and T. Amano hanging combo pendants a little bit higher than 25cm and use more MH/T5 ratio (less T5 power).

naman

Regards,
Tom Barr
 

naman

Prolific Poster
Nov 12, 2005
57
0
6
Thanks Tom,
your answer will make more folks to read papers I mentioned (this was real intention:).

It's peaty not all (including me) can recalculate those PUReff., PAR, and PAReff.
A little mess here as fore a hobbyist.
And we have no Apogee quantum meters and ADA pendants to clarify light intensities which use Amano.
Not to mention measuring CO2 ppm's.

As for 600µmol·m²·sec and LCP as a kind of an engineer I mean according to graphs there is 10-15% plus in photosynthesis above 350-400µmol·m²·sec, which means virtually nothing for hobbyist practice…
and CO2 15-20ppm I mean values folks *think* they have with atomizer.

It is a forgivable assumptions for hobbyist, not for a scientist - you are absolutely right.
As a scientist.

I think most folks interested not in exact scientific data, but in “materials and methods” which gives real world results. I mean that old statement - 20% of something gives 80% of a result, and the rest 80% gives just 20% of result)

Second try in measuring and analyses of ADA's tanks would be very interesting after TheKrib analysis made 10 or s years old.
We need more knowledge and more testing :)

This thread turns to be very interesting "digest" of how to setup planted tank (big one).
Step by step.

I hope later we will see your comments on general maintenance, dosing, light regimen etc with all mentioned equipment and methods.

naman (BTW sorry for my English)
 

Tom Barr

Founder
Staff member
Administrator
Jan 23, 2005
18,695
736
113
naman;23579 said:
Thanks Tom,
your answer will make more folks to read papers I mentioned (this was real intention:).

Nothing wrong with that, eventually you see the big picture as it stands now.
Most are a long way off, or simply take my word for it.

It's peaty not all (including me) can recalculate those PUReff., PAR, and PAReff.
A little mess here as fore a hobbyist.

Yes, certainly.

And we have no Apogee quantum meters and ADA pendants to clarify light intensities which use Amano.
Not to mention measuring CO2 ppm's.

Yes!
But that's where someone like myself is useful:)

I do care enough about the questions to look into it, measure it, know how to measure it as a researcher, know the trade offs and assumptions.

Reef hobbyists have a lot more folks willing to do this than the planted aquarium folks unfortunately.

Back 10 years ago, there really seemed to be far more of those type of folks in our hobby in the USA.

Very few left these days.
Maybe new ones will appear?
I hope so.

As for 600µmol·m²·sec and LCP as a kind of an engineer I mean according to graphs there is 10-15% plus in photosynthesis above 350-400µmol·m²·sec, which means virtually nothing for hobbyist practice…

450 is about 5.5 W/gal of PC lighting at a 10cm distance.
150 at 40cm in water.

So the upper ranges of most PC light systems at the water's surface.

and CO2 15-20ppm I mean values folks *think* they have with atomizer.

I suggest it's an unknown as well:)

It is a forgivable assumptions for hobbyist, not for a scientist - you are absolutely right.
As a scientist.

Yes, I do, but then they want to insist I am wrong/incorrect when I suggest their issue is CO2, not NO3 related. Many think they are experts and know more than I do and they have not even looked into the subject at all!

I know the patterns in the plant growth itself, that is a better test than a CO2 meter(unless it's really accurate and measured over time, much like the 2200$ unit I have in mind).

But hard data and showing that it is cause is a much higher standard than simply speculating or arguing without any real evidence.

I think most folks interested not in exact scientific data, but in “materials and methods” which gives real world results. I mean that old statement - 20% of something gives 80% of a result, and the rest 80% gives just 20% of result)

Yes, but if you are off by 20%, that could be a lot.
Or not much, say in the case of K+ at 30ppm.
But if you run things really lean and you are off by 20% for NO3, CO2 etc, then it really can make a large difference.

I've seen much large differences than 20% though when it comes to CO2.
And CO2 where precisely and how fast is it being replaced?
What hours of the day?

There are more questions and these are relevant and do explain why some aquarist folks have very different results.

I cannot explain all variation, I just try for most of it.

Second try in measuring and analyses of ADA's tanks would be very interesting after TheKrib analysis made 10 or s years old.
We need more knowledge and more testing :)

Well, I'm the only person that seems to keep doing it and keeps going deeper.
Some start, then you never hear from them for years.

This thread turns to be very interesting "digest" of how to setup planted tank (big one).
Step by step.

I hope later we will see your comments on general maintenance, dosing, light regimen etc with all mentioned equipment and methods.

naman (BTW sorry for my English)

I have posted such comments over the years.
Here and there.

But all in one place at one time is nice.
It also gives me a chance to test my hypothesis and theories under my control at a larger scale with a nice looking tank, not just a dozen 20 Gal tanks with a a couple of species.

I have already measured quite a few tanks, mostly larger and more $$$$ than my own.

They have the money to pay for such luxuries.
But it addresses the issues that they often have and answers many other questions along the way that can help the average hobbyist.

I've been doing this for quite sometime now.
But I also have the results to show for it and have turned over many many myths and stopped many new ones from being formed.

Regards,
Tom Barr
 

naman

Prolific Poster
Nov 12, 2005
57
0
6
As for testing, you somehow promised to make analyses of ADA's liquid ferts with spectrophotometer, or I missed something and you have already done it?

Asking as I am very interested in PO4:NO3 ratio and Micronutrients.
I have seen graph of plants needs according to ADA, and as I remember it is different of those proportions we accustomed to see in Europe and USA. Pretty interesting…

naman
 

Tom Barr

Founder
Staff member
Administrator
Jan 23, 2005
18,695
736
113
Yes, it's already done concerning the ADA fertilizers, see BarrReport newsletter.
Cost me about 700$ in reagents and independent testing for verification.
Not something I give away.

The same will done here in April for the two sediment types.

The graphs of plant "needs" are NOT known for most plant species we grow.
The dry weight tissue analysis have been done for about 50 species, most of which we do not keep..........it just says what is found in the plant at that time, it does not suggest those are non limiting levels.

External environmental concentrations of nutrients are not the same as internal plant tissue, which is related to non limiting growth conditions.
Virtually every single farmer in the world adds excess fertilizer to make sure they are non limited with nutrients.

But, they are still not having to deal with CO2.
Which is far more important than anything N or P wise in aquatic systems.

I would suggest you and others to get excited much more about that than mere ratios of NO3/PO4.





Regards,
Tom barr
 

naman

Prolific Poster
Nov 12, 2005
57
0
6
Tom Barr;23598 said:
But, they are still not having to deal with CO2.
Which is far more important than anything N or P wise in aquatic systems.
I would suggest you and others to get excited much more about that than mere ratios of NO3/PO4.

I am interested in PO4:NO3 ratio because of substrate - what is exhausted faster in ADA AS + PS - N or P. This may help to formulate DIY mixture. For example if we need more P pool we can try to use non soluble “Rock phosphate” (apatite). :p

I also never forget about another ratio from RR - C:p.

Secondly, I can't get why when we care of PO4:NO3 ratio we do not care of CO2 assimilation?

At lower CO2 concentrations Rubisco needs more N. It is clear.
So if we dose 1:5 we do not have enough N for CO2 fluctuations, especially in long run and with lean substrate.
Sure we can simply dose more 1:5 mixture, but than we will have much more algae biomasss when problems with CO2 will arise. Isn't that?
Isn't that logical to keep less PO4 in water and more in substrate to make system more User friendly? (we know plats prefer getting P from substrate, even stem plants)

So why we should keep so much PO4 in water column and shift ratio to P ?
To have more algae in case of CO2 drop doubling it with less Rubisco activation?

Maybe this is why we see threads like THIS looking for something more stable and User friendly and there are not much EI funs with east-method or without pH-controller, esp. dosing full EI ?

Well, will you tear me down or not… see my post on PO4:NO3 ratio there :)
 

helgymatt

Guru Class Expert
Sep 17, 2007
107
0
16
Tom,
Is this tank and stand from Classcages.com? How do you like their stand?
This is going to be a nice set-up! Look forward to seeing the plants soon!
 

Tom Barr

Founder
Staff member
Administrator
Jan 23, 2005
18,695
736
113
N and P ratios can simply be determined via the plant DW tissue analysis vs the Relative growth rates.

In CA, the soils here tend to be N limited.
So we find N:p ratios of 3:1, 5:1 for many wetland soils.

However, rock PO4 is not bioavailable P, you can add lots of PO4 and if it's not getting to the plant, it really does not matter.

So we measure exchangeable P or sometimes pore water PO4.
Bound PO4 is far less biolavailable to plants/and algae than KH2PO4 which is immediately dissolved into the most bioavailable form(SRP soluble reactive phosphorus).

I think you have a good point about CO2 and ratios, but I do not really care about ratios in a non limited aquarium.............

They simply offer no real use to me.
If you are dealing with limiting system, or systems where the input is limited and they only have so much N and P avalable, then yes.
Natural lakes, wetlands etc
However, in our tanks, we can drive nutrients to any desired level of ratio, does not matter until the nutrient becomes limiting.



That assumption is the fatal flaw in your rational.
You need to focus on limitation/non limitations, not ratios..........
Ratios do not suggest any limitation, critical or mild.

Could we extend the life of ADA AS by having a better ratio?
Perhaps, but there are too many variables that change the ratio over a 1-5 years time span.

I know you think you are on to something, but you need to review the idea of limiting nutrients vs a ratio.

I can have 2ppm of PO4 and 2 NO2 ppm and not be limited, I can have 100ppm of N in the pore water, and 5ppm of PO4.

Neither case would be limiting to growth as long as I keep adding ferts, which aquarist do........

Now if you are inconsistent with dosing, what scenario would you be better off doing?

Less light, or high light?
Why?

Less demand for PO4/NO3/CO2.

So ratios really are not the issue, limiting nutrients, consistency on dosing, general care/pruning etc are and always have been.

Adding ferts to the sediment takes out some of the issue with consistent dosing.
ADA AS looks nice, easy to work with.
Less light= less pruning, less CO2 demands= easy to care for, less pruning
Weekly large water changes=> nice clean tank, good flow, good pruning= stable tank. Adding high(or low) water column ferts= non limited plants.

Does adding higher PO4 ratios cause some shift in N and P ratio that induces algae via CO2?

Only when PO4 drops below a critical limiting value that causes the C demand to decrease will that occur.

So how much is that?

That concentration is pretty low, about 20-50ppb for aquatic plants.
And there's no hobbyists that can measure that level in the water column and also can measure the sediment P as well.

Algae are not limited even at 3 ppb.


Regards,
Tom Barr
 

helgymatt

Guru Class Expert
Sep 17, 2007
107
0
16
Tom, questions about your filter intake and ouput....

Did you have these holes drilled for you or did you do it yourself? I want to get a 75 gallon from glasscages and want to have the filter intakes and ouput on the bottom of the tank like you have. What size hole would I have for 75 gallon? 1/2" or 3/4"?? Also, can it be as simple as having the intake on one side of the tank and the output on the other and plumb it with a rena xp3 (or a larger canister filter if I have enough money left)?

And I saw the plumbing you have on the cube...the output with the ball joints. Where do you get those? Would something like that provide enough water movement without extra powerheads in a 75 gallon?

Maybe some pics of the pluming inside of the tank would be nice:)
Thanks,
Matt
 

Tom Barr

Founder
Staff member
Administrator
Jan 23, 2005
18,695
736
113
I used 3/4" PVC for the holes, and 1" on the 120 gallon.
3/4" is perfect for an 85 with a Rena.

You need adapters => the PVC slip barbed ends to Rena tubing.
I used a Schedule 80 3/4" bulkhead, then a threaded ball valve to a threaded barbed adapter(3/4").

Just tell GC to drill the holes for a 3/4" Schedule 80 Bulk head.

The ball looking flex pipe is called Lok line, see Marine depot under plumbing etc.

Regards,
Tom Barr
 

helgymatt

Guru Class Expert
Sep 17, 2007
107
0
16
Thanks Tom, that helps a lot!

Some people have claimed that a xp3 would not be enough flow for a 75 gallon if I run a heater and reactor inline. This makes me think of alternatives and that either means (1) a very large and very expensive canister filter or (2) do something like you have done with the iwaki and ocean clears.

So my quesiton is are two ocean clears overkill for a 75? Could I go with just one and is their enough space in one filter for both mech and bio filtration? How are these things to clean?

This also makes me think about if I ever have to unhook my filtration system from the tank if I have bulkheads on the bottom of the tank. Do I need some type of valve below the bulkheads to shut off the flow?
Thanks,
Matt
 

Tom Barr

Founder
Staff member
Administrator
Jan 23, 2005
18,695
736
113
2 might be overkill, but it sure would never hurt to go over kill on filtration:D

I think two Renas might be a good decision.
It would cost less, quieter and also use less electric.
600-700gph is a good range and 2 intakes and outflows can give you plenty of options.

So you'd need 4 holes.
For 1" Bulk heads, I used 1 7/8" holes, GCs knows what size to drill the bulk heads, but make sure to use threaded schedule 80 and get an extra set of gaskets.

They tell you what size to drill the holes for each bulkhead size.

The flow from the output of the Rena can also be done so that they are parallel, thus reducing back pressure vs series, you can also place the heater before the motor.

Also, for any Hydro heater, make sure that the same circuit that kills the motor, also kills the heater.

This will save you a heater:cool:


Regards,
Tom Barr
 

helgymatt

Guru Class Expert
Sep 17, 2007
107
0
16
Tom, do you have an email? I have a diagram to email that shows what I think of the outputs as "parallel". Its a PPT. If I have it correct, I will then post it up here.

And here is a nice link of of some plumbing stuff I found. I still like the idea of having all the plumbing on the bottom of the tank. Keeps the tank clear of equipment (even if it is just a little output tube):)

Matt
 

Tom Barr

Founder
Staff member
Administrator
Jan 23, 2005
18,695
736
113
Matt,
___________**_____________
_____________T_________**______________T_____________

____ = lines
T = Tee's
** = heater or CO2, or UV etc

Series are simply

___________________**________**_____________

Regards,

Tom Barr
 

naman

Prolific Poster
Nov 12, 2005
57
0
6
First of all I must say you are very good as always have been, Tom.
I can discuss such things at such level because I read carefully your posts everywhere, Barrreport.com, APC, etc
And a lot of thins above this. A LOT.

The last post is one of the best I have ever read from you.
I agree with every word of your last post except my “fatal flaw in rational”.
I am not suggesting limiting nutrients levels, N, P, or P along to get rid of algae or to manage CO2 demand.

the rest of my respond moved here...
 

helgymatt

Guru Class Expert
Sep 17, 2007
107
0
16
Tom,
Your line diagram is not very clear. Something like this?
Picture6-1.jpg


Is there a way to run them parallel, but have 2 ouputs (one on each side of the tank? Or does this defeat the purpose of having them parallel?

Also, I'll be buying 1 more canister filter to acompany the xp3 I already have. If i do a parallel system, would there be any problems running an xp4 and xp3 together? I don't imagine there would be. Kensfish still has great deals on rena filters so I'm going to jump on that before they up their prices too (even though I won't be setting this up untill July or August)!

Maybe I should have started a new thread with my questions. I feel like I'm breaking in on your journal! But then again I think all this will help explain to others what YOU have done/or could have done:)