DaJMasta

Unless you have a chiller and it's on a lot I wouldn't even think about loosing the heater... unless you keep your house between 76 and 80 all year around with an accurate thermostat.

72 is too low, are you sure the animals you're looking at online are tropical and not temperate? Or maybe they're found at deeper depths?

If you've got a large tank, a closed top, warm lighting, and some sort of chiller now, then you can probably deal without a heater. But in a small tank you'd see a lot of fluctuation, and in an open top tank I'd expect there's too much heat loss potential there after the lights are off.

Hope you're feeding it and not just seeing what comes out of the tank. Do you have a live phyto culture going or something? An NPS tank?

I hear you can grow xenia in with your chaeto as a nutrient removal system

Right, then none of the traditional sand sifters would be a good choice (cukes, stars, nassarius, conchs).... I should have read and understood that instead of just reading and ignoring

Hmmmmm.... maybe micro brittle stars would be even more appealing then? Because they'd actually be able to get into that substrate and do some cleanup, while I can't think of many other critters that could (small pods, maybe large crabs).

It varies a lot from person to person and place to place, reefcleaners is somewhere in the middle.... maybe a little on the high side, but seems to emphasize smaller snails and no crabs. A small number of turbos can do a lot of damage to algae, takes a few more good sized nerites, and many, many ceriths to do the same job. The larger the snail of course, the bigger the chance of bulldozering frags.

I hope those aren't actually cone snails, but are cone shaped snails like trochus, astrea, or ceriths. Cone snails are parasitic and are quite small. Neither of those starfish count, but perhaps a brittle star would work.

If you're interested in cleaner sand, a sand sifting cucumber, starfish, or couple of conchs would be a good choice, but I would hold off a few months before you add them. Some more turbos would be great for GHA combat, but I've never thought of them as doing much on lesser algaes. I've had good luck with nerites, but they have a little tendancy to climb out - in the past year I've found maybe 3 outside the open topped tank. I've heard good things about trochus all around, but when I ordered some, their initial survival rate seemed to be rather low (despite a long drip acclimation), however the one of the 3 that survived seems to be doing good work.

If it were me - someone who isn't afraid of crabs in the tank and who wants a decent sized CUC - I would add:

2 emerald crabs

3 turbos (medium sized)

20 nerites (medium sized)

A sand sifting cucumber in a couple of months

10-20 nassarius (florida sized, not tonga sized)

1-2 serpent starfish or a seed colony of micro brittle stars

It's a fair addition, but it adds algae cleaning, sand sifting, and detrius eating capability. While it's somewhat heavy stocking for CUC, it shouldn't be so heavy that they starve each other out trying to get food.

Yeah, those temps are a bit too high. I've heard that elevated temps can also shorten life spans if it doesn't do outright damage.... and this is only march, the weather will be hotter outside soon enough. The organisms don't really adapt to higher temperatures, they cope with them. It's just like trying to have a temperate fish in a tropical tank - sure it can survive for a bit, but not as long as it normally would.

What kind of lights do the tanks use?

There's a bunch of options if you're handy to mod the stock hood and get some extra ventilation for the lights - or if there's already a fan in place you can upgrade it. A fan on the open rear chambers is another option. Getting a more efficient pump/powerhead/skimmer can reduce some of the heat put into the tank, and switching to a different lighting system or a custom hood with better ventilation is a more expensive way to go.

It sounds like your lights are building up some extra heat, but it may be worth an experiment if 77 or 76 degrees as a room temperature drops it significantly enough. The difference may not be linear, especially if you already have some ventilation over the tank, so a small reduction in house temperature may make a big difference. If it's happening with both tanks, maybe this is worth it. I've got a small apartment, so I can aim my room temperature at 74 or 75 and keep my tanks just fine (with the halides, now that I'm on LEDs I could probably go to like 77....), but I've always considered my heating/cooling system as something that works hand-in-hand with the tanks. Just like you have to pay for the electricity for the high intensity lights, maybe running a lower temperature is what's required to keep the critters healthy.

Yep, it's not a problem. The waste water is more broken down than tap water thanks to the carbon blocks, but it's still not terribly concentrated stuff. It's still mostly water, and if you're on city water it's still way below the TDS of most well water systems.

Not that grass is so picky either.... As long as you're not using the water taken out for a water change on the lawn you should be fine.

Whoever said that anerobic bacteria are required for de-nitrification is wrong. While it is true that anerobic bacteria perform de-nitrification, they are extremely inefficiant, plus sulfate is a product of anerobic bacteria which produce de-nitrification.

That was me

But I think we're getting caught up in the naming system. The nitrogen cycle encompasses the whole thing, denitrification is the very last step in the cycle converting nitrogenous waste into nitrogen gas. The breakdown of ammonia, nitrates, and nitrites occurs in aerobic bacteria - yes - but then you've still got nitrates in your water. If you're really talking about denitrification - the removal of nitrogen from the system and thus the removal of nitrates without a skimmer/chemical means/growing macroalgae - and not just the breakdown of wastes, then you NEED anaerobic conditions like that of a DSB.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrogen_cycle (works the same way on land as in the sea)

Thus my emphasis on the complexities of the sandbed. If you choose larger grain sizes you have the potential to catch more debris, but more 'filtration capacity' similar to that of what live rock gives you (the ammonia -> nitrite -> nitrate part). Smaller grain sizes means less oxygen in the sandbed, but unless you have the sand bed depth to make it completely anaerobic (oxygen is toxic to denitrifying bacteria), you will not get ANY denitrification from the system. That means going with a medium depth (2-4") sand bed is essentially useless in every situation except with really coarse sand (crushed coral), and then you run the risk of packing detrius into the gaps and needing gravel vacuuming and such. A shallow sandbed will be the most efficient otherwise unless you are looking for true denitrification, in which case as far as I know, DSB is the only option.

Now these are strictly nitrogen cycle concerns, there's certainly arguments to be made for the critters living in the sand as well as fish and things that need a certain kind of sand to survive.

Specifically regarding denitrification though, isn't that an anaerobic process that only occours in the area of the sand bed without oxygen? I'm fairly certain that the break down of ammonia to NO2 and NO3 wll occour in the aerated portion of the sandbed (larger grain size is better), but if you want actual denitrification (the final step of that process to N2 gas) you need an anaerobic portion - the idea behind the deep sand bed - and thus a smaller grain size.

Also there's a lot of complexity regarding grain size. The larger the grains, the more space between them for oxygenation, but also the better chance they catch and retain detrius and the less overall surface area for bacteria to grow. While people have had success with virtually every kind of substrate, people seem to gravitate away from both extremes (Crushed coral and extremely fine sand), and there are now sands with a decent grain size difference which may work the best, especially after the smaller particles settle to the bottom.

I could test this really easy. If I fill up a bucket with tank water and test it for KH, Ca, and Mg. Then I just run a UV just on this bucket for a few days and restest everything. That is what I need to do, much more scientific having less variables.

I think that's actually an oversimplified test, as it could be some other sort of reaction going on. If you wanted the most variables the same, record the Ca and Mg and such for a week, turn off the sterilizer for a week and keep recording, turn it back on for a week and see whether it changes. Sure there's more stuff at work, but if you want to find out if it's changing your Ca/Mg numbers this is the most direct test. So long as you don't currently have parasite problems and watch the fish during the week it's off, it shouldn't even be too risky.

Looks like an isopod to me. Maybe this variety?

http://www.crustacea.net/crustace/isopoda/www/sphaerom.htm

From a little googling, those long 'pincer' appendages in the back are an indication that it's a male.

What kind of moonlight LEDs are we talking?

If you're thinking high powered ones like Crees, you'll need a constant current driver, there's a number of them out there, but they essentially provide the required voltage to run a string of LEDs in series (so the voltage drop over each is correct) at a high current. If they're just regular old LEDs then just giving them the correct supply voltage should be fine, but if you're going for high intensity in a string, there is no easy way to do that except with a driver.

If they're commercial moonlights, you can look at what the company sells for them and just go buy DIY parts accordingly. LED Drivers are generally easy to DIY as well, but it may be difficult to find the ones you need at frys (haven't been to see their LED selection recently...).

I agree. Mostly I said the PAR bulbs would be a better choice because the intensity of lensed PAR38s for your mains will be greater than most MH setups or really any T5 setup short of a really excessive amount of bulbs. It's really difficult to compete with intensity against Crees or equivalents running at 1A+ with optics - with coverage or overall output - sure - but the area under the spot of the PAR38s won't be all that affected by stunners simply because of the difference in intensity... just like 2 or 3 T5 actinics would give a nice blue hue to the tank but the spots under the PAR38s would still be 15-16k (by my estimate, at least).

If you're not using the stunners with the mains, they would be an excellent choice for even coverage and color configuration (there's lots of options and they will give a much less spotlight-y diffused look)... but using high powered PAR38s as the mains I just don't think they'd be able to compete.

Like Mark said, the reflectors you can get for the stunners are cheap (in price), but work very well. The just snap on to the stunners. I have them on my 4 over the tank, and like how they direct the light.

Out of curiosity, do they really do anything? I know the stunners don't use optics, but LEDs are very directional light sources on their own, how much difference do the reflectors really make other than keeping the spread a little reigned in?

In this case, because your LEDs will be so high over the tank, I would opt for a different actinic supplementation method: PAR30s or PAR38s. Get some all blue bulbs and mount them up with the PAR38s. Because the stunners use LEDs on a lower intensity level than the ones in the PAR bulbs and because they don't use optics, they will not get good depth penetration from that distance and you'll end up having to buy more of them because the effect of each will be minimal. Because you can select the LED configuration exactly, I would suggest something like BoostLED's PAR30s.

I did some research into the brands/color temp ratings of the MH bulbs before I bought, and from what I can tell the Phoenix 14k I was using was pretty accurate on most scales. The combined color temp of these bulbs is something like 15-16k approximately, but there are many, many instances of certain colors coming out better under LEDs because of their spectrum (than MH or even T5)... but it's not across the board more color, it's just certain ones stand out.

I don't know what's happened to them, but Pacific East Aquaculture (site seems to be dead?) was posting pics of its acans under both standard and LED lighting (side by side) so you could see it under both and in most cases the LED lighting was more vivid.

As for growth, I am seeing more/faster growth, but I don't think my experience should be a big indicator. I was having some trouble with pH (I haven't been able to attribute it to Ca, Mg, or Alk) for a lot of the time I was using the MH, so that certainly kept them from growing some. In the last few months of the MH it was good and the first few months of the LED I have noticed faster encrusting and spreading of frags.... then again I've also slightly increased flow since the LEDs and swapped for a better skimmer.... so I'm going to say it seems like I'm getting more growth, but it's really inconclusive because it could be a combination of a lot of things.

I've been running LEDs for close to 3 months now. In the last month I added another bulb.

Over my 24G nano cube I have 3 21W PAR38 bulbs (2x 12k, 1x 20k) with 40 degree optics - a total of 63W. For reduced spotlighting, good coverage, and an open-top feel, I've got them positioned 18" over the tank. Growth has been good the entire time and my SPS have colored up better than my 150W 14k MH that I was previously running. Greens also pop out better with corals under the LED light - different spectrum of blues I suppose. The growth and coloration was good with only two bulbs, but because of the tight optics it left the sides and back of the tank fairly dim, so I added the 20k bulb to give a little more blue to the overall light and to get more even coverage of the whole tank. To my eyes the light in the tank is more intense under the beams, the reflected light in the room is also higher. Because of it being several point light sources, you do get some visible differences in the the way shadowing happens, but because of the number of lights it is not a big issue. I've also found that the rockwork in the tank makes more distinct shadows under it than with the MH.

All sold, thanks!

I don't see the "pressure regulator" side of things. To my knowledge, there's supposed to be a flow restrictor on the waste water line to improve the pressure on the whole system, and the flush valve should run in parallel to it so that when it's open, the restrictor is bypassed and you get much more flow over the membrane to flush it out.

What I see from that pic - if it's of the flush valve on the waste water line - is that there is no restrictor in place to be bypassed (unless the blue tubing is one?... never seen one like that), so you basically have a valve that when open will do the exact same thing as when it's closed. The flush valve should be closed to get proper function of the membrane and good quality output water.

It could be a delayed reaction to the changes from the new tank. I swapped out my lighting almost 2 months ago (and augmented it a couple weeks back) and also recently swapped my skimmer for a better one. Even though the water changes and skimmer were keeping the params in check and the lighting was bright enough to keep the color going, my SPS were also showing less polyp extension than they had before. Just in the last couple of days I've noticed it has improved though - as well as coloration. These things also tend to improve when you've got your hands in the tank less often, so simply going without much maintenance with reasonable parameters for a while may be enough to get them completely happy again.

Just my experience, I haven't been keeping SPS for too long (well, 9 months or so).

Odd... My PM box says I'm only 8% in

Another person asked about the skimmer yesterday, but if that doesn't work out I'll try to PM you (if that's working!)

Once more! At the lower price of $30, this is one of the cheapest skimmers you can buy. It should outperform the cheap stock skimmers you can get for nanos, and while it doesn't pull the darkest skimmate - the day after I removed it from my tank (I installed the new tunze, but needed a replacement part to make it start) I saw an algae bloom (film, diatoms, and GHA) suddenly without any feedin (it was doing it's job!).

Also the other things are as much as you want to pay for them. They were $1 each, I would give you them for free, but I won't go bending my schedule to hand them off in that case

That was supposed to say "wee bit"... would make more sense that way.

Anyways, a bump to the top cause it's still on my table.

Also check for nudis - they'd be little white hairy things probably in the affected area. If not, corals can regrow around a live skeleton even if the flesh is gone (still bone white), but with time the skeleton will stop being viable and the tissue will no longer regrow over it.

There are plenty of people who have used various sized plastic containers for frag tanks and such without too many problems (at least in the short term). Make sure you get something reinforced or it won't be able to take the weight of the water (especially if the tank is high). Most of the ones used in LFSs and the like are the higher quality Rubbermaid Stock Tanks, those huge black plastic bins with drains built in. They do make them in 50G sizes, but I'm not sure where you could get them locally.

That said if you're looking for a fry tank.... just look around on craigslist or go to a thrift store or something. You can get a used reasonably sized glass tank for cheap, and it should look nicer, make cleaning easier, etc.