Origami

Agreed. If they are unable to recover the site, it will be a loss to the community. For others who may be interested, ReefSanctuary is a good alternative that captures some of the same resources that RC had online in their stickies. In fact, some of the big players over at RC can be found at RS.

1-2 teaspoons per gallon well stirred will get you a saturated solution.

That's the way a lot of very respected reefers do it, too, so you'll be in good company.

The single ended bulbs definitely fit the Type R model. That is, they have an outer envelope that absorbs harmful UV radiation. The double ended bulbs that we use fit neither Typer R nor Type T models as they don't have an outer envelope. That's why, when using double ended bulbs, you must run them behind glass shields.

I dose kalk, too, through a Deltec KM500 kalk stirrer as part of my ATO (auto top off). I have several safeguards in place to mitigate the risk of accidents. 1) I only put 1 week's worth of kalk powder in my stirrer when I recharge the system. That's the most that could possibly get into the system if some problem occurred. 2) My ATO reservoir volume is fixed at 10 gallons for a 300+ gallon system. This covers 2 or so days of evaporation. (The reservoir is automatically refilled each night within a small window of time.) This limits how much fresh water could be dumped into the system, thereby limiting kalk overdosing and salinity depression. 3) I dose my ATO water using a peristaltic pump controlled by a timer. I dose a little bit every hour, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. This just keeps any pH impact of kalk dosing spread throughout the day.

Post what you find out, James. I'd be interested in knowing what they say.

Beautiful work, Stu. What did you use for resin?

My green milli did the same and turned blue.

Boret, sorry I wasn't around to chime in. I was on my annual week-long Habitat for Humanity mission in Canton, Ohio. I'm glad that things worked out for you. When I increased the water volume in my system, I did just as you did and treated it as an acclimation problem. I opened the return slightly and let the water mix slowly over several hours. After about 4 hours, I opened the return completely.

I keep a yellow tang and a smaller sailfin tang in my 180. The yellow tang's been in the system considerably longer and sometimes chases the sailfin tang. But, for the most part, they get along fine.

Keep us posted on how you're faring, Bob.

Bob, since you've effectively cut your bioload, I would expect that you should begin to see a difference within a week or two.

If you drive fast, you can get to Fins & Feathers in Ashburn (VA) - in an hour, that is. Sean has a very good QT program.

Yes. But my system's young (and not really demanding). That amount would be expected to increase. I don't like mixing chemicals up for a six month run, to tell you the truth, so I'd be unlikely to mix up 25 gallons at a time of two-part. There's two reasons for this: The first reason is simple: Concentrated solutions of aqueous calcium chloride, when exposed to carbon dioxide, will begin to precipitate insoluble calcium carbonate, thereby weakening the solution. Try this: Mix up a strong solution of calcium chloride in a clear glass and blow bubbles through it using a straw. You should see the clarity of the solution begin to drop as calcium carbonate is formed. The same problem exists for calcium hydroxide (lime, kalk) by the way. That's what the crust is that forms on the water's surface in kalk stirrers - calcium carbonate. (Once the film's formed, though, it hinders the further absorbtion of CO2.) Just like I'd never make up six months of kalkwasser, I'd never make up six months of calcium chloride. The second reason is risk. I'd never tie in 25 gallons of any concentrated chemical, or even an unlimited source of fresh water, to my system without appropriate safeguards and redundancy to those safeguards. But that's just me. I accept that others come to different conclusions and do things differently. It's that variability in what we do and our results that makes this forum of sharing exciting and educational. If it were one size fits all, it would be pretty boring.

No. I don't think he updated the article. I think the selection criteria remain pretty much the same. The costs are what may differ today. In the end, as operating costs drop, it's not cost that becomes the deciding criteria. It's other factors. Factors such as convenience, quality, risk, start-up cost, continued availability of supplies (chemicals), etc. A special note on the last part: It wasn't that long ago when Dow announced that their Dowflake product would undergo a change in processing, resulting in increased bromide. It was unknown at the time what the implications of this would be on the reefkeeping hobby. Consequently, reefers using two-part scrambled to buy up bags of Dowflake from older lots known to have come from the old processing method. As those bags became more and more scarce, some people were compelled to go back to using more expensive chemicals (name brands and stuff from BRS, for example), while others just started using whatever they could find (and crossing their fingers). It wasn't until rather recently that the bromide question was "answered" and some comfort was restored to many reefers who's daily peace hang in the balance of such questions, and that some acceptability to Dowflake has been restored. (BTW, Tetra has an excellent process and their CaCl2 finds use in many aquariums. And, as late as last year, Tetra made some of it's CaCl2 in the same plant - in China - that makes CForce Calcium Chloride.) Without cheap trustable sources like DowFlake and MagFlake, we would be forced to use more expensive chemicals, thereby changing the cost dynamic of this trade once again. In the end, I spend so much on this hobby that goes well beyond the amount to be gained by anwering this argument, that the answer (if there really is one) doesn't really matter. For me, it's a question of can the method keep up with demand, how convenient is it, and what additional benefits and risks come with it. As it is now, I service my kalkstirrer once a week (I never keep a whole lot in it for safety reasons) and can run my calcium reactor for ages before it needs attention. That averages out to maybe 5 minutes a week. There's more to be gained from optimizing other parts of my system than this part.

I hadn't noticed that. That should certainly be added and Ryan's accounted for that in his original post. That's the convenience / stability factor. Fixed costs are, in one sense, recoverable (in part or, if buying used, often in large part), so I consider them secondary to operational costs. Those big numbers that Randy had in the operational columns were assuming use of B-Ionic's product line rather than to use generic substitutions. At the time (in 2003), I don't think Randy had done his analysis on chemical substitutes. His subsequent work in this area has enabled a lot of people to save a lot of money, and still remain confident in the quality of the additive they're dumping into their systems.

Thanks, Boret. I would add, though, that two-part using generic chemical substitutions like Randy's Improved 2-Part recipe, ( http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2006-02/rhf/index.php ) can be made much cheaper by the DIYer than what was listed in his 2003 article. For example, you can use Dow or Tetra calcium chloride for calcium supplement; good old Arm and Hammer baking soda for the alkalinity supplement; and Mag flake or pellet plus Epsom salts to supplement magnesium. Dow flake should run under $20 (locally) for a 50# bag, baking soda is cheap at the grocery and even cheaper at Cosco, and Mag flake costs under $20 (locally) for a 50# bag. So there are cheaper ways than what was presented in the original article.

Summary: IO: Ca 350, Alk 12 dkH, Mg 1070, inexpensive but can be supplemented cheaply with calcium chloride and magnesium chloride / sulfate to boost calcium & magnesium if desired. RC: Ca 490, Alk 13, Mg 1440, more expensive & really doesn't need supplementation in most cases http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthre...hreadid=1287118 Calcium Alkalinity Magnesium Aquatic Gardens 430 8 1240 CoraLife 560 9 1380 Crystal Sea Marinemix 340 9 1050 Crystal Sea Marinemix Bio-Assay 340 9 1050 D-D H2Ocean 450 10 1380 Instant Ocean 350 12 1070 Kent 540 11 1200 Marine Environment 480 7.5 1450 Oceanic 580 8.5 1650 OceanPure 510 10 1320 Red Sea 400 8 1300 Red Sea Coral Pro 490 7 1300 Reef Crystals (new) 490 13 1440 Reefer's Best 420 11 1200 SeaChem Marine Salt 500 10 1400 SeaChem Reef Salt 540 10 1450 Tropic Marin 375 10 1230 Tropic Marin Pro Reef 450 8.5 1380 Tunze Reef Salt 420 9.5 1350

Fish poop is a great source of (coral) nutrition. It's part of the food chain on the reef and in our aquariums. So, the food you feed your fish comes out of your fish, partially consumed, to feed your corals (among other things). Waste from your corals go to feed their resident zooxanthallae. And their waste to feed bacteria and algae. Circle of life.

First off, there are cultural aspects for the answer to your question, I think. For example, in Europe, where the Balling Method is more prominent than here, those tanks depend on a multi-part approach, similar to your two part. Here, we might do things differently. Second, it's about convenience and consumption. For convenience, Kalkwasser and calcium reactors are naturally balanced additives. Kalkwasser has the added benefit of being able to be tied thru your top-off system so you're not adding another system to monitor. It's also far less concentrated, so overdoses require significantly more additive to reach the same level. Regarding consumption, let me focus on calcium uptake. A similar discussion would apply for alkalinity with the numbers being different. At 50 ml per day, you're dosing ~1.850 grams of calcium per day since your calcium part has 37,000 ppm ((37,000 mg/kg) Ca. Kalkwasser is significantly less concentrated at 808 ppm - that's 45.8 times less. This means, you'd have to dose 2.29 liters (0.6 gallons) of saturated kalkwasser every day to deliver the same amount of calcium to your tank as you're getting in that 50 ml of your Part 1. However, if you're having to replace that much water to evaporation every day, kalkwasser is a simple and even cheaper alternative to (automated delivery of) two-part. (Kalkwasser has additional benefits that I won't get into such as precipitation of phosphates and some metals, and helps to maintain a good pH.) However, when consumption (uptake) of calcium by your corals and other skeleton-forming inverts exceeds the amount that you can deliver in kalkwasser because, fundamentally, you can't dose more than you evaporate, other supplementation strategies are required. This can include replacing or augmenting the dosing system with two-part or with a calcium reactor. As an example, in my system, I use both a kalk stirrer connected to my ATO and a calcium reactor. My kalk stirrer runs 35 minutes out of every hour, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, replacing the 14 liters (3.7 gallons) lost every day to evaporation. In the process, I add 11.3 grams of calcium every 24 hours by this method. Unfortunately, this doesn't match my consumption, so I elected to add a calcium reactor (having found a good deal on a used one) to the system. At this time, I run 24 liters a day through the calcium reactor which doses another 6.85 grams of calcium (assuming my effluent's around 40 dKH - which normally it is) every day. In total, my system consumes around 18 grams of calcium every day on average right now and my corals are still, for the most part, small. I'd have to dose around half a liter of your Part 1 every day to match today's consumption. In the future, if I need more, I just have to increase the flow out of the calcium reactor. Still, when I do have an imbalance, I supplement with solutions normally used in multi-part dosing (calcium chloride, sodium bicarbonate, or magnesium chloride / sulfate and, rarely, strontium chloride). As for economy, I don't have the exact math for you (though it could be easily calculated, I suppose). But if I were to do so, I would consider not only the aquisition cost but also the resale value of equipment, and the operations costs associated with the materials (supplements). While, as you've observed, there's some difference between the equipment cost, there can also be a significant difference in material costs. Lime and calcium reactor media can be pretty cheap when compared to some chemical supplements, though even these expenses can be brought down if you use commonly available substitutes. Hope this was helpful.

With that many fish, is there a reason that you're adding an SPS food? I would think that there's plenty of detritus from the fish available to feed your corals. I'd drop that first. Second, it seems like you're feeding an awfully large amount of food - and frozen at that. Consider cutting back on the frozen (for what you do use, make sure that you rinse it first so you get rid of the high-phosphate liquid stuff that does no good for your fish) and maybe alternating it with a decent flake. Spirulina flake has worked well for me.

Similarly, if your drain is unvented and/or has a high spot along the way, it's possible also that a bubble is getting trapped and impeding flow. It doesn't have to be a hard obstruction holding things up. Where are you located?

Don't know. But I'll bet you can find an epoxy paint that might work over at Home Depot or at Lowe's.

Go with the foam. I've seen this process described on RC: Apply the foam & let it expand. Tear it out after it's dried (cured) to give it an irregular, rough look. Give the foam a coat of epoxy paint (as a protectant and an adhesive), applying (aragonite) sand / gravel to the paint before it dries to give it a natural look. I don't know if the paint step is really necessary. I think the author of the thread that I'm recalling did it to improve the color (to go from that Great Stuff yellow to black) and to protect the foam since he didn't know how it would age in saltwater. Pond foam's already black (I think) and shouldn't have issues in water (I suppose), so it may be the quickest, most simple route for you. Drilling and securing rock with zip ties to a PVC, acrylic, or egg crate frame is done often with good results. If you go this route, you're using a tried and true method. Good luck!

Since the "curing" process is one of leaching of chemicals back into the water, the curing time would depend mostly upon how deep/thick the rocks (in this case, the cemented portions) are. The impact to your aquarium would depend upon how fast and how much of these compounds were leached back into the water, and how fast they could be removed. I think that Almon said that most plugs needed to dry a day or two (the longer dry time was for the plugs he made in the baby bottle nipples). In a personal conversation with him, he tended to leave them in water for a week or more. However, since they're small and relatively thin, and because his tanks are relatively large, premature use of a few plugs would probably not have a large impact. The best way to do this is to start soaking the rocks after the cement has set up and "cured" (to hardness). Make sure that you soak them in a lot of water. In the initial days, you may get a gray scum that forms on the top of the water. This is likely the quick stuff that's being leached out. Change the water frequently in those initial days. Monitor pH swings from when you put new water and in the ensuing days. Leaching should cause an shift upward. Once this shifting settles, you should be good-to-go. Six to eight weeks is for aragocrete rocks. Since you'll likely be using far less cement, I suspect that the process will be quicker.