gws3

FWIW my po4 level is twice that and sps are thriving. But my nitrates are 50 ppm so the redfield ratio is quite different, who knows if that matters. Not sure I'd dose the Dino x unless the other algae is bad. It definitely stresses coral. It won't kill bryopsis or bubblealgae in my experience, but knocks out filamentous and slime algae types. Not sure what you have. In my new system I had to dose it early on for dinos. It made the system really clean of algae and coralline got a really good hold. So right now everything is super clean and covered in coralline which is awesome. It took a while before sps were happy in there. My first time I had to dose it in a system packed with SPS. That was rough and really put a hurting on some of the SPS. In that type of situation I'd only resort to it because the dinos were causing a lot of harm to corals and livestock as well.

I went with the 22kw generac and ATS. Installed it myself. Quite a bit of work due to the length of the propane line. But I paid about $5k for the generator and materials. I suspect it would have been about $10-12k to have installed. My house already had a 1000 gallon propane tank, and propane is pretty cheap the last few years. Overall I am happy with it. When the powers goes out it is very nice not worrying about setting up and fueling a portable. The unit was leaking oil due to a crack in the engine block, which is disconcerting, but Generac replaced the entire engine under warranty. Maintenance is little to none. Solar wasn't feasible for me as I live in the woods mostly. Not sure I follow the comment about generators and carbon footprints. Not that I don't support being green, all for it, but the emissions a 1 liter propane engine generates running for 5 minutes every other week is nothing compared to a vehicle you drive to work unless it's a Tesla.

Good work on beating them back with a more natural approach! That phosphate/nitrate ratio is really phosphate heavy, I wonder if that will cause issues, perhaps it is part of your success ridding the tank of dinos.

Snails and crabs shouldn't be bothered by it. I try to avoid chemical solutions, and am always skeptic of bottles of snake oil. But dinos are relentless, and in my two expeirences nothing else was effective.

Try the marco cement first, I'd be surprised if you're not super happy with the result. As long as you can support the rock for 15 minutes or so while it sets you can create any shape of structure you want. Drilling for rods is much more work and difficulty IMO.

I've battled dinos twice. Two different strains via identification under a microscope. I tried a lot of different tactics... lights out, peroxide, decreasing nutrients, increasing nutrients, balancing nitrates and phosphates by dosing either NaNO3 or seachem phosphorous. Alan, my suggestion would be to skip the nitrate/phosphate dosing. With dinos it did nothing. When I battled low nutrients it caused more harm than good to corals. There is a big difference in my opinion between increasing nutrients naturally via feeding more and the nitrogen cycle vs chemical dosing. I think chemical dosing is unnatural and causes issues. Both times I beat dinos I ended up resorting to DinoX. It will kill your shrimp. Past day 15 of the 21 day dosing period sps will start to suffer. It will take them a few months to recover. But the dinos will be dead and a lot of nuisance algae will suffer and disappear. Your rocks will be super clean and coralline will be extremely happy not having to compete with dinos and some of the nuisance algae it kills.

I use the cressi aqua short. No issues, seem solid.

I have a good bit of experience with fairy wrasses. In my experience the flasher wrasses often don't do well long term. Fairy wrasses are a better bet. I'd suggest avoiding "super males". While they look amazing and yield instant gratification, they ship poorly and often have swim bladder issues that always result in death. This is especially true for the deep water Australian species (lineatus, rhomboid). I have lost a supermale rhomboid from shipping stress and multiple lineatus due to swim bladder. Losing $300 fish hurts your morale as well as wallet. I think the most enjoyable approach is to buy a bunch of juveniles. They are much more hardy than the large ones. They take a few years to grow into adults but this is very fun to experience. Also, they establish natural pecking orders as they mature and are less likely to quarrel. With full grown males you often experience aggression and have to be strategic with how you introduce them and definitely need to use acclimation boxes. Generally if you try to avoid species that look similar you will reduce the fighting. I highly recommend hawaiian flames. The juveniles are realtively cheap, and they grow up quickly and turn into beautiful males. Great personalities. The pair in my 300 was raised from 1.5" juveniles. I think they are both becoming more male, but they don't quarrel. A very important thing is a mesh canopy. Fairy and Flashers will all jump eventually. Egg crate is too large, I learned this the hard way with a pintail in QT. I also recently lost my labouti out of my 300 when I had the mesh covers off to take pictures. If you want multiple M/F pairs just try to get ones that have different body colors. This chart is very helpful:

Really impressive nem. Beautiful reef. I'd be so tempted to buy a few dozen baby clowns to watch them all host in it and act silly.

Thanks Tom, it was good to dust off my basic chemistry skills. Although, chemistry is very tedious. I don’t have much in the way of lab equipment, no magnetic agitators, so there was a lot of swirling test samples with the pH probe. The reagent dropper has a small nozzle and is fed by a very low flow rate peristaltic pump. There is a LED and optical sensor behind the nozzle that is able to recognize when a drop falls. It must be utilizing the refractive index of water, similar to the optical float sensors you guys were discussing in another thread. I don’t think the inconsistency is due to drop size. The way the drops slowly form on the nozzle gives me the impression the drop size is very consistent, but I have not measured across the different units I have or anything like that. The 17 ml sample is measured using a little white float and an optical sensor, I’d suspect more opportunity for variation there. The manufacturer’s reagent is definitely off from what the monitor is expecting given the drop size and sample size. It is programmed this way regardless of what the pH probe reads. So it’s down to the drop size, sample size and reagent. I’m not sure I could conclude which of these is off from the manufacturer’s original design. Probe calibration is the same as any other pH monitor/controller. You pull out the probe and use a two point calibration. Naturally, since pH in the low 4s is the critical reading for the monitor it is calibrated with a reference solution of 7 followed by 4. What are your thoughts on double junction pH probes? I am thinking about transitioning to them as my probes go bad. With three systems, three monitors, and a few calcium reactor set ups I am now maintaining 8 pH probes. Calibrating them is boring and time consuming.

I got it off Amazon, search "500 ml chemsavers hcl". I was putting waste water into the skimmers originally, but now that I know what the reagent is I am going to put it back into the tank. With HCl you're basically just adding back a very small amount of chloride, which exists in great abundance already in saltwater. And since it is reagent grade HCl I am not too worried about impurities as they are in extremely low concentration and the volume of acid used is very small anyway. Since the stock reagent is working well for you I would suggest the .0227 N acid solution. To measure the acid you will need an accurate low range scale. I purchased an "American Weigh Scales GEMINI-20" off amazon for about $25, which comes with a calibration weight and is impressively precise / repeatable considering the low cost.

Prepare yourself for a long post, I wanted to document my thought process from beginning to end on this little project. Currently I own three KHG Monitors. While these monitors have greatly aided me in keeping stable alkalinity there are a couple things I would like to improve about them. First, the cost and availability of reagent for the monitors. A $35 packet is 35mL and makes 1535mL of reagent when mixed with 1500mL of RODI water. The manufacturer advertises this will last for about 270 tests, equating to approximately $0.13 per test. The interval between tests is user adjustable and ranges from 60 to 240 minutes. So, for three monitors, my monthly cost for reagent can range from $70 to $280. I would like to have the monitors test every hour for a smoother daily plot of my alkalinity levels, but I consider $280 a month far too expensive. I am also concerned that after investing in three of these monitors the reagent may one day be unavailable rendering my investment useless. The second thing I don’t like about the monitors is the accuracy of the test. The precision and repeatability is excellent, but all three of my monitors report a value different than my other test kits. My other test kits are a Hanna Checker, Salifert and Lamotte. These other test kits consistently report very similar values. The manufacturer has acknowledged the monitors lack accuracy and have included an offset feature you can use to make the monitor more closely match your other test kits. My three monitors use offsets of [-1.3], [-1.6], and [-1.0] with the manufacturers reagent to achieve values that closely match my other test kits. In an effort to reduce reagent cost and improve accuracy I have been looking into making my own reagent using hydrochloric acid. Randy Holmes Farley published an article for making your own alkalinity test that illustrates the chemistry to accomplish this is quite simple. For a 0.1N (normality) acid the equation to calculate alkalinity is as follows: Alkalinity (dKH) = [volume of acid added added (mL) / volume of tank sample (mL)] x 280 When the monitor runs its test it adds reagent drop by drop and reports the total number of drops added and calculates the corresponding alkalinity. When the pH reaches a target value the titration is over and the final alkalinity value is reported. It may also perform some linear interpolation for increased resolution. It’s not clear what the endpoint pH value is, but Randy indicates it is approximately 4.5 for this type of test. This gives enough information to calculate the normality of the acid based on Randy’s formula and a few volumetric measurements. The test chamber holds approximately 17 mL of sample with a pH probe installed. Using the reagent line purge feature I measured the number of drops and resulting volume for several samples. These measurements were 1.02, .85, .85, and .85 mL for samples of drop sizes 30, 25, 25, and 25, respectively. This equates quite accurately to .034 mL per drop. Based on this and the drops / alkalinity values reported by the monitor I believe it is programmed to expect a 0.02455 N acid. I first tested my tank water using my Hanna checker. Reported values were 142, 143, and 141 meq/L. Averaged, these values equate to 7.95 dKH. This number was backed by a Salifert result of 8.0 dKH. So I decided to proceed assuming my tank water alkalinity is 7.95 dKH. I then ran repeated tests on the sample water using the monitor and the manufacturer’s reagent. The KHG Monitor reported alkalinity readings of 8.81, 8.77, 8.82, 8.82, and 8.82. These average to 8.81 dKH. To characterize the manufacturer’s reagent I took a 17 mL sample of tank water and added reagent in 0.1 mL increments while measuring the pH with a new 7/4 calibrated pH probe. To reach a pH of 4.5 it took 2.11 mL of the manufacturer’s reagent. I used linear interpolation in increase resolution similar to what I suspect the monitor does. This provided me a starting point to create and test some solutions of varying concentration. To create an equivalent reagent I acquired 37% w/w ACS reagent grade HCl (36.5-38.0). I first created a .0168 N acid assuming the drop size would be .05 mL, which proved to be an acid that was weaker than the manufacturer’s. It took 2.72 mL of this acid to reach a pH of 4.5. These values suggest my reagent had a normality of .0177. I found this to be reasonably close to my design target of .0168. This small difference is easily accounted for by human error and the tolerances of my tools to measure the weights and volumes. This gave me confidence going forward I could create solutions with normality close to my intended value. From here I had two design targets. First, create a solution that would perform very closely to the manufacturer’s reagent. Second, create a slightly stronger solution that would yield results closer to the alkalinity measured by my other test kits so that I do not have to utilize a large offset value to compensate for the monitors lack of accuracy. I ended up creating additional solutions with normality of .0227 N, .0244 N, and .0258 N. I arrived at these values by doing some basic math in an effort to meet my two design targets. The .0227 N solution yielded results very close to the manufacturer’s reagent. The .0244 N solution, according to my calculations, would enable my monitors to yield alkalinity values that would closely match my other test kits. Below is a plot comparing measured pH values against mL of acid added to the 17 mL sample for the different solutions. “Baseline 1” and “Baseline 2” represent two tests using the manufacturer’s reagent. Finally, I replaced the manufacturer’s reagent on the monitor and ran a series of tests to see if my .0244 N solution would yield results close to the 7.95 dKH value my other test kits indicated. The results were 7.91, 7.95, 7.90 with an average of 7.92 dKH. This value is close enough to the target of 7.95 dKH that I am confident using this .0244 N reagent for continued use in my monitors. To create the .0244 N acid I used 3.696 grams of 37% HCl in 1,531 mL of RODI water. The 500 mL bottle of ACS reagent grade HCl was purchased for $44.95. This means it now costs me $0.28 to make a batch of reagent as opposed to $35 from the manufacturer. To run hourly tests on all three of my monitors my monthly costs drops from $280 to $2.23. Overall I am very pleased with the results of this exercise. I can now use my monitors to test alkalinity on my three systems hourly at a very low cost, I am able to make my own reagent on demand using a readily sourced acid, and I have been able to improve the accuracy of the monitors in that they now closely match my other tests kits without a large offset value.

Yes, I ordered Chemsavers ACS reagent grade HCl. I came to the same conclusion regarding muriatic acid, no idea what the tolerance is on the concentration, or what nasty impurities are in it that I could be dumping back into the reef tank. With the ACS cert I know it's between 36.5-38% HCl w/w and it has 12 impurities that are tested for to make sure they don't exceed the max limit. I presume they select these specific impurities because they occur as part of the manufacturing process, and the presence of other impurities aren't a concern. That's about as much as I know regarding chemical purity standards.

I finally got the KHG Monitor installed on my other system. The monitor indicates a daily alk swing. However, alk consumption has increased on this system, so I am not sure I can conclude with any confidence whether or not the reported alk swing is true or a result of the dirunal pH swing and how the tester works. In other exciting news Scott and I have been looking into a substitute acid for the manufacturer's reagent. By measuring the volume of test water, the volume of reagent added and the resulting alk reading I have been able to back calculate the normality of the acid they use. I plan to do some testing with HCl this weekend. This is exciting because the cost to make reagent will drop from $35 to less than a dollar. At this cost point I can justify running tests at the maximum rate, every hour. This will make me feel much better about paying the introductory price for the monitors.

It's surely the lobo. They do it at night most of the time. I'm surprised it only killed that much. They belong in different spots IMO, not just due to the radius of stinging death, but the lobo will want lower light and flow.

Is it encrusting? Milleporas especially seem to go through growth spurts. Sometimes they barely grow and then other times have explosive growth. If it is encrusting but not branching and has good color I wouldn't worry too much. Sometimes changing/increasing flow can help encourage growth.

That's what I'm getting at. I have a doser on but it is only dosing about 0.1 dkh a day because there are just a few frags in that system. Basically the alkalinity is constant. So if the kh monitor shows a diurnal swing on that system it is likely just due to the pH diurnal swing effecting the reading. If there is no diurnal alk swing, that we can likely conclude that the diurnal alk swing I am seeing on my other two systems is actually the alk going up and down each day.

Not sure what to think then without doing some more reading. Maybe I'll get my third one hooked up this week on the my new system. There is close to zero alk demand on that system since it is new and only has some test frags in it. But there is a diurnal pH swing. If the diurnal alk swing is present in the plot we can assume it's due to something other than the alk actually changing through the day. If it's not present in the plot perhaps it is the case on the established systems. Yeah I run shorter photoperiods as well. Metal halides usually only on for 6 hours. 5 hours for the ones on the 300 as I added another pair of T5s and a reefbrite xho blue.

At first I ran it into the skimmer collection cup. Now on one system I have it running back into the sump. I think the reagent is likely just a common acid, so I don't think there's too much to worry about.

So what I meant Scott is that you have to get the unit up and running consistent, then take a number of measurements against the test kit you trust the most. Find the difference for each and then average it. You plug this into the offset setting box, and from their on out it will read very consistently with your test kit. For me Hannah Checker, Salifert and Lamotte titration test kits all test very close. But the two guardians I have up and running are about 1.5 and 2 dkh off. But once I accounted for this offset (poor accuracy) it seems to test spot on with these other kits every time (good precision). Let me know if any of that didn't make sense. I think you can see from the charts above how precise it is. If it wasn't precise the chart would have lots of noise, not follow a smooth ramp up and down like it does.

Check this out Tom, this may help you figure it out. I think there really is a diurnal alk swing. Notice the alk and ph are out of phase. The alk starts dropping towards the end of my photoperiod. Let me know what you think.

It will definitely help. I feel the same way, I have so much $$$ invested in SPS, if this prevents an alk swing that kills a few high end frags it's worth it. I'm planning on using it to transition from 2 part to Ca Rx. I was too nervous to do this before worrying about a big alk swing. Being able to test alk every hour will make it much easier. Right, I notice the same trend. The only issue that complicates it for me is a lot of tanks in my basement, if I am not pumping in fresh air the pH will trend lower due to increased CO2 in the ambient air. So I don't think I am able to assess alk levels accurately based on pH alone. I have three of the KH Guardian Monitors. One is for the newer system and not set up yet, no need since alk consumption is very low. I have one on my 300DD and one on my older system, which has really just become some frag tanks plumbed together. I plan to replace this system with a large display tank in a few years. Did you have any specific questions? I thought I did post my experience, but perhaps my fragmented thoughts weren't clear. I can say in the time I have had them running my alk has not gone over 8 nor dropped below 7. I target 7.5-8. Maybe this chart will help illustrate the benefit. This is when I had it set to test every hour on my 300DD. Please keep in mind I was still figuring out the correction factor so the y-axis is off by 1.8. This is my biggest gripe about them, how far off the accuracy is. But once you put in the adjustment factor they seem to be very repeatable, and will match my hannah checker very closely. You can see my ~0.3 dkh diurnal alk swing. Also, I think one can conclude the precision of these is better than .1 dkh, probably around .05 dkh. I say this because the readings are not jumping around at all, they follow the trend very closely.

In my experience asterina starfish populations and harlequins are sustainable in a larger tank. I've had mine for at least a year. I believe a component of my success is the size of the tank (300DD) and the rockwork. I have a lot of rock and it forms three large bommies. The harlequin pair has a home in the bommie on the left side of the tank. The asterina population is maintained on the other side of the tank. The harlequins can always be found in one area. Occasionally I see one making its way across the bottom of the tank to grab an asterina from the middle ground and then it will return to it's cave in the left bommie. I think you could keep one in a 150. Especially if there are separate rock structures at the bottom of the tank. If it is one large rock structure the harlequin may roam around within it and deplete the population. But if they need to come out into the light to get from one rock structure to the other I think this would prevent them from eating them all.

I have a few of the KH monitors. I have SPS dominant systems that consume 2 dkh or more a day. I used to test the alkalinity on each system every other day. Now that the monitors have been running for a few months and I have confidence in how they work I test every two weeks or as needed. They are a little quirky at first. They have incredible precision but poor accuracy. But they do have an offset value you can adjust for accuracy, so once you sample it against your trusted test kit a number of times it will perform very reliably. I have them set to test every 4 hours. For while I ran one every hour. This was interesting because it showed just how precise and repeatable they are and also showed my that I have a very clear diurnal alk swing. I do worry about replacement parts and if they ever stop making them how I will get reagent. But for the amount of money I have invested in corals they make sense for me. If the alk starts drifting due to equipment failure or whatever I will know MUCH faster than I would by hand testing. It will also give me more peace of mind when I take vacation, for alk almost always swings a good bit in a week left unchecked. And overall they save me time. They now come with the AIM so they will plug into any controller in a ph port. You can also get a wireless bridge for less than $20 to make them wireless. As Tom mentioned they require a calibrated ph probe so there is some maintenance there. However if you test with another alk kit every few weeks this should prevent any issues from the probe drifting enough to cause problems.

What size tank? I have a pair of harlequins in the 300. They stay on one side of the tank and the asterinas seem to reproduce on the other side. I find them effective to keep the population in check, they're easy to keep and interesting to watch.