[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Aquatic Plants Digest V3 #471
-----Original Message-----
From: Aquatic Plants Digest <Aquatic-Plants-Owner at actwin_com>
To: Aquatic-Plants at actwin_com <Aquatic-Plants at actwin_com>
Date: Tuesday, August 25, 1998 1:54 PM
Subject: Aquatic Plants Digest V3 #471
>
>Aquatic Plants Digest Tuesday, August 25 1998 Volume 03 : Number
471
>
>
>
>In this issue:
>
> canister filters
> Re: Canister Filters
> Low Voltage Undergravel Heater Plans
> Aquarium Silicon
> Lighting/Pearling
> Re: Aquatic Plants Digest V3 #470
> Plant Web site
> Echinodorus tennellus plugs
> Re: What you read
> Pearling
> Re: Pearling
> Re: Plant web site
> RE: Aquatic Plants Digest V3 #466
>
>See the end of the digest for information on unsubscribing from the
>Aquatic Plants mailing list and on how to retrieve back issues.
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1998 07:18:10 -0400
>From: "Frank I. Reiter" <FIR at istar_ca>
>Subject: canister filters
>
>> From: Roxanne Bittman <RBITTMAN at hq_dfg.ca.gov>
>> Subject: cannister filters
>>
>> I use an Eheim 2213 on one tank and a Fluval 103 on
>> another. I have experience with the Fluval 303 as well.
>>
>> I would strongly recommend getting the Eheim over
>> the Fluval.
>
>This has got to be one of those Ford vs. GM things. I have been using
>Fluval canister filters off and on for at least 10 years and have always
>been delighted with them.
>
>> I too had the unpleasant experience of a
>> hose popping off of the Fluval and putting about 5
>> gallons of water into my living room.
>
>I am not doubting you, but I cannot imagine this being a Fluval problem.
>With the watchamacallits screwed down properly I'm not sure if I could pull
>the hoses of my 403s if I tried to.
>
>> Also, the Fluval tends to be noisier
>
>Mine have always run at a volume inaudible from 6 ft. or so away.
>
>> and harder to get started or primed.
>
>Hmmm. I can't say I've ever had the slightest difficulty.
>
>> Small amounts of air or other gas in the
>> Fluval cause a lot of noise!
>
>Sure, but then it spits the air out and that's the end of that. (They may
>not be a good choice for dissolving CO2)
>
>> Also, I broke the impeller
>> chamber cover a couple of times, due to poor design
>> on their part.
>
>I've had 8 or ten of these things and run several of them for a number of
>years with regular cleaning - no trouble.
>
>> Eheim's are more expensive, but well worth it in my
>> opinion.
>
>Last time I looked, they were not merely "More expensive", they were more
>than double the price for a unit with equivalent flow.
>
>>From a recent "That Fish Place" Catalog:
>
>Eheim 2250 264 gph $279
>Fluval 403 317 gph $89
>
>No, I don't work for Hagen, and in fact right now I am only running trickle
>filters. Next time I need a canister filter I will again look at the
>Eheim/Fluval situation - I have no bias towards one or the other. If the
>situation is still as it is now, I'll be buying another Fluval.
>
>Frank.
>- -----
>The very act of seeking sets something in motion to meet us;
>something in the universe, or in the unconscious responds as if
>to an invitation. - Jean Shinoda Bolen
>
>http://home.istar.ca/~fir
>
I can't resist throwing in my 2 cents worth, either. I prefer the Magnums.
I don't like the H.O.T. Magnum because I believe the beauty of a canister
filter is having it out of sight. I am currently using two Magnum 220s. I
also have a Fluval 403, but its not being used. The Magums are quiet, easy
to start, and less expensive than the Fluvals. I would recommend the shut
off valves be used with any canister filter, otherwise they are awful to
disconnect for cleaning without spilling water all over. With the shut off
valves, I have no complaints with the Magnums. Also, with the Magnums, I
have the option of inserting a micron filter cartridge. I don't know if you
can do that with a Fluval or an Eheim.
D. Scott
djs at highfiber_com
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1998 21:58:43 +1000
>From: "The Midgley's" <midgley at hare_net.au>
>Subject: Re: Canister Filters
>
>Hi All,
>
>Just thought I'd put in my two cents worth... I personally hate fluval
>filters... Bought a 303 about a year ago, was disappointed from the
>beginning... I found the shut-off taps virtually impossible to use, the
>motor seemed never to put out the right amount of flow, it was also a
>bugger to start and from day one to day five hundred it continues to make
>an annoying noise. (No amount of tinkering seems to help)
>
>I also have had Sacems, I like these more than fluvals, but they are noisy
>and have a surprisingly thin canister plastic.
>
>I love my eheims,
>quiet,
>reliable
>and effective.
>
>They cost more but are worth every cent.
>
>Never use anything else.
>David Midgley
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1998 09:05:10 -0400
>From: "Adam R. Novitt" <novitt at javanet_com>
>Subject: Low Voltage Undergravel Heater Plans
>
>Hello all,
>
>I just returned to the list after a long hiatus. My plants have summered
>well in a garden pond while I was trout fishing in Greenland! I'll be
>setting up my new 75 gallon. What I am asking is if anyone has set up DIY
>low voltage under gravel in a 75. Could I please benefit from your
>experience in that you could share your calculations with me? What I like
>to know is how many feet and what gage wire to use and where you sourced
>your transformer and or what the specifications are. I'm confident I can
>wire it with a little guidance. I looked in the APD digest and found some
>plans but must admit I'm a little confused by them.
>
>Other than that it will feature 9 T-8 bulbs on 3 ballasts with staggered
>start times, i.e. the y will come on and go off one or two hours apart. Is
>this too much light? That's 4.8 watts of T-8 per gallon, what if the last 3
>only came on for a couple of hours at "noon"? I'll be using a sterile
>substrate and CO2 injection into the wet/dry in the sump. I plan to use
>only a little amount on media in the wet/dry.
>
>I would appreciate any or all comments on this!!
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1998 09:06:34 -0400
>From: "Tom Brennan" <brennans at ix_netcom.com>
>Subject: Aquarium Silicon
>
>- -----------original message--------------------------
>
>Date: Mon, 24 Aug 98 07:51:57 -0000
>From: Adam Weingarten <Javablue at concentric_net>
>Subject: Re: Silicon
>
>I'm constructing a wet/dry filter and I was curious if the GE brand
>Window and Door Sealent is safe to use. It says that it is "mildew
>resistant, water tight, wil not shrink or yellow, perminantly flexiable,
>withstands the most extreme conditions, low oder, and 100% Silicone 2." I
>was planning on using this to glue acrylic to acrylic, and pvc to pvc.
>I'd appriciate any input that anyone has to offer. Thanks.
>
>- ---------------reply--------------------------------------
>
>Adam,
>
>Search the APD archives and you will see lots of references to experiences
>with silicon. I have summed up a few including my own experience.
>
>On a project for a 29g planted tank I used the GE 100%Clear Silicone Stock
#
>GE012A with no problems.
>
>Try to use only 100% silicon. DO NOT use any silicone that is not marked
>"safe for aquarium use." In most cases it contains arsenic to prevent
>mildew. Also try to avoid products with UV-resistant properties" because
>these also contain harmful ingredients. If it is "food-grade" or ""Safe
for
>use with food" or FDA approved it should be OK. Ultimately if you are not
>sure it's safe, don't use it! You will have a major problems. It is not
>worth tearing the tank/filter down for a couple of bucks difference for the
>"aquarium" silicone.
>
>Use in a well-ventilated area and wait at least 48 hours for it to cure
>before adding water/fish/plants.
>
>Tom
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1998 09:24:11 -0400
>From: "Ken Guin" <kenguin at homemail_com>
>Subject: Lighting/Pearling
>
>Anthony C. wrote:
>
>>>Every day at about 4pm, a shaft of sunlight passes across my tank. As
>this
>happens, the entire tank suddenly starts pearling and bubbling; the water
>looks
>positively 'fizzy'. After the light passes, the plants continue to bubble,
>but
>at a MUCH slower pace. There is almost no bubbling prior to the
sunlight.<<
>
>Anthony: the same exact thing is happening to me. I have two aquariums: one
>has 3 w/g and the other 4 w/g. The 3 w/g tank will pearl occasionally, but
>not very much. The tank with 4 w/g is the one that gets the shaft of
>sunlight (one side of the tank). When the sunlight hits the tank, the
>plants on the sunlight side go crazy with bubbles. The side of the tank
with
>no sunlight, may have some bubbles, but not very many.
>
>Also, since I have been doing this plant thing for over a year now, I have
>experience with all four seasons and would like to comment on pearling
after
>water changes. Last year during cold weather, I noticed a great deal of
>pearling in both of my tanks after water changes. I asked the list members
>why this happened and I got several responses. Some said that I could have
a
>deficiency that was retarding photosynthesis, and when I added fresh water
>to the tank, the deficiency was overcome and the plants immediately began
to
>photosynthesize/pearl. Others mentioned that the fresh water could have
>large amounts of undissolved gases and when the water entered the
aquarium,
>the gases were released and the plants "channeled" the escaping bubbles.
>Since I have not noticed this phenomenon since warm weather arrived and my
>tanks' temperatures do not change, I have to opt for the latter
explanation.
>Of course, there is always the possibility that I overcame a deficiency
too,
>but I doubt it. I guess this winter will tell for sure, eh?
>
>My conclusion from all of this is that although "real" pearling may be
>effected by numerous things going on in the tank (CO2 concentration,
>chemical balances, types of plants, temperatures, etc., etc., etc.), the
>variable that effects my tanks the most is the amount of light reaching the
>plants, and, in my case, it has to be more than 4 w/g. I know there is
>probably someone out there who has pearling going on with 2 w/g or less. If
>you are one of them, maybe you could share your method of success with
those
>of us who are less fortunate.
>
>Regards,
>
>Ken Guin
>Kenguin at homemail_com
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1998 13:32:30 +0000 (GMT)
>From: Gerry Skau <gerry at ans_net>
>Subject: Re: Aquatic Plants Digest V3 #470
>
>Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1998 07:16:01 +0700
>From: "jim" <jim at pontianak_wasantara.net.id>
>Subject: Breeding angel fish
>
>Most web sites about breeding angels say we should take away the eggs to
>hatch manually in another tank.
>
>Anybody succeed breeding angel fish in a very big size community planted
>tank? Can't we just let the parents nurse the eggs and raise the fries in
>this community tank?
>
>Jim.
>
>My experience has always been that the adults will eat the fry about the
>time they become free-swimming.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1998 09:49:53 -0400
>From: "Bob" <pw at petswarehouse_com>
>Subject: Plant Web site
>
>This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
>
>- ------=_NextPart_000_0017_01BDD00D.B5DAA780
>Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
>NEW Plant photo's ( 260 ) are available online at
>[Redacted]
> =20
>
>- ------=_NextPart_000_0017_01BDD00D.B5DAA780
>Content-Type: text/html;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
><HTML>
><HEAD>
>
><META content=3Dtext/html;charset=3Diso-8859-1 =
>http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
><META content=3D'"MSHTML 4.72.3110.7"' name=3DGENERATOR>
></HEAD>
><BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
><DIV><FONT color=3D#008080 face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2>NEW Plant =
>photo's ( 260 )=20
>are available online at</FONT></DIV>
><DIV><FONT color=3D#008080 face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2></FONT>[Redacted]FONT=20
>color=3D#008080 face=3D"Comic Sans MS" =
>size=3D2>/aquariumplants.htm</FONT></A> </DIV>
><DIV><FONT color=3D#008080 face=3D"Comic Sans MS"=20
>size=3D2> &nbs=
>p; =20
></FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>
>
>- ------=_NextPart_000_0017_01BDD00D.B5DAA780--
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1998 09:23:20 -0400
>From: Michael Eckardt <mike at odg_com>
>Subject: Echinodorus tennellus plugs
>
>FWIW:
>I had a sizeable population of tiny E. tennellus plantlets which I wanted
to
>transplant into my larger show tank.
>Instead of planting the plants directly in the substrate and struggling
with
>the runners and the lack of sufficient roots, I came up with the following
>idea for a "plant plug":
>I cut a few 8" x 1" pieces of filter floss,moistened it and put quite a few
>plants along the long edge. The roots were on the floss, the leaves were
>sticking out over the edge. Then, I simply rolled the whole thing up,
making
>sure that the roots stayed put in the floss. To give the plants a little
>boost, I added 1/5 of a Jobe Palm and Fern stick into the bottom centre of
>the plant plug.
>I ended up with five of these plugs which went into the substrate without a
>problem. Even the floss is next to invisible.
>The whole arrangement looks similar to one of the pictures in the TOA,
where
>they show the initial planting of their 10,000 l tank.
>
>
>Michael Eckardt
>- --------------------------
>"Whatever you do or dream you can do -- begin it.
>Boldness has genius and power and magic in it."
>Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1998 10:18:33 -0400
>From: "Ashcraft, Bob" <BAshcraft at medrad_com>
>Subject: Re: What you read
>
>Roger Miller wrote;
>
>>I think all else being equal that aquatic plants will grow better when
>>using ammonia as a nitrogen source. But you would only get high ammonia
>>levels in a fishless plant tank by adding rather a lot of ammonia, and if
>>you do that then probably nitrifying bacteria (which are hard at work even
>>without a nitrifying filter) will get to a lot of the ammonia before the
>>plants do.
>
>>I think if you want to add ammonia to a plant tank then probably you need
>>to do it in small quantities and probably by introduction into a
>>low-oxygen substrate where nitrification would be supressed.
>
>
>OK, lets say I would set up a new tank with a "sterile" substrate, heavily
>planted, no media or sponges in the filter, no fish....just Co2, an
>occasional "shot" of ammonia in the substrate and maybe some trace elements
>when they become depleted for the first couple months.
>
>In your opinion, would this procedure have any advantages over adding N and
>P fertilizers to the substrate (as far as algae outbreaks are concerned)
>when cycling a new tank?
>
>Also, would any nitrite spikes be a major concern to the plants?
>
>
>Bob Ashcraft
>In Pittsburgh, where it's finally raining after 2 months.
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1998 08:38:42 -0700
>From: "Dixon, Steven T. (Exchange)" <stdixon at ben_bechtel.com>
>Subject: Pearling
>
>Anthony wrote about not getting much pearling from a 110 W compact
>fluorescent fixture over a 55 gal. tank with Discus.
>
>I think one of my tanks is quite similar to yours. I have a 110 W CF
>fixture with 2 - 55W 6700K bulbs over a standard 40 gallon tank. My
>fish load is a little different than yours, but not light: 7 grown
>Boesmani Rainbows, 2 grown SAEs and a half dozen ottos.
>
>My tank pearls soon after the lights come on. It is quite intense, but
>admittedly not as intense as a tank in my living room when it gets
>direct afternoon sun. My non-scientific observation is that in addition
>to lighting levels it is CO2 that produces extra pearling. I run in the
>range of 20 - 23 ppm CO2 and my tanks really 'cook.' In my 125 gal. I
>run an 'extra' 110 W CF fixture for about 3 hours a day to mimic the
>mid-day sun and get the extra pearling.
>
>What CO2 levels are you running in your 55 gal. tank?
>
>Regards, Steve Dixon San Francisco
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1998 10:01:12 -0700 (PDT)
>From: Anthony Ciarochi <Anthony.Ciarochi at eng_Sun.COM>
>Subject: Re: Pearling
>
>> From: "Dixon, Steven T. (Exchange)" <stdixon at ben_bechtel.com>
>> To: "'anthony.ciarochi at eng_sun.com'" <anthony.ciarochi@Eng>
>> Cc: "Aquatic-Plants Digest (E-mail)" <aquatic-plants at actwin_com>
>> Subject: Pearling
>> Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1998 08:38:42 -0700
>>
>> Anthony wrote about not getting much pearling from a 110 W compact
>> fluorescent fixture over a 55 gal. tank with Discus.
>>
>> I think one of my tanks is quite similar to yours. I have a 110 W CF
>> fixture with 2 - 55W 6700K bulbs over a standard 40 gallon tank. My
>> fish load is a little different than yours, but not light: 7 grown
>> Boesmani Rainbows, 2 grown SAEs and a half dozen ottos.
>>
>> My tank pearls soon after the lights come on. It is quite intense, but
>> admittedly not as intense as a tank in my living room when it gets
>> direct afternoon sun. My non-scientific observation is that in addition
>> to lighting levels it is CO2 that produces extra pearling. I run in the
>> range of 20 - 23 ppm CO2 and my tanks really 'cook.' In my 125 gal. I
>> run an 'extra' 110 W CF fixture for about 3 hours a day to mimic the
>> mid-day sun and get the extra pearling.
>>
>> What CO2 levels are you running in your 55 gal. tank?
>>
>> Regards, Steve Dixon San Francisco
>>
>
>I don't know my CO2 levels, because the expiration date on my new test kit
dates
>back to Donna Summers' last hit single.
>
>I am using a DIY CO2 bubbler which generates a bubble about every 2
seconds.
>The bubble goes into the intake of my power filter, which seems to do a
good job
>of pounding it into solution, as I see no bubbles from the outlet.
>
>Now that you mention it, the same shaft of light that crosses my aquarium
also
>passes across the yeast container, raising the temperature sufficiently to
bring
>the bubbling up to one per second for that short interval.
>
>Although I'm sure this is a factor, I still think light is my limiting
factor,
>as it takes a minute or two for the bubbling to increase, while the
response
>from the plants is immediate.
>
>Thanks for the input!
>
> - Anthony
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1998 10:33:29 -0700 (PDT)
>From: Anthony Ciarochi <Anthony.Ciarochi at eng_Sun.COM>
>Subject: Re: Plant web site
>
>> Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1998 06:38:23 +0700
>> From: "jim" <jim at pontianak_wasantara.net.id
>> Subject: Plant web site
>>
>> "Tropica" and "The Krib" are two plant-sites that I know, but the plants
>> they show are limited.
>>
>> Any other sites to visit to download names with pictures of plant
species?
>>
>> Jim.
>
>
>Check out http://www.tropica.dk/plants.htm
>
>also http://www.its.caltech.edu/~aquaria/AquaticConcepts/plants.htm
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1998 08:50:31 -1000
>From: "Shimoda, Wade" <WShimoda at hei_com>
>Subject: RE: Aquatic Plants Digest V3 #466
>
>Peter,
>It looks like many of your questions have already been answered, so I'll
>just add my 2 cents here and there.
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Aquatic-Plants-Owner at actwin_com
>> [SMTP:Aquatic-Plants-Owner at actwin_com]
>> Sent: Sunday, August 23, 1998 9:48 AM
>> To: Aquatic-Plants at actwin_com
>> Subject: Aquatic Plants Digest V3 #466
>>
>> ------------------------------
>> 1. VHO (Ice Cap) ballasts use only 50% of their rated electricity
>> comumption, vs. PC. So a 420 watt VHO system will consume around 210
>> watts of electricity. (PC vendors however say that PC's cost less to
>> run than VHO's of the same wattage).
>[Wade] I _highly_ doubt that the Ice Cap ballasts use only 50% of their
>rated consumption. From an engineering standpoint, that simply doesn't
>make sense. The rated consumption means simply that. What they could
>be referring to is that the elec. consumption of the system is less than
>the nominal wattage of the lamps. For example, a typical two-lamp
>electronic ballast for 32W T-8 lamps will use about 58 watts (with a
>ballast factor of .88, which means it will output .88 times the rated
>lumen output of the lamps). Why don't you check the Ice Cap website?
>
>The only way that the PCs could cost less to run than VHOs with lamps of
>the _same_ wattage is if they're comparing an electronic ballast and a
>magnetic ballast. That is not to say, however, that a VHO lamp of X
>watts will produce the same amount of light as a PC lamp of X watts.
>Most likely they'll differ.
>> 2. However, a PC system gives out twice the light (lumens) of a VHO.
>> (Having just read the 'comments on lumens' in the latest Digest this
>> appears to be completely irrelevant though). [Wade] If you're
>> comparing lamps of the same type, say 5000 K, 85 CRI, one type of lamp
>> may put out more light per watt than the other. However, the only way
>> it's going to put out _twice_ as much light, given that they both run
>> on the same type of ballast (electronic or magnetic) is that one will
>> use about twice as many watts as the other. Some fluorescent lamp
>> types _are_ more efficient than others (e.g. 32W T8's vs. 40W T12's),
>> but they're not _that_ much more efficient.
>>
>> 3. VHO ballasts are very unreliable compared with PC units and will
>> not
>> last as long. [Wade] Don't know about that.
>>
>> 4. VHO tubes last 6 months on average (although Champion Lighting
>> says
>> they last 12 months) versus at least 14 months for PC's. [Wade] Don't
>> know about this either.
>>
>One of my homemade systems which uses commonly available F40/30 "Biax"
>lamps that run on "regular" electronic ballasts used for T8s has been
>running for about 3 yrs. These lamps have a rated life of 20000 hrs, so
>I've gotten more than that already. I'm cheap so I won't change them
>until they're dead, but even then, they'll maintain over 85% of their
>initial lumens throughout their life. The new GE lamps maintain 95% of
>their initial lumens! BTW, Biax lamps look suspiciously similar to
>"Power Compacts", although I think they put out less light and use less
>electricity (5000K, 86 CRI, 2900 initial lumens and about 70W for two
>lamps with a .9 ballast factor).
>
>Good luck,
>Wade Shimoda
>
>------------------------------
>
>End of Aquatic Plants Digest V3 #471
>************************************
>
>To unsubscribe to aquatic-plants, send the command:
> unsubscribe aquatic-plants
>in the body of a message to "Majordomo at ActWin_com". Archives are
>available on the web at http://www.actwin.com/fish/aquatic-plants
>or via FTP to ftp.actwin.com in /pub/aquaria/aquatic-plants.
>