[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Aquatic Plants Digest V3 #189
Subject: Re: Nothing under the gravel
George wrote:
>I have no trouble believing a substrate free of additives will support
execllent
>growth.
<very big snip>
>The high tech approach is [un]naturally better "balanced" since we
actively do
>the balancing by throwing money at the problem. WE control the pH, WE
control
>the nitrates, etc.
_Excellent_ post, George, you've out done yourself both in diplomacy and
insight!<g>
------------------------------
>Subject: Metal Halide
>
> Good evening! I was curious; is there a vast difference between metal
>halide bulbs other than the wattage? I guess what I want to know is if there
>is a "wrong" metal halide to buy. And, most people say that to have a
>successful planted tank you need to have at least 2 watts/gallon. However,
>the lumens that a metal halide produces is at least 4 times the amount of
>any incandescent or fluorescent bulb. So, does the same 2 watts/gallon still
>have to be adhered to? Thanks.
Actually MH and fluorescents are nip and tuck when it comes to lumens per
watt. Normal fluorescents are slightly lower, energy efficient T-8's are
slightly higher. All are _far_ superior to incandescent.
And, yes, the 2w/g guideline does pertain to MH's too.
------------------------------
Subject: hard water / peat substrates
>I recently read that the addition of peat would render
>the chart many people use to determine CO2 concentration
>by measuring water hardness and pH to be inaccurate. This
>makes sense, because peat moss only lowers pH and not
>water hardness... doesn't it?
It does both. But it is the fact that it releases humic acids (thereby
lowering the pH) that interferes with the charts.
------------------------------
Karen Randall
Aquatic Gardeners Association