Hi all,
cheers Darrel
I've done that (accidentally) and <"it didn't go well">.I’m actually debating running 24h
cheers Darrel
I've done that (accidentally) and <"it didn't go well">.I’m actually debating running 24h
Maybe one day seachem will give up its secrets. It could possibly be Sodium dithionite, either way my chemistry knowledge isn't grade A so would probably need to figure out how both substances react with ascorbic acid.Pretty sure safe is just sodium thiosulfate
I hope not : Sodium dithionite - WikipediaMaybe one day seachem will give up its secrets. It could possibly be Sodium dithionite, either way my chemistry knowledge isn't grade A so would probably need to figure out how both substances react with ascorbic acid.
Any inkling as to why Darrel?
Not really, I know some plants don't do well under 24 hours light, but I don't know why. You need to regulate day length to control flowering in Pointsettia, Chrysanthemums etc. but I'm not sure about vegetative growth. Most commercial glasshouse crops <"are grown under 16 hours light">, so I assume that is the most cost effective regime for most plants.Any inkling as to why Darrel?
Thanks Darrel -- all I have is intuition here: they get tired of being pushed and then make mistakes (it's not in evolution to have had 24h day -- and then as I writing this, I Google it .. looks like we do have some places Abisko in Sweden.Hi all,
Not really, I know some plants don't do well under 24 hours light, but I don't know why. You need to regulate day length to control flowering in Pointsettia, Chrysanthemums etc. but I'm not sure about vegetative growth. Most commercial glasshouse crops <"are grown under 16 hours light">, so I assume that is the most cost effective regime for most plants.
cheers Darrel
I hope not : Sodium dithionite - Wikipedia
Lol. That stuff scores a 3.
Thiosulfate: Sodium thiosulfate - Wikipedia
Gives us a 1.
curious what my PAR is
It could be Clive's <"Klingon Photo Torpedo">, but it might also be <"ammonia burn">, or a combination of both. I've not bought any in vitro plants for the tank, but if I did I'd be very reluctant to put them into a <"high light / high nutrient environment">.Every old leaf has basically turned white (except arcuata and Macrandra) — starting to wonder if they got bleached by the cannons
Yet I see no issues? Anyone see something that I’m missing? Any predictions?
I am waiting on this as any responsible fish keeper should at this point of any tank
I think the AI Prime is around 100 PAR per unit at 24 inches (610mm) - how high are your lights from the substrate? Obviously where your lights overlap the PAR will be summed. I know you said a couple of them have some issues and so might not be quite running at 100% (?).
View attachment 194712
That one is faulty but seems to be ok right now (just the cool white channel).
Flickering haven’t observed since I mentioned it on the other.
View attachment 194713
16inches to lowest point on substrate. Probably 12-14 at highest point.
I gotta find a meter 😂.Well fag packet calculation, because of inverse square law, at the highest substrate point, that's roughly half the distance (of the 100 PAR measurement), which quadruples the light intensity. So your 100 PAR AI prime goes up to 400 PAR, times 2 is 800 PAR, and doesn't account for any light from the other two on the other side of the tank. They could jointly be contributing another 400 PAR or more perhaps (still in fag packet calcs territory), so 1200 PAR+?
Well if this tank doesn't go pear shaped you'll have certainly rewritten the rule book. 😁By every account, I seem to have done everything wrong:
That isn't quite as absurd as you might imagine. In the mid-west of the USA they used satellite images of ponds and assessed their greeness as an indication of the level of agricultural nutrient pollution (eutrophication).You've created an environment where even algae and diatoms can't survive?
You've made me have a good laugh!You've created an environment where even algae and diatoms can't survive? 😂 (joking!)
The part I find counter intuitive is that my plants absolutely beautiful and thriving.Hi all,
That isn't quite as absurd as you might imagine. In the mid-west of the USA they used satellite images of ponds and assessed their greeness as an indication of the level of agricultural nutrient pollution (eutrophication).
Some ponds, in areas of high pollution, were entirely clear, and when they went to do some ground truthing, they found that this wasn't because they had low levels of pollution, but because they were so hypertrophic that not even algae could grow in them.
Let's hope. The thing is, I used my framework of thinking (I'll try to compile some major posts that illustrate it) to build this system. Every day that the plants grow and the tank matures, we are closer to it not failing.Well if this tank doesn't go pear shaped you'll have certainly rewritten the rule book. 😁
(I'll try to compile some major posts that illustrate it)