Recent content by Bill S

Thanks Meat. That looks perfect. Our local club is a bit inactive, and I found this one from lighting reviews. I grew up in NJ, and worked at what was, at the time, the 2nd largest fish store in the US. Long time ago!

My tank has been FOWLR for a few years - I do have a couple of rose anemones I've had for about 15 years (lots of clones from them). I've been in the hobby for 45 years (dang), and we aren't around as much, so we made things less complicated and got rid of the SPS. Lighting has been a pair...

I emailed the guy with the photos - it bounced back. The email address is no longer valid.

DId a full test today after adding 300 snails and crabs: Ammonia: 0 Nitrate: <10 Phosphate: 0 Calcium: 360 Here are some pix (diatom growth has settled down)

hhh

Len, I thought I posted an answer to your questions. As you can see from my first post, I've been in the hobby for 35 year. 8 years at a very large LFS, when this part of the hobby (saltwater), was just getting started. To make a long story short, I was just putting together a new-to-me 215...

Len, You're right. My mistake. Sort of 8) . I said "no one in their right mind"... I certainly wouldn't recommend, nor am I going to do it! Nice and slow... But, as I said, I'm a skeptic. Pretty impressed so far, nitrates keep dropping. I'll see if I can post some pix at 2 weeks...

FragMaster - I'm sorry - I STILL don't see where it says ANYTHING about reactivating carbon OTHER THAN WITH EXTREME HEAT. It even says a conventional oven can't be used. In any case: Activation/reactivation of carbon is not central to this discussion. The activation properties of carbon...

And, I said I'd quit posting... First of all, Snake isn't looking to get rich on this, as far as I know. This is a side business that he "dabbles" in, from what I've heard. No one with any sense would recommend that you set up a tank and fully stock it right away. So, let's give that one a...

Now I know why Snake gets so frustrated. You folks just post willy-nilly and haven't read WELL what was posted before. FragMaster: Go look up adsorb and absorb. You WILL see the difference. Carbon could, technically, be called an absorbant, because it WILL soak up liquid - but let's be...

OK, I'll chime in here with a couple of notes: Yes, Sea World's shark tank (it's something like a million gallons, maybe half a million, I don't know, but it's HUGE) runs at 1000ppm, allegedly. Wow. That's 1 part in a thousand. Yuk... Red torpedos: both carbon & pH rock are put into these...

Thanks Len - now I know on the pix. I know my first post I could NOT post a picture... Here are the definitions: "Absorption indicates an active ongoing process in which something is taken up by something else by various physical actions: The absorption of spilled juice into a paper towel...

Now, this is where I say that this discussion won't work if folks post things as fact, that aren't: Fish - where did you get your ideas on carbon? First of all, it's "adsorb", not "absorb". Next you say: "all of those tiny pores are worn away and all that is left for it to do is "leach"...

In spite of his sense of humor - I'm still trying this. What the heck. BTW, I understand that Sea World's shark "tank" is somthing like 1000ppm nitrate.

Try buying rock for a 215... OUCH!