• You are viewing the forum as a Guest, please login (you can use your Facebook, Twitter, Google or Microsoft account to login) or register using this link: Log in or Sign Up

Swamp Creek - 2 years on updated June 2012

Re: Swamp Creek - established 20/04/2010

In your post you say you're aiming for 30ppm, this is simply an arbitrary figure you can go much higher just watch your live stock, as your lighting is so high it's a good idea to just use the drop check as a guide and keep upping till you reach the safe point for your stock. I'd be inclined to sway the side the filter is on to see if that shows any improvement in flow, though if you're seeing a good mist all through the tank then there really is no need to worry just make sure you're watching the co2 like a hawk.
 
Re: Swamp Creek - 3 months

So an update but no pics at the moment. Yesterday I added a horizontal spray bar across the back of the the tank. I'm really impressed with the uniformity of the flow. This was a suggestion made by Clive and as usual I'm glad I followed his advice. The lily pipe worked but this is a better flow pattern and easier for the fish as it's spread out across the tank. An upside is that it creates a ripple on the surface which creates a shimmer effect in the tank which I like.

I also added 20 Celestial Pearl Danios. There so small! They just disappeared into the tank!
 
Re: Swamp Creek - established 20/04/2010

A quick update. I should be at work but my PAR meter arrived today so I found the time to get home and do some initial tests. Turns out that I had a PAR of 12 at substrate level and 18 mid level and 40 at the surface. No wonder I don't have problems with algae and my plants grow slow. :D

I'm going to take lots of measurements and post them on the forum. I bought my meter for £200 from Omnima. It arrived in 24 hrs. :thumbup:

My first attempt to buy a meter was from http://www.midlandreefs.co.uk and I must warn everyone from using them to buy anything. Appalling customer service, never replied to emails and did not even bother to contact me to say the could no longer provide an item that's still listed on their website, they just refunded me 2 weeks later :thumbdown:
 
Re: Swamp Creek - established 20/04/2010

you could probably get away with bumping the light up a touch then? I fancy a par meter they strike me as a valuable aid to scaping and plant growth.
 
Re: Swamp Creek - established 20/04/2010

My first attempt to buy a meter was from http://www.midlandreefs.co.uk and I must warn everyone from using them to buy anything. Appalling customer service, never replied to emails and did not even bother to contact me to say the could no longer provide an item that's still listed on their website, they just refunded me 2 weeks later

Lol I had the exact same situation, ordered with Midlands Reefs and nothing arrived for well over a month and I had to do all the chasing, but in the end when I did get through to the fellow, he was pleasant enough and refunded my money. I spoke to Omnima and they had them in stock and posted the next day. I think that might be the difference the latter buy in numbers of what they advertise and dont just order reactively.

Im getting much higher numbers than you but its a totally different set up. I do have aquarays that i will be placing on another set up (marine whites and growbream 500s). i am guessing they will be giving more similar numbers to you in that setup.
 
Re: Swamp Creek - established 20/04/2010

sanj said:
Lol I had the exact same situation, ordered with Midlands Reefs and nothing arrived for well over a month and I had to do all the chasing, but in the end when I did get through to the fellow, he was pleasant enough and refunded my money. I spoke to Omnima and they had them in stock and posted the next day. I think that might be the difference the latter buy in numbers of what they advertise and dont just order reactively.

I'm getting much higher numbers than you but its a totally different set up. I do have aquarays that i will be placing on another set up (marine whites and growbream 500s). i am guessing they will be giving more similar numbers to you in that setup.

Sanj I have your journal bookmarked, awesome tank :thumbup:. I suppose we both went for Midland Reefs because they seemed better value. Can't beat 24hr delivery though. I'm surprised at how low my numbers are as well as the lights look bright so the lumen value must be high but does not correspond to a large PAR value. I found a huge drop off in values in air compared to in water.

Garuf said:
you could probably get away with bumping the light up a touch then? I fancy a par meter they strike me as a valuable aid to scaping and plant growth.

Garuf my plants have been growing slowly and have never been 100% healthy, I still get a scum layer over the week on the surface of the tank. What I have never seen is algae and now I know why. Lets hope I never see it as the lights get turned up slowly. I have been thinking about renting my PAR meter out to UKAPS members but I'm worried about it being damaged or getting stolen.
 
Re: Swamp Creek - established 20/04/2010

I have been thinking about renting my PAR meter out to UKAPS members but I'm worried about it being damaged or getting stolen.

Similar situation here, unless you know people within a reasonalbe distance it is difficult/risky. They arent exactly cheap or even essential, but i think useful.

In regard to the low reading, I think one of the reasons might be the nature of LEDs being more directional, although the tiles you have are supposed to have wider angles than the gen 1 aquabeam 500s. Also LEDs being more directional light, yous should have areas of higher and lower PAR discounting the plant and hardscape effects on shading. So are you going to lower your tiles a couple of inches to increase the PAR. I remember PFK also took some PAR readings, i think they were higher results, but proabaly lower to the water and perhaps different number of tiles, tank size etc.

I remember reading posts by a guy called Hoppy on the Planted Tank, he has written a few interesting articles/posts which I think have been very helpful to people. However I thought he had said that he does not notice much difference between air and water readings, but I have found them to be significant, the water readings being lower as one might expect and thankfully so in my case. The noticable difference is just above the water surface and just below, I think the drop off with depth in water is slower, but I cant remember, ill check again.

Your tank might be slower to mature than average, but it sounds like it will be much easier to maintain.
 
Re: Swamp Creek - TMC Growbeam 1000 tiles

Ok so I managed to spend the free time I had today taking measurements of the PAR values in the tank. As you may know I have 2 x TMC growbeam 1000 tiles suspended above a 90cm x 45cm x 45cm tank.

Here is a camera phone image of the setup, ignore the exposure, I'm trying to set the scene for how I made the measurements.

Mobile%20Photo%208%20Jul%202010%2017%2038%2059.jpg


So the bottom of the tiles are 31cm from the surface of the water. The water column is 35cm deep at its deepest point on the left directly under the left tile.

I took readings at just above the substrate, mid water and at the surface of the water. I also took readings at 5cm below the centre of a tile.

Mobile%20Photo%208%20Jul%202010%2017%2039%2022.jpg


Mobile%20Photo%208%20Jul%202010%2017%2040%2020.jpg


The results are interesting. I have physics 101 somewhere in the recess of my brain. I don't really know how to interpret the fact that the PAR values drop off so quickly in air and not as quickly in water. I thought water attenuated light intensity faster than air.

So the graph below needs some explanation. These lights have a variable intensity setting from 0 to 100. I took the readings with both lights on the same settings and the light sensor under the center of the left tile. The right tile does increase the readings slightly compared to having only 1 tile switched on.

table.jpg


So I made some graphs one shows the linear relationship and the other a log curve, I have ignored the 5cm readings. To be honest I only have maths 101 so I'm not sure the log curve means anything but it's almost straight which suggests to me the drop off in PAR is logarithmic as apposed to linear especially if you factor the 5cm values into the curves.

Any science boffs out there care to comment? :shh:

linear%20curve.jpg


log%20curve.jpg


So from what I can see if I SLOWLY increase my intensity to 100 then I will be in the optimal PAR range. Correct?
 
Re: Swamp Creek - established 20/04/2010

So from what I can see if I SLOWLY increase my intensity to 100 the I will be in the optimal PAR range. Correct?

I would say so, from what I have read from others experiances. This level is more in tune with the PAR readings I am getting when I have half of my lights on (which is 75% of my lighting period). Infact your readings are better than mine because I get a range from lows of 23-25 upto 40 odd at the subsrate.
 
Re: Swamp Creek - established 20/04/2010

This to me screams that the TMC Modules are no where near as potent as they claim. It also makes me think that my much delayed DIY lumiaire might actually be best with 21 LED's rather than the revised 15. Great post and very useful, keep it up!
 
Re: Swamp Creek - established 20/04/2010

Yes, I recall the number 600 umoles at the surface at 100% output supposedly reported by PFK. Their distances must have been different. How far is the tile from the surface? That might be the difference.

Cheers,
 
Re: Swamp Creek - established 20/04/2010

ceg4048 said:
Yes, I recall the number 600 umoles at the surface at 100% output supposedly reported by PFK. Their distances must have been different. How far is the tile from the surface? That might be the difference.

Those were reef white AquaRay 1000HD tiles with ten Cree XRE Q+ LEDs driven at 700mA and fitted with lenses. According to the first post these are GroBeam 1000ND with ten Cree XPE's of an unstated bin, no lenses, and very little other tech information given by TMC. The GroBeams are 6500K which may or may not be better for a planted tank than the 14,000K of the AquaRays, but it would appear the AquaRays are superior in every other respect. Probably why they cost quite a lot more.
 
Re: Swamp Creek - established 20/04/2010

25-30 might be a good range to shoot for, also, measure the entire substrrate PAR, not just one or two spots, the light should be even across the entire sediment.

Point source lights like HQI or these, often have a round hot spot in the middle and then decline outwards, raising the light high can help mitigate this, but it's still present.

I've messed with HQI and old school MH's for decades. I use T5's only now. LED's have a long way yet to come I think.
Maybe 2-4 years before I'm convinced and they are actually reasonable $$ wise.

The PAR should be no more than +/- 10 micromoles anywhere on the sediment.
If not, then things need to be adjusted for to compensate, use different plant species in those locations where it is higher/lower etc. Rates of growth tend to be much higher in the sweet spot and the energy use is also higher with point source.

Nice to have the ripples in there and the shimmer form such lighting.
LED's can do this too, but .......they are very $$ and not really a pretty DIY job for most.

Regards,
Tom Barr
 
Re: Swamp Creek - established 20/04/2010

ceg4048 said:
Yes, I recall the number 600 umoles at the surface at 100% output supposedly reported by PFK. Their distances must have been different. How far is the tile from the surface? That might be the difference.

Cheers,

My lights are 31cm from the surface, the water column is 35cm deep. Perhaps if the article was testing a marine setup then the lights were close to the surface.

From my readings it appears the lights lose approximately 10x their PAR levels in 31 cm of air but then the attenuation is less as the light travels through water. Does water transmit the spectral energy better that air, like sound travels further through water than air?
 
Re: Swamp Creek - established 20/04/2010

My lights are 31cm from the surface, the water column is 35cm deep. Perhaps if the article was testing a marine setup then the lights were close to the surface.

If I remember correctly I think they were 8" from the surface in the PFK experiment, so 20cm. Also Jas made the point that they were using the Marine versions which use more powerful LEDs.
 
Re: Swamp Creek - established 20/04/2010

tyrophagus said:
ceg4048 said:
Yes, I recall the number 600 umoles at the surface at 100% output supposedly reported by PFK. Their distances must have been different. How far is the tile from the surface? That might be the difference.

Cheers,

My lights are 31cm from the surface, the water column is 35cm deep. Perhaps if the article was testing a marine setup then the lights were close to the surface.

From my readings it appears the lights lose approximately 10x their PAR levels in 31 cm of air but then the attenuation is less as the light travels through water. Does water transmit the spectral energy better that air, like sound travels further through water than air?
Well, when there is a change in the medium that the light is travelling through this causes the light to bend. This is called refraction. This is due to a change in the speed of light through the different medium. You have to remember however that what you are measuring with the meter is not only the light that is coming straight at the sensor from the bulb, but the total energy reaching the sensor, which includes light that is reflected from nearby surfaces. If the sensor is submerged then it is also seeing light reflected from the underside of the waters surface. If the water is turbid or dirty then there will be more scattering and the energy will be dissipated, so you'd get a lower reading. So there are many combinations of factors that will affect the reading.

Cheers,
 
Re: Swamp Creek - established 20/04/2010

So an update on swamp creek. I really appreciate all the advice I received about not turning up the lights as they are the main reason driving algae. However the led lights were not as strong as we initially thought. I know have them at 100% for 8hrs with a 2hr ramp up and down either side. I have seen a remarkable improvement in growth especially of the marselia. Most of the plants pearl for the majority of the photoperiod. The PAR readings vary between 40 and 50 at the substrate level. :

1000000102.JPG
 
Re: Swamp Creek - established 20/04/2010

Good stuff mate. As Tom mentioned, this is one of the rare occasions where the solution is to add more light. It's a good thing you actually had the means to purchase a PAR meter otherwise we might still be scratching our heads. And we learned a bit about LED's to boot.

Cheers,
 
Swamp Creek - established 20/04/2010

Keep going with the updates, I love these warts and all journals, and this scape has potential now the growing pains are over. What happened to the Vortech, ditched for spraybars? I was wondering if it ran silently as it is a very desirable piece of kit on paper. Thanks.
 
Re: Swamp Creek - established 20/04/2010

Any updates? I'd be really keen to see how it's looking at the moment.
 
Back
Top