First Few Days Into Cycle

[waterdrop]

This is at least sounding more recognizable to me now. If it continues to give some days with a similar set of resuts then it will seem like a more normal nitrite spike stage. WD

 

[curlyriff]

This is at least sounding more recognizable to me now. If it continues to give some days with a similar set of resuts then it will seem like a more normal nitrite spike stage. WD

Thanks WD for the input at least I have some reinsurance about the cycle now. Guess something was in the tank causing misleading readings because after the water change everything seems OK.

Will continue to report every 48 hours or so to check. Still slightly worried that the first part of the cycle was irratic and a little quick with it being just a week.

Kind Regards,

Adam

 

[curlyriff]

Tested again last night after 48 hours and the ammonia has dropped again to around 0.25ppm.

Nitrite is around 5.0ppm and Natrate is somewhere around 40.0ppm to 80.0ppm.

Have topped up again with ammonia and will check again in another 48 hours.

Kind Regards,

Adam

 

[curlyriff]

Tested my water again today just to see how it was going and it appears that my tank is on the 24 hour cycle stage with the ammonia at around 0.0ppm. The Nitrite is off the chart and Nitrate is around 80ppm.

So looking good although it has only been 9 days so far. Guess I will be in this stage for a few weeks now.

Kind Regards,

Adam

 

[OldMan47]

OK It sounds like you are now well into your nitrite spike. At this stage I would back off to only dosing up to 2 ppm daily so that your nitrites and nitrates don't get completely out of control before things recover.

 

[waterdrop]

Yes, sounds like the nitrite spike stage currently and its good to realize this stage make take a while. All stages are in truth quite unpredictable in length, but its good to realize they can sometimes be longer rather than shorter and we don't necessarily have much control over it.

~~waterdrop~~

 

[curlyriff]

Yes, sounds like the nitrite spike stage currently and its good to realize this stage make take a while. All stages are in truth quite unpredictable in length, but its good to realize they can sometimes be longer rather than shorter and we don't necessarily have much control over it.

~~waterdrop~~

Thanks WD,

Will do another test tonight and hopefully it will have similar results to last last night. PH is still good at 7.8 without any baking soda or PH up or anything so thats alright.

Should be sorting out some new lights over the next few weeks and buying some bogwood at weekend so that it can soak for a few weeks at least before in the tank.

Kind Regards,

Adam

 

[curlyriff]

If I use a light with this specification would I be in low light still since it's only two x the LED's below.

* 3.5 Watts.
* 60 x 3528 SMD superbright LEDs.
* Colour: day white (colour temperature 6000K-6500K).
* Standard 2 pin fitting.
* Lens diameter 5cm; length 4.5cm (standard MR16 bulb size).
* Approx. life 50,000 hours.
* Light output: 310 lumen.
* Comparable to 50W halogen.
* Use on 12V AC/DC supply.
* Beam angle: 120°. Protection level: IP54.
* C.E. approved and RoHS compliant.

Any help appreciated.

Kind Regards,

Adam

 

[waterdrop]

Let me give a shot at starting this off. We need to agree that the plant goal is a tank with some plants but not a "planted tank" (= greater than 70% substrate planted with fast-growing plants, CO2 system, etc.) So I'm going to assume "low-light" technique and plants - please let us know if that's wrong. I'm also assuming we're discussing a 23L/6G FEdge.

Next, we know the most important parameter in a -traditional- tank would be to hold the T8 fluorescent lighting down to about 1.0 to 1.5 watts/gallon for low-light plants (as opposed to way up at somewhere above 2 watts/USgallon for a "high-tech-planted." Keep in mind that I'm speaking very, very generally just to get a little start here.

So now we have the problem created by our very old guideline being built upon the old not very efficient T8 fluorescent type bulb and newer things like T5's and LEDs being much more efficient in their use of electricity. If the LEDs were truly the equiv of a 50W halogen then we'd probably be creating a wonderful box for growing vast amounts of algae to feed a room of algae-eaters (either that or we might be melting the plastic parts of the FE, if the LED driver circuits got hot ) (OR, it could be the specs would be "just right" for locating the light a good deal farther up above the tank and having the fewer of the photons actually focus in to the tank area!)

I've probably got it all wrong but that's what you made me start thinking of...

~~waterdrop~~

 

[curlyriff]

Thanks for your input WD,

You are right I won't have 70% covered in planting. More likely to be around 60-65% so I am not far off at same time.

Low light is all that is required for my desired plants that are a few moss carpets and a few tropica swords with some taller plants at back yet to be decided on.

And yes we are discussing the 23ltr/6g Fluval Edge.

I am not going to be dosing ferts or wanting to use CO2 and as you said will probably just cause algy growth all over my tank.

I am tacking the specification with a pinch of salt as they are of ebay.

There isn't much plastic to worry about melting and they have an aluminium heatsink over them to keep the heat away from the internals.

I can't adjust the light height in the tank and these would only be about 2/3cm max from the water surface which is only 10" deep (or there abouts).

The main reason I went for this type of light was the wide beam angle at 120degree over the standard 38 degree angle you get with the current bulbs.

The other option is to use some M11 LED's which have similar spec but only at 120-170 lumens depending.

Is this something that would be more suitable for the tank.

Kind Regards,

Adam

 

[waterdrop]

I just totally don't know. I don't trust any of the conversions I've seen between different light types. One of your best bets might be to search of fluval edge and try to identify other members with these tanks and then PM them. I know some others have had threads about trying out LEDs in small tanks.

In some cases a young tank can have not enough nutrients for plants, particularly if they begin growing at a decent rate. In a low-light situation it then helps to dose with liquid carbon and maybe a tiny dose of N and P. Once the tank is older and fully stocked, the fish will probably be providing enough of everything except C.

~~waterdrop~~

 

[curlyriff]

I just totally don't know. I don't trust any of the conversions I've seen between different light types. One of your best bets might be to search of fluval edge and try to identify other members with these tanks and then PM them. I know some others have had threads about trying out LEDs in small tanks.

In some cases a young tank can have not enough nutrients for plants, particularly if they begin growing at a decent rate. In a low-light situation it then helps to dose with liquid carbon and maybe a tiny dose of N and P. Once the tank is older and fully stocked, the fish will probably be providing enough of everything except C.

~~waterdrop~~

Thanks WD,

I have tried reading around on the numerous Fluval Edge tanks but everyone is contradicting others and themselves with what to go with/use and it has left me no further forward at moment.

I don't know how to convert the right(ish) amount of watts or lumens. I read somewhere about the m2 of sunlight you get during midday in the tropics which is what we are trying to recreate and then working out your square footage to get the equivalent or close too.

When I worked this out I need around 200-400 lumens depending on depth of tank. But this has allot of other factors like type of plants, density and fish colonies.

Trying to take real world calculations ends up meaning that we would probably be about twice as high as required for the amount of light as it will naturally have algae growing in fresh water to some extent.

This has left me all a little lost in what to do at moment and because I would want to be getting my planting in first I guess I will have to dose for a little while until fish are at the right stocking level to the conditions of my tank.

I understand that because I want low lighting that plants don't require as much nutrients and no CO2 and will grow slowly which is fine for me as maintenance will be minimal. I am happy to do frequent water changes as required just don't want to be dosing 24/7 as it will become costly.

Maybe it is just a case of trying and seeing what the outcome is. There seem to be too many variables for an answer on the question compared to larger tanks with lights that can be placed accordingly or easily interchanged to suite.

Only problem then is cost. 2No. LED bulbs are around £15 each so that's £30 for one set to try and £30 for the other to see which works and which doesn't.

Thanks for the input so far. Any more input most appreciated. I will keep on the research front and update accordingly if I find any answers to this.

Kind Regards,

Adam

 

[curlyriff]

Done my tests again, not really much to report ammonia had dropped to 0.0ppm, nitrite is somewhere above 5.0ppm and Nitrate seems to fluxuate between 40 & 80ppm. Hard to see the difference and each test even repeted is slightly different from one another.

Kind Regards,

Adam

 

[OldMan47]

Onwe thing that jumps out at me when I read through this thread is the simple, but maybe not so obvious, idea that the WPG we deal with were developed as guidelines with people using 4 foot long fluorescent tubes over 40 to 55 gallon tanks. For small tanks you run into the obvious paradox that watt per gallon is simply the wrong way to look at it. Carried to its extreme, a 1 gallon tank with a typical 2 1/2 watt night light over it would be called a high light tank. Lets get real. As you start looking at small tanks, you need to recognize that the WPG measurement falls apart. If you have 25 watts over a 10 gallon tank, it is safe to call that a low to medium light tank. At 6 gallons, anything of 10 to 15 watts is really low light, not medium or high light. 12 watts is not high light over any real world tank, not even that 1 gallon tank I started my example with. It is certainly not high light over a 6 gallon tank.

 

[curlyriff]

Thanks OM47,


I understand what your saying which is why I am unable to get an idea of what low/medium/high light really is in my tank and what I require for my lighting parameters.

If I was to go for the first set of bulbs I gave the spec for this would be 100watts of light which would equal 16.7wpg.

Although based on the WPG rule surly your 1G tank you was talking about would have 1/2 watt for low 3 watt for medium and over 4 watt for high. I thought that's what people use for the WPG ratings. Anyways I know that it would not be right for a 1G tank and understand what you say.

I assume that you would be looking at the equvilant halogen rating i.e. same as 50watt halogen because LED's are different.

My thing is at the moment I only have 20watt over 6G tank Halogen but the spread isn't enough and I have dark corners in the tank. So I still want low light (not even sure what is in there is currently low light) and a wider beam angle i.e. 120 degree. I looked at the higher rated bulbs because they have higher k values between 5000k and 6500k compared to the 3000k or so currently which is a little orange in colour on my lights similar to warm light.

But at same time equivilant to 50 watt halogen seems high which is why the MR11's with less lumens around 140-170 depending and same as 25-30 watt halogen seemed closer to what I was after but needed some confirmation.

I have tried posting in the hardware section but I don't seem to ever get a response in that section. Guess I am asking somethings that people don't use/have etc.

At the moment I think I will just have to go down the trial and error root I just don't want to add too much light and start needing ferts and CO2.

Kind Regards,

Adam