Those molecules initiate photosynthesis by trapping photons. Chlorophyll is called a and, as it sits in its “,” it only absorbs wavelengths of light that . The wavelengths that plant chlorophyll does absorb well are in the green range, which is why plants are green. Some photosynthetic bacteria absorb green light, so , and there are many similar variations among bacteria. Those initial higher electron orbits from photon capture are not stable and would soon collapse back to their lower levels and emit light again, defeating the process, but in the electron is stripped from the capturing molecule and put into another molecule with a more stable orbit. That pathway of carrying the electron that got “excited” by the captured photon is called an . Separating protons from electrons via chemical reactions, and then using their resultant electrical potential to drive mechanical processes, is how life works.
During that “,” , , and the rise of grazing and predation had eonic significance. While many critical events in life’s history were unique, one that is not is multicellularity, , and some prokaryotes have multicellular structures, some even with specialized organisms forming colonies. There are , but the primary advantage was size, which would become important in the coming eon of complex life. The rise of complex life might have happened faster than the billion years or so after the basic foundation was set (the complex cell, oxygenic photosynthesis), but geophysical and geochemical processes had their impacts. Perhaps most importantly, the oceans probably did not get oxygenated until just before complex life appeared, as they were sulfidic from 1.8 bya to 700 mya. Atmospheric oxygen is currently thought to have remained at only a few percent at most until about 850 mya, although there are recent arguments that it remained low until only about 420 mya, when large animals began to appear and animals began to colonize land. Just as the atmospheric oxygen content began to rise, then came the biggest ice age in Earth’s history, which probably played a major role in the rise of complex life.
White Science does not really know what energy ; it can only describe its measurable effects. At its root, there are two primary components of our universe: energy and consciousness. Our universe may have (and even if it did not, matter appears to be comprised of energy), and consciousness may be required for our universe to exist at all, which may be part of the . Energy and matter may be manifestations of consciousness, and large brains could be simply more refined “transducers” for more complex consciousness to manifest in physical reality. In summary, everything physical is made of energy and our consciousness is all that we , but the that the nature of consciousness is not something that today’s science is equipped to study. There is evidence that evolution is not purely the province of chance mutations, but that organisms can affect their evolution at the genetic level.
Then throw in a shorter warranty (as low as 180 days) and a water resistance rating that does not fully protect your electronic light emitting device and what have you got in price savings when it goes belly up in a year or two?
For fish only, 2-4 inches works well in most aquariums.
This substrate should consist of #00 oolite sized coral sand (NOT Playground sand which is NOT at all the same in chemical composition!).
This sand bed will act as a home for de-nitrifying anaerobic bacteria to live in an oxygen free environment and aid in keeping your nitrate levels low. For more about anaerobic bacteria, please see this article:
On top of the fine sand I recommend a layer of #3 crushed coral for improved nitrification and better waste control, not to mention easier vacuuming.
This top layer will generally trap large debris and detritus and will also allow some aerobic nitrifying bacteria to grow as well, however the main purpose is for trapping debris for vastly easier vacuuming, not to mention a more aesthetically pleasing aquarium than with sand alone.I generally only vacuum the top crushed coral layer, only occasionally pushing the vacuum bell deeper into the sand so as to not disrupt too much of the anaerobic bacteria in the sand (I often vacuum deeply in the front areas of the tank so as to remove unsightly algae (mold) that will grow here.
I should note that occasionally pushing the vacuum in to different areas of the sand bed (rotating areas with each cleaning) will control potential buildup of mulm or other undesirable organic decomposition as well as to prevent sulfur-reduction.For more about aquarium cleaning, please see this article: Here is a very helpful online sand/substrate calculator:
More about live rock:
Make sure it is cured, many stores sell live rock right after it comes to them, and this is not cured live rock.
Live rock arrives to the stores wrapped in newspaper and mostly dead by this time, it takes up to 6 weeks to fully cure live rock.
Fully cured live rock has the benefit of containing aerobic and anaerobic bacteria; the later helps convert nitrates to nitrogen which is released harmlessly into the atmosphere.
The element with two protons in its nucleus is helium (the number of protons determines what element the atom is), and its electrons are paired and its shell is filled. Consequently, helium does not want to share its electrons with anything. Helium is the most non-reactive element known. It has never bonded with any other element, even fluorine. In the , helium is in the family known as (formerly named “inert”), because they resist reacting with other atoms. Their electron shells are completely filled.
Based on email I get, forums I regularly read, & YouTube videos (for DIY LED Aquarium Lights), many seem to make this very INCORRECT assumption about emitters, drivers, PWM, wasted heat energy, etc.
This has resulted in a plethora LED lights flooding the market that are non reef capable, marginally reef/planted capable or very reef/planted capable, BUT often requiring 3-4 times the input wattage for EQUAL efficient PAR!
Basically one is back to the high energy input of a MH, but now in a LED.
It is NOT that many of these LEDs cannot keep photosynthetic life as we know these lights can and do quite well from practical experience, these are simply less efficient due to wasted heat energy, use of more of the less efficient, yellow, amber, green, or binned emitters; QUITE SIMPLE!
The reader should note from all the information written above, that when deciding what lighting to get for your aquarium that the watts used is only one third or less of the equation in deciding what lights, what size and how many should be used. I will admit that I still will use the watts per gallon as a starting point with SPECIFIC lights comparing apples to apples; however specimen placement or tank depth, lighting type strengths and weaknesses must be considered too.
Do no compare apples to oranges; such as SHO to T12, or High Output LED to low output LED such as Marineland LEDs. Or even comparisons of a super premium high PUR per wattage input LED to other high end LEDs but that still require a higher input wattage for the same results due to energy loss as heat, less than optimum PUR, use of current reduction technology instead of optimum PWM technology (example the AquaRay AquaBeam to the still excellent but higher wattage requiring Maxspect and ZetLight LEDs)
Please note that besides years of personal fresh and saltwater keeping experience, MUCH more of this information I have written here comes from research OUTSIDE the aquarium industry. Much of what I have learned (and I am STILL learning) comes from this constant research of as many lighting tech research as I can read often from horticulture or other outside sources as noted earlier.
Some examples include the lack of information in the aquarium industry/hobby that must be found elsewhere includes the SHO or T2 lights that are often superior to more commonly recommended bulbs in the aquarium hobby,
There is also good evidence that correct lighting benefits ALL fish as well, including salt & freshwater fish. I have observed better disease resistance in marine fish in loosely controlled studies when lighting is upgraded to higher intensity, high PAR/PUR lights. Proper lighting may play a role in nutrient assimilation, improved Redox, lower incidence of Brown Diatom Algae. Studies in humans that show an impact of lighting on health, may have strong implications for fish (this may be a factor in my studies that showed higher disease resistance when lighting is improved).
Lighting that as closely duplicates the sun (not necessarily light that is most pleasing to us) is important for ALL life, although more noticeably for corals and plants. Fish too are part of this chain of life. Basically if you take away the sun and the energy it provides, you take away life itself and I do not think if you are trying to achieve the best environment for your fish whether fresh or saltwater, you are doing them a favor by depriving of this source of energy, so duplicating this is one more part of your "aquarium keeping puzzle".
I should point out that obviously, some fish prefer subdued light, but this is easily handled by hiding places, caves, plants (live or artificial), products such as Peat, Pillow Moss, or Indian Almond Leaves that "color" the water, and simple placement of lights where as some areas of the aquarium are better lit than others with plants/corals placed in way that benefit the most in these areas.
As I noted earlier, I am STILL learning after being in the hobby since the late 60s and professionally employed in the aquarium industry since 1978.
who will shoot down the science that is explained here because it does not fit their view and the fact that they are unwilling to learn.
What is amazing to me, is that often many simply confuse what they like with the known facts of science.
Example; just because you might like green and yellow LED emitters, does NOT mean that these wave lengths are as efficient as source of energy for an acropora coral or aquarium plant.
Another act of scientific malpractice I have often noted is the simple fact that energy lost as heat is energy that is not going to light energy, which all lights are guilty of, but to widely varying degrees, yet many choose to ignore this most basic principle of science when comparing lights.
FINALLY, another example would be moon or lunar lights. I myself prefer blue lights for this, as have most of my clients, but this still does not make moon light blue, as the facts are it is NOT!!
; You MUST click on "Return to American Aquarium Products" at the end of the transaction to be redirected to your download/e-book
If for whatever reason you fail to be re-directed please email us for an attachment copy of your purchase;
Around when Harland first proposed a global ice age, a climate model developed by Russian climatologist concluded that if a Snowball Earth really happened, the runaway positive feedbacks would ensure that the planet would never thaw and become a permanent block of ice. For the next generation, that climate model made a Snowball Earth scenario seem impossible. In 1992, a professor, , that coined the term Snowball Earth. Kirschvink sketched a scenario in which the supercontinent near the equator reflected sunlight, as compared to tropical oceans that absorb it. Once the global temperature decline due to reflected sunlight began to grow polar ice, the ice would reflect even more sunlight and Earth’s surface would become even cooler. This could produce a runaway effect in which the ice sheets grew into the tropics and buried the supercontinent in ice. Kirschvink also proposed that the situation could become unstable. As the sea ice crept toward the equator, it would kill off all photosynthetic life and a buried supercontinent would no longer engage in . Those were two key ways that carbon was removed from the atmosphere in the day's , especially before the rise of land plants. Volcanism would have been the main way that carbon dioxide was introduced to the atmosphere (animal respiration also releases carbon dioxide, but this was before the eon of animals), and with two key dynamics for removing it suppressed by the ice, carbon dioxide would have increased in the atmosphere. The resultant greenhouse effect would have eventually melted the ice and runaway effects would have quickly turned Earth from an icehouse into a greenhouse. Kirschvink proposed the idea that Earth could vacillate between states.