High tech?

Ghazanfar Ghori · Post by **Ghazanfar Ghori** » Sun Dec 14, 2003 6:24 pm

What do you really mean by high tech / low tech?

To me - high tech means
Pressurised CO2
High light

Low tech
No CO2
Moderate - low light

Now - the question is, what if you have low-moderate
light and pressurised CO2?
<edited><editID>Ghazanfar Ghori</editID><editDate>37969.7252546296</editDate></edited>

Marsha Finley · Post by **Marsha Finley** » Sun Dec 14, 2003 6:51 pm

If Co2 is 1st,and Light 2nd, thie your hypothetical
pressurised CO2 low-moderate light
tehn your system is high / low

wherease a no CO2 high light would be lo / high

Marsha Finley · Post by **Marsha Finley** » Sun Dec 14, 2003 6:56 pm

Naming convention

Or lets establish a convertion amongst ourselves...
i.e. CO2 - Light - Supplements

most of my tanks are diy-low-Seachem or D-L-S

whereas someone else may have Pressurized - metal Halide - Dupla P-M-D

Would be interesting to see what combinations we could come up with!

RTRJR · Post by **RTRJR** » Sun Dec 14, 2003 8:25 pm

It really cannot be rigid based on either light or CO2 - there are folks who use CO2 with low light (2-2.5W/gal NO). George Booth is high tech to me, but low-ish light.

I've always defined myself as low-tech (other than the first couple of "plant tanks" where I learned that was not me) as even with CO2 supplement, I will not use controllers, solenoids, heating cables, pH probes - all the "tech" electronics. So to me high tech involves electronics and likely contrillers. Low tech omits those automating devices.

But I don't mind programmed lighting. Consistancy is refuge of small minds? <img border="0" src="smileys/smiley36.gif" border="0">

Archie · Post by **Archie** » Sun Dec 14, 2003 9:10 pm

personally, i think hi-tech vs. low tech pretty much comes down to cost. Cost in this sense isn't just $ but also time. i think automatic water changes is hi-tech b/c either it takes a lot of money or a lot of time (if you do it yourself), but the end result is less labor in the long run. DIY yeast CO2 vs. pressurized i think is still low vs. high, b/c the initial cost is higher for hi-tech, but results in less "work". there are some roadblocks though. Fertilization is a tough call. an automatic doser is high tech definately. but what about using a fabricated substrate? what about PMDD vs. liquid supplements. maybe the lesser you have to do to achieve optimal growth, would define hi-tech. either that, or if you buy it= hitech, if you make it or don't have it= low-tech.

RTRJR · Post by **RTRJR** » Sun Dec 14, 2003 11:28 pm

Don't confuse me Archie ... To me DIY is more expensive than pressurized gas, both dollars and time. I don't look at upfront costs only, but initial investment, operating costs, operational life, and upkeep time from me. On the other hand I use Seachem supplements because I am lazy, although I know they are more expensive - I'll trade the dollars for the time and trouble on that.

The older and lazier I get, the more I buy versus DIY, even though now I certainly have more available time. I'm afraid your classification would label me high tech, and that is far from the case.

Rick Dotson · Post by **Rick Dotson** » Mon Dec 15, 2003 3:48 am

I think it all comes down to how much work you want to put into your and want you are trying to accomplish. I have one show tank. It is highly automated with most of the gadgets, but if I don't prune or dose it goes downhill pretty quick. In my basement I have a tank with maybe 50 or 60 guppies and all I do if feed them. Crypt's, swords, riccia, anubis, java fern are all doing great and it looks good. It all depends on what you want from your tank.

I am not planning on putting guppies in my show tank, but who knows one day?

RTRJR · Post by **RTRJR** » Mon Dec 15, 2003 5:06 am

Maybe I'm trying to put myself onto the wrong scale. Perhaps my scale should be based on a balance between quantity (more tanks) and increasing laziness... <img border="0" src="smileys/smiley9.gif" border="0">

High tech?

Sponsors