What's new
TerraForums Venus Flytrap, Nepenthes, Drosera and more talk

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Terrarium Pics

  • #81
Nick and Monkey! those are awesomes!
wink.gif


yeas! today in school, biologys class.......my teacher promesed that tank to me!
wink.gif
I have asked that every hour.......and this day was victory day!
tounge.gif

it`s very old and they dont use that anymore! it`s not very big..........but still!
smile.gif
oh man! I cant wait that I get that.....................when my dad comes home.....tomorrow.........we maeby seek that!
wink.gif
 
  • #82
Monkeyman,
What Nepenthes are in the tank? Nice setup!!
biggrin.gif
biggrin.gif
biggrin.gif
 
  • #83
Thanks, sorry the resolution isn't very high. My dads digital camera isn't the most expensive. There are actually 7 neps in in the tank but you can really only see three.But out of the three you can see.
The one in on the very left is an N. Wrigleyana.
The large one in the center is an N. effulgent koto.
The smaller one in the center is from Lowe's. i.e.I have no idea what species it is. Exept that it is a lowlander.
I'll try to get a better picture next time.
tounge.gif
smile.gif
 
  • #84
I can't see your pic Nick
confused.gif
.
 
  • #85
I can see Nick's pic fine? I just can't see some of Swords' pics for some reason.
confused.gif
 
  • #86
I see it now
smile.gif
. How well do your Sarracenia color up under that setup, Nick?
 
  • #87
Well, this is one of the S. Judith Hindles I have growing under the lights. This was taken when I only had a single light strip. My S. leucophylla "red" are starting to color up nice. I will post a picture when I get a chance.

S_JudithHindleCloseupPitcher.jpg


S_JudithHindlePitcherBack.jpg
 
  • #88
i was asked to post picture of schoaty plants here so here ya go

Dscn3539.jpg

Dscn3540.jpg

Dscn3541.jpg

Dscn3542.jpg

Dscn3543.jpg

Dscn3544.jpg

Dscn3545.jpg

Dscn3546.jpg

thanks all of them
 
  • #89
Thanks Nick. I know my Sarracenia reach their full color and potential under 4 48", 40 watt daylight tubes suspended 12" from the ground. Rather short for the tall species though
smile.gif
. Scoaty, I love your N. bicalcarata
smile.gif
. What are the other Nepenthes species?
 
  • #90
Thanks George!!

Ragnarok,   I've got xJudith Finn, X Coccinea, Truncata, Mirabilis, Merrilliana, Gracillis (only have a picture of the cutting here), and Ampullaria (not doing so well for some reason, and sorta stuck in the back and hard to see)
 
  • #91
Hi All,

Heres a picture of my new highland nep chamber.  I posted about it a little while ago but I thought it would go well in this thread.

Its 6' x 4' x 4' and uses 4 flourescent shop lights (8 4' bulbs total) plus a sodium halide bulb. (the two incandescents you see are for heating during the day) The tank is self controling and waters itself each day, turns the lights on and off, humidifies it via a ultrasonic mister, and ventilates it with a small side fan blowing air through a washcloth with water running through it.

highlandtank.jpg


I didnt get much feedback about it before,  Id love to hear any comments / suggestions  or any questions.  
smile.gif


Thanks,
Matt
 
  • #92
I would like to add that you have either a High pressure sodium lamp OR a Metal Halide lamp.
There is no such thing as a Sodium Halide lamp.

I must say I see alot of mirrors and tinfoil, and Id have to say they are probably the 2 least efficient means of reflection, flat white paint will reflect more light than the cleanest mirror on the planet, tinfoil acts as an insulator and creates hot spots which is why mylar is generally prefered but mylar is difficult to clean and becomes brittle with time. Thus is why I like paint so much. Its is efficient, easy to clean and it lasts for years.

Peace
biggrin.gif
 
  • #93
Actually the mirror will reflect more light than paint most mirrors are over 90% efficient and some near 100%, and I've never had a plant catch fire from aluminum foil.

Matt your setup is excellent and I may copy the watering system in my highland setup.

joe
 
  • #94
Hi all,

This is one of my terrariums, which is in our living room at this moment.

Since the filesize is limited, the quality isn't good at all.

Greets,

Marco
 
  • #95
Thanks joseph,

You can e-mail me if your interested in any of the specifics on how I built the watering system, it was pretty cheap to make.

Matt
mrmiller@paonline.com
 
  • #96
Very nice Marco, mrmiller, and schloaty
 
  • #97
looking good Marco
wink.gif
 
  • #98
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (joseph @ Jan. 18 2003,01:58)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">"Actually the mirror will reflect more light than paint most mirrors are over 90% efficient and some near 100%, and I've never had a plant catch fire from aluminum foil."[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Actually you are wrong mirros eat light just like glass only worse,
with a mirror the light is sent through the LEADED glass and then hits a reflective LEADED backer which it then bounces off of and passes once more through the LEADED glass, then it may proceed to you plants leaves.
If you really want to know what the efficiency of a given surface is you need a spectroradiograph, gl.

The hotspots I was refering to were not in reference to a fire, they were in reference to burning your plant with too much light and excess heat, the uneven suface of tinfoil does not reflect light uniformly and is thus extremely inefficient.It also reflects heat back into an enclosure this is why mylar is prefered it has reduced capacity to relfect heat due to its physical qualities.
This is really the only thing I recommend Aluminum foil for, http://zapatopi.net/afdb.html.

Hehe, its my favorite site.
wink.gif


Peace
biggrin.gif
 
  • #99
Hello Khai,

Glass does not "eat" (absorb) very much light, in fact most glass has a very high transmittance (photons pass through unaltered, near 100% transmission). This is why you can clearly see though a pane of glass. The photons of light are unaltered, they do not change direction, and very few are absorbed. The reflective surface on the back of a mirror is very efficient, if it absorbed a high % of the photons it would not work to view your image in it. By having a high reflectance of the light it does not impose its own physical coloration on the wavelengths of light reflecting off of it (which gives materials of high reflective value a silvery or metallic look). Once again this is why an image in a mirror appears clear and undistorted. White paint on wood is a good reflector but not as good as a mirror. A simple test with a flashlight will prove this, at night shine a light onto the paint at an angle vs. a mirror or aluminum foil at an angle, there will be much more visible light reflected back onto your plants from a mirror or tin foil (or mylar I not arguing with that) than the paint. Your forgetting that its not just a white paint but also the texture of wood underneath it, and both absorb many more photons than a silvery reflective surface.

As for hot spots, the tinfoil has tiny creases but no major indentations (there are no parabolas to condense light and therefore burn the plants), and any heat forming in the layer of tinfoil itself is fine in my setup as temps are not a problem.

Matt Miller
 
  • #100
Im sorry but i still disagree with you, I would like to see some one with a quality light meter, or quantum meter for that matter, run a comparison I can gaurantee you your not going to see 100%.
First of all your speaking in terms reletive to the human eye not a plant. The human eye can only interpret a very narrow portion of the spectrum. Plants have been designed to absorb light over centuries. The fact of the matter is that the Human eye absorbs more green that any other portion of the spectrum and that is the main protion relfected by plants. So regardless of the fact that you think you are recieving more light, you are not. This is the same reason why Lumens dont mean anything to plants.
"there will be much more visible light reflected back onto your plants from a mirror or tin foil "
Keyword visible, thank you for re-enforcing what i just stated.; )
PAR is what needs to be messured in order to get an accurate measure of usable light for plant growth, not a flashlight and a mirror.
Photosynthetically Active Radiation (PAR):  A measure of visible light intensity (400-700 nm) obtained by using a quantum meter.   PAR is simply a count of photons falling upon a surface in a given time and is reported as “micro Mols per square meter per second” (µMols·m2·sec).  Quantum meters report all wavelengths between 400 and 700 nanometers.   However, they report only light intensity and do not account for spectral quality.   Generally, maximum solar PAR values are 2,000 – 2,100 µMols·m2·sec.   PAR is something of an outlaw in the scientific community; it is not recognized as a standard unit, however most major works in the field (notably Kirk (1983), among others) state compensation and saturation points in PAR units.  (Since PAR is a relative new-comer to science, it has not been recognized by CIE (Commission Internationale de L’Eclairage) or the International System of Units (SI) – both had already adopted standards for measuring light intensity.   Lack of recognition by either of these committees should not undermine the importance of PAR measurements.   Incidentally, divide µMols·m2·sec (of sunlight) by 4.6 to convert to watts per square meter per second (which is a SI-recognized unit.)  A quantum meter is better suited for reporting light intensity than lux meters.  Lux meters are photometric in their response, that is, they “see” light as the human eye does and have a maximum sensitivity to green wavelengths. The human eye is not especially sensitive to those wavelengths known to promote photosynthesis (violet, blue and red).   Generally, noontime lux measurements made on cloudless days in the tropics range from 100,000 – 120,000 lux.
I used to have several graphs tracking chlorophyll production at differing wavelengths, but i cant findem anymore.

Here are some links if your interested.

http://www.sylvania.com/forum/pdfs/faq0017-0800.pdf

If you ever wanted to do some of your own testing heres some equipment to learn about.

http://odin.mat.stevens-tech.edu/instruments/indexinstrument.htm



Id also Like to know when lead stoped absorbing radiation of any kind.
As for the tinfoil It was just a general warning, in a glass enlosure its not much to worry about. As glass is such a poor insulator.

Peace
 
Back
Top