Vitz proveme wrong

[Anonymous]

Vitz

in this thread:

http://www.reefs.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=70232

you stated:

beaslbob wrote:
thanks.

I misunderstood about the shark. One is good.

I hope this does work out for you. There will be problems but IMO many less problems then with filtered, water change methods.


I have been formally requested to not post on this board, but will continue to answer your questions. I think what they are really upset with these methods for reef tanks. So the request applies to the reef forums and not the FW forum.

Bob

wrong, and just plain untrue based on 90% or better of all accumulated experience of all hobbyists in the world today

there isn't ONE hobbyists grouping that doesn't recommend water changes, including the leading plant BB's

shame on you, stupid troll

And:

in fact, large water changes are one of the main methods recommended on the major leading planted aquaria BB's for mineral replacement, in lieu, and combined with, chemical suuplement

These boards are used to exchange information and as underground advertizing by various industry people.

as I understand a troll it is someone trying to disrupt for what ever reason.

and I understand that people who use techiniques different from one's own techniques can appear to be just a troll.

So this is your chance to prove my 28 years of experience wrong. A chance to correct these practices I have used while I sell nothing.

And for you to explain why ozboy has 0 nitrates with no water changes and why Cal's tank is sucessful.

I will ignore any answer which does not directly respond to the question posted. The fact you feel 1000s of people consider water changes essential or that "everyone does this" are not reponsive.

 

[Anonymous]

To consider how effective water changes are:

1) consider water changes and only water changes.

2) That a given parameter must be maintained to less that 10 times the daily change. ****

3) replacement water has the ideal parameter

4) The parameter changes at 1/day (ppm, mg/L what ever unit).

5) water changes are conducted at 1%/day or multiples (10%/10 days, 20%/20 days, 30%/30days...... 100%/100days).

6) The system has been running that schedule sufficiently long that no further changes are be measured immediately before each water change.

Questions to be answered.

1) What is value of that parameter immediately before water changes?

2) What is required to maintain that parameter within the desired 10 time the daily change through water changes? ****

3)How does that compair to ozboy's 3 month experience with 0 ammonia/nitrItes/nitrates?


So there you go. A simple high school math problem. So you and the 1000s of people on these boards should have no problem proving my, ozboy's, and cal's experience wrong.


**** I edited this question and condition from a 10% change to 10 times the daily change. a much easier value to evaluate.

 

[Anonymous]

do you understand the law of diminishing returns as a function of percentage water changes?



take a 50% water change-it removes 50% of any x pollutant

how many 1% changes do you need to perform to equal the same NET removal amount of material from the system ?

a troll is, among other things, one who posts simply to create an inflammatory argument for argument's sake, then offers no objective, repeatable proof to back up their statements

using an exception not to prove the rule, but to represent the rule, is trolling

and we've seen pics of your tanks-they are quite lacking as to overall health, growth, and quite frankly-aesthetics, as well

since when is a bulletin board, where the general public posting and trading information, "underground advertizing by various industry people. " ??

:lol:

the 'industry people' are sponsors, nothing more-the info is presented by hobbyist, not the sponsors

time and again you will see plenty of people posting to NOT use so and so's products because they're either useless, or plain crap, even when so and so is a BB sponsor

:lol:

and I understand that people who use techiniques different from one's own techniques can appear to be just a troll.

that is NOT what you do, bubbah-what you do is present your own misguided misinformation as accepted fact as established by the majority, making you not only a troll, but also a liar, and one of the most dangerous individual's to beginning hobbyists success.


water changes of 20-25% weekly in any system are an extremely effective way of diluting pollutants and replenishing various needed trace elements, etc.


you also just refuse to understand that the chemical dynamics of even a goldfish bowl are far more complex than your apparent understanding of them, and every time you insist they aren't, you make yourself look all the more foolish.....


if you cross the street at a red light 100 times, then cross at the green light once, and get hit by a car, i suppose you'll be telling everyone learning to cross a street that they should always cross on the red, because they'll get hit by a car on the green?

:lol:


dude- you're so out of your league on the logics issue here, i don't know whether to laugh, or cry :?

what i do know is that every bit of 'information' i've read you post is a gross misrepresentation of what goes on in aquaria, and that you have absolutely NO sound even remotely true understanding of what actually occurs in a fish tank...

i'm still waititng for an answer to your 'cyano fixing 'N' from an aquarium' ASSertion, BTW, from your own mouth :wink:

 

[Anonymous]

here's a hint:

it's alot more than 50 x 1% changes :wink:

 

[ozboy22]

hi all
i see we are at it again
will i can not make a comment ont this as i have not enough exp on the topic as yet .
but what i will say is that i am a 3rd party that has come into this and just wants to see the outcome of the tank so i have made the choice to follow beaslbob tips and posting the outcome of it so i can put to rest and fighting thats going on here
Well i will state that i have not done a water change since start and only have top it up with tap water when getting low
thats all i can say

 

[Anonymous]

To consider how effective water changes are:

1) consider water changes and only water changes.

2) That a given parameter must be maintained to less that 10 times the daily change. ****

3) replacement water has the ideal parameter

4) The parameter changes at 1/day (ppm, mg/L what ever unit).

5) water changes are conducted at 1%/day or multiples (10%/10 days, 20%/20 days, 30%/30days...... 100%/100days).

6) The system has been running that schedule sufficiently long that no further changes are be measured immediately before each water change.

Questions to be answered.

1) What is value of that parameter immediately before water changes?

2) What is required to maintain that parameter within the desired 10 time the daily change through water changes? ****

3)How does that compair to ozboy's 3 month experience with 0 ammonia/nitrItes/nitrates?


So there you go. A simple high school math problem. So you and the 1000s of people on these boards should have no problem proving my, ozboy's, and cal's experience wrong.


**** I edited this question and condition from a 10% change to 10 times the daily change. a much easier value to evaluate.

http://www.reefs.org/library/article/t_ ... ll_wc.html

now go study

 

[Anonymous]

Anyone want to help Vitz solve the simple math problem?

Bob

 

[Anonymous]

my reponses are in bold....

To consider how effective water changes are:

1) consider water changes and only water changes.

2) That a given parameter must be maintained to less that 10 times the daily change. ****

which parameters do you refer to, and what does "must be maintained to less that 10 times the daily change" mean ? are you aware that some parameters need to be low, some need to be elevated, and some need to be maintained at a constant mid level?


3) replacement water has the ideal parameter

:lol: says who ? the parameters of any replacement water may be lacking, and will need to start being corrected within a day, as certain items get used up

4) The parameter changes at 1/day (ppm, mg/L what ever unit).

huh? which parameter that you know of changes at exactly 1x/x day ? do you mean to say that nitrate rises 1ppm/day, in every tank?

5) water changes are conducted at 1%/day or multiples (10%/10 days, 20%/20 days, 30%/30days...... 100%/100days).

we've already covered this one :wink:

6) The system has been running that schedule sufficiently long that no further changes are be measured immediately before each water change.

how do you know what needs to be corrected if you aren't measuring what you're correcting for ? do you have a telepathic relationship with iron?
Questions to be answered.

1) What is value of that parameter immediately before water changes?

2) What is required to maintain that parameter within the desired 10 time the daily change through water changes? ****

3)How does that compair to ozboy's 3 month experience with 0 ammonia/nitrItes/nitrates?


So there you go. A simple high school math problem. So you and the 1000s of people on these boards should have no problem proving my, ozboy's, and cal's experience wrong.


**** I edited this question and condition from a 10% change to 10 times the daily change. a much easier value to evaluate.

i don't think even you can understand the questions or the math you present, as they really don't make any sense

 

[Anonymous]

Vitz.

There is sufficient facts in the problem to produce a solution.

 

[Anonymous]

if you say so


you haven't even asked a proper question yet for a solution to be given

your original posted 'question' has no real question, mathematical or otherwise...


"What is required to maintain that parameter within the desired 10 time the daily change through water changes?"


wtf does that MEAN? :lol:

i doubt even you could explain that in plain english-it's a meaningless statement of gobbledygook-"within the desired 10 time the daily change through water changes"? 10 times what, daily change of what?

your entire 'question' post is nothing but sheer nonsense, and you can't even explain it in plain understandable english.


try this.....

http://www.reefs.org/library/article/t_ ... ll_wc.html

it adresses every aspect of water changes and dilution, the mathematics, and explains the 'law of diminishing returns' re: removal of any 'x' substance as a function of fixed percentage water changes

There is sufficient facts in the problem to produce a solution

what problem? you don't present any 'facts', or any solvable problem, as worded in that post :lol:


and yet you insist on badgering the issue, and pm'ing me...even after i pm'd you back telling you you're an absolute ignoramus and an idiot for insisting you have a clue about what you're talking about.


give me a friggin break :roll:

at least show us a picture of a healthy clean thriving tank you at least claim to have owned, eh ? to back up your claims/methodologies ?

(if you already posted one, just a link will do )

 

[Anonymous]

Vitz:

I have setup 6 facts, assumptions, conditions or whatever which give you the frame work to answer 3 questions.

fact/assumptions/conditions require you consider only water changes(1), that parameter must be maintained within 10 times the change(2), and that parameter changes at 1/day(4).

Question two just asks how do you do that.


As I stated, this is a simple high school math problem. And it is clear. You might try a local algebra teacher. It is not a trick question.

Or if you prefer run some numbers, do a spreadsheet, or whatever and see where the numbers lead you.

 

[Anonymous]

:roll:


<sigh>

 

[Anonymous]

Hey bob,

Maybe vitz does need the help of a high school algebra teacher, but perhaps you should go consult a middle school english teacher for proper grammar and what we like to call "standard english."

Of course, since this isn't an answer to your "question" you won't respond to this...

Have a nice day.

 

[Anonymous]

Well english was never my strength.

But I have reread the conditions and questions and they are clear.

It's just too bad people don't want to run the numbers to determine how effective water changes actually are. And it that way determine what methods have what effects on our tanks.

 

[Anonymous]

did you even read the troy brightbill article ?

if your math is any different than his, your math is wrong

 

[Anonymous]

Bob,

Sorry, but the conditions are not clear. You do not provide a volume of water, you also don't specify the concentrations... your question is worded so vaguely that it impossible to answer.
You have asked us to answer:
Given volume X with concentration Y how many water changes of Z amount will give you concentration Y.

You further fail to tell us the rate at which Y increases over time...

Here's an experiment you may want to try.

You will need the following:
4 drinking glasses of equal size.
clean water, tap water will do though if you want to be anal, distilled.
Table Salt
a teaspon
a graduated syringe
A hydrometer or a refractometer

optional equipement:
a scale.

Fill the glasses with equal amounts of water.
Measure out three equal amounts of salt... weigh them for accuracy or guesstimate by using the teaspoon.
Mix the salt into the water first three glasses of water.

Leave the last cup as freshwater only as your reference sample

Use your hydrometer or refractometer to measure the salinity or specific gravity of the three cups. They should be identical.. or very very close to.

Label the first Cup: A. This is your control. We will do nothing further to this cup.
Label the next cup: B. and the last cup C.

With Cup B, use the syringe and remove 5ml of saltwater and replace with an equal amount of the original freshwater. Now, measure the salinity again.
Continue to do this until you have returned the water to "freshwater" or until your measuring device can no longer detect salinity or it as close to the readings of the reference as possible.

Now, take Cup C, remove 50ml of saltwater and replace with equal amounts of freshwater at a time while measuring at each step.

Which method returns the saltwater to freshwater the quickest?

And, what happened to cup A? Did the salinity change at all?

Perhaps through design or luck it is possible to create a tank that somehow reaches equilibrium and requires no water changes and minimal dosing.
However, for the vast majority of people this method simply will not work. This is why it is irresponsible to advocate this method to the populace at large.

Further, unless you are willing to setup multiple tanks with the EXACT same setup... same water, same sand, same livestock (preferably cuttings from a single donar and fish from the same brood) and then feed exactly the same amounts, have exactly the same lighting and then do frequent large water changes on one tank and your method on the other and repeat this several hundred times taking into account every variation such as individual tank evaporation, ambient temperature, lighting, etc. You have no documentable way of saying that your method is superior to another... other than ancedotal evidence. Of which, the opposistion has much more of.

 

[Anonymous]

Bob,

Sorry, but the conditions are not clear. You do not provide a volume of water, you also don't specify the concentrations... your question is worded so vaguely that it impossible to answer.
You have asked us to answer:
Given volume X with concentration Y how many water changes of Z amount will give you concentration Y.

Because the water changes are in percentage of the total tank volume, It does not make any difference what size the tank is. The same exact answer results on a glass of water as on the 3million gallon Fw aquarium or the 650,000 gallon salt aquarium our local club visited last summer. You could verify that by taking say a 10g running the numbers and then repeat for say a 300g.

You further fail to tell us the rate at which Y increases over time...

4) The parameter changes at 1/day (ppm, mg/L what ever unit).

...

.

As I stated before the problem is clearly defined. And it is specifically defined to be general and apply to all tanks. For that matter it would even apply to a room and air changes. But I did specify water.

I think if you try running the numbers you'll see what I mean.

 

[Anonymous]

volume and percentage is NOT the same as NET AMOUNT of removal, bubbah


did you read the troy brightbill article yet ?

 

[Anonymous]

Just to give you a hint try solving the above with the case of 100% water changes. Then see if you can solve the 50% case.

That is in case you actually want too.

Bob

 

[Anonymous]

:lol: