to fatal morgana from newbies thread

[Anonymous]

And also can release toxic suflides and ammonia in the process.

You have sand in your tank, and are therefore 'culturing' the bacteria the perform denitrification. You, with your miracle 'plant' system, have exactly the same chances of having a release of toxic sulfides as the next guy.

No. 1) plant life consumes the nitrates therefore limits the nitrates the anaerobic bacteria have to process. 2) release of ammonia from the sand bed is immediately consumed by the plant life. 3) toxins are consumed by the plant life.

So the chances or releasing any anaerobic producet is much much lower. And if the toxins are released the plant life will consume them.

 

[Anonymous]

No, both Ben and beaslbob are wrong.

What I wrote wasn't wrong just mis-spelled. As always with me, when are they going to add a spell check to this thing~ :!:

I am sure everyone agrees I need that more than anyone.

be sure to include caulpera profilera.


(caulpera prolifera) :lol:

 

[HClH2OFish]

Bob,
Not to add to the plant nitrate/nitrite questions here...

Could you please go back to page 10 I believe and answer the other questions I had posted for you?
I'm still awaiting a response...
Thanks!

 

[Anonymous]

hclh2ofish: hope this is the question:

I've been watching this thread for a while, and I propose an experiment.
At home I currently have
1) a spare tank
2) tap water
3) salt (from a brackish tank I used to have)

I'm also an ex-chemist, so I know something of scientific method.
I'm also new to reefkeeping.

In order to not kill anything through this experiment, I'd need a way of simulating bio-load/ammonia spikes etc.

Bob, I need you to tell me exactly how I set this thing up. Everyone else can then appraise this setup and critique its scientific validity.

Does that sound like a reasonable way to end this debate?

There's a post a bit above these that says what how his tanks are setup...I'm thinking of doing the same tests in a 10gal.
He uses silica sand (Home Depot type), limestone rock, and has crushed oyster shells in some kind of overflow box with 5x turnover rate flowing through it.
Egg crate on back of tank, with macro's in the back portion. I'm not 100% sure what lights he's running though.

I am running 2 4' 2 tube t-12 fixtures pointing forward to light the in tank refugium. also 2 4' Utility fixtures running t-12 fixtures iwth electronic ballasts modified to deliver 55w per tube on top. All lights are 4100k 3300 lumen. For better color you could probably use 6500 k tubes as well.

therefore 160w in back 220 w on top.

I do have a picture of that in the members tanks forum. titled beaslbob's 55g.

that answer the question?

 

[Anonymous]

My point was and will remain that you are filtering your systems with a refugium full of plant life and xenias.

Along with all the other filtering he has.

Then you tell me that estabishing a refugium as the first thing is the wrong path. If newbies want to buy all the equipemnt, have all the fun of maintaining it, suffer the cycles, algae blooms, get fustrated and leave the hobby that is fine. I just offer what should not be considered an "unproven', "dangerous', "experiemtal" alternative.

But it is Bob. Even you have never set up a system like you advocate from the get go.

Just as your system proves right now. All the newbie has to do is start the refugium first then do all "your" stuff. Six months from now they will have a system with refugium. Just like yours or mine. That should not be considered something dangerous to hide from the newbies.

Which is it bob, are you saving them from having to buy all that expensive stuff, or are they just going to add it later?

But then they just might find out they can skip a couple of water changes, nitrates remain at 0.0, cycles are vastly reduced or eliminated, algae blooms are a thing of the past, things live and thrive under much lower circulation and lighting, daytime ph is 8.4 with no buffering. but that's all a side effect. they can still do all those things even if they first establish plant life and get it thriving as the first thing. And the plant life to me is the key not the rest.

You realize that all this happens in tanks that don't use your 'plant' method? No, I don't suppose you do.

 

[Anonymous]

Just checked with the wife and they are the same fish. And that also agree with the 8 months or so for the first anemone. We have only bought two clownfish for this tank. I think they have the same stripes.

but then I could be wrong also. But in this case with your reminder I now realise these fish have been in the tank a year.

I shudder to imagine what else you have remembered incorrectly.

 

[Anonymous]

And also can release toxic suflides and ammonia in the process.

You have sand in your tank, and are therefore 'culturing' the bacteria the perform denitrification. You, with your miracle 'plant' system, have exactly the same chances of having a release of toxic sulfides as the next guy.

No. 1) plant life consumes the nitrates therefore limits the nitrates the anaerobic bacteria have to process. 2) release of ammonia from the sand bed is immediately consumed by the plant life. 3) toxins are consumed by the plant life.

You have no evidence to support any of those claims.

So the chances or releasing any anaerobic producet is much much lower. And if the toxins are released the plant life will consume them.

As usual, you show a shocking misunderstanding of what is actually going on in your tank.

 

[Anonymous]

But I thought you emailed my that you were using water from your tap and posted that just recently you added an ro/di unit for your peace of mind.

Nope. You are mistaken (again).

Then you tell me that estabishing a refugium as the first thing is the wrong path.

Nope. You are mistaken (again). I'm a strong believer in refugiums and I've never said anything against them.

I do not recommend external sumps/refuges to newbies. They can and will flood. While they are useful for very very large system or those with numerous tanks, they do not make sense to me for a hobbiest with a single tank.

It appears you are the one not recommending refugiums.

Just like yours or mine. That should not be considered something dangerous to hide from the newbies.

My system has heaters (something you say are unneccessary)
My system has a Skimmer (something you say is unneccessary)
My system has a water filter (something you say is unneccessary)
My system has a water change schedule (something you say is unneccessary)
I add Calcium and Carbonate (something you say is unneccessary)

Did I forget anything?

Our systems are NOT alike. Animals live in my system and they die in yours.

 

[HClH2OFish]

Nope...wrong page I think, sorry.
Here's the questions I had posted a while back ---

1)Plant life filtering water on the way to the ocean...these are freshwater plants which aren't in our saltwater tanks.

2)Rivers flow to the sea -- this is true. So do factory spillpipes....I fail to see what point you're trying to make. My tapwater is processed just like most of America. I don't thing there are many reefkeepers hauling buckets down to the banks of their river to fill em up.

3)Plant life filtration in the ocean is an incredibly small component. You haven't taken into account a myriad of other factors that regulate the ocean.

4)Your point on the 'kryptonite' is easily turned against your own argument. Water runoff is very typically polluted with many different things. It's a sad but true state of the world. Pull any water quality report and if they have bothered to test those things that *aren't* normally mandated, you'll be surprised at the amount of things in your tap water.

You had responded to question #3 which in turn, led to the debate ongoing now of plant life (I think...this is getting hard to follow)

These questions are in response to your numerous posts stating that you are using the same water that runs to the sea, filtered by plant life, therefore you don't need to do anything but run the tap on cold water >1min and all is golden.

If you find the original posts a few pages back and reread them, I'm sure it'll refresh your memory on the topics.

(And no, I won't accept that it is I that have the misunderstanding of how the ocean works...just as I don't postulate that you don't either...I agreed to disagree on that point :lol: )

 

[Anonymous]

Nope...wrong page I think, sorry.
Here's the questions I had posted a while back ---

1

....
3)Plant life filtration in the ocean is an incredibly small component. You haven't taken into account a myriad of other factors that regulate the ocean.

...

You had responded to question #3 which in turn, led to the debate ongoing now of plant life (I think...this is getting hard to follow)

We disagree on the effects of plant life. The ocean is full of plant life including the reefs. Sure there other factors but plant life is not to be dismissed as a small amount. The fact we debate that point is what I find amazing.

 

[Anonymous]

...

I do not recommend external sumps/refuges to newbies. They can and will flood. While they are useful for very very large system or those with numerous tanks, they do not make sense to me for a hobbiest with a single tank.

It appears you are the one not recommending refugiums.

...

there you go again MR. Guy. You are correct. I do not recommend external refugiums (or sumps or anything else that can produce floods). I do recommend starting plant life as the first thing. In a refugium sure. Just not an external refugium.

 

[HClH2OFish]

Nope...wrong page I think, sorry.
Here's the questions I had posted a while back ---

1

....
3)Plant life filtration in the ocean is an incredibly small component. You haven't taken into account a myriad of other factors that regulate the ocean.

...

You had responded to question #3 which in turn, led to the debate ongoing now of plant life (I think...this is getting hard to follow)

We disagree on the effects of plant life. The ocean is full of plant life including the reefs. Sure there other factors but plant life is not to be dismissed as a small amount. The fact we debate that point is what I find amazing.

*sigh* And once again you answer that which is not in question --- I pointed out that this wasn't the question I wanted answered. Could you please stop dissembling and answer 1,2 and 4 now?

 

[Fellow Hobbyist]

External refugiums are highly effective. They also keep the algae out of the display... which I think is much nicer looking.

It is ridicules for anyone to claim that one filtration source will maintain a closed system. FACT is with a combination of plant life, water purifiers, skimmers, live rock, sand, etc the chances of success is greatly increases... as is the tank's appearance apparently.

It would seem to me that lack of understanding would be the only reason that one would conclude that plant life is the only important factor in our systems and that skimmers, water purifiers, etc are not equally as important and effective. I believe in being pro-active in the maintenance of our system. This includes preventing problems before they occur.

No worries though... your system, your choice. I choose a better method that provides more stable results.

For everyone debating (if you can call this a debate) you're wasting your time. Bob is not interested in the truths; he is here merely to cause tension and to entertain his little mind. He has been kicked off at least two different boards for the same type of belligerent misinforming posts and will continue until he is kick off here. There have been many attempts to rationally discuss his methods and all ends with the true questions being avoided and left unanswered. Nevertheless, the same methods are still put forth as fact and proven on the next post. It is a endless cycle of BS… formally nicknamed BB/BS

 

[Anonymous]

We disagree on the effects of plant life. The ocean is full of plant life including the reefs.

Not really.

Sure there other factors but plant life is not to be dismissed as a small amount.

It is also not to be assumed as the major 'filter' of the oceans.

The fact we debate that point is what I find amazing.

Funny, thats what I was thinking.

 

[Anonymous]

Nope...wrong page I think, sorry.
Here's the questions I had posted a while back ---

1)Plant life filtering water on the way to the ocean...these are freshwater plants which aren't in our saltwater tanks.

Yes they are. But that does not mean saltwater plant life is not effective in maintaining our tanks. Especially when WHO/EPA experiments predict that 1/10 pound of one algae would remove the equilivant of all the copper in a 55g tank filled with tap water from ~90% of the households in the US. So it would appear reasonable that a pound of our macros would bring copper down to ocean values in two months.

2)Rivers flow to the sea -- this is true. So do factory spillpipes....I fail to see what point you're trying to make. My tapwater is processed just like most of America. I don't thing there are many reefkeepers hauling buckets down to the banks of their river to fill em up.

From what I understand most large cities use river water. I know that is true for New York City and my home town of Des Moines. Albuquerque, NM seems unique in using an underground aquifier. Tap water is processed to kill bacteria (chlorine, chlorimne), prevent copper contamination (phosphates), and remove impurities. The result is items like:

chlorine which dissapates rapidily or chlorimine which breaks down to chlorine and ammonia. both when removed from the plumbing, exposed to air, and turbulated,

ammonia, nitrates, phosphates which are plant food. IME 20-40ppm nitrates per week for instance.

parts per billion of nasties like copper, which are easily absorbed by active plant life.

Then the water we use in our households are treated with plant life and returned to the river to flow to the ocean and maintain the ocean.

3)Plant life filtration in the ocean is an incredibly small component. You haven't taken into account a myriad of other factors that regulate the ocean.

4)Your point on the 'kryptonite' is easily turned against your own argument. Water runoff is very typically polluted with many different things. It's a sad but true state of the world. Pull any water quality report and if they have bothered to test those things that *aren't* normally mandated, you'll be surprised at the amount of things in your tap water.

So what? who cares if us humans are suprised? The questions is if plant life can maintain the oceans and our tanks. the answer is yes.

I am also glad you agree that tap water is controlled and mandated. I just don't feel it is necessary to do further processing for our fish and corals to poop in. And the tap water is tested daily be thousands or millions of people each day. Where as your ro/di unit at home isn't.

You had responded to question #3 which in turn, led to the debate ongoing now of plant life (I think...this is getting hard to follow)

These questions are in response to your numerous posts stating that you are using the same water that runs to the sea, filtered by plant life, therefore you don't need to do anything but run the tap on cold water >1min and all is golden.

No I state tap water filtered by plant life.

If you find the original posts a few pages back and reread them, I'm sure it'll refresh your memory on the topics.

(And no, I won't accept that it is I that have the misunderstanding of how the ocean works...just as I don't postulate that you don't either...I agreed to disagree on that point :lol: )

We probably will agree to disagree

 

[Ben1]

Then the water we use in our households are treated with plant life and returned to the river to flow to the ocean and maintain the ocean.

The oceans are not maintaned by rivers, if fact most rivers that end up flowing intot he ocean are polluting the ocean. Again look at what the mississippi is dumping in the gulf!

And the tap water is tested daily be thousands or millions of people each day. Where as your ro/di unit at home isn't.

I dont know last time I actually checked my tap water personally. I know I have a TDS meter to moniter my RO/DI with tho hand that is usually always between 0-1 ppm, where as my tap is over 500, not what I want going in my tank.

 

[Anonymous]

I dont know last time I actually checked my tap water personally. I know I have a TDS meter to moniter my RO/DI with tho hand that is usually always between 0-1 ppm, where as my tap is over 500, not what I want going in my tank.

and now for the really really hard question.

So what?

When something as bad as copper in tank water is removed to ocean levels with a small amount of plant life in a few weeks I am not worried about TDS.

If reefing is about numbers to impress others about expensive equipment then fine.

To me it is about a system that maintains fish and corals.

Stripping everything out of the water then having to add back the good stuff simply does not impress me. I would much rather have the system maintain itself without my interferrence. and using commonly available materials in the process.

 

[tinyreef]

From what I understand most large cities use river water. I know that is true for New York City and my home town of Des Moines. Albuquerque, NM seems unique in using an underground aquifier. Tap water is processed to kill bacteria (chlorine, chlorimne), prevent copper contamination (phosphates), and remove impurities.

actually, NYC uses upstate reservoirs and has very good quality tap. good enough for reefs in some cases.

otoh, surrounding municpalities may use wellwater, river, reservoirs, aquifers (NJ). there are siginificant pollutants in those, i.e. NO WAY good enough for reefs. and i know that thru personal experience (d'oh!).

the point is (has always been) that not all tapwater is created equal.

 

[Anonymous]

I dont know last time I actually checked my tap water personally. I know I have a TDS meter to moniter my RO/DI with tho hand that is usually always between 0-1 ppm, where as my tap is over 500, not what I want going in my tank.

and now for the really really hard question.

So what?

People who add tapwater with a TDS of over 500 to a reef tank have major problems.

When something as bad as copper in tank water is removed to ocean levels with a small amount of plant life in a few weeks I am not worried about TDS.

Have you tested copper in your tank?
Have you any proof at all that your 'plants' are removing copper? You don't. You are guessing that because some other plants have that capability that yours do as well. Thats a bad guess. Thats like guessing that since some 'plants' grow 4 feet a day, the ones in your tank will too.

If reefing is about numbers to impress others about expensive equipment then fine.

Its not, and no one ever said it was.

Stripping everything out of the water then having to add back the good stuff simply does not impress me.

No one is trying to impress you. The bulk of people who use tap water have problems, and truthfully, your tank looks very much like many of those peoples did before they switched to RODI.

I would much rather have the system maintain itself without my interferrence. and using commonly available materials in the process.

More power to ya. Just please stop stating your beliefs and misunderstandings as fact.

 

[tinyreef]

When something as bad as copper in tank water is removed to ocean levels with a small amount of plant life in a few weeks I am not worried about TDS.

you'd be worried if your corals and inverts had to live with that copper for those 'few weeks'. how would you do exposed to arsenic for a 'few weeks'?

Stripping everything out of the water then having to add back the good stuff simply does not impress me. I would much rather have the system maintain itself without my interferrence. and using commonly available materials in the process.

again, you're assuming everyone's tapwater is the same as yours. they're not.

there's nothing wrong with trying to maintain a closed-system. it's just not as easy as traditional methods ime (and others').

starting at a blank 'base water' and then controlling what goes into it (salts/addtives) is safer (imo) for your livestock than gambling that one's tapwater just happens to have a good range of elements/chemcials conducive for reefs.