to fatal morgana from newbies thread

[Anonymous]

righty:

I agree something is amiss. thanks for the link.

You may want to read the entire thread instead of just the parts that you agree with.

I was not talking about ro/di above but about the herd mentality. The ro/di and water changes was just the example.

Your retreat to the 'herd mentality' argument has no place in this discussion. Its a side track. Have your ideas, but don't present them to new reefers as fact.

Then you should also not present your opinions as fact also.

the point was that there is no scientific data here and it is all opinions.

Now there's no scientific data? What happened to the algae study you are so fond of? And there is data on many of the things you disagree with - including RODI and water changes.

Again you are absolutely right. I did submit that data and showed how it predicts 1/10 of a macro algae will consume 250ppm copper in a 55g tank. I must have missed the other scientific data. Perhaps you can show me the studies where RO/DI and water changes were absolutely necessary to say remove copper. Woopsies I guess you can't. Afterall plant life does also.

Again the point was the fact that you and 1000 people here and other boards do not understand or agree with what I say, does not make what I say right or wrong.

But is sure says that the vast majority of experienced reefers disagree with you, and that matters - 'specially regarding new reefers.
There are also people that advocate Marc Weiss products or the Eco Aqualizer...

Pssssst! the emporer has no clothes.

So unless I post ideas that are accepted by 1000 other people, new people entering this hobby should not be exposed to those ideas. Regradless of scientific data, regardless of how the ocean actually works, and regardless of how easy and fool proof those ideas are.
the newbies must go through the same pain the other 1,000 people did to pay their dues. They must fiddle with skimmers, ro/dI units and processed water, Suffer sump/refug floods. They must add refugiums only as the last thing and be sure only the currently in vogue plant life and sand beds are used. Otherwise then can't be real reefers.

And if one guy posts a system which does not reguire the fiddleing around yet still maintains parameters at ocean levels, is stable and self correcting, is essentually goof proof, and can be setup for $100 total Plus the tank and stand, then that guy should not be allowed to post to the newbies.


pssssst! the emporer has no clothes.

 

[Fatal Morgana]

>...There has been no scientific experiments submitted on this or other boards supporting one method or the other.

In regarding topoff with tap and no water change, I am sure there is no need for scientific experiment because you can work it out by pen.

Maybe Huntsville, AL has great tap water, but in my locality, it is a reciept for disaster. TDS is more than 500ppm, with lots of magnesium, and overtime, the ionic balance will be way off that my tanks would be like the Dead Sea (everyone do know why Dead Sea is called dead sea, right?). I mentioned that I rarely do water change, but that's because I have a kick-ass RO/DI that only a few people can beat <brag>. I don't advocate what I do unless I make sure they know how to duplicate it. In your case, you often give out partial information that is misleading to people with little experience in this hobby.

No body in his/her right mind will try to debate on rather plant life is useful. That's not the disagreement here. The issue, again, is the advocate of use of plant life in conjunction with bad husbandry technique to people (newbies) that has little experience. In general, your lack of understanding of scientific matter in some of your posts discredits your testimony.

 

[Anonymous]

Thanx for the link to the phosphate, bob. Something new everyday. BTW, the water in my location is so hard that I doubt that they need do this to my water.

A link to chloramine is http://www.epa.gov/region09/water/chloramine.html

Chloramine is a stable molecule, and it won't break down without external force.

thank you and I did see if not that specific link ones very similiar to it when I researched my original post. No where does it state any time frame for the breaking down of chloramine. Just very general comments like you and others have stated.

My experience is still that no fish or coral in my tank have ever shown any signs of stress from using my tap water. Including my FW planted that has no circulation of any kind. Therefore this is simply not an issue.

And please don't say I am not listening. I did read the link, I did understand what you are saying. It just does not produce any stress in any livestock in my salt or fresh tanks. It and chlorine has not produced any stress in any of my tanks since the late 70's is 1/2 dozen cities. So it is not my current tap water which has chloramine anyway.

 

[Anonymous]

Pics please....

 

[Anonymous]

beaslbob I am curious to know what kinds of corals you keep?

 

[Fatal Morgana]

Bob, you local water report is available at:
http://www.hsvutil.org/about/WQR2004.pdf

What puzzles me is that you don't really have good tap water... I thought you are one of the lucky ones blessed with soft, clean tap water.... :?

Randy has a few articles on tap water. Are you familiar with them?

http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2003-11/r ... /index.htm

http://www.advancedaquarist.com/issues/jan2004/chem.htm

 

[Anonymous]

>...There has been no scientific experiments submitted on this or other boards supporting one method or the other.

In regarding topoff with tap and no water change, I am sure there is no need for scientific experiment because you can work it out by pen.

Maybe Huntsville, AL has great tap water, but in my locality, it is a reciept for disaster. TDS is more than 500ppm, with lots of magnesium, and overtime, the ionic balance will be way off that my tanks would be like the Dead Sea (everyone do know why Dead Sea is called dead sea, right?). I mentioned that I rarely do water change, but that's because I have a kick-ass RO/DI that only a few people can beat <brag>. I don't advocate what I do unless I make sure they know how to duplicate it. In your case, you often give out partial information that is misleading to people with little experience in this hobby.

No body in his/her right mind will try to debate on rather plant life is useful. That's not the disagreement here. The issue, again, is the advocate of use of plant life in conjunction with bad husbandry technique to people (newbies) that has little experience. In general, your lack of understanding of scientific matter in some of your posts discredits your testimony.

Understand, I just disagree.

As the scientific study showed 1/10 pound of plant life is capable of removing 250ppm copper in two weeks from a 55g tank in two weeks. It also showed the removal was directly proportional to the concentration of copper. With the lack of any other data we are forced to extrapolate (which may not be totally correct) to assume that 500ppm tds would be taken care of by 2 pounds of plant life in a 55gin say 2-3 months. Just making the number really big to be conserative. Because it was linear, if say mag got above say 1400ppm or so, the plant life will filter mag faster than when mag was 1000 ppm. Tending to return the mag to 1300ppm. Therefore, plant life is self correcting. In my esperience it is extremely stable. And other newbies report things just "come in" with plant life added to the refugium. As you stated plant life is helpful.

It simply is not bad husbandtry to take the same water the flows to the ocean and filter it with the same plant life the filter that same water. The expected result is the same water conditions as in the ocean where we get our livestock from.

I have no doubt your tap water with plant life established as the first thing, would be very close to ocean values in less than three weeks.

If that shows a lack of understand of scientific matters then so be it. The idea should stand on it's own. Regardless of what I know about your background or you know about mine.

But then if you experiment with this system, you might not be able to brag about the ro/di unit.

The newbie should brag about his tank.

 

[Anonymous]

the point was that there is no scientific data here and it is all opinions.

Now there's no scientific data? What happened to the algae study you are so fond of? And there is data on many of the things you disagree with - including RODI and water changes.

Again you are absolutely right. I did submit that data and showed how it predicts 1/10 of a macro algae will consume 250ppm copper in a 55g tank.

So which is is bob, no scientific data on either side or your data regarding algae that we don't keep in our tanks? Your jumping from position to position as it supports your argument of the moment is telling.

I must have missed the other scientific data.

Clearly.

Perhaps you can show me the studies where RO/DI and water changes were absolutely necessary to say remove copper. Woopsies I guess you can't. Afterall plant life does also.

You are arguing points no one made. Nowhere did anyone say RODI or water changes were absolutely necessary to remove copper.

So unless I post ideas that are accepted by 1000 other people, new people entering this hobby should not be exposed to those ideas.

I don't understand why you cant understand that no one has ever said anything remotely like this in regards to your posts.

Regradless of scientific data, regardless of how the ocean actually works, and regardless of how easy and fool proof those ideas are.
the newbies must go through the same pain the other 1,000 people did to pay their dues. They must fiddle with skimmers, ro/dI units and processed water, Suffer sump/refug floods. They must add refugiums only as the last thing and be sure only the currently in vogue plant life and sand beds are used. Otherwise then can't be real reefers.

I don't understand why you cant understand that no one has ever said anything remotely like this in regards to your posts.

And if one guy posts a system which does not reguire the fiddleing around yet still maintains parameters at ocean levels, is stable and self correcting, is essentually goof proof, and can be setup for $100 total Plus the tank and stand, then that guy should not be allowed to post to the newbies.

I don't understand why you cant understand that no one has ever said anything remotely like this in regards to your posts.
And, you have not posted such a system.

 

[Fatal Morgana]

>...It simply is not bad husbandtry to take the same water the flows to the ocean and filter it with the same plant life the filter that same water. ...If that shows a lack of understand of scientific matters then so be it. The idea should stand on it's own....

It always worrys me when someone claim that an idea should stand on its won. Anyway, it is wrong to assume that what works in Nature can be made to work in your 55 gal. There is a lot of missing components. The ratio of algea to nutrient from river run off / ocean volumn is much, much greater than your plant life and tap water top off/55 gal, for example. Aquarium is not a micro-scaled version of Nature, as hard it is for some of us to believe.

Another example is that most of the calcium in the sea is from the land. Does that mean that we can use tap water (you water has quite a bit of calcium in it... take a look at your water report, Bob) without worry about calcium? Well, again, it is just a bad idea to give a statement ("calcium in sea is from river runoff"), propose an idea ("you can use tap water as topoff and run the water over oyster shell and it will keep the calcium at natural sea water concentration of 440ppm..."), and back it up with personal testimony ("it is true for my setup") without the scientific thinking. I don't want to bore people too much with chemical oceanography, but sufficient to say that LARGE piece of information is missing in the logic (solubility of calcium salt in different part of the ocean and upwelling of nutrient and dissolved ion, etc.), and it is not possible to accomplish without the help of acid in aquarium. If you subject your testimony to vigorous scientific method, I am sure it will either falls apart like many other pseudo-scientific observation, or you will be award the Jerlov Medal.

 

[Anonymous]

beaslbob I am curious to know what kinds of corals you keep?

I have

open brain bout a year
button polyps 9 months
various zoos 3 months
frogspan 2 months
colt 2 months
pulsing xenia a month
keyan tree coral 1 month old frag the has more then trippled in size

(sorry about naming still learning)
lt. brown sps (digital montie?) 2 months. This one almost totally bleached out in a week- two weeks ago. So I don't expect it to survive. But one spot did not bleach and last night there were new polyps extended.

a dark green fuzzy finger had coral (ap*****???? lol). 2 months. New growth, new polyps, excellent extension.
brown polyps doing very sell. bout 3 months
fuzzy mushrooms 6 months.
lt brown star polyps. bout a month.

Funny thing is the gifts are doing better than the ebays or local bought. Go figure.

also have several baby turbo snails.

As long as calcium stays up over 400ppm and alk over 2.0 meg/l, think I will just leave things alone. So far it doesn't appear to require any dosing. But ya'all tell me that with more sps and hardies I will need to dose.

 

[Anemone]

Poor Bob. So misunderstood.

Just because he answers that macroalgae and tap water will correct all reefing ills, everyone picks on him. The fact that he supports his position with infomercial-style, semi-scientific language to confuse those new to the hobby is simply a confusion of the issues....


Bob, please show us pictures of your tank(s). The ones on SWF aren't that appealing. Perhaps you have something more recent that would show the benefit of your wonder-system?

Kevin

 

[ricky1414]

 

[Anonymous]

...

I don't understand why you cant understand that no one has ever said anything remotely like this in regards to your posts.
And, you have not posted such a system.

Well then I am sorry. I must have misunderstood.

Here is "my" purposed system: (kinda based on my 55g)

tank/stand
3" in front of back glass egg crate light diffuser ($10)
1" or so silica play sand ($3)
pound of chaeto (0-$20)
2-4" utility lights for in tank refug ($25 with tubes)
100 pounds of limestone rocks (0-$10)
50 pounds red lava landscape rocks ($2)
50 pounds crushed oyster shells ($5)
filter/pump to circulate 5x/hour water through rocks and shells ($~75)

well little bit over $100 but in the ball park

setup

drill many many holes in limestone rocks

add sand
add egg crate 3" in front of back glass
add limestone rocks
add saltwater made with tap from cold faucet ran for at least a minute before collecting the water
set up 2 light fixtures 6" behind glass pointing forward into in tank refug area
put oyster shells in filter/pump with lava rocks on input and output to help hold shells on place

start pump.

I also use 2x overdriven 2 tube fixtures on the top for the display area. cost $40 with tubes. 220 watts, plus the 160 watts for the refug lights. I also use a glass top to isolate the fixtures from the saltwater.


maintenance replace evaporative water with tap. again cold water ran for a minute before collecting. Rinse the oyster shells every week or so. feed fish and corals.

I predict the system will experience no huge cycles and have excellent water in three weeks. And when that critical first fish is added there will be no huge ammonia cycle. Nitrate will probably bump up a little and if the fish is fed the first week nitrItes will probably spike. If the fish is not fed for a week, the most that will happen is nitrItes will peg the kit for a couple of days then drop back to 0 in the next couple of days. then nitrAtes will drop to 0.0 in a couple of weeks. (If they bumped up to begin with)

I just don't see why the newbies should not be given that idea of reef keeping.

 

[Anonymous]

Huh, so you grow macros in the tank by isolating the back 3 inches or so of your tank with eggcrate? Thus protecting it from fishes? That is a neat idea, I bet my tangs would love to eat it as it grows out the eggcrate.

So do you stack your rockwork up in front of the eggcrate? I would assume this would shade the macros growing behind the eggcrate except at the top, and since it's only 3 inches in depth front to back, I don't know if you would get enough light to really get the macro algae cranking.

I would really love to see a picture of this!

 

[Anonymous]

>...It simply is not bad husbandtry to take the same water the flows to the ocean and filter it with the same plant life the filter that same water. ...If that shows a lack of understand of scientific matters then so be it. The idea should stand on it's own....

It always worrys me when someone claim that an idea should stand on its won. Anyway, it is wrong to assume that what works in Nature can be made to work in your 55 gal. There is a lot of missing components. The ratio of algea to nutrient from river run off / ocean volumn is much, much greater than your plant life and tap water top off/55 gal, for example. Aquarium is not a micro-scaled version of Nature, as hard it is for some of us to believe.

Another example is that most of the calcium in the sea is from the land. Does that mean that we can use tap water (you water has quite a bit of calcium in it... take a look at your water report, Bob) without worry about calcium? Well, again, it is just a bad idea to give a statement ("calcium in sea is from river runoff"), propose an idea ("you can use tap water as topoff and run the water over oyster shell and it will keep the calcium at natural sea water concentration of 440ppm..."), and back it up with personal testimony ("it is true for my setup") without the scientific thinking. I don't want to bore people too much with chemical oceanography, but sufficient to say that LARGE piece of information is missing in the logic (solubility of calcium salt in different part of the ocean and upwelling of nutrient and dissolved ion, etc.), and it is not possible to accomplish without the help of acid in aquarium. If you subject your testimony to vigorous scientific method, I am sure it will either falls apart like many other pseudo-scientific observation, or you will be award the Jerlov Medal.

Sure calcium comes from many sources and it does take millions of years to for instance buildup the salt in the ocean. So we use salt mix. And most dose with additives or calcium reactors which requiring co2 to lower the ph to get the calcium carbonate to dissolve.

All I can do is state my experience. I have two tanks. both with macors, one with livestock one without. Both evaporate the same percentage of water. Both replace that evaportive water with the same tap water. Both are at the same temperature (within a couple of degrees). Both in the same house. both with silica play sand. Both with 5x/hour circulation. One with lava type rocks. Both had 250-300 ppm calcium. The one with the lava rocks I added the crushed oyster shells to. With the 5x circulation through those shells. Calcium rose to 400ppm in a month and has stayed there for 8 months. The other tank remained at 250-300 ppm.

I suggest that is a reproducable experiment. You are now free to see if the same thing happens in your experiment.

What is not scientific is to dismiss those experimental results.

 

[Fatal Morgana]

>...What is not scientific is to dismiss those experimental results.

I am not trying to discredit your testimony, but just tell you that it is not chemically feasible to jack calcium up with your setup unless you have some wild pH and alk. value. Skeptics will need to confirm, for example, that the calcium in the sea water is indeed from the oyster shell, and that you make your measurement accurately.

 

[Anonymous]

Huh, so you grow macros in the tank by isolating the back 3 inches or so of your tank with eggcrate? Thus protecting it from fishes? That is a neat idea, I bet my tangs would love to eat it as it grows out the eggcrate.

My yellow tang constantly pokes his nose through the egg crate and slurps some chaeto. And you are correct it does protect the macros.

So do you stack your rockwork up in front of the eggcrate?

I could have or should have used some stand offs between the back glass and the egg crate. But what i actually did was just cram in the bottom of the crate in the sand at the bottom. At the top, the returns from my external sump/refug holds the top off the back glass. The are behind the egg crate is a good place to hide filter and powerhead also. The external sump has the filter box and some chaeto. But nitrates did not come down to 0.0 until the chaeto in the in-tank refug took off. I just stack up the rocks by leaning them against the egg crate. So most of the weight still goes to the bottom with just a little support from the egg crate. Seems to work fine.

I would assume this would shade the macros growing behind the eggcrate except at the top, and since it's only 3 inches in depth front to back, I don't know if you would get enough light to really get the macro algae cranking.

your concerns are valid. I originally had just a couple of clip on bulbs on the back glass. The caulpera profilera grew up and out the top of the egg crate accross the display area. And a very dense growth at that too. What I did was to add two 4' 2 tube utility fixtures about 6" behind the back glass pointing forward. At that point the chaeto grew much faster, the caulpera profilera almost disappeared, and grape caulpera took off. The chaeto and profilera stays between the egg crate and back glass. The grape goes all over. With the new lighting nitrates (finally) went down to 0.0. And have stayed there for 8 weeks. Red cyano bloomed when the nitrates went to 0.0 and have now subsided. The egg crate is now dark green with some red. And white spots where the new baby turbo snails have cleaned.

I would really love to see a picture of this!

I know I know I know. I will get a picture as soon as my battery lid arrives for my cheapie camera. And post in that forum here.

Actually, when you think about it, depending on the tank shape, this should take about the same amount of area as a 5-6" DSB for instance.

Bob

 

[Anonymous]

>...What is not scientific is to dismiss those experimental results.

I am not trying to discredit your testimony, but just tell you that it is not chemically feasible to jack calcium up with your setup unless you have some wild pH and alk. value. Skeptics will need to confirm, for example, that the calcium in the sea water is indeed from the oyster shell, and that you make your measurement accurately.

then you do the experiment to prove this wrong. That would be the scientific approach.

Seachum ca test kit 400 ppm reference tests at 390-410ppm.

Again the same conditions in two tanks. One has calcium rise to 400ppm and stays there after adding crushed oyster shells with 5x circulation through them. The other remains at 250-300ppm. Both have extensive macro algaes in the display. Alk dropped from 4 to 2.5 meg/l. Recently tested mag at 1200ppm.

What is not scientific is to dismiss these results.

 

[Fatal Morgana]

>...What is not scientific is to dismiss these results....

Bob, chemists compose extensive kinetic equilibrium table for the calcium/carbonate system in sea water as a function of pH or CO2 in air, and there is no magic in it. It is very tricky to solve due to several coupled nonlinear equations (three, exactly), but it is not like rocket equations. I think I look over your pH and calcium concentration a few weeks ago, and concluded to myself that it is not feasible. Usually I can spot thing like this by eye if the value is way off, but I maybe getting old.

Try to see if you can dig something up that show the chemical feasibility (not a technical term, BTW) of increasing ca concentration with your pH value.

 

[Len]

Bob, I think what would really lend credance to your advice is to post some pics of your tank demonstrating the success of your methods.