to fatal morgana from newbies thread

[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.

This simply makes no sense. Plant life does not filter water that flows into the ocean, at least not in any real sense, and certainly not in the saltwater area (the actual ocean itself).

Water flowing to the ocean is freshwater, not saltwater. Even if it were being filtered by plantlife in the river system, it would not be the same plantlife that exists in our marine aquaria. Your statement shows a fundamental break in logic. About the only plantlife that could function in this way would be mangroves, which have already been shown to be very poor nutrient uptake and export systems.

Once the water gets to the ocean, dilution and wave action are primary "filtration" (and I use that term very loosely) agents. A few years ago I went on vacation to Puerto Vallarta, Mexico. Once you get away from the tourist-trap areas and into the city proper, the shopkeepers and merchants are all scrubbing their front steps every morning with bleachwater or soapwater, which then runs into storm drains and directly to the ocean. Talk about a massive influx of phosphates and various other organic matter. If you go down to the beach, the waves crashing create a sort of natural protein skimmer frothing the water and pounding the froth into microbubbles, and leaving a thick, whitish-green foam on the beach.

Once you get out away from the populated areas though, reefs are actually a virtual desert--they are extremely nutrient poor.

 

[Anonymous]

>...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.

Better yet try the experiment. Just make sure you duplicate the conditions. That way when you prove me wrong we can discuss that differences there were to try to pin point why it worked for me and not for you. But then you just might be able to duplicate the results. Then with all the flames I get on that we really really might have something.


Again both tanks for whatever reason were down to 250-300 ppm calcium. No new livestock was added nor died. The only thing that changed was the addition of crushed oyster shells (with the 5x flow through them).

I can and have speculated as to why it worked. I do not know if it will work with a higher hard coral population and expect that it won't. But then this was not supposed to have worked either.

What I am absolutely sure of is that calcium and alk are now at ocean values without the dangers of kalk dripping or calcium reactors. And definately without the expense and maintenance problems. Well I do have to rinse out the shells each week but am planning on making that more streamlined. And I trust the $5 for 50 pounds of filter media is something everyone should be interested in.

I am sure you are already aware of this but I did read on the web the some korean engineers had processded oyster shells into calcium hydroxide. Seems it happens at elevated temperatures in a nitrogen atmosphere. Then they used that preciptate out phosphates from industrial waste water. So with my luck the cost of oyster shells will skyrocket.

 

[Anonymous]

Remove the oyster shells and see if the Ca drops.

 

[Anonymous]

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

What is your system? It hardly seems to be prudent to recommend a system to new reefers that has never actually been set up before.

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

Because recommending an experimental set up that only one person has used with indeterminate success to people with little to no experience seems like a very bad idea for a plethora of reasons.

 

[Fatal Morgana]

>...I am sure you are already aware of this but I did read on the web the some korean engineers had processded oyster shells into calcium hydroxide. Seems it happens at elevated temperatures in a nitrogen atmosphere. Then they used that preciptate out phosphates from industrial waste water. So with my luck the cost of oyster shells will skyrocket.

Don't be too excited. The use of oyster shell (or any seashell or limestone) as a raw material for calcium salts/limes is know since ancient time. In Korea, the cost of oyster shell is lower than limestone mined from quarry, and that's why they use this method.

>... Better yet try the experiment. Just make sure you duplicate the conditions. ...

I used aragonite filter in the past, and I am familiar with the issue that I don't need to duplicate it to convince myself that it won't work as well as descriped. I hope I don't sound too arrogant, but I don't need to put my hand on a wood fire to tell if it is hot.

 

[Anonymous]

>... Better yet try the experiment. Just make sure you duplicate the conditions. ...

I used aragonite filter in the past, and I am familiar with the issue that I don't need to duplicate it to convince myself that it won't work as well as descriped. I hope I don't sound too arrogant, but I don't need to put my hand on a wood fire to tell if it is hot.

So perhaps the grain size of the oyster shells made the difference. Or the circulation, or the quantity, or the amount of plant life in the display.

As I stated were all conditions the same?

Science requires duplication of the experiment not something the critic thinks is the same.

And I did have crushed coral on top of the sand before the external sump. With that calcium was 250-300. And before I had the in tank refugium.

So although I have never duplicated the aragonite DSB operation, I am not suprised little to no calcium supplimentation took place. But that is not the same as a large amount of crushed oyster shells with 5x water circulation through them in a tank where nitrates are being controlled by a well lit in tank refugium.

 

[Fatal Morgana]

I said it many times in the past, and let me repeat it for the sake of this thread. Three concepts: 1, equilibrium 2, kinetics, and 3, scale.

For the use of oyster shell as a mean to increase calcium in seawater, it does not work unless the pH and alk. is way off. Chemical equilibrium does not favorite the dissolution of the shell to release calcium ion in seawater (chemist way of saying it ain't gonna work). It does not matter what is the grain size, the brand of the oyster shell, circulation, quantity, not any physical characteristic. Don't want to beat a dead horse, but seem like there are some horses that have nine lives.

>...Science requires duplication of the experiment not something the critic thinks is the same.

Not true. If that's the case, I would need to count pebbles to make sure 23 + 45 not equal 86. How do you know if you never add 23 pebbles and 45 pebbles together in the past? Do I need to do it to convince myself that addition works for 20, 40, 3 and 5 the way I expected? If you see someone say 34908 + 2928187 = 2000000000000, do you need to get millions of pebbles to make sure there is something wrong with the "equation?"

 

[Anonymous]

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

What is your system? It hardly seems to be prudent to recommend a system to new reefers that has never actually been set up before.

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

Because recommending an experimental set up that only one person has used with indeterminate success to people with little to no experience seems like a very bad idea for a plethora of reasons.

If you really care about newbies, simple, easy to understand, inexpensive, stable, and time proven systems should be explained to them. When you dismiss such a system you are not doing the newbies a favor. Especially when you have no scientific data to base your dismissal on and are unwilling to conduct simple, inexpensive experiments to prove or disprove that system.

So again, Why would the suggested system not work?

 

[Anonymous]

I said it many times in the past, and let me repeat it for the sake of this thread. Three concepts: 1, equilibrium 2, kinetics, and 3, scale.

For the use of oyster shell as a mean to increase calcium in seawater, it does not work unless the pH and alk. is way off. Chemical equilibrium does not favorite the dissolution of the shell to release calcium ion in seawater (chemist way of saying it ain't gonna work). It does not matter what is the grain size, the brand of the oyster shell, circulation, quantity, not any physical characteristic. Don't want to beat a dead horse, but seem like there are some horses that have nine lives.

>...Science requires duplication of the experiment not something the critic thinks is the same.

Not true. If that's the case, I would need to count pebbles to make sure 23 + 45 not equal 86. How do you know if you never add 23 pebbles and 45 pebbles together in the past? Do I need to do it to convince myself that addition works for 20, 40, 3 and 5 the way I expected? If you see someone say 34908 + 2928187 = 2000000000000, do you need to get millions of pebbles to make sure there is something wrong with the "equation?"

The difference is numerous experiments have already shown the sum of 23 and 45. It is a basic assumption of science that experiments must be duplicated before the validity of the initial experimental results can be validated. If they can not be duplicated than the results are invalid. A good example is the room temperature cold fusion experiments. Scientists were extremly skeptical and that was verified when the experimental results could not be duplicated. However, it was not the skeptism but the follow on experiments that showed the original experiment was not valid. And only then the conclusions were rejected.

I suggest you rethink and restudy your equations. My calcium did go up after adding the crushed oyster shells. And it did stay the same in another system without the shells. I think I know why, but would like to get your expert opinion.

Meanwhile, I am trying to build a DIY filter to make maintenance easier. So I'll test that under very adverse (to calcium) conditions. If the calcium does go up also then I feel confident I can use it in my display. Or perhaps I will need to add some mag to better duplicate my display. But I will not recommend that to anyone until I see for myself the calcium go up and simple livestock are being supported.

Meahwhile, in my 55g there is no doubt calcium, alk, and mag are being maintained at near ocean values with no dosing.

 

[Anonymous]

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

What is your system? It hardly seems to be prudent to recommend a system to new reefers that has never actually been set up before.

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

Because recommending an experimental set up that only one person has used with indeterminate success to people with little to no experience seems like a very bad idea for a plethora of reasons.

If you really care about newbies, simple, easy to understand, inexpensive, stable, and time proven systems should be explained to them. When you dismiss such a system you are not doing the newbies a favor.

You system is 1 year old and has really only had corals for the last 3 months - hardly a stable, time proven reef system.

When you dismiss such a system you are not doing the newbies a favor.

Again, you don't have a stable, time proven reef system. You have not even presented any evidence that what you say you are doing works - you just keep saying it does. Protecting new reefers from unsupported, unproven, untested methodologies is a primary function of the NRF.

Especially when you have no scientific data to base your dismissal on and are unwilling to conduct simple, inexpensive experiments to prove or disprove that system.

There is much science to dismiss many of your ideas, you just keep ignoring it.
Since you are the advocate of the methodology, it is up to you[/] to do experiments and present them in such a way as to convince others. It is not up to others to test your hypotheses for you, and unsupported hypotheses certainly have no place in the NRF.

 

[Anonymous]

...

 

[Fatal Morgana]

I understand where you come from, but your calcium experiment is closer to the numeric computation than cold fusion.

Again, I don't want to sound arrogant, but I feel I had enough experience with calcium and carbonate equations that I don't need to restudy them.

Seeing that plant life is your cup of tea, I strongly suggest you use Halimeda or other calcifing macroalgae in your experiment. They are like sponge to water when it come to calcium, more so than hard coral. Good luck.

 

[Anonymous]

I understand where you come from, but your calcium experiment is closer to the numeric computation than cold fusion.

Again, I don't want to sound arrogant, but I feel I had enough experience with calcium and carbonate equations that I don't need to restudy them.

Seeing that plant life is your cup of tea, I strongly suggest you use Halimeda or other calcifing macroalgae in your experiment. They are like sponge to water when it come to calcium, more so than hard coral. Good luck.

Good idea and thanks. Sure a lot better than expensive sps corals to see if the shells can keep up. Anyway, first I have to see if the calcium goes up like it did in my display.

I undersand you do not need to review the equations. So why did my calcium go up in the tank with oyster shells and not in the tank without? :wink:

 

[Fatal Morgana]

>...So why did my calcium go up in the tank with oyster shells and not in the tank without?

It is pure speculation.. (). but if you look at your tap water report I mentioned above, you will noticed that your local limestone aquifer add a lot of calcium to your water. Did you ever bother to look over some of the articles other people mentioned?

The average concentration of calcium carbonate in your water is 151 ppm. So if you evaporate the volumn down to 1/3, you will have 450ppm of calcium carbonate in your brine water.

Again, no one is trying to discredit your testimony, but just telling you that your suggestiona are borderline dangerous for newbies. Tap water is usually a bad way to start your first tank.

 

[Anonymous]

So why did my calcium go up in the tank with oyster shells and not in the tank without?

There could be a billion reasons. You are practicing the fallacy of post hoc ergo proptor hoc - it happened after, therefore was caused by.

At the very least, you should remove the oyster shells for several months and see if there are any effects.

 

[HClH2OFish]

How bout this....I'm gonna be moving hopefully in a month or 2.
If I've got enuff $$ after closing costs on our home, I'll get a complete list from Bob, including mfrs. and setup a tank just like his.
I'll then regularly test the water and see what happens to it.

Problems with this, however are:
1) The tank will be brand new....Bob's has been running 1 year
2) My water quality will most certainly be diff. right out of the tap (I live in Phonix...our water is so hard we can make sidewalks from it)
3) Convincing my g/f to let me spend more $$ on another tank

If it works, I'll be pleasantly surprised.....I just don't believe it will work to the extent of the success Bob has had with his tanks (how long till you get your cam fixed? I'd really like to see pics)

And maybe some other people in diff. areas of the country could do the same. If we can all duplicate his results, maybe we'll have to add a 'Beaslbob' system to the Jaubert and Berlin methods.
If (when) it doesn't work, however, perhaps that will lay to rest this issue...

 

[Anonymous]

>...So why did my calcium go up in the tank with oyster shells and not in the tank without?

It is pure speculation.. (). but if you look at your tap water report I mentioned above, you will noticed that your local limestone aquifer add a lot of calcium to your water. Did you ever bother to look over some of the articles other people mentioned?

The average concentration of calcium carbonate in your water is 151 ppm. So if you evaporate the volumn down to 1/3, you will have 450ppm of calcium carbonate in your brine water.

Again, no one is trying to discredit your testimony, but just telling you that your suggestiona are borderline dangerous for newbies. Tap water is usually a bad way to start your first tank.

to paraphrase Ronnie Regan See there you go again mr. sceintist.

Again both tanks used the exact same water and the exact same evaporation. If the water caused the calcium increase, then 1) both tank should have already had 400ppm calcium, and 2) the non oyster shell tank would not have remained at 250-300ppm calcium. Therefore, it was not the water.

Do again why did the calcium rise in the oyster shell tank and not the other?

I have already read the local water reports here and was already aware that it is a limestone aquafer. BTW my water is the harvest-monrovia water authority not the huntsvill. But close enough. I also read numerous reports on tap water including the two mentioned.

And while you are looking up water reports try ellsworth AFB 1978-1980, Alamogordo NM 1980-1986, shalimar florida 1986-1987, Gosnell Ark 1987-1990, albuquerque, nm 1994-1997, Daleville, al 1998-2001 also. If water is usually a bad start then at least one of those cities should have created problems. Yet the first two were a FO simple salt, and all were FW leiden. And all had thriving fish that lived for years. With plant life added, no treatment of the tap water and no additives.

So it is not the water, it is usually great to use tap water to start tanks. So why not tell the newbies that?

Oh as long as you start plant life as the first thing also.

 

[Anonymous]

So it is not the water, it is usually great to use tap water to start tanks. So why not tell the newbies that?

Because FO and FW tanks are not the same as reefs and the vast majority of people who have used tap water have poor results.

 

[Anonymous]

So why did my calcium go up in the tank with oyster shells and not in the tank without?

There could be a billion reasons. You are practicing the fallacy of post hoc ergo proptor hoc - it happened after, therefore was caused by.

At the very least, you should remove the oyster shells for several months and see if there are any effects.

Righty:

Then all scientific investigations suffer from the same fallacy. All scientific proof rest on the observation that when one things happens something results. To prove causality all other conditions and changes must be eliminated. And that is always impossible.

That is the reason science attempts to control the conditions as much as possible then change one thing and see what happens. In my case I even had a control to show that not adding the oyster shells did not result in the calcium rise.

The first step would be for other scientists to try the experiment to see if similiar results are obtained. What is not scientific to make the above argument.

 

[Anonymous]

So it is not the water, it is usually great to use tap water to start tanks. So why not tell the newbies that?

Because FO and FW tanks are not the same as reefs and the vast majority of people who have used tap water have poor results.

Yes granted. And the same arguments are made to FO and FW tanks also.


And most people consider algae bloom as part of those bad results.

And most people do not set up the tank with a macro filled refugium as the very first thing.


So the vast majority of people who use tap have not used "my" method.