to fatal morgana from newbies thread

[Anonymous]

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...

Let it run for a few weeks. If parameters are not right on then go back to the standard system.

Woops in a month or two you have a standard system anyway. So nothing to change. Just a tank with sand, refug, pump, some filtering, and calcium carbonate based rocks. I guess if you added a skimmer then you could say went back to normal methods. Or went with expensive aquarium lighting. Even though the actual light in the tank is the same.

Let us know what happens.

 

[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.

Come on Bob. If I pour bleach into a tank and everything died, it would be very easy to prove a causality. There are ways around fallacies, and you have practiced none of them.

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.

So what? There are a billion other things besides the oyster shells that could have made the calcium rise. Pull the shells out for 6 months and do daily testing and then get back to us.

The first step would be for other scientists to try the experiment to see if similiar results are obtained.

That is simply not science, and you should stop pretending that what you have done is scientific. A FIRST step, if you want people to take you seriously, would be for you to present data regarding what you have done - and you certainly have not done that.

What you are doing is analogous to just saying on a skydiving site that you jumped out of a plane at 10000 feet with no chute and floated gently to earth, and that everybody should try the same experiment even though you have provided exactly no documentation or data, not even a simple picture, to back up your claim.





__________

But in reality, I only care that you keep your untested fringe methodology out of the NRF.

It is amazing that out of the post of mine you quoted, all you picked out was one side point to argue. It remains that your system is neither stable or time proven, and that advice to emulate that system has no place in the NRF.

 

[Anonymous]

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.

Bob, this alone demonstrates your serious LACK of experience. Quite simply put, this site is for advancement and knowledge, not misinformation or incomplete information. You demonstrate a severe lack of understanding of the full nature of that which you purport to be knowledgeable enough to speak on.

I'm going to publically request that you stop putting this information up as "the way to go" for folks new to this thing (which, in my opinion, includes yourself - I do remember you posting at first that you'd only had about a year of saltwater experience under your belt), adding mine to the growing list of voices unsettled about what you're pushing as absolutes. You don't even seem to wrap your mind around the fact that macroalgaes are NOT plants. This alone is misinformation.

Also, I will strongly suggest some reading for you, this is a book with which I am intimately familiar, "The Natural Marine Aquarium: Reef Invertebrates", by Anthony Calfo and Bob Fenner. It has a great bibliography (the glossary was almost completely compiled by yours truly) which should give anyone a fantastic direction in which to go when trying to prove or disprove, or even just understand, what's going on in their systems.

 

[Anonymous]

seamaiden

Actually anthony recommended that also when he replied to a question I have about plant life consuming heavy metals like copper. His answer was yes including the much maligned ("overlooked") turf grass. I actually ordered it but cancelled when they only shipped UPS (Long story).

So I need to reorder that some time. Gee I even now know who did the bibliography.

You are absolutely correct that I have limited experience in corals.

If every single saltwater tank was started soley to support coral life and all aspects of any other aquarium keeping will completely kill all corals and have no bearing on those corals then you would be correct.

But that is not the case. And I can tell even with the new arrivals that my corals are happy also. And I can tell by the posts here, RC, SWF that newbies are have problem with "standard" methods that something better is needed. The real sad thing is that something has been there all along.

 

[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.

Come on Bob. If I pour bleach into a tank and everything died, it would be very easy to prove a causality. There are ways around fallacies, and you have practiced none of them.

there could be a billion other reasons everything died.

I don't have to conduct an experiment to know that.

there are numerous tanks with more people with more experience than you that have everything die without the bleach being added.

You don't have the experience to make that statement.

to tell newbies that is irresponsible.

I am just applying your logic to your statement. :lol:

 

[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.

Come on Bob. If I pour bleach into a tank and everything died, it would be very easy to prove a causality. There are ways around fallacies, and you have practiced none of them.

there could be a billion other reasons everything died.
I don't have to conduct an experiment to know that.

You are either incapable of understanding what people are saying or you are trolling.

I said it would be easy to prove causality, not there weren't a billion other reasons everything could have died. It would be very easy to prove the bleach killed the tank, not the billion other reasons. Remember this was in response to you saying proving causality is impossible (You could start to show oyster shell causality in your system, but you aren't interested in doing the most basic of experiments to rule out some of the billion other reasons you Ca may have gone up - removing the oyster shells). I am sorry I let you side track the discussion.

there are numerous tanks with more people with more experience than you that have everything die without the bleach being added.

Not only do I agree with that statement, but it has absolutely nothing to do with what I wrote.

You don't have the experience to make that statement.

to tell newbies that is irresponsible.

Good thing I never made that statement.

I am just applying your logic to your statement. :lol:

No, you have, I believe, intentionally misunderstood my statements in an attempt to side track the discussion and 'score points'.

_________

But in reality, I only care that you keep your untested fringe methodology out of the NRF.

It remains that your system is neither stable or time proven, and that advice to emulate that system has no place in the NRF.[/quote]

 

[Anonymous]

No, you have, I believe, intentionally misunderstood my statements in an attempt to side track the discussion and 'score points'.

Having read this from the beginning and prior threads that beaslbob has put forth this idea, I have to agree with you Righty. When confronted with logic, beaslbob simply pulls a 'straw man argument'

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position.

Beaslbob is simply a troll, and I hope no one wastes time or money trying his voodoo method.

 

[HClH2OFish]

Or went with expensive aquarium lighting. Even though the actual light in the tank is the same.

Ummm...if I did decide to add "expensive aquarium lighting" how the heck can you figure the actual light in the tank being the same??

Bob, I'm sorry...but while in the past I've given you slight benefit of the doubt based on your years over mine keeping fish, this simply shows me that you have no idea what you're talking about.

I live in Phoenix...there is no way, no how that sunlight in my area is going to duplicate that found on a reef *anywhere*. I don't have my tank sitting outside, so it's only going to get ambient light coming in from outside....that filtered through screens and dual insulated window pane.

It's a very simple method to put a lux meter on this and see exactly what I'm getting w/ambient compared to what I'm getting when adding "expensive aquarium lighting"

However, already knowing the outcome of the results, I'm not going to bother spending the $$ just to prove you wrong on something that has been *proven* already by many folks...marine researchers and such.

Following your earlier logic though, I think you'll probably argue that since the light is coming from the same sun that shines over a reef, it's the same light going into my tank...

Your simple lack of understanding on one of the basic components of proper husbandry casts a shadow on everything else you have said.

And with that, I would like to add my vote to the one already cast that you please refrain from posting your unproven, untested methods to the NRF.

You have nowhere near the experience/knowledge to even begin to debate issues with many of those on this board and others. The history of the past few weeks shows that you have no idea how to prove any of your claims and yet you push them as the way to go. Simply put, it's not.

 

[Anonymous]

Lawdawg:

the problem is that several people have wasted time and money on "my" method. And as fastuno reported, all were very pleasantly surprised. I am sorry you feel I am a troll. just trying prevent and reduce the newbie problems when they start their tanks.

Righty:

Aww come on lighten up. All I did was throw back at you the same exact logic you were throwing at me. I hope you will review what I have said. I hope you will study the logic. I hope you will talk to science professionals you trust. I hope you will study the scientific process.

Again to say something else might have caused something is simply not scientific.

We can not control everything during an experiemnt.

Experiments have to be independantly verified to be either proven or disproven.

Science in never 100% sure of anything.

And finally study what the environmental engineers are doing with plant life specifically marine algae. look up biosorbtion. look up how they test the ocean for polution of such things as copper.


Or simply setup a gallon jay with saltwater made from your tap, throw in some chaeto, let it have 3-4 hours of direct sunlight, and see what happens to the parameters. When copper drops to 250-300 then circulate 5x through a lot of crushed oyster shells and see if the copper comes back up. And of course don't do water changes-just replace the water that evaporates.

If you would do that at least I would have another datum.

 

[HClH2OFish]

Bob:

And none of the arguments you've made to Righty suggest anything relating to a fully stocked reef tank.....

As for the previous post on RC....I don't know how having one other person toot your horn shows a thing. If you have 500 posts against your methods, and 2 posts for them, you can't pull those that are for and present it as proof of concept.

 

[Anonymous]

Righty:

Aww come on lighten up.

No. I think you are intentionally wasting our time.

All I did was throw back at you the same exact logic you were throwing at me.

No you did not Bob. You clearly misunderstood what I wrote, and continue to do so. You also clearly do not understand what a fallacy is or how to avoid them.

_________

But in reality, I only care that you keep your untested fringe methodology out of the NRF.

It remains that your system is neither stable or time proven, and that advice to emulate that system has no place in the NRF.[/quote][/quote]

 

[Anonymous]

Lawdawg:

the problem is that several people have wasted time and money on "my" method. And as fastuno reported, all were very pleasantly surprised. I am sorry you feel I am a troll. just trying prevent and reduce the newbie problems when they start their tanks.

If the label troll bothers you, how about attention-starved?

By putting forth your 'method' as being sucessful for newcomers when, as Seamaiden and others have pointed out to you that you can't document any long term 'sucess' yourself

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.

coupled with the fact you dismiss the obvious flaws in your thinking when they are pointed out to you just shows how wrong you are to be trying to put yourself forth as an expert.

 

[Anonymous]

Bob:

And none of the arguments you've made to Righty suggest anything relating to a fully stocked reef tank.....

As for the previous post on RC....I don't know how having one other person toot your horn shows a thing. If you have 500 posts against your methods, and 2 posts for them, you can't pull those that are for and present it as proof of concept.

And that is not what I am doing. As I stated at the beginning of this thread if 1000 people report how they maintain a tank and i report mine, all we have is 1001 opinions. Here we have 502 opinions. "mine" does not disprove theirs nor does the 500 disprove mine.

Righty has not proven that the system described above will not result in water with anything other than the same exact water conditions as any reef tank or the ocean where the corals thrive in.

Mellen on the rc board reported that they used to maintain all type of corals with little to no maintenance by collecting plant life and using NO fixtures over 75g tanks. The fact that 500 people do not do that does not mean that is not the case. Several people at the SWF board maintain their tank with tap water. Righty and the other 500 people at RC not using tap does not prove that tap water is bad. A LFS here uses treated tap and has absolutely awesome tanks.

The newbie deserves to hear that.

And if righty can not understand the scientific process then that is his problem.

 

[Anonymous]

Or went with expensive aquarium lighting. Even though the actual light in the tank is the same.

Ummm...if I did decide to add "expensive aquarium lighting" how the heck can you figure the actual light in the tank being the same??

All I meant here is exacly what I said. the fact you can not believe it was my point.

After all 220 watts of 2x overdriven NO lights should put as much or more actuall light on the corals as 192 watts of PC lighting. Even not overdriven 160 watts would be pretty close. BTW NO put out 3400 lumens (4100K) or 2300 lumens (6500K). Anyone got an idea of the light output with pc's? I seem to have a hard time finding that figure.

and the no's cost $40. So like I said above.

But if you want to be in the in crowd and avoid all the flames about bad lighting you just say your running pc's.

And bob don't tell the newbies that.

 

[Len]

A reminder to keep it civil and constructive.

 

[HClH2OFish]

*sigh*
Let me try to make this simple so there can be no misunderstanding...
What *EVERYONE* on here is trying to do is hope you will refrain from posting UNTESTED, UNPROVEN methods on a REEFKEEPING board. It doesn't matter what results FO or Fresh has shown...they are different systems (and please don't start a side argument over this)

For a BRAND new person starting into reefkeeping they have 2 options:

1)Go with tried, true setups that are easily reproducible and can provide baselines....hence RO/DI==you know what's in it whereas tap water, you don't unless you spend $$ to get it fully tested.

2)Go with any method that is untested & unproven - but when things go wrong there have no good basis to determine where the problem started since you don't know for sure what may be going on in your tank. What if the local municipality just added something else to the mix that you weren't aware of when you started your tank? What if you're getting a slow buildup of toxins from the tapwater?

The idea is simple -- start with the purest water you can get and you don't need to worry about it. This is a *great* idea for a beginning reefer.

Using tap water can be great...no worries. I use tap myself...just topped off my 25 and 15 with it. But those systems are FOWLRS...I have no corals in them, hence I don't need to worry about certain tank parameters that I would need to if it were a REEF tank.

You have been keeping a reef tank for 1 year. The majority of corals have been in your tank <6 months.
This alone, gives you NO basis to recommend your methods to someone entering the reefing hobby IMVHO, other than pointing out to them the fact that keeping macros in a 'fuge is prolly a good idea -- and it's an idea that has been around a long time and NOBODY is disputing.

So if you push the idea of a fuge to someone in the NRF, I don't see an issue. Pushing the idea that standard, practiced methods are unnecessary , costly bunk is OPINION nothing more.

/rant off, with apologies to Len, et. al.

 

[Len]

PC lighting is more efficient then T12 fluorscents, no matter the amperage type (NO, HO, VHO). The same is true for T5 lights, and even T8s. Basically, the smaller the diameter of the tube, the more efficient it is. A NO bulb overdriven by a VHO ballast is not only discouraged by UL/CSA, but it will also not yield remotely the same output as a VHO bulb driven by a VHO ballast. How do I know? I have an Apogee PAR meter and have measured this before. If people want to send me the bulbs and ballasts again, I'll gladly test them and post measured data.

BTW, lumens is a pretty irrelevant unit of measure for lights intended for reefkeeping. Use PAR.

 

[HClH2OFish]

Or went with expensive aquarium lighting. Even though the actual light in the tank is the same.

Ummm...if I did decide to add "expensive aquarium lighting" how the heck can you figure the actual light in the tank being the same??

All I meant here is exacly what I said. the fact you can not believe it was my point.

After all 220 watts of 2x overdriven NO lights should put as much or more actuall light on the corals as 192 watts of PC lighting. Even not overdriven 160 watts would be pretty close. BTW NO put out 3400 lumens (4100K) or 2300 lumens (6500K). Anyone got an idea of the light output with pc's? I seem to have a hard time finding that figure.

and the no's cost $40. So like I said above.

But if you want to be in the in crowd and avoid all the flames about bad lighting you just say your running pc's.

And bob don't tell the newbies that.

First...humble apologies Bob...I was assuming you were meaning running natural lighting rather than another form.
Still, I'll stick with my "expensive" lights...I get em fairly cheap from my LFS, they look great on my tank, and I trust em.
And I don't think regular lights can put out the correct light that aquarium lights do...unless they are designed to put out the same frequency as aquarium lights (that little colored chart thingy on the sides)

As for the lumens..I believe that is determined by the type of bulb you get.

 

[HClH2OFish]

PC lighting is more efficient then T12 fluorscents, no matter the amperage type (NO, HO, VHO). The same is true for T5 lights, and even T8s. Basically, the smaller the diameter of the tube, the more efficient it is. A NO bulb overdriven by a VHO ballast is not only discouraged by UL/CSA, but it will also not yield remotely the same output as a VHO bulb driven by a VHO ballast. How do I know? I have an Apogee PAR meter and have measured this before. If people want to send me the bulbs and ballasts again, I'll gladly test them and post measured data.

BTW, lumens is a pretty irrelevant unit of measure for lights intended for reefkeeping. Use PAR.

LOL...like I said...others with more knowledge than I have spent the $$ to test this....

 

[Anonymous]

A reminder to keep it civil and constructive.

Of course.

I see nothing actually uncivil here. No bad language, no name calling, just an honest exchange of ideas.

And it is through those exchanges that people learn. hopefully that is what the board is all about.