[Charley]

It's simply how you make the argument that can rub people the wrong way.... "you catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar"

In the end, you wind up having the opposite effect of your very good intentions as people dig in and become defensive. There is more than 1 way around the block. Suggest finding another way and you will have much better effect. Not everyone likes getting punched in the nose.

I should know better, but I am sucker for punishment

[lnevo]

So, just in defense of my surge device comment earlier and in defense overall of the myth that microbubbling is harmful...

Source: ReefKeeping Magazine
Author: Eric Borneman
URL: http://www.reefkeeping.com/issues/2004-01/eb/

Myth 14: Microbubbles are to be avoided.

Many aquarists go to some considerable lengths to baffle sumps and pump flows to prevent small bubbles from being returned into the display tank. It has been suggested that such bubbles represent an irritation to fish, corals and other invertebrates and that they should be avoided. To be honest, I am unsure from where the origin of this perception came. However, it is untrue. Even the name is inaccurate… the prefix "micro" would refer to bubbles too small to see.


The onslaught of bubbles from this oncoming wave should make it apparent that
corals and coral reefs exist just fine with the presence of air bubbles in the water.
Small bubbles are very common in tumultuous reef environments, and areas where waves break are often dense with both reef life and small bubbles. In addition, in tanks and on reefs, many bubbles of various sizes, including true "microbubbles" are produced by photosynthesis, and this is especially the case in highly illuminated environments. In my own aquaria, a constant rise of bubbles, especially in the afternoon, are produced by various corals and algae in even some of my less-illuminated systems. Larger bubbles frequently get sucked into pump intakes, and are chopped up to even smaller sizes and distributed throughout the tank. I won't even begin to discuss the massive numbers of bubbles produced by various surge devices. These water motion devices have great benefits in aquaria, and even as anecdotal aquarium observations, I have never seen anything disturbed, irritated, or harmed by the rush of bubbles.

Potential: Relatively harmless. Neither bubbles nor the lack of them in a tank is likely to endanger the health or survival of organisms.

Distribution: A patchy, but common belief.

[NYreefNoob]

thales i have read through the whole thread on r2r. one of the things about the internet and postings is it is hard to read how someone feels, because you are un-able to see facial and body expression's. to be honest you jumped on that person's thread and came off negetive was what i percieved. it's not easy truelly reading between the lines on here. i do understand what you was trying to point out to the op about growth ect of his corals. and that he wasn't trying to truelly grab what you were saying, but instead taking it on the defensive side of it. the larger part of the hobbiest cannot give you a scientifical explaination or data as we dont have the ability or possibly the knowledge to gather and confirm such claims we may make other then what we physically see within our own tanks. Most on here who know me know i have tried alot of oddball thing's in the hobby. some with success some with failure. what works for one may not work for another and we all know this. how many people know the dominating strain of bacteria in our system ? and the effect it may play with trying something. i have used, tested and beta'd over 30 skimmers over the year's. i can give personal experiance and thought's on them and different one's but i cannot give you scientific data. but does that take away from my knowledge of skimmers and the difference in them ?

[Thales]

Originally Posted by Charley

It's simply how you make the argument that can rub people the wrong way.... "you catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar"

In the end, you wind up having the opposite effect of your very good intentions as people dig in and become defensive. There is more than 1 way around the block. Suggest finding another way and you will have much better effect. Not everyone likes getting punched in the nose.

I should know better, but I am sucker for punishment

What is funny about that is then you get blamed for being a fake. Trust me, for years I used to follow many posts with and started getting **** for it. Amazing.
I also don't get how being straightforward is like being punched in the nose. I think people only feel punched in the nose if they already feel defensive. If that is the game, then no one will ever win. You and I had some exchanges that made me feel like you were coming after me...I re read it with the most charitable interpretation and we have had some interesting discussions. It is really easy.

[Thales]

Originally Posted by lnevo

So, just in defense of my surge device comment earlier and in defense overall of the myth that microbubbling is harmful...

Source: ReefKeeping Magazine
Author: Eric Borneman
URL: http://www.reefkeeping.com/issues/2004-01/eb/

I am pretty much with you here. Eric is saying that bubbles are generally not harmful and I agree completely. I have even gone to bat for that several times. What he gets wrong is the possibility of supersaturation and cavitation causing gas bubble disease - this is a real and very documented issue. Bubbles in general, you'll get no argument from me.

Further, these guys are talking about nanobubbles, not micro bubbles. Even worse they are using the terms interchangeably.

[Thales]

Originally Posted by NYreefNoob

thales i have read through the whole thread on r2r. one of the things about the internet and postings is it is hard to read how someone feels, because you are un-able to see facial and body expression's.

Sure. Why am I the only one being taken to task for this issue? Others in those threads have been really icky and no one says a thing.

to be honest you jumped on that person's thread and came off negetive was what i percieved.

That is weird to me. I am a member there - am I not supposed to post? It is very strange that simple disagreement is thought to be negative.

it's not easy truelly reading between the lines on here.

I think trying to read between the lines is part of the problem. Why try to guess what people 'really' mean - why not instead just look at what they wrote?

i do understand what you was trying to point out to the op about growth ect of his corals. and that he wasn't trying to truelly grab what you were saying, but instead taking it on the defensive side of it.

Whew! Thanks!

the larger part of the hobbiest cannot give you a scientifical explaination or data as we dont have the ability or possibly the knowledge to gather and confirm such claims we may make other then what we physically see within our own tanks.

For sure, and no one is asking for a robust double blind study, but for documentation that any hobbyist can do. Really! I wish my next article was published already, it goes over this.
Jumping from observation to conclusion is something to be careful of doing.

Most on here who know me know i have tried alot of oddball thing's in the hobby. some with success some with failure. what works for one may not work for another and we all know this.

Great! That has nothing to do with jumping from observation to conclusion and the claiming of knowledge that can't possibly be known.

how many people know the dominating strain of bacteria in our system ? and the effect it may play with trying something.

Yes! I think bacteria and bacterial loads may be the next big lake of information for us.

i have used, tested and beta'd over 30 skimmers over the year's. i can give personal experiance and thought's on them and different one's but i cannot give you scientific data. but does that take away from my knowledge of skimmers and the difference in them ?

A little. This is why Ken Feldman et al did their skimmer studies.

Thanks for chiming in!

[Charley]

I think I can understand.....somebody with all your experience, knowledge and years of hard work, some if not most of what you read must make you crazy. Took me quite a while, as you know, to see where you were coming from and a very good learning experience for me. But I took the time to bicker with you, read your history, articles, etc:. I stopped the discussion because even I "felt" like I was coming after you in re-reading my answers. My arguments were not cohesive after the first response or 2 but did learn something in the end. Never, never would I want someone to feel like I was coming after them. Consider myself a pretty good guy and I like to think I am someone who is enjoyable to discuss matters with even if over my head Which is most often the case. So, I suggest with the best of intentions to perhaps maybe consider not being so straightforward at the outset just because I know how excited you are to get your point across to as many people as possible. But will only work if they are open to listening and not immediately be put on the defensive

[NYreefNoob]

A little. This is why Ken Feldman et al did their skimmer studies.

i was hoping you would point that out.i actually have the simplist mod for a skimmer to change how it works but never got around to trying to patent it because i know it would be cloned easily.
i tested for a major company and was shot down on posting my results and opinion. they didn't like my opinion of their product or my suggestions on how to improve it and where they went wrong. guess thats what happens when you already mass produced something and cant make the changes afterwards. while skimz took my opinion and made changes to the skimmer.


i also caught where the op is in the process of trying to make a micro bubble maker and then stated where he didnt want to buy the one that is made cause of cost, but will try to imitate it and will be trying to market it lol im pretty good at reading between the line's.

[lnevo]

Originally Posted by Thales

Further, these guys are talking about nanobubbles, not micro bubbles. Even worse they are using the terms interchangeably.

This is a great point and I wish there was a more documented measure of bubbles in Eric's article he even says

Even the name is inaccurate… the prefix "micro" would refer to bubbles too small to see.

Now whether we can ever even agree on what size these bubbles we're referring to are is altogether another question.

If I get the gist of you're upcoming article, it may cover how a hobbyist can contribute data of this type in a scientific way? This is something that should be stickied/pinned on every forum out there.

It would be interesting to have some kind of knowledge base where people can submit observations so they can be collected, analyzed, reviewed and compiled into meaningful and useful data. Oh Josh....

[WTBClownfish]

Thales get over it. If everyone is telling you the same thing there must be some truth to it. You were told you were being a baby on the R2R thread so you come here to complain. Your are being called a baby here and it is still everyone else's fault.

" Why am I the only one being taken to task for this issue? Others in those threads have been really icky and no one says a thing."

They might communicate better then you.