lduncan

I have a scar on my wrist from one of those as well. Brushed past it when i was moving stuff around. Luckily it wasn't too bad. But it felt like pins and needles, and string burning sensation. It blistered as well. Layton

Look for an inline RCD, some extension cords have them built into the plug. Layton

Yeah it will, as long as there is current flowing (no matter what the waveform) the heater will work (maybe at a slightly different power). Motors and some switchmode power supplies can be more sensitive to these modified sine wave inverters, with all the higher order harmonics they output. Layton

I where did he say that continual dosing is beneficial? Where did I say he was wrong? Layton

Umm no it doesn't. Lets say that conditions are moderately suitable for what ever bacteria is being added. So lets say they multiply every 12 hours (20 minutes in perfect conditions). For my tank I would add 6 drops of zeobak on day 1. End of day 1 Tank contains 24 equivalent drops of bacteria. Day 2 add another 6 drops. End of day 2 tank contains 120 equivalent drops of bacteria. Day 3 add another 6 drops. End of day 3 tank contains 504 equivalent drops of bacteria. Day 4 add another 6 drops. End of day 4 tank contains 2040 equivalent drops of bacteria. At this point if you had only dosed ONCE the tank would contain 1536 equivalent drops. Less than 12 hours discrepancy between these two numbers. Now there is always a limiting factor to growth. So if in fact these bacteria essential require the same nutrients, now what happens to the existing bacteria which were once using them? Well of course they die, polluting the tank. So what have you achieved? You've replaced one bacteria strain with another. Or you've substantially reduced the population of one strain, in order to support another. So if the bacteria are suited to the tank, they will multiply on their own to the equilibrium determined by available nutrients. If they are not suited then they will die. In either case, after a one off initial dose, what happens it is no longer up to you. Hence why I say that continual dosing is a waste of time. Added to the fact that more than likely at one point in time, the bacteria you are dosing in the form of zeobak, would have made it into your tank already, and if conditions were right, it would have colonised. Layton

I would be VERY careful if you are going to use phosphate remover with zeovit.

wasp, those valida's can be hard going trying to keep their colours, maybe the cultured ones will be a little more forgiving.

Prove or disprove it for yourself. And yes Kleypas is a mythical person I made up to prove the unproovable.

In the context of a reef tank? No.

I was talking about Fay's tank.

When I say something is wrong, I know it is wrong. BTW those two numbers were randomly generated by "Kleypas et al., 1999"

wasp, how can you expect any biological system to cope with a major increase in food. ALL systems will take time to adjust. Zeovit is not a magic chemical which immediately processes waste. Fay, I don't believe your problems are due to overfeeding. You feed less than me, and have a larger tank and more rock, I suggest that you don't adjust your feeding schedule as it could just compound your problem. If you have been feeding the same amount of food relatively constantly your tank will adjust. I am actually quite surprised that zeovit has not dropped your nitrates and phosphates. How old is the tank?

Did you know that transient changes in nitrate levels over reefs can be over 3000ppm in a matter of a day. Or 0.54ppm in phosphate?

If it was anything other than undetectable then i'd be asking why you are using NSW.

Indirectly maybe. Highly unlikely. When was the last time your tank had an ammonia spike? What are the temparary chemical shifts going on in our tanks? Have you heard of a biofilm? If this was the case, your tank would not be keeping much alive. Bacteria colonies would never stabilise, you would have all sorts of problems with ammonia nitrite nitrate and phosphate. What is becoming a monoculture? The most efficient bacteria to do the job will thrive, others will die for the simple fact that they are not good at their job. Constantly adding bacteria which YOU may want doesn't change that.

So in a matter of less than an hour you drop your phosphate and nitrate levels by 20% right? When was the last time you saw tissue recession due to a water change? BTW i'm quite capable of proving why this is wrong. But why take my word for it? Research and find for yourself, i've given you a vague start so that it should be easy to find the information you need to convince yourself why these things don't occur. Quite frankly Thomas Pohl is the last person you should have blind trust in. His livelihood depends on his product. I on the other hand have no financial interest in the product either way. Layton

After initial introduction of a new strain, the tank will determine whether it multiplies or is doomed to death. No matter how much more you add to the tank, it won't change the fact that if conditions are not right, it will not colonise. Layton

So wasp, where is your proof of the following? 1. Continual addition of bacteria to a cycled tank is benificial. 2. Rapid changes in nutrients (specifically nitrate and phosphate) cause tissue recession, or stress corals. I'd probably find it interesting reading. Layton

I'm not talking about whether there is bacteria in zeobak, or anything like that. Nor about other theories which may exist, including my own. I'm talking about korallen zucht's explainations of HOW the system works (not what's in it). The problems are: 1. Adding bacteria to a cycled tank. 2. Zeolites ion exchange properties in non-sterile salt water. 3. Explanations for tissue loss being put down to rapid decreases in nutrients. The problems are as fundamental as Darwin's research, which most people should have at least heard of, as well as logic. You still haven't answered my question. What is your water change routine? Layton

I'm not saying take my word for it. Because you shouldn't. But it seems strange to me that you would easily and happily take the manufacturers word. Even when fundamental errors are pointed out. I've given enough information for you to do you're own research and find out for yourself why it won't work as described. The errors are fundamental and only require a small amount of thought to see why some claims are rubbish. It's more valuable that you see and understand for yourself why, rather than me tell you every single little detail as to why. I've given some serious starting points, now it should be easy to connect the dots. Layton

Sorry. I don't know what the hell i'm talking about. I'm an idiot and i'll shut up now.

wasp, what is your water change routine?

Umm... I never claimed to know. I have said this all along. Like i said, I know what the mechanism AREN'T.

Darwin's research and observations can easily discount parts of the theory presented. As can pure logic. Also any reef in the world can prove one particular claim wrong on a daily basis. Layton

No. If my theory is incorrect then it is incorrect. It doesn't change the fact that the one presented by the manufacturer is wrong for many basic reasons. It is wrong, and always will be wrong, independent of whether mine is right or wrong.