lduncan

Care to quantify those probabilities and likelihoods? You have overflow grates, and standpipe covers to prevent things large enough to cause blockage entering the overflow in the first place. In reality you're no worse off, or safer with a durso as opposed to a full siphon system. How often do overflows become blocked resulting in flooding? FUD = Fear Uncertainty and Doubt. It looked like you were suggesting that a full siphon system was more trouble than a durso, and that people don't use full siphons because they are not "tried and tested" like durso's, and that's the reason that 95% of people use them. The reason people have trouble with durso's is because they don't fully solve the problem they are intended to. It's a fundamentally flawed design. People have different perceptions on what quiet is, so though it may be adequate solution to some people, for others it's not. In my opinion durso's are a waste of time. They cost more, due to all the plumbing parts you need, they take longer to assemble, and you have to play around drilling holes, fine tuning air values to get just the right amount of air flow etc. Also, in practice don't provide any significant increase in safety over a full siphon system, which are inexpensive, and quick to construct and "tune", while being self adjusting to variations in pump output. Layton

Well it depend how much margin for pump variation you want to build in. Personally I've never seen the level move more that a few cm either way. The height of the standpipe will depend on how much volume your return puts out, which will determine how high above the top of the stand pipe, the weir water level will have to be. So you'll need to experiment a bit with the height of the stand pipe to get a trade off between not having the water drop over the weir causing too much noise, and not having enough margin for variation in pump output, and room to create a full siphon, etc. I'm sure you could calculate some rough numbers to work out an estimate of the ideal stand pipe height, but my brain's in no state to go through that physics at the moment. ;-) Layton

Yip, sounds like you got the idea. Just a normal ball valve (just used to change the effective cross-sectional area of the pipe) Why would your return pump output vary? Well because the power transmission system doesn't provide 240 Volts at 50 Hz. It provides something in that general region, pump output can drop over a period on months from debris and calcium buildup, heat can change output. It is not usually a significant change, but enough to cause an annoyance. Layton

It's effectively a full siphon. But it is a hacked together retrofit from several years ago. I'd go for a standard weir overflow with a pipe within it sticking straight up , then have a valve on the end of this. You tune the valve once so that the water level within the weir is a couple of cm above the level which causes air to be sucked in (IE create a full siphon in the stand pipe, then turn the value to raise the water level in the weir a few cm above this level). This then means as your return pump output varies, (either higher or lower) the head height in the weir varies, meaning that the output flow rate from the stand pipe increases and decreases in proportion. And there you have it a auto regulating system, which runs silently due to no air entering the overflow (air and water in overflow = noise). Layton

That's just spreading FUD. The Durso was designed to be quiet right? In my view (and obviously other peoples) it fails. Full syphons are tried and true, self regulating, and run more quiet than Dursos. They are also no more prone to "disaster" than Durso's. Layton

I was thinking the same thing. Why bother, a new tank isn't that expensive, and you'll know the glass is at it's best from the get go.

Very impressive tank. Looks like a mini Oregon reef!

Randy's article which wasp posted ( http://www.reefkeeping.com/issues/2003- ... /index.php ) is pretty good. It explains what it is, and suggestions for interpreting the numbers you get. The big use for it is if your running ozone, to keep from OD. That's probably the only situation i'd bother using it for. On thing to note when the say "reducing organics", they are referring to reduction in a chemical sense (ie the molecules are gaining electrons), not in the physical sense of removing pollutants from the tank.

Graduating, dining, and drinking The biggest ones I ever saw were 2 to 3mm long, the eggs are much smaller, so I guess they could range in size from that of the egg up to a least 3mm Layton

Still got them. I just end up taking all my monti's out of the tank every month or so, and check them underneath and blast any eggs and nudi's with saltwater to get rid of them, and keep their numbers down. They always seem to come back. I've tried freshwater dips (which monti's REALLY don't like), light copper dips, iodine dips. The monthly removal seems to keep them from totally over running and killing the corals they are on however. Lucky most monti's grow so quickly. Layton

It'd be nice to be able to put it in for just a minute or two and have it done with, rather than having to leave it overnight. Also for dissolving the coralline buildup on the inside of the skimmer, hydrochloric acid would be preferable, because then i wouldn't have to worry about draining the whole skimmer. I could just pour in the hydrochloric acid let it do it's thing, then turn the water to is back on. No draining, and no worrying about polluting the tank with large amounts of acetate. Obviously not so much of a problem on smaller skimmers, but draining and cleaning the insides of larger ones can be time consuming and messy, anything which makes it's less work, means it'll get cleaned more often

White is less messy. Leave it long enough to disolve the white calcium deposits, you see when it has dissolved because it will be back to the normal dark grey colour. Ideally i'd use hydrochloric acid, but vinegars easier to get hold of.

Drop the attitude wasp. It's not an attractive trait, and ruins thread. Layton

:roll: I said increased growth isn't always a reliable way of determining coral health. You said Then I posted info from the EPA showing that to them the current information around growth rates under stress is too inconclusive to use as a bioindicator in their framework for monitoring reef health. So in fact it shows that my comment was not ludicrous like you suggested. (Also you shouldn't bandy the word "proof" around like you do. If your looking for true scientific proof then you will be sorely disappointed in this hobby. Often the best you will do is finding significant amounts of evidence.) Layton

Oh god. Taken so far out of contex they are misleading. Something you do commonly. Please stop it. If you are going to quote me, do it responsibly, in context, without cutting sentences in half, and without changing the meaning of what's said. As far as not being neutral. I am. I look at all the observation, not just the ones which are convenient or desirable. It's part of being truly objective. It's these particular observations ie, the not so common or desirable ones where you can get the most information on the true nature of what's going on. So back to zeospur 2, any comments on this? After reading this, the general idea behind how the product works seems obvious. Anyone want to state the obvious? Layton

Well higher temperature increases bacteria metabolism (up to a point obviously) which will speed reproduction and therefore the "purging" rate. Layton

Nope pure speculation

Well see where your seio is in several years, I know my streams will still be going strong.

Done properly the cooking process (which is nothing more than a specific method of cycling rock), will result in rock which will not go through the algae stages which people call the "normal progression of algae", when added to the tank. So basically keep the rock in clean water in the dark for a few months (depending on temperature, how clean you keep the surrounding water, and how clogged with crap the rock is), until the amount of detritus produced is minimal. You're letting the bacteria purge the rock of the algae fuel before you add light. If you put it in your tank and you get an algae outbreak, it wasn't finished cooking (cycling) properly. Layton

Puttputt is spot on. More than likely it is a build up of calcium on the shaft and the back bearing. A good soaking in vinegar will clear it up. I've had to do this a couple of times on different streams over the last few years. Just take the from guard off, and pull the impeller out. At the end of it you'll probably see some white deposits dissolve them off any it should be back to normal. Sometimes the back bearing doesn't come out too easily, so if you put some vinegar in the shaft hole you should clean up the bearing as well. Layton

Basically what that passage was looking at was the process of eutrophication (a topic which is extremely pertinent to almost all closed system like aquaria). Basically, in this context, eutrophication is the process which puts coral reefs under increasing stress, and eventually leads to the death of corals. So what they are saying in there is that during the beginning stages of eutrophication, ie early stages nutrient enrichment, corresponding to coral stress (and declining health) growth rates in some corals can increase. Where as other studies have shown that there is no change in growth rates in some corals under stress from massive fracturing, where other significant coral mortality had occurred. And still other studies have shown that decreases in growth rates have occurred in some corals under stress from siltation. This was assembled by the Evironmental Protection Agency in the States as an investigation into creating a formal framework of bioindicators for monitoring reef health. Their summary is below: So basically they say that it is too inconclusive to use as an accurate bioindicator of health. Layton

Well i've presented observations which are accurate have I not? And then asked pertinent questions about those observations have I not? Maybe it shows that looking objectively at the observations it calls into question the integrity of the product in YOUR mind. Actually I'm saying that you should take something you hear from the friend of a manufacturer with a large grain of salt. In Law it's referred to as hearsay. You and Cookie have said that they withhold information in order to protect their revenue, why would you expect them to give information when people ask, its the same principle is it not? What's MORE reliable is the direct observations from several independent users. And that this should be factored in to your thinking. Why don't you think they are genuine? Attacking the product? How have I done that. All I've done is taken observations and asked questions about them, to get people thinking. You have been off in all sorts of other tangents for whatever reason. Layton

You still don't get it wasp. I don't think i'm ever going to be told what is in the product. That's not what i'm trying to do here. See my last post re proof. I'm not trying to prove anything. Discussing how a product may work does not have to involve proof. Was the intent of the thread to discuss the product? If so, that's what i've been doing. Layton

Incorrect. First, I like to know what I'm to the tank (my personal philosophy, other people don't care, that's their prerogative). That's not what i'm discussing here however. Second the intent of the questions is to get people thinking what the product does and how it does what it does based on reported observations. If that "winds people up", that not my intent nor is it my fault, as these are purely based on observed behaviour of the product, nothing more. Layton

I'm not interested in any of this. If you want to continue to degrade the thread, that's your decision. I'm interested in the products effects, and possible reasons for it. It certainly isn't proof, infact it's not even evidence that it doesn't act as a fertiliser. Your choice is to to look at the evidence and observations available, and ask whether the description of fertiliser fits it, or alternatively take the word of people who are in discussion with the manufacturer. Going buy their staunch stance on not releasing information on what their products contain, do you expect them to confirm such a question. Like people have said it could jeopardise their revenue. Which is why you really have to focus on what the product does, and go from their. So I'll rephrase the question. Is there any way you could completely rule out fertilisation as a possible mechanism for this product, based on the observations of users? If so, what is this evidence? You know everything around the workings of zeovit is unproven. Even much of the stuff posted on zeovit.com. It likely will not be proven, as there is little incentive, other than personal interest for it to be, it requires significant resources to do such a thing. That is why there are simply discussions on possible mechanisms. So instead of throwing the word proof around, focus on validity of hypothesis and theory, based on known information, and observations. Proving something scientifically is not a trivial task, and many peoples idea of proof would not stand up to rigourous scientific scrutiny. Moving to to growth. Based on current research it is not always a reliable bioindicator of health. I've posted why I said this before, but here is more: In short, based on current knowledge, using growth to indicate coral health is about as valid as using polyp extension as a indicator of happiness. ie, it's not possible. Layton