lduncan

It's posts like that which drag the whole tone of these threads down. Just incase you missed it the first time: And in case you missed the meaning of the original question, it was "What do THEY say is in it." They give you a vague description of what makes up zeofood: But all i can see for zeospur is: I was wondering if they had a similar description (albeit non specific) of what's in zeospur somewhere, like the do for zeofood. So just to clear that up once and for all. I'm not focussed on them not giving a "recipe" as you put it. I'm interested in the product, it's effect, and the possible mechanisms behind it's effect. So now that we are hopefully on the same page, these are the questions i've asked directly of you, which you haven't answered. Why do you think it's not acting like a fertiliser? Why is saying better growth is not always a sign of health ludicrous? This has been discussed before, so either it slipped your mind, you weren't paying attention, or you think I'm just making it up. Layton

What makes you say that? I don't see how you can say it's not if you don't know what it is. Do you have any reason to suspect it's not? The effects of it sure seem similar to me. Honestly i think it is one of the easier ones to figure out. I don't dispute that. I'm more interested in HOW it does this rather than ignoring that part and repeating WHAT it does. Is it ludicrous? Why? Better growth is not ALWAYS a sign of good health. I don't know why you're focussed on this. I'm not expecting or trying to get an answer from him. Send me a bottle down and I could get a more reliable answer in a week or two. All i'm doing is noting peoples observations when they use this product, and speculating on what it's doing based on that. So what are you getting at. Should we just not bother at all? So much for advancing the hobby. I'm not interested in any of this. Just the observations of people who use the product, and potential mechanisms behind what it does. Layton

Dinoflangellates is a better description. Depending on what local resources are available, the symbiosis can provide significantly different conditions to that in the general water column. Also the symbiots can have different demands than the typical problem algaes, as some are heterotrophs. I'm thinking more inorganic than that, more fertiliser. Layton

What's defined as healthy? Well that's a difficult question. Much easier to spot what is not healthy. Oviously bleeching (although bleeching is not a descrete thing) and tissue recession are signs or poor health. What can be confusing is that sometimes vivid colouration can come from bleeching: There is also research floating around that suggests that corals growth can be independent of health. And of course polyp extension is a function of many variables so that can not be used to indicate coral health either. So there are few conclusive easy to use methods for knowing how healthy a coral is. However there are obvious clues shown when a coral is not healthy. What's the purpose of pigment production in corals? Well it's pretty wide ranging. Some are photoprotective, others are from symbiots and their contents like chlorophyll etc. Colour can come from more than just pigmentation. Colours of some corals can come from exotic methods such as the alignment and spacing of symbiots within the tissue producing a diffraction grating like effect resulting in the filtering of specific wavelengths of light. Fe2+ is one thing I would guess along with one other similar element. Layton

I would be VERY surprised if it had many similarities with glass cleaner (maybe one insignificant one), nor do I think it dye's corals, that was just an example. The fact that not all corals respond the same way also points to the product directly effecting the symbiots rather than the coral itself. Of course by effecting symboits you are eventually going to effect the coral itself. So what would cause drastic changes to symbiots in such a short period time? Layton

If you're observant I use a combination of guided questioning, along with straight answers to those who ask a specific question. I asked a specific question above, will you answer it? Layton

Can't you answer that question?

What are you on about?

Who are these people? I haven't come across any. This seems to be the standard assumption when people have problems with these products. More often than not people are following directions just fine. Layton

So were you ever concerned with the health of your corals after using this product?

Ok so asking what's in it is too much (even a vague "marketing" contents would be interesting). What mechanism is it using to achieve what it does? When you see reports like: Surely you have to question what it's doing to achieve this? And the colour of the zeospur product itself really intrigues me. I'm confident I could guess some of the contents in it, based on it's colour and comments made by Pohl in the past. I'm not trying to prove anything here, but peoples reports surely make you wonder what's happening when you put this stuff in your tank, and how it's doing what it does. (Also I meant dyeing above not dying) Layton

Just because it works doesn't mean it's either safe, or healthy. Obviously some people don't care whether it is or not, as long as it turns brown corals colourful, regardless. As we all know bleaching can result in colourful corals, but it's not healthy. Dying corals can also result in colourful corals, but it's not healthy. Fertilising coral symbiots can also result in colourful corals, but it's not always healthy. What do they say is in this stuff? Layton

Looks like a combined conductivity and tds meter. Conductivity (relates to salinity) is measured in mS (milli Seimens) PPT is parts per thousand and would correspond to a tds reading. By the looks of it the "mode" button would be used to select what type of measurement you want; conductivity (in mS) or TDS (in PPT) I can't read what the other button says though. Layton

It makes you wonder what you're adding to the tank, when it results in such a sever reaction from corals and their symbiots. Which in turn begs the question of how healthy is this product is for corals? Zeospur 2 itself sports a very interesting colour. One which I would be wary of adding to my tank, without further investigation. Layton

Absolutely, you'd have to be crazy not to run tank stuff on RCD's

No need to get all defensive. The last thread was not attacking Hanna like you suggest, it was providing the facts about what the limitations of the meter are, and how accurate they are. You see it as an attack, but it's reality nothing more. And I haven't attacked zeovit. Just discussed and asked questions about what I see, and what I and other people have experienced while using the system, combined with known facts about it. You see it as an attack because some observations are inconsistent with "marketing" information provided by the manufacturer. You don't seem to take a very objective view of some things. Especially when I post about them. As evidenced by the chemistry thread, and now in this thread: Layton

Well it's not going to harm anything or cause problems, if that's what you want to know. Layton

You don't need to use it whether you have UV or not. What UV does is take big carbon based molecules which are already in your tank, and convert them to smaller ones (similar to what's in vodka) which are used more efficiently by bacteria, which are then removed by skimming.

Hard to say. They have been improving for months before adding UV so don't know. What I can definitely say is that it dropped my nitrates from 5 to undetectable after a couple of weeks (exactly like the research says by promoting denitrifying bacteria populations), and the tank became even more clean looking than it was before. Makes things a little lower maintenance too... Well it did, until I got the massive triggers, the skimmer can't really keep up now. So I end up doing more siphoning. From the other thread, another of the main benefits is that you don't have to use carbon.

Well UV takes large nutrients in the tank an converts it to small nutrients. ethanol (what's in vodka) is small nutrient. So the choice is to add additional small nutrient in the form of vodka. Or reuse existing large nutrients (which are harder for bacteria to use) by breaking them into small nutrient using UV. Layton

That's according to their marketing manual. Read some research and you'll find the truth is quite different. :roll: You are absolutely unbelievable. Do you think my UV works differently to every other UV unit ever made? Layton

Many possible reasons. Depends whether it is cause by: partial equipment failure, or a design flaw in the equipment. Also depends on your situation, whether or how well you are grounded when you have your hands in the tank. I get shocked when I work on the tank with bare feet on concrete floor, but not when I have shoes on, or when I'm standing on a plastic stool. The current need a return path, the better the return path, the more current flows, and the more of a "tingle" you get. Layton

Yip, but the point was that current doesn't stunt the growth of corals, as someone suggested. I'm not saying that this leakage current is good, because it definitely is not. But there isn't much you can do about capacitive coupling, when that's the source, of these tingles. Layton

UV doesn't harm anything in the tank that you want to keep. What I meant befor was that for some types of tank, it may not be as useful, as some animals are more tolerant of high nutrient environments. In these cases you might not see the benefits like you would keeping far less tolerant animals like acros etc. Layton

Here some info: http://www.globalcoral.org/Reef%20Resto ... roject.htm http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/pipermail/co ... 01787.html http://www.reefhq.com.au/bts/electro.html Layton