lduncan

Some other sources of error can include: Water turbidity. Electrical noise within the measurement circuit. LNA instrument amplifiers take a bit of skill and money to build. Errors in calibration fluid accuracy. Most other error sources can be minimised by calibration. Layton

Nope, just the truth: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignorance Also, if you're going to quote me, don't take it out of context in order to dramatise it. I said: NOT As you both posted. Layton

Well I answered your question from above. All you could do is pass mine off as a "game of answer 20 silly questions", and said it was going nowhere. Turns out it was. Rather than just dismissing what I say, for the simple reason that your don't have enough knowledge in what your talking about (ignorance), you could actually listen, and think about was is said. Layton

Here's the answer: Those quotes exposed your ignorance of the difference between precision and accuracy to me. That's the reason why I was trying to explain the difference. But your lack of knowledge and blinkered attitude did not allow you to even consider the possibility that maybe there was something to what I was saying. Well someone independent has explained it. Hopefully you understood it. Layton

My thoughts too. If you're trying to run a tank low nutrients, adding and algae which requires high nutrients to grow effectively is not going to achieve much nutrient removal. Also algae often add other organic molecules to the water which you need to remove somehow. Layton

If you know how sediments work, (which you should because there is a significant amount of information about it). Then it should come as no surprise why there are some nice DSB tanks, with very colourful corals. But it will also not come as a surprise how many people run into "old tank syndrome" or go through numerous bouts of algae, and have problems with stn. Layton

Just goes to show what the sand did to the rocks! It's part of the idea behind BB. It doesn't hide anything from you. Would those same nutrients be there if there was sand in the tank? Yes. However they would be stored in the sand until such time as the sand bed was full, and the oxygen gradient crept closer to the surface, and started to leak nutrients. With BB you know those nutrients are not being exported immediately, and you choose whether you want to do anything about it or not. The BB Method is more than just removing sand from a tank. Layton

Looking through the Reefkeeping mag this month I found this: http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2005-12/nftt/index.php Something which those with Hanna meters should probably take note of. This was something which I was trying to explain to wasp a few days ago (it fell on deaf ears of course). Precision (Resolution) vs. Accuracy Layton

None at all?

I don't think you would want to do that! Us lucky ones in Christchurch can get away with using tap water, but it's probably the only place in the world where you can. You're better off using NSW that ASW mixed with Auckland tap water. Layton

Instant Ocean is meant to be quite good. I use it, or Red Sea. Red Sea can be a little low in alk and magnesium. Instant oceans pretty good out of the box from what i've used. Layton

Your telling me! :lol:

I checked the vials I performed the nitrate test in yesterday, none of them had developed any pink overnight. I also did another test this morning to make sure. Still undetectable. I really didn't expect to see much change for several weeks. I have noticed a small covering of micro algae on isolated areas of particular rocks in the last week. Probably a sign of denitrifying bacteria migrating phosphate to the surface of the rock, ie detritus production (rock shedding). It's mostly on a couple of newly introduced base rocks, but there is some on some older rocks at the back. Also noticed a lot of bubbles on the rocks, everywhere. I need some more streams I think, three more should do nicely. Now to find the money... Layton

Just like RC though, you gotta wade through the crap to find it.

I think mesocosm's biofilm threads are quite interesting too: http://zeovit.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4263 http://zeovit.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4230

Quite interesting, some cool pics in there. Here's what I got from it: There are differences in elemental concentrations in various parts of the coral during the day, as opposed to night: Graph A = seawater Graph B = extrathecal coelenteron Graph C = internal coelenteron They propose a mechanism (theory) for this, relating to the mucus coat. They suggest that the mucus coat acts as a dynamic semi-permiable membrane allowing selective ion traversal through it. They suggest that the mucus layer may in part control transport of particular ions to inter layers of the coral tissue. However from what I can see, they never took any measurements of the mucus layer (Did anyone see them anywhere? I may have missed them.). They cite two papers which show that mucus production decreases at night for some species of coral: Crossland, C. J. (1987). In situ release of mucus and DOC-lipid from the corals Acropora variabilis and Stylophora pistillata in different light regimes. Coral Reefs 6,35 -42. Crossland, C. J., Barnes, D. J. and Borowitzka, M. A. (1980). Diurnal lipid and mucus production in the staghorn coral Acropora acuminata. Mar. Biol. 60, 81-90. These means that any drawing any day/night relationship between the mucus coat and ion concentrations, is speculation based on unobserved behaviour at best. Having said that, the point of the paper was to show evidence of active transport (as opposed to passive diffusion) of elements to the inner layers of the coral. From the data, it looks like they succeeding in showing that. It also reiterates how little detail is really known about the detailed mechanisms of calcification in corals. Layton

Again you don't understand the values you are giving mean. And the values which occur in a reef actually are. You have absolutely no evidence or proof of this. Layton

You think that just because the corals are moved from the ocean to a glass box, the nutrient condition requirements they have evolved to live under changes? You have absolutely no proof, nor even evidence of this. It's pure rubbish. I dare you to find one reputable source which agrees with this. Photobarry of RC disagrees with you. They plunge RTN'ing corals from high nutrient tanks into low nutrient seawater flow though tanks to stop RTN in it's tracks. How is that consistent with what you say? Coral researchers disagree with you absolutely, yet you still stand by that statement? Layton

I used Pies tank, and Eric's tank, as examples of what phosphate loaded rock looks like, as a result of phosphate being absorbed from that stored in the sand bed. People can run their tanks as they please, but to say things happen one way, when there is irrefutable proof that they happen another is ludicrous, and it's common among some people on this forum. Again, I don't care how you want to run your tank, but if you spout something with isn't accurate, I'll correct it. Layton

How do you tell a coral is healthy from a photo? Remember the colourful photo of a large colourful table? That coral wasn't healthy, it was totally bleached out. It looked like it was healthy from the photo, however. I don't shoot people down, I shoot down statements which are just wrong. Blatantly wrong. I'm quite happy to show people my tank. Nor am I ashamed of it. I'm confident people wouldn't laugh at any photos i post. Your assuming my tank is in a bad state. It's not. Layton

What would be embarrassing is if you tried to substantiate your claims based on research and fact, rather than hearsay. For example, recently you said phosphate levels below 0.003 are dangerously low for SPS. I asked you where you got that number, considering many healthy reefs quite happily operate an order of magnitude lower than that (between 0.003 and 0.0003). You couldn't, or wouldn't answer. The reality is that you read something by someone, take it as gospel, without any thought that it may be incorrect. There is a bit of scientific naivety on your part, along with fundamental logic flaws in many of your arguments. You can't answer any questions I pose, either due to your inability to, or your prejudices prevent you from. You may actually learn something, if you weren't so blinkered in your thinking. Show me any piece of advice which I've give which will lead to "problems/failure"? Layton

:lol: Added one more stream at the same time as the UV. And new halide bulbs just over a week ago. Layton

A couple of reasons; 1. I have to remember to take the camera with me in the mornings, as I am not living where the tank is due to renovations. 2. It's not up to my standards at the moment. Apparently I have high standards (so i've been told). I'd say it's in an "average" state at the moment. When i'm reasonably happy with it, i'll have some updates. 3. People seem to take photos of proof of various things. There are not, all they show is how nice a tank is, nothing more, nothing less. I get the feeling that somehow, people are going to take all the information i've given and make a judgement as to whether it is correct or not based on a photo. Which you clearly can not do. If you're coming to Christchurch any time soon, you're more than welcome to visit. Back on topic Just measured nitrate on the way home. It's two weeks to the day that I added the UV, and to my surprise the nitrate has shown up as undetectable. There is just a very faint blue/gray colour from reagent 2. No pink tinge that I can see at all. I did 3 test, in three different vials to make sure it was correct. They were all consistent. The real test will be to see if any colour develops overnight, as the cadmium reduction method used is time sensitive in the colour it develops. Judging by the detritus production from the rocks, and the skimmate since the UV was added, denitrification has clearly kicked into overdrive. Although I didn't expect to see such a rapid change. Layton

Still haven't answered any of my questions either? Why not?

I do. Hanna do. By what you've posted here, you don't.