lduncan

Depends on your requirements. They can vary significantly from person to person.

I don't know why people react the way they do to these discussions. It's about knowing how things work, that's it. Saying things like "all these methods work" is pointless. Of course they all "work", but they all work differently, and most if not all have pitfalls. Knowing a bit about how these methods work, allows you to understand more of what goes on in the tank, and either avoid the pitfalls, or ignore them at your risk. Layton

Don't know exactly but over $70. More expensive than a hydrometer. But less expensive than replacing a hydrometer 3 times because you break it. Plus it's far more accurate and easy to use.

I'd hate to see the day when you find out what zeolites are comprised of then. There's more aluminium in there than you can shake a stick at.

Don't bother with a hydrometer, get a refractometer. They are more accurate, and you don't end up having to replace them every month like you do with hydrometers when you break them. Make sure it's one with ATC (automatic temperature compensation).

There is a bit more to a PhD than that. But what your saying is true, even experts can be wrong, they don't know everything about anything, that's why I said: "you should always check information, no matter where or who you get it from. He encourages people to do that."

How about a guy with a PhD in Marine Biology, a second PhD in Marine Pathobiology, who's job it is to research Caribbean reef health, and has more years experience in the hobby than almost everyone on this board put together? Sounds like that guy should be an expert. But you should always check information, no matter where or who you get it from. He encourages people to do that. Wasp sees that as him not knowing his facts. I see it as him teaching people. Layton

I didn't say you said I was an "expert". It was just a statement.

I don't see myself as an expert. I'm interesting in building things and knowing how they work, which is why i've ended up in engineering. So I think I have quite a broad knowledge of many aspects of applied science. Most of the stuff I've learned hasn't been from a teacher or lecture. I've wondered how or why something worked, and then been motivated to find out and teach myself. I think you'll find that Bomber knows exactly what he's on about, especially with regard to those "hint" arguments on RC about certain products. If only you do a little looking. Took me a few months to piece it all together but you learn a lot of interesting stuff on the way. Take a look at where he works and what he does. Then take a look at the Caribbean reefs, and some of the events that happen in that area. Then ask yourself, is this guy just dropping hints because he doesn't know what he's on about? I don't think so. And then when you do a bit of searching and piece it all together, you'll realise that maybe he does know what he's on about. Layton

Your always going to have phosphorous bound to carbonate in your tank, it happens on you rock it happens on the sand. The thing is not to store it in such a way that it can be released to cause problems. If I was to have sand in my tank (which i will on my next one), i'd be setting up the flow under the rocks to minimise collection under them, and then be vacuuming the sand at least weekly. To stop the real problem of oxygen gradients shifting.

I think some people will believe anything an "expert" tells them. They don't even ask themselves, "does this make sense?" half the time. Maybe because they are too lazy to think and find information themselves. Layton

:lol: You mean the same Dr Ron who charges US$175 to tell you how to run a DSB. The same one who sell books on how to operate a DSB. The one who said only a few years ago that running a DSB is as easy of falling off a log? I think he has too much of a commercial interest in DSB's to be worth taking too much time to read. As with anything, be sceptical of what you read, and your sources. People get pissed off with Bomber because he's reluctant to just come out and spoon feed them with information. He throws hints so people can find the information themselves, and become better at learning. I think his opinion is "why should anyone believe what I say over anyone else?". If you've got hundreds of different people from all different parts of the world saying the same thing, then it's more likely that it's right. Layton

It's not an "anti-DSB thing going on". It's a "know how DSB's work" thing. If you know how DSB's work, then you'll know that they are great at reducing nitrate. But you'll also know that they are required to store phosphate in order to reduce nitrate. You'll also know that the same processes which allow them to reduce nitrate, is the one which results in the cycling of nutrients. I've used a DSB myself. In a remote form, to reduce nitrate, the thing is you've got to try an guess when it is full, then dump it before it starts its first release cycle. And it's a pure guess, the only way you truly know if it is full is when it starts causing problems. Speaking of reading, here's what over 200 different scientist's observe, there are over 600 references there. Plenty of reading. http://reefcentral.com/forums/showthrea ... t=Journals Sand beds drive ocean nutrient cycles, they release metals and phosphorous, which give life to phyto which is consumed by zooplankton and washed onto reefs and feeds fish and animals, and then when fish and animals die, the phosphorous is returned to the sediments where it is stored until the next cycle of nutrient release. Sediment flux is often the source of red tides, the Florida blackwater events, and algae blooms. It's just what they do. Layton

If you think about this, it's kind of backwards. You want a low nutrient tank I presume, so you hook up a refugium, which requires high nutrients to grow the things which you think remove nutrients, like macro algaes. You also want the refugium to grow pods and zooplankton for your tank, which again requires high nutrient condition. You want to plumb a tank which requires high nutrient to work, in line with your display which requires low nutrients to look good and survive? It doesn't make sense to me.

Well all that means is that you have the dsb in the refugium cycling nutrients. Kinda defeats the purpose a little. What do you use the refugium for?

The thread isn't about zeovit. It's about a hair algae problem. I don't think it it really related to zeovit use. Not the root cause anyway. Layton

UV isn't a replacement for rodi, it doesn't attack inorganic ions like nitrate phosphate and metals. UV is used to break carbon double bonds ( c=c ) in large organic molecules, this can make them easier to skim. It also kills bacteria.

Well that just went right over your head. I'm saying all DSB's work the same way. It's they way hundreds of scientist have observed and studied them. It's the way which is consistent with hobbyist observation. The thing is not that they don't work at all. It's how they work and the processes which are going on. The fact is is that the processes going on in the sand bed can cause algae problems, and can cause death of sps corals. The fact that your rock is covered in high nutrient algae (from the photos i've seen) is evidence that your sand bed is working, cycling nutrients, just like hundreds of scientists have written. Sand beds work by cycling nutrients and this can lead to algae problems which appear to be independent of water parameters. It can lead to tissue necrosis from the base in SPS through boring algaes, it provides food sources for flatworms and other undesirable critters. Just like they do in nature. Layton

So why do you use phosphorous remover if your skimmer deals to it? It's hard to skim orthophosphate. I disagree there. Sure they will work fine for a while, but eventually you get phosphorous absorbed up into the rock from the sand bed, creating algae on the rock. The phosphorous is absorbed into coral skeletons where boring algae can attack and kill corals from the inside out, resulting in TN from the base. Phosphorous kills SPS type corals. DSB's are fine in tanks where the inhabitants can tolerate cycling of nutrients. Most SPS don't like it. Soft corals aren't as picky. Layton

No, your rock is the perfect candadite. What I mean is, is that the shedding will be in full swing once the algae has disappeared, and the bacterial is the only process pushing the phosphorous out. The rock will not shed as much while there is algae on it, because the algae is using that phosphorous. That's why rock cooking should be done in total darkness, the algae can't survive, and the bacterial is the only process. It's not a fast process. It takes a long time, several months. Layton

Sound like little feather dusters.

Why would you want to do that?

Because rock creates an oxygen gradient which supports both nitrifying and denitrifying bacteria. So the aim is to do the nitrifying and denitrifying in close proximity to minimise the free nitrate in the tank. Sponges generally don't create the required gradient, because they are usually placed in high flow, high oxygen environments so can only support nitrifying bacteria. Layton

He's just winding.

Yeah, you don't even have to hit them to make them start. They just do it all by themselves. Not very flexible really.