wasp

Yes, that's why I put in a 6 line, just incase they eat those pesky nudis should I get any. An insurance policy. Course, the evidence for this is only "anecdotal" :lol:

Let's see if I can step you through this. To start, your argument is based on the truth of this statement, is it not? Your argument would in fact fall over should this statement be untrue? Don't bother with 10 pages of fudge, simple yes/no will suffice, so we can move on.

I'll bet you don't. :lol: Also, saying "Now your getting sucked in by the complexities of sand storage and release" is untrue, I kept it very simple for you. I ignored the complexities of it totally, knowing the problems you have had arguing over this in the past. You do know what anecdotal eveidence is? It's people saying stuff from their experience. In this case, in reference to the benefits of more water volume. If you have a look you'll find it all over this forum. You'll also find it all over most other forums. "where is it?" Not sure why you would have to ask me that :lol: Also, odd you said this, it completely contradicts what you said earlier.

If by "it", you mean what I just said in my last post, it does. You yourself said Now you are saying this would not change the end result? Then my little story would have to be true! I knew that all the time

It is somewhat dependant. It is not a direct 1 for 1 correlation. To illustrate, a fish poo, dropping into the sand, lands there, regardless of crud concentration in the water column. You have not, and will not, be able to prove a direct 1 for 1 correlation. Why? Because there isn't one. Unfortunately, the whole of the rest of your argument hinges on that. Your argument is therefore unproven. Both in theory, and although this is unrelated to your theoretical argument, practical anecdotal experience will also be at variance with your argument. Sorry dude, Big IS More :lol: :lol:

And take your money :lol: Oh dear. Someone did not like my story :lol: Just gently Layton, you misunderstood again. All upset because sand changes everything? No. I said you have to consider all variables, I have used sand in this model to illustrate that. Sand vacuuming is one of the variables. Now it is you saying you are not completely happy with the sand model :lol: Wonder why that would be? thought your model included everything

:lol: :lol: Actually, I like my little story, I believe I have discovered a hidden talent and that I should publish a book. It will be called "Wasps Hardcore Bedtime Stories for Children of All Ages" Happy endings gauranteed!

Yes, you are just about right. I will build you a model to help simplify it. The model is "Joes tank". Joes tank is very simple, so I can eliminate unnessecary debate over things that don't matter. It is a 100 litre tank, in which Joe keeps a few fish, the tank has been running several years and is stable. Joe does not have a skimmer, this is so we do not have to haggle over things such as skimmer efficiency. Instead, he exports some DOC's (henceforth called "crud"), by having chemical media in a cannister with forced flow. He also vacuums the sand each month, which removes 2/3rds of the crud in it each time. He does not believe in water changes though, he lets the crud settle and tips the water back in. Joe is no scientist but over the years he has found the right amount of chemical media, to absorb all excess crud, and keep the tank as clean as he needs. He changes the media every 2nd month. The tank does actually contain some crud, in fact, in the water colum are 4 grams of crud. However Joe is happy with that, it is not enough to cause any problems. He has no liverock, just sand. This is to eliminate any side arguments over liverock. So Joe has, by trial and error, as most of us do, or at least try to do, achieved a balanced tank. With his sand vacuuming, plus experimenting with how often to change the chemical media, he has got his export to equal his import, there is no slow accumulation of nutrients, it is balanced. Things are not getting any better, but nor are they getting any worse. In other words he has found the sweet spot to maintain a steady level of 4 grams of crud in his 100 litres of water, or in other words, 1 gram to 25 litres. To break this down further, Joes feeding of the fish, adds the equivalent of 3 grams of crud per month. As there is no liverock, any crud created, ends up, one way or another, in the sand. However, when he vacuums the sand, this removes 2 grams of crud, and the forced flow cannister of chemical media removes 1 gram of crud each month. A total of 3 grams of crud in each month, 3 grams of crud out each month. Which leaves a total of the steady 4 grams of crud in the water column. Joe is happy, except for one little annoyance. There is a very slight tinge of algae on the glass, because there is just enough crud to help it grow. Not much, but the algae can just get enough crud to survive on. Joe decides to experiment with extra water volume. he gets another 100 litre tank and connects it to his tank as a refugium, thereby doubling the water volume to 200 litres total. He does not want to change anything else, just double the water volume. He adds no sand, liverock, or anything else, and he puts high flow in the refugium so that no crud can settle in there, it all ends up, one way or another, back in his sand bed, except for what is removed by his chemical media. So when he vacuums his sand, he finds that the amount of crud that comes out is the same as it was before, 2 grams a month, because it is not affected by the extra water volume. The chemical media in the cannister is still removing another one gram of crud each month, the forced flow ensures that it does. So the tank remains balanced, 3 grams of crud a month in, 3 grams of crud a month out, and 4 grams of crud in the water column. But Joe now notices his algae die. Why? Because the 4 grams of crud in the water column are now spread across 200 litres of water, or 1 gram to 50 litres, not the 1 gram to 25 litres that existed before. So the extra water volume has diluted the crud to the point the algae cannot now extract enough to survive. Joe now sits back in his couch, knocks the top off his stubby, and takes a swig. Glancing contendedly at his tank, he sighs, and thinks "Thankyou extra water volume. Dilution is the solution to pollution. Big IS More!!" :lol: :lol: :lol:

I'll have a look at them when i come over. Some of those might be just what my tank needs to have a few more mid swimming type fish.

What you're doing, and wait . Others may have some good ideas also.

Never knew anyone called Trinity before, male or female. Perhaps I have lived a sheltered life :lol: .

You may not need to cycle, however sometimes just moving the rock etc. may cause a slight spike, best plan will be to set the tank up & monitor for a week or so, if all is sweet, your done, provided you build up livestock slowly. Manderins are described as picky eaters because the majority of them will only eat live food. This can be supplied in a reef tank in the form of little bug type things called "pods", that live and breed in most tanks. You get them with your liverock. Problem being you have to have a big enough population of them to sustain the manderin, this depends on how much nutrients are in the tank for the pods to eat, and what else you have that may eat the pods.

Yes those blue eyed cardinals are cute! How big do they get?

just keeps getting better!

Thanks for sharing Puttputt. There has been debate about biological control of flatworms. From what you have said it is obvious there must be something in the tank eating them, wether the 6 line, or whatever. Good info. I have also observed my 6 line eating them.

Just checked your pics Trinity, didn't realise you were female! I like the green anemone with purple tips, and maroon clown, that will be a real feature.

Good point, for me anyway I just keep the easy stuff and the cheap stuff. Looks just as good and nobody can tell except other reefers. Keeping difficult stuff is tempting but can lead to sad endings, both in the tank, and the wallet!

And that it looks like you coulda done it yourself for a grand or so :lol:

That's where you're wrong. Check this - Isn't that what I've just run you through? You still don't get it? It's so simple it's hard for me to think how else to get it through. Let's try it this way. You want me to think about the processes going on, and you ask if water volume will effect them. My answer is, some processes will be effected, some not. So, let's choose one of the processes and look at it. We'll take sand vacuuming. Does simply adding more water change this? No. So - We have the same amount of crud being removed as before, and the same amount of crud being left as before. BUT - The leachate from the crud is now being diluted by double the water volume. Is there anything not logical? Is there anything I missed? No, right? Penny dropped?

Yes as I suspected, you have misunderstood, as usual, I suspect deliberately. In the first instance, I am referring to removal of waste from sand by vacuuming, which will be unnaffected by adding more water volume. In the second instance, or what you rather stupidly refer to as "the next breath", I say that "depending on the processes involved, it may, or it may not, be the same". This was not "the next breath", let's at least be honest Layton. It was actually the answer to a different question, not about sand vacuuming. Trying to string stuff I said together & make it look like I said something else, is merely showing your desperation at having lost the argument. Anyhow, "depending on the processes involved" means exactly that. It depends on the processes involved. The process may for example, be skimming, it may be dentrification, it may be vacuuming, whatever. Some of these processes are affected by water volume, some are not. If you are still confused, read it slowly and think about it. it is all completely logical. May pay also for you to go back over the thread and have a look at what was actually said, so you will no longer be confused about what was the answer to what question, on what subject. Your question is poorly worded i am still not 100% sure what you are talking about. But if it is what i THINK you mean, see above And Oh, Big IS Good

No as usual you will have misunderstood. Please show me which sentence you refer to and I will clarify for you, if this will help. Don't know what you are talking about. Cause what to change?

But you keep coming back anyway Seem to have plenty of time for argument, just none to disprove my point. Just done it :roll: It isn't. I've told you that heaps, perhaps read it slowly. "Removal of waste from sand is not affected by water volume". No. I'm saying that depending on the processes involved, it may, or it may not.

Oh. Thought you didn't have time :lol: :lol: "Think about it more". Very non specific Layton. A total cop out when you have nothing concrete to say. Reminds me of the Co2/pH debate, when even after Randy Holmes Farley told you you were wrong, you kept arguing anyway. :roll:

I've heard that one before too, once you realised you were incorrect but won't admit it. Seems some people would rather say anything than admit they're wrong! :lol: