wasp

Truth is, you got so upset because my post which showed where your argument falls over, made perfect sense. Here it is again, please explain where it does not make sense :lol: Layton, I know it must be hard, being surrounded by idiots, but always loosing your arguments to them :lol: But I'm really not trying to beat you to a pulp, just explaining things logically. Just see it, as you have done in the past, as learning.

Exactly right Layton, that's what I just did. Now if you can think the same thing, you may be able to understand. Perhaps read my last post again, slowly. Seen you say that before once you know your wooped.

I think I just heard the penny drop. It doesn't. Vacuuming the sand will remove exactly the same amount of crud, even if you double the water volume. Therefore you have the same crud being removed, but twice the water volume to dilute the rest. Starting to see what happens in a real tank now?

Dickheads. Been through similar several times, the most frustrating part is not knowing who it was so you can get your hands on them.

Very good point, and one that has been a worry to me also in the past. But once the snails are there anyway there is not much can be done, I've had them die & it does not seem to have a huge effect. The only particularly gross thing that did happen to me once, was when the room started to get a nasty smell, and for several months I just could not find it. Then I checked this grate that was in the overflow, and there was at least 100 dead snails on it. Seems once they got in there they could not figure how to get out & would die. They smelled so bad that after I dug them all out it took some serious washing top get the smell off my hand :oops:

So where is vacuuming of sand in your model? It is not there. Is it. You are the one who is confused.

:lol:

Exactly what I've found, my own snail population goes up & down depending on food supply.

In order to get a correct end result, the variables may not have to be seperated. But, you do have to actually have them in the model. Wether seperated or not may not be so important, but if they are missing altogether will likely have an impact. That's the bit that keeps going over your head. For example, you do not include in your model any allowance for the fact that nitrate is primarily exported from the tank by means other than the skimmer. So, if you narrow it down so that in your model, ALL export is done by the skimmer, nothing else, your model does not reflect a real tank. Can you see that now? I'll agree with that, if by "the purposes here", you mean nothing other than the relationship between x amount of skimming, x amount of dirt, and x amount of volume. Your model will show that, and so will the one in the link, as that was all it was designed for. However, you have stated that the reason for all this argument was to try to prove Cracker wrong when he made a comment about increased volume. You need to realise that Cracker was talking about a real tank, not a model that only allows one form of export, a skimmer. So as long as you continue to doggedly stick to your skimmer export only model, you will likely convince yourself of your argument, but you will not convince me, or Cracker, or anyone else, who realises that in an actual tank there are other forms of export, for example processing of nitrate by liverock, vacuuming of sand, etc. These other processes throw your skimmer only model, neat and tidy as it is, right out of whack. So while, as you keep saying, I cannot see the forest for the trees, at least I know what the tree is. :lol:

Please show me where. I'll be intersted in your discourse on nitrate

Hardly, you have already admitted there are more variables than your model, here. I've been trying to get this fact across to you for a while. Don't take it from me though, huh. So you are getting there slowly, but even now you are still not considering all the variables. What was it you said went over my head?

Maybe you failed to show it

Yes the simulator is correct. Even Layton has not yet considered it, he could have got some mileage out of it :lol: It is another example of wher Laytons narrow model falls down also, brings up points he did not build into his model.

But you have failed to show that, for example, with nitrate.

I've heard your acros are climbing out the top! That's where I think that more volume benefits by a more steady trace element supply.

Also, still waiting for an answer to this :-

Perhaps you would understand better if you actually read what Feelers said and consider it. Moving ahead with your pre planned series of points, regardless of what anyone says, will not carry the day for you.

No you are confused.

It doesn't. I think you're being silly. :lol: Both Only considering the skimmer, nothing else, is narrow. The guy in the article claims from the outset that he is discussing skimmer export only.

Read the article again Layton :lol: . You will see it is about skimmer efficiency at removing DOC's at various tank volumes. Does it discuss nitrate export by liverock? No. Does it discuss a whole host of other factors that come into play? No. Is it a real tank? No. It is a simulator, related to skimmer export only. This confirms exactly what i have been saying, your modeling is based on skimmer export only and is too narrow. As I said, the end result of this argument will be that you will prove your point within the narrow confines you have set. Your linked article would tend to confirm that. But you will not prove that more volume in a real tank is not good for water quality, because in a real tank, rather than a narrowly defined model, Big IS Good! :lol:

Good post. Engineers CAN make sense! :lol: You have raised a number of other points Jeroen, and as you have realised correctly, Laytons argument is based on the idea that skimmer export is the whole story. To me this is where the argument falls over, as nitrate for example, is processed by liverock, and export can be entirely independant of skimming. A lot of other pitfalls in the argument also the whole thing is very logical, but too narrowly defined. Real world anecdotal evidence would also be that more volume is better for water quality. The end result of this argument will be that Layton will prove the point he is trying to make, within the narrow confines he has set, but will be unable to prove that more volume in a tank is not good for water quality because that is not the case, plus he is the only one who believes it. Anyway, good to see you come in as a neutral commentator, I'll let Feelers answer the questions you have posed to him.

You have to do a treatment with flatworm exit first to get numbers right down close to zero. The 6 line may then take care of the survivors.

In the case of nitrate, check this, I’ve done it special in clever engineer language! :lol: :- We are of course considering the result, in “steady state†:lol: System size (volume) = x Amount of rock = y Amount of nitrate rock processes each day = q Amount of food going into the system = t Total nitrate in system = b Nitrate concentration in water = a If x=1, y=1, t=1, then q=z If x=1, y=1, q=1, t=1, b=1, a=1 If x=2, y=1, q=1, t=1, b=1, a= ½ If x= ½, y=1, q=1, t=1, b=1, a=2 :D

For nitrate and phosphate? You sure about that? How do you know?

Looks like a friendly alien on a kids program!