WC more than 100% any point? or just a waste

[David R]

David are you think of my WC toilet cristern method..one flush can withdraw the amount you desire.. :slfg:

Nope, it will simply be a pump on a tumer that dumps in a couple of hundred litres of water once a day from either a barrel with a float valve connected to a water supply, or straight in a large rainwater tank.

Squirt I understand the point you're trying to make but I think your calculation over-simplifies it a bit. When does the "new" water become "old"? Calculations aside, I have seen Henwards tanks and seen how he feeds his fish, I doubt a single large weekly water change (even one close to 100%) would do as a good job of keeping the nitrates down.

[Squirt]

I know, but it answers his original question. He can up his automatic water change system if wanted.

[henward]

In the past 4 months I have been try out this WC method: Garden hose in" by input clean water in and syphon waster water out at the other end..

To me auto Wc isnt a good method, because you will discharge clean water at the same time..money down the drain x2..

also its take me longer to work on my tank..i suppose it only good when water temp doesnt spike so quick..

I only try this because it less hassle for me to shut off the sump pump//

Has any one ever try setting up a WC system like Toilet Cristern System"? one flush could drain out 30-50% of tank water... :thup:

I am very interested in setting one up in my next monster tank project.. :digH:

well, using my basic chemistry knowledge, i find that my system works very well.

maintaining such low nitrates is something almost impossible to do for most.

reason is this.

when you do a 25% wc then leave the tank, the nitrate still accumulates AGAIN then you have to remove it.

also temp drop is always stressfull, my tank doesnt deviate more than 1c in temp fluctuation, now i added an extra jager 300w, it doesnt deviate AT ALL. .

i have figured out that staying at approx 100 to 120 percent wc cycle a week is key.

because anymore, then you are just replacing clean water.

as for jaxx comment, i disagree, auto water changer is not a waste.

i will explain.

All the toxins we are worried about are solution in water.

amonia, nitrite should not be removed manually but bio filtered. ONly nitrate is the culprit we are concerned with wc regimes.

nitrate is water soluble measured in 'parts per million'

parts per million is directly related to the ratio between the nitrate and the water volume.

so 100ppm in 100 litres becomes 200ppm in 50l. in 200 litres, its 50ppm.... (bare with me here.)

when you say that automatic water changer does not work, i believe you are misguided (no offence) I have been to a massive discus farm in singapore when i wanted to be a distributor of discus about 12 years ago - and they had a automatic water change system, only a syphon to take out poo, but the water is changed like mine is, in fact, my model of the changer is based on commercial breeding set ups, except not as pretty and not controlled by a irrigation computer that measures in exact litres (costs a arm and a kidney)

jaxx, if you think of it this way,

my new clean water goes into the sump, the sump returns the water to the other end of the tank, by the time the water goes over the overflow, it is fully diffused in the water. anything that goes out is a mixture of clean and dirty water. but the dilution method is still 100% effective.

doing more than 100% is overkill - so i wont do that, but the wc is undisputable to be very effective.

I hvae seen some fish breeders do manual water changes, refusing to accept automated systems, citing that its better for the fish.

I disagree.

i guess, i would challenge a breeder that would tell me right now that automated feed systems are not good and ask their reasons.

my reasons why it is good.

1) it avoids water parameter shock.

by removing say, 80% of water from a discus tank, and replacing it, the ph and water parameters change immediately. this is no good forany fish.

2) temperature

you may pre heat the water, this can fix it, but having the tank in a low level for 5 minutes can stress out fish, i have seen discus fish almost on their side during a wc in a breeding set up. That cannot be good for the fish

3) filtration is usually very minimal in these tanks, replying on manual removal of wastes to clean the water, bio filtration is usually minimal or ineffective. Amonia spikes happen, this cannot be good.

I guess hardy fish will thrive, but still, amonia exposure is never good no matter what fish, hardy or not.

just my main 3 reasons.

i hardly syphon my tanks because the bottom dwellers always bring up all the debris - but the grow out where there is no bottom dweller to do so i siphon regularly.

"To me auto Wc isnt a good

method, because you will discharge clean water at the same time..money down the drain x2.."

If you actually look at wha tyoua re doing, you are doing exactly the same thing.

You are pumping clean water one end and siphon at the other.

What is the difference with what i do? i put clean water, it over fills and drains at the other end.

That is identical.

I think there are many 'Old wives tales ' out there. i have seen this in the hobby a lot.

I think it is ONLY the perception that you are donkg something different.

By manually siphoning water at the other end, you are just draining water faster, but if you use the science of water diffusion, dilution and the principles of calculating PPM, i think you will find it is identical if not my method will be more effective. I will explain why.

1) who here can maintain a nitrate around 10 to 15ppm?

I can do this because, the first week of my wc cycle, i do a very high turnover, at the start. ages ago.

Then i turn it down, by this time the nitrate level is extremely low and i maintain that by changing the water regularly.

iw ould love to do a controlled experiment, but in essense i have tried both ways, i used to do manula 30% cdhanges.

i had higher nitrate them even doing it twice a week than what i do now. the nitrate would spike 2-3 days after the wc,. my new method provides extreme water stability in all accounts.

i suggest you try it - i think for most people, they dont try it due to the perception of COST and EFFORT.

my system cost me 250 to 300 dollars.

that includes pumps, hoses, timers, drum, toilet ball cock system, food save nylon woven hose, tap fittings, taps to regulate flow, drilling of sump, fittings and pvc pipes to drain.

sounds like a lot?

in 4.5 years now, i have not done a manual water change.

i just had a white spot start out 1.5 week or so ago.

to change the water 50%, no need to take out water and put cold water in, instead i just pump u my changer and did 950 approx litres over 24 hours of preheated water in my drum. no drop in temp, faster recovery, easier maintenance.

I think the thought of setting this up puts people off. or maybe its impractical for you (thats fine) my tank is in a garage, if yours is in a lounge, then you cant do it, its too difficult of course.

:lol:

[henward]

@Henward

Back to your issue, ill crunch some number for you.

Let's just say your tank is 2100L and it changes that every week so 300L a day. So 14% per day

Day 1

14% water change 86% old 14% new

Day 2

14% water change 73.96% old 26.04% new (since the start of the week)

Day 3

14% water change 63.61% old 36.39% new " "

Day 4

14% water change 54.7% old 45.3% new " "

Day 5

14% water change 47.04% old 52.96% new " "

Day 6

14% water change 40.45% old 59.55 new " "

Day 7

14% water change 34.79% old 65.21% new " "

In theory your only done 65.21% over one week. But if all your water change where done at one a 98% water change.

Interesting, how did you work that out?

I guess you take into account that the old and new water will diffuse and you get a mix of new and old water.

i see wha tyou mean. i dont know the exact equation but i agree in theory i guess:D

i guess i calculated it in lay terms 350L*7 = 2400L

so calculating it in term sof WATER VOLUME I PUMP IN, but not the exactly of what comes out. but good point, water diffusing still dilutes it effectively in essense though, in that regard, the effect is the same.

"In most cases nitrate is not a problem and in my view the consistant conditions created by an automated water change system are a big advantage. Most problems are caused by rapid and large changes to water chemistry so you need to do very regular and reasonably sized water changes to avoid that."

This is very true, stability of water is key. massive water changes i try to avoid. i dont like the temp drops, consistent water parameters is very important.

[henward]

at very maximum (basing on a 24x 15 minute stints of pump) my tap can be turned to churn out 1500 litres a day, its a small via aqua. IF required.

at one stage actually i had 6 tanks hooked up to it.

1x 360L

1x 250l

1x 200l

1x 150l

2x 1200L

all from one drum, 2 pumps. 1 pump for the 1x 1200L

1x for the others.

in some cases, i could not actually turn down the tap lower than 250 litres a day, so when i bred flowerhorns, the flowerhorn tank had no filter, only a 300w heater to heat it.

and I DO feed A LOT :lol:

[Squirt]

IMO there's nothing wrong with an automatic water change system, but like DavidR at what point does new water become old water? From what I perceive is an effective automatic water change system is that it dilutes the nitrates almost immediately and then new water becomes old and what ever goes out is old water. I personally am looking into investing into an automatic water change system, because when I'm off to uni, I'm not going to be able to lug a 500L tank down to Dunedin and the parents are getting too old to carry buckets and buckets of water.

Those equations are quite simple

Day 1

100/100*86 because it was 100% old water and is now 86% old water due to a 14% water change. To work out new water simply go (86-100)*-1

Day 2

You start off with your 86% old water

86/100*86

Ect and you use the days before (% of old water divide by 100 and times by (100 minus how large your water change is))

Not saying that your method is ineffective but having a hardy turtle and 4 danios, I think they can cope with a degree or two in change of temperature, a small pH fluctuation (.5?) and I have heard that nitrates aren't highly toxic until 100ppm+ so they an cope from 5-20ppm a week. But I agree with you if you have sensitive or non hardy fish manual water changes could stress them out.

[henward]

Your equation makes sense.

i do k now wha tyou mean.

basically in a nutshell.

what you are saying is its better to FIRST remove old water, then new water pumped in.

i agree to a degree. but with a sump, its almost impossible, because the sump will dry out.

So i have to maintain a ceratain water level.

but i agree with you and your equation in principle, i just think when it comes to dilution though, the water gets dispersed rapidly, after the initial high turnover, maintenance is essentially the same.

also, i want the old water to stick around as well, that helps 'age' the new water and dilute its 'new ness' if that makes sense:D helps stability. key with red arowanas are water stability. clown loaches too.

ALso, i guess depends on fish, and yes, nitrate isnt really harmfull untill it reaches plague proportions, but i personally like to keep my water constant AND low nitrate.

also i do feed a Lot, i mean.... i think most people would squirm with the amount i feed:D

so that helps me maintain that.

[Jaxxnz]

Woow this topic is getting better and better with all sort of fact..

In the end, the best solution i think keeping a tank water clean for a long period is to keep only one tiny fish in a large azz tank.. :slfg:

Its Friday people, SkyCity here i come.. :sage:

[Joshlikesfish]

One of the tank systems at work was leaking and would auto top up so we were not realizing. The salinity would reach 0 over the course of a week.