sand

[lduncan]

You take a theory by someone (whether it be text book or net) and if it sounds kinda right to you, you argue that it MUST be true.

That's not why I do. There is a distinct difference between theories, and experimental results. There is a lot more thought involved than just that.

Just think about how you come across when you write some of your posts (and no, Im not saying you're the only one guilty of it)

I see where you are coming from, from a certain extent. But it's not in my nature to tip-toe around other peoples sensitivities on topics like these. I don't intend it to be rude or come across as antagonistic, it's just me getting to the point.

Layton

[lduncan]

yep!!! i could get on hear and read off other peoples facts from the net too,but why bother everyone knows how to surf the net and can read for themselves when they want.

shell.

There's a lot of crap on the net too. Also, not everybody has the access which I have had through the university, to all the databases of journals, papers, and scientific publications which I, up until this year, have had. You have to pay to access most of those. That's where the real information is.

Look on the general internet and you'll more than likely find information from experts who earn a living out of writing and selling books, and running seminars and courses, explaining to hobbyists how to build a DSB which does the opposite to nature, and instead of storing waste, actual processes it, while claiming that it's as easy as falling off a log.

If you can read this information on the internet where and when you want, then surly this site is redundant.

Layton

[wasp]

Well Layton since it's "not in your nature to tiptoe around other peoples sensitivities" you'll appreciate me being straight up & saying that not everything you say, or more often imply, is a fact. I can think particularly in the zeovit threads where much of what you said was pure speculation, something bomber thought up, usually hinted at rather than said outright, and qualified with lots of maybes, what ifs, perhaps, etc. but the purpose was to present a theory of yours as if it was a fact. In that regard you were not being an assett to the forum.

As to the subject of this thread, sand, it is certainly worthwhile to present people useful information on some of the dangers / pitfalls. But it is not right to imply that having sand means the tank is doomed or a ticking bomb, when the evidence of real life tanks shows this does not have to be the case.

Also, this statement -

Simple, because of the mis-information presented by others here.

Layton

What mis-information? I have seen opposing methods / ideology, isn't that what a discussion is all about? To brand anything different to how you see things as "mis-information" is too strong.

And finally, special eye candy treat, here's a DSB even you'd be proud to own Layton!

[Ira]

Ugh, more Layton BB Nazi-ism.

*Hits back*

[lduncan]

Well Layton since it's "not in your nature to tiptoe around other peoples sensitivities" you'll appreciate me being straight up & saying that not everything you say, or more often imply, is a fact. I can think particularly in the zeovit threads where much of what you said was pure speculation, something bomber thought up, usually hinted at rather than said outright, and qualified with lots of maybes, what ifs, perhaps, etc. but the purpose was to present a theory of yours as if it was a fact. In that regard you were not being an assett to the forum.

No, i did not present that theory as fact. I presented the theory, (which I stated was pure speculation) based on several facts and observations.

This is different to what you said above. The reason it was qualified with lots of maybes, what ifs, perhaps, etc, was because it was speculative, and I was not trying to pass it off as fact, just a potential explanation, based on available evidence. Completely untested or unverified.

(If you read some of mesocosms recent posts on zeovit.com you'll actually see that some of it bears an unusual resemblance to things I have posted here on the topic)

This is a different situation. This is not a theory, this is actual hard data.

More reading:

http://www.ifm-geomar.de/fileadmin/ifm- ... oxygen.pdf

The role of phosphate

recycling is clearly seen in the Black Sea and

the Baltic Sea which are the most prominent

examples of marginal seas with anoxic bottom

waters. Here, the C/P ratios are high in sedi-

ments deposited after the onset of anoxia so

that the enhanced productivity may be sup-

ported and maintained by benthic phosphate

release from surface sediments. Moreover, the

analysis of Mediterranean sapropels showed

that phases of enhanced productivity were ac-

companied and supported by anoxic conditions

in bottom waters favoring the release of ben-

thic phosphate.

...Phosphate is released into the oceans via rivers and is re-

moved by burial of phosphorus-bearing com-

pounds in marine sediments. Oxygen-bearing

(oxic) surface sediments are often rich in fer-

ric iron and manganese phases which take up

large amounts of phosphate by adsorption and

mineral formation while anoxic (oxygen-free)

sediments are depleted in these phases so that

phosphate can only be bound in rather soluble

calcium minerals formed during early diagen-

esis. Burial of organic phosphorus bound in the

remains of marine plankton depends also on

sedimentary redox conditions (abundance of

oxidizing and reducing chemicals). Under re-

ducing conditions the C/P ratio of sedimentary

organic matter may be as high as 5000 while

the composition of particulate organic matter

in oxic deposits approaches the Redfield ratio

(C/P = 106). Hence, phosphorus is buried very

efficiently in oxic sediments while anoxic de-

posits have a diminished retaining capacity.

...Thus, reducing conditions in bottom waters

inhibit phosphorus burial and expand the in-

ventory of dissolved phosphate. In response

to the enhanced nutrient availability, eutrophic

conditions prevail inducing oxygen consump-

tion in the water column and underlying ma-

rine sediments. The resulting spread of anoxic

environments in sediments and bottom waters

induces further benthic phosphate release and

eutrophication in a positive feedback loop (Fig.

1).

http://scitation.aip.org/journals/doc/G ... /52_1.html

http://jeq.scijournals.org/cgi/content/full/33/4/1545

As water resource managers reduce external loading to the LSJR the frequency of anaerobic events should decline, thereby reducing nutrient fluxes from the sediment to the water column, reducing the internal loading of DRP and NH4–N.

http://www.ymparisto.fi/default.asp?con ... 509&lan=en

The P released from the sediments of the Gulf itself may largely explain the high P concentrations and low N : P ratios in near-bottom waters in summer and, after autumn mixing, in the entire water column.

http://www.com.univ-mrs.fr/IRD/atollpol ... sedsel.htm

The sediments of Tikehau lagoon are sources of nitrogen (4 - 601 µmol NH4 m-2 day-1), phosphorus (0.6 - 10.3 µmol PO4 m-2 day-1) and dissolved silica (3 - 79 µmol SiO2 m-2 day-1) to the overlying water column.

Layton

[warick hearn]

What works for some doesn't work for others....NO TWO MARINE TANKS ARE THE SAME OR WORK THE SAME WAY. Sand in a tank works perfectly for some....others it doesnt......its trial and error when setting up any system..... no matter HOW much "knowledge" you have...some things just DONT work. And having TOO much knowledge can work (against you)...makes life very difficult when theres nothing (new) to learn....or experience...

[chimera]

i still fail to see hard core evidence from your post layton, too many dissimilarities between "evidence" you post and a marine tank. our tanks are a small piece of the ocean, influenced by alot less factors than you find in nature. i dont have the black sea, baltic sea, the gulf or a lagoon off to the side of my tank, to me its likely the composition of seawater in these areas works much different to what you will find in a marine tank. im not a scientist but i do know that changes or differences in an environment can greatly influence results from scientific studies.

[lduncan]

What works for some doesn't work for others....NO TWO MARINE TANKS ARE THE SAME OR WORK THE SAME WAY. Sand in a tank works perfectly for some....others it doesnt......its trial and error when setting up any system..... no matter HOW much "knowledge" you have...some things just DONT work.

I find it funny reading comment's like this. Sure no two tanks are the same, but things ALWAYS work the same way. Sand works exactly the same in every tank. Although it may appear as though it doesn't to those with an incomplete understanding of what it's doing.

It's part of the reason why I post this info. So you can see why there are many tanks which look great with sand, and also why there are so many tanks which are plagued with problems due to sand, as well as what the implications of having sand in a tank when unexpected things happen (for example long power outages, broken pumps etc) (Again, i'm talking about sand as a filtration method)

And having TOO much knowledge can work (against you)...makes life very difficult when theres nothing (new) to learn....or experience...

That's not going to happen any time soon, there is always something new to learn. I don't think you want to "dumb people down" intentionally for fear that too much knowledge will work against you.

Layton

[chimera]

...oh, and im not even disputing that you are wrong about sand storing phosphates and ultimately effecting live rock, in fact it sounds quite logical. im disputing how you (sometimes) provide your evidence. the quantity of links you post to support your theories does not prove you are right

[lduncan]

i still fail to see hard core evidence from your post layton, too many dissimilarities between "evidence" you post and a marine tank. our tanks are a small piece of the ocean, influenced by alot less factors than you find in nature. i dont have the black sea, baltic sea, the gulf or a lagoon off to the side of my tank, to me its likely the composition of seawater in these areas works much different to what you will find in a marine tank. im not a scientist but i do know that changes or differences in an environment can greatly influence results from scientific studies.

So you want something done in a glass box then?

Marine Pollution Bulletin

Volume 20, Issue 12 , December 1989, Pages 624-628

"Alteration of phosphorus dynamics during experimental eutrophication of enclosed marine ecosystems"

Kenneth R. Hinga

Marine Ecosystems Research Laboratory, Graduate School of Oceanography, University of Rhode Island, Narragansett, RI 02882, USA

Available online 7 April 2003.

This paper examines net exchanges of phosphorus between benthic sediments and water column during the experiment. At low loading rates the regular annual pattern of phosphate concentrations is still evident but the amplitude of the pattern is magnified. At higher loading rates the annual pattern is lost and the effectiveness of the sediments to act as a `buffer' to water column concentrations is reduced. In some cases the nutrient loading caused a release of phosphorus from the sediments.

This was a 28 month eutrophication experiment conducted in marine mesocosms at the Marine Ecosystems Research Laboratory of the University of Rhode Island. (it was done in closed tanks)

Funnily enough it showed that sand works the same in a tank, as it does in lakes rivers and oceans. Imagine their surprise when they found that out

So it's just as valid to use open ocean studies. It's all bacteria driven. If you've got bacteria in your sad bed, it's going to work the same as it does in the ocean, or a lake.

Layton

[chimera]

now thats a bit better. pity its "marine pollution bulletin" done in 1989 though, posted 2003 but still evidence from 1989. not saying bacteria has changed it's ways but methodologies for nutrient export has.

In some cases the nutrient loading caused a release of phosphorus from the sediments.

in some cases. that does not mean in every case. perhaps explains why some tanks work and some dont.

So it's just as valid to use open ocean studies. It's all bacteria driven. If you've got bacteria in your sad bed, it's going to work the same as it does in the ocean, or a lake

very big generalisation that. in most cases perhaps, but would not take it as gospel. probably half the reason the outcome of some scientific studies performed by various people is different.

[lduncan]

I don't have access to the full paper now (don't have free access through the uni anymore).

But from memory, they were referring to the fact that they had a number of setups, each with different loadings (phosphorus inputs), the ones with higher loadings eventually resulted in release, while the lower loadings never got to that stage during the experiment.

Layton

[Feelers]

Layton is it online somewhere? I still have uni access so I could perhaps post the rest.

[lduncan]

now thats a bit better. pity its "marine pollution bulletin" done in 1989 though, posted 2003 but still evidence from 1989. not saying bacteria has changed it's ways but methodologies for nutrient export has.

I don't see what you mean? Has time changed how sand works? Remember we are talking about sand as a filtration method.

[Pies]

And finally, special eye candy treat, here's a DSB even you'd be proud to own Layton!

Hahahaha. Isn't this one of tanks he said was photoshopped?

Not sure if there is much else too add to this post. Layton took the bait at the start and look where its ended, 8 pages of pointless posts. Anyway feel educated? Or maybee that comes when we cross page 20.

I liked that 1989 reference too, very informitive. I've got a book here written in 1988 that says the only way to keep marine fish long term is to remove the rock and clean it monthly with 10% bleech soultion. A sterile tank is a happy tank.

Layton - as everyone has said, its the way in which you attack that annoys and frustrates, and you comple inability to leave it alone. We don't agree with you, and given the way you act probably never will, do you think more posts and pages of links that few if anyone bothers to even click on will make any difference?

Of course another thing you have working against you is your decision not to share what happens with your own tank, including photos. I have no idea that you 'could' be an asset to this site, as everyone who partakes in the hobby could be. But you are one of the most vocal people on this site when it comes to many aspects of what is right or wrong, you have 0 credibility.

No one cares how you think things work, we care how they work in real life. DSB may be, on paper (or in Bombers fanboy club) a bad idea, fine, i'll conciede that. But given the results that can be had (see Wasps photoshoped timebomb above) DSB looks like the obvious choice. Proof is proof, and the reality is, like it or not, no matter how many links you provide or posts you argue DSB tanks provide stunning results for SPS tanks. Anything else you say is just talk, this is the reality.

Pie

[lduncan]

Layton is it online somewhere? I still have uni access so I could perhaps post the rest.

Yip, http://library.canterbury.ac.nz/databases/

I think it's available through the Springer database, but I remember they call it something different on the uni library site, can't remember what though.

Layton

[lduncan]

But given the results that can be had (see Wasps photoshoped timebomb above) DSB looks like the obvious choice. Proof is proof, and the reality is, like it or not, no matter how many links you provide or posts you argue DSB tanks provide stunning results for SPS tanks. Anything else you say is just talk, this is the reality.

That tank photo doesn't contradict anything i've posted. If you know how the sand bed works, you'll see that it's entirely possible to have a tank which looks like that. You'll also know that the sand is working the same way as all the links i've posted say it does.

The reality is, is that you don't even know what the links are saying, or how they say sand works. You just dismiss them as rubbish without even clicking on them, and at least reading an abstract or two. If you had done that, you might see that the fact that there are some impressive tanks running DSB's is not contradictory to the information they present.

Layton

[Drifty]

back on the subject, aqua knead it is only $6 at the warehouse, might try a sand and knead it mixture for the heavy flow areas and see how that goes

[wasp]

Six Bucks!! Thanks Drifty I better go get a few tubes!

[wasp]

What works for some doesn't work for others...

Good post, quite agree.

Each to what works for them..

[tel]

can some one please explain scientifically what the prettiest colour sand is?

[Pies]

Layton - I understand fully how a sandbed works. It was a well researched decision on my part before I did it (on my last 2 tanks). I just don't care to get into an arguement with you over how you tell me they work. And frankly, I am not overly interested in anything but the outcomes, and the outcomes are impressive.

Pie

[Feelers]

Based on a recent survey, "Palace Blue" was deemed the most popular colour, being chosen by 15% of participants, in a test of 44 colours. Which is actually quite a strong result.

Bright Chartreuse was deemed the worst, :lol:

Now, where would one find "Palacial Blue Sand" I wonder....

[Pies]

I dived in a place in Malyasia called Rengis island, which was a small island surrounded by shallow reef, teaming with reef shark (black tip) is massive shoals, and hammer heads on the outer reef. The sand on the beaches of this island are blue. Its from large amounts of blue coral the make up the sand. Very odd site, as its quite a vivid blue colour. About as natural as one of those chests that open when an air bubble comes out in a freshwater tank!

Pie

[tel]

although ''palace blue'' was the majority choice those idiots have got it all wrong! where can i find their site so i can educate those heathens???