chimera Posted August 30, 2006 Report Share Posted August 30, 2006 Joe sounds like a lonely bloke, desperate perhaps, a recovering alcoholic who still has the odd drink, someone who takes excessive amounts of drugs to cover up the pain of his shattered childhood... poor Joe... he, without a doubt, needs a heavily diluted fish tank to take his pain away Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
puttputt Posted August 30, 2006 Report Share Posted August 30, 2006 I like Joe, sounds like a good bloke. Probably in IT. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wasp Posted August 30, 2006 Report Share Posted August 30, 2006 :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! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lduncan Posted August 31, 2006 Report Share Posted August 31, 2006 Hmm, I could actually see you writing fictional stories for children. ;-) Back on topic, with Joe's tank you can eliminate the skimmer because "it doesn't matter" But wait a minute, when I eliminated the sand thing because i said it didn't change anything, you got all upset saying it changes everything? Seems a little inconsistent there. Anyway, even though the logic is wrong, i'll go with it for the sake of it. Let's look at little Joey's model more closely. What Joe has failed to understand in his model, is the dynamics of how waste gets into, and exits the sand. The rate of input of waste into the sand is going to be dependant on the concentration of waste in the overlying water column (among a slew of other things, but NOT water volume). And is not actually constant throughout the change in water volume. Which, when you go through the maths, results in his argument being wrong, and actually, the concentration of waste still ends up where it started off, just like I was saying. Also i don't particularly like this sand example, it's much harder to conceptualise. As you have storage pools of nutrients which introduces time lags which can quickly confuse people etc. Some people had enough trouble getting to grips with the skimmer workings. Layton Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HelifaxNZ Posted August 31, 2006 Report Share Posted August 31, 2006 Nothing wrong with IT people. We're always here to help. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wasp Posted August 31, 2006 Report Share Posted August 31, 2006 And take your money :lol: when I eliminated the sand thing because i said it didn't change anything, you got all upset saying it changes everything? Seems a little inconsistent there.Layton 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lduncan Posted August 31, 2006 Report Share Posted August 31, 2006 Well first, your sand model isn't accurate. I've explained that. Second, the reason I say I don't like the sand model, is that it is a lot more complicated that the skimmer model. I had enough trouble getting across the skimmer model to some people. The sand one will confuse the hell out of some people. It's not for the reasons YOU are imagining. You obviously think your story is correct. But it has a fundamental flaw that makes it nothing more than just that... a story. That flaw again, in case you missed it is this: You have assumed that the import of waste into the sand is constant, no matter what the concentrations are doing in the overlying water are doing when you add the extra volume. You have failed to account for the dynamics of how waste gets into, and exits the sand. The rate of input of waste into the sand is going to be dependant on the concentration of waste in the overlying water column (among a slew of other things, but NOT water volume). Which means your story, as nice as it may be, is just a story. Which means that you still haven't shown any "other factor" which will result in the concentration of nutrients being lowered in the steady state from simply increasing water volume. There are very fundamental logical and physical reasons why adding water volume can not alter the steady state concentrations of nutrients in the water. If you take all the various removal methods operating in the tank, and look at how they get their waste in order to remove it. They have a certain "knowledge" of the system, that knowledge comes directly from their interactions with it. The have knowledge of the concentrations in the system. They do NOT have knowledge of the volumes in the system. Therefore simply changing the volume of the system, does not change those steady state concentrations. Layton Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jetskisteve Posted August 31, 2006 Report Share Posted August 31, 2006 AGGHHHHHHHHHHH Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
misnoma Posted August 31, 2006 Report Share Posted August 31, 2006 You two should become politicians, or lawyers, or something. This is just silly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
puttputt Posted August 31, 2006 Report Share Posted August 31, 2006 I had enough trouble getting across the skimmer model to some people. The sand one will confuse the hell out of some people. Layton stop belittling people Layton. Makes you seem like a pompous twit. We understand you theory, but some of us need more than your statements to accept it as fact. Does the sand bed absorb waste only relative to concentration in the water. you say so, what proof do you have. I understand skimmers, the fact that if a skimmer can only remove 95% of the waste, regardless of volume, you are after a period of time end up with the same concentration of nutrients. How does this apply to a sand bed. Surely, if a bed of sand can process a set amount waste before becoming "full", then it will do this regardless of the concentration in the water. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lduncan Posted August 31, 2006 Report Share Posted August 31, 2006 Not to sound like a "pompous twit", but that's the truth. I've spent a lot of time trying to describe, and giving examples which people can understand. Conceptually some of this stuff is hard to get to grips with, if you haven't had exposure to these types systems from a control point of view. It's even harder if you're trying to do it all in your head. Your post is the very reason why I said I don't like the sand model... There are so many things which can complicate the issue for people. The fact that they cycle the way the do, time lags, saturation etc... But fundamentally, the sand bed can NOT determine what the volume of water in the system is. So there is no way it has the ability to alter the equilibrium between it and the concentration of waste in the water, based on the water volume. Layton Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
puttputt Posted August 31, 2006 Report Share Posted August 31, 2006 keep trying Layton, you need to. The sand bed doesn't have to know the volume, All it does is trap and process nutrients in the water. Why would it stop doing this if the concrentration of nutrients was lowered. And that it has "knowledge" is not the answer I want. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lduncan Posted August 31, 2006 Report Share Posted August 31, 2006 because the rates are related to concentrations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lduncan Posted August 31, 2006 Report Share Posted August 31, 2006 The sand bed doesn't have to know the volume For it to work the way wasp says it works, the sand bed must know the volume. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
puttputt Posted August 31, 2006 Report Share Posted August 31, 2006 because the rates are related to concentrations. The rate may be related to concentration, but if the sand bed is not full, it will keep using nutrients, albeit taking a longer period of time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lduncan Posted August 31, 2006 Report Share Posted August 31, 2006 If you model the sand bed as a non cyclic thing, to keep it simple, yes it will keep using nutrients. But at a slower rate, which results in the build up of nutrients back to where they were to begin with, as the tank nutrient input rate is the same. So just like the skimmer, you get back to where you started. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lduncan Posted August 31, 2006 Report Share Posted August 31, 2006 The equilibrium point is the equilibrium point, changing the water volume doesn't change it. How many people are familiar with chemical equilibrium, specifically Le Chatelier's Principle? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wasp Posted August 31, 2006 Report Share Posted August 31, 2006 The rate of input of waste into the sand is going to be dependant on the concentration of waste in the overlying water column Layton 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: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lduncan Posted August 31, 2006 Report Share Posted August 31, 2006 It doesn't change the end result. Think about it. This is another one of those complications which come from the sand bed model. It's hard for people to get to grips with. Which again is why I don't like it. Perhaps if you look at it from the other perspective it might be more clear, the point of view of what these export methods "see". And wasp, where is this anecdotal evidence you talk of? Layton Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wasp Posted August 31, 2006 Report Share Posted August 31, 2006 It doesn't change the end result. Layton If by "it", you mean what I just said in my last post, it does. You yourself said The rate of input of waste into the sand is going to be dependant on the concentration of waste in the overlying water column Layton 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lduncan Posted August 31, 2006 Report Share Posted August 31, 2006 Now your getting sucked in by the complexities of sand storage and release. I don't want to go there. It's going to be too hard and time consuming for me to explain this to some people, and to be honest, I really don't have the necessary patience to do it. Just because you think your story is true wasp, it doesn't mean it actually is. But if believing it makes you feel better, who am I to argue. Oh, and I would still be interested in this anecdotal evidence you were talking about. Where is it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wasp Posted August 31, 2006 Report Share Posted August 31, 2006 Now your getting sucked in by the complexities of sand storage and release. I don't want to go there. 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. Oh, and I would still be interested in this anecdotal evidence you were talking about. Where is it? 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. It doesn't change the end result. Think about it. Layton Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wasp Posted August 31, 2006 Report Share Posted August 31, 2006 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? The rate of input of waste into the sand is going to be dependant on the concentration of waste in the overlying water column (among a slew of other things, but NOT water volume). And is not actually constant throughout the change in water volume. Layton Don't bother with 10 pages of fudge, simple yes/no will suffice, so we can move on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chimera Posted August 31, 2006 Report Share Posted August 31, 2006 take your pick... any will do... except the 2nd one... http://images.google.co.nz/images?svnum=10&hl=en&lr=&q=yawn&btnG=Search Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wasp Posted August 31, 2006 Report Share Posted August 31, 2006 :lol: Hmmm... Perhaps you have a point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.