A
Anonymous
Guest
Yeah.. the zoos are gone too.
~wings~
~wings~
Guess I'm 360 degrees out from Bob's method. But those are some nice pictures of an algae driven system. What's the single biggest problem on the major boards "help with hair algae"? I have no algae, no sand, no fuge, I run huge flow on BB and skim like crazy. I run a bacteria driven system, if I see any green it's gone! The only thing I might tend to agree with is in the subject of this thread "water changes," in my set-up I don't think they are required. Flame away :lol:
I started another thread called "no water changes" if you would like to discuss this aspect of WC's in the environment I just described. I would really be interested in all your opinions because I see more and more folks changing to this type of setup. Thanks.
Mike
I started another thread called "no water changes" if you would like to discuss this aspect of WC's in the environment I just described. I would really be interested in all your opinions because I see more and more folks changing to this type of setup. Thanks.
Mike
the brain is the light glob just below the lower tail fin of the cardinal (have proublem spelling banquaii or whatever :lol
Just lost the anemone yesterday. It had been in there about 9 months or so. Was hoping to ce better because nitrates were finally un measureable.
Most corals are suffering because I did a "i won't do that again" thing in a futile effort to increase magnesium above the 1100-1200ppm. Something that if it had worked would have very similiar to the highly effective crushed oyster shells.
The tank was extremely "muddy" for about a week but is about 90% cleared up now. so now I am fighting aptasia.
Yes i do have deaths. But even with that the fish and corals have lived for two years. The fact I was able to stress the system (acidentally) with so just the loss of a single item should mean the tank is very forgiving of my efforts and screwups.
And of course no water changes straight tap throughout this time.
Just lost the anemone yesterday. It had been in there about 9 months or so. Was hoping to ce better because nitrates were finally un measureable.
Most corals are suffering because I did a "i won't do that again" thing in a futile effort to increase magnesium above the 1100-1200ppm. Something that if it had worked would have very similiar to the highly effective crushed oyster shells.
The tank was extremely "muddy" for about a week but is about 90% cleared up now. so now I am fighting aptasia.
Yes i do have deaths. But even with that the fish and corals have lived for two years. The fact I was able to stress the system (acidentally) with so just the loss of a single item should mean the tank is very forgiving of my efforts and screwups.
And of course no water changes straight tap throughout this time.
Would be nice to move on Wings...unfortunately Bob resists all attempts at valid discussion and instead polarizes all arguments into a 2 sided debate which can quickly become contentious.
IMHO, he is a troll..nothing more, nothing less. I base this assertion on the fact that he regularly will cherry pick posts to string them together in a series of quotes that he hopes will prop up his claims.
He wishes to hear nothing other than "Hail Beaslbob! Savior of our tanks and inventor of the saltwater plant!"
Numerous posts make it sound like there is this huge conspiracy by manufacturers, LFS, etc. to promote nothing other than high dollar equipment that he believes is not needed (although he would likely be a proponent of the EcoAqualizer based on his method of scientific hypothesis)
All in all it would be great to just ignore his inane, rambling, strung together posts once he has pushed our buttons one too many times and we are left pounding our heads on the keyboard in frustration.
The reason we *can't* do this, nor can we simply ignore him (amusing as he sometimes is) is because we are trying to protect those new reefers out there who don't know any better.
Bob, I'm not saying your methods don't work. Nobody is saying your methods don't work. We are saying your methods are very poor husbandry for a new reefer as they are a combination of 'cutting corners' that most reefers will have problems with. And don't give me your #@* about FW tanks or FO tanks. A reef is a whole different animal, as far as your numbers go with how long you've had them, I've seen you post and change the dates/numbers/stories behind your 'reef' tank in so many other threads that it seriously casts doubt over anything else you state.
IMO, I'm very surprised that you haven't been banned from this board as well. I really don't mind chatting/conversing/etc. but the simple fact that you never posit your experiences as your experiences and instead present them as the "Do this cuz if you spend $$ on RO/DI, skimmers, etc. you're stupid" method...and then continue to spread disinformation and confusing information...
It's not that I don't like the discussion Bob...they amuse me. But I think a greater disservice is being done to new reefers who read your posts and get totally confused.
/rant off
IMHO, he is a troll..nothing more, nothing less. I base this assertion on the fact that he regularly will cherry pick posts to string them together in a series of quotes that he hopes will prop up his claims.
He wishes to hear nothing other than "Hail Beaslbob! Savior of our tanks and inventor of the saltwater plant!"
Numerous posts make it sound like there is this huge conspiracy by manufacturers, LFS, etc. to promote nothing other than high dollar equipment that he believes is not needed (although he would likely be a proponent of the EcoAqualizer based on his method of scientific hypothesis)
All in all it would be great to just ignore his inane, rambling, strung together posts once he has pushed our buttons one too many times and we are left pounding our heads on the keyboard in frustration.
The reason we *can't* do this, nor can we simply ignore him (amusing as he sometimes is) is because we are trying to protect those new reefers out there who don't know any better.
Bob, I'm not saying your methods don't work. Nobody is saying your methods don't work. We are saying your methods are very poor husbandry for a new reefer as they are a combination of 'cutting corners' that most reefers will have problems with. And don't give me your #@* about FW tanks or FO tanks. A reef is a whole different animal, as far as your numbers go with how long you've had them, I've seen you post and change the dates/numbers/stories behind your 'reef' tank in so many other threads that it seriously casts doubt over anything else you state.
IMO, I'm very surprised that you haven't been banned from this board as well. I really don't mind chatting/conversing/etc. but the simple fact that you never posit your experiences as your experiences and instead present them as the "Do this cuz if you spend $$ on RO/DI, skimmers, etc. you're stupid" method...and then continue to spread disinformation and confusing information...
It's not that I don't like the discussion Bob...they amuse me. But I think a greater disservice is being done to new reefers who read your posts and get totally confused.
/rant off
beaslbob":148vv8fc said:
OMG...the very fact that you can assume this shows your complete lack of understanding of animal husbandry or your complete lack of caring for your inhabitants.
Guess this is just more of how 'your' system works better....if it was so stable as you claimed, why were you having to do anything? Hmmmmm....
beaslbob":3753lsij said:
Yet today you are still telling newbies to experiment?
Why are you even bothering to increase magnesium? You have basically a softie tank with nothing that really needs it.
You have no evidence that the oyster shells are 'highly effective' or effective at all. The only evidence have of their 'effectiveness' is post hoc ergo proctor hoc.
The ones that haven't died you mean. It seems very strange to talk about your deaths and then ignore them in the next sentence.
I don't think it means that at all. I think it means that you messed around and killed one of the more sensitive animals in your care.
I also think your characterization of 'accidentally' is disingenuous.
</sarcasm>Yeah, you wouldn't want to remove whatever it was that killed the anemone for the water. </sarcasm>
beaslbob":dv6eagbp said:(have proublem spelling banquaii or whatever :lol
Banggai - just in case anyone want to research the fish.
Clownfish don't require an Anemone. I'm just saying that in case you feel obligated to replace the Anemone, you really don't have to get another.
Guy":2lxog8p6 said:beaslbob":2lxog8p6 said:(have proublem spelling banquaii or whatever :lol
Clownfish don't require an Anemone. I'm just saying that in case you feel obligated to replace the Anemone, you really don't have to get another.
Awwww...but the clownfishes look so sad without an anemone :-( lol
ctgretzky99":3c44t6q4 said:
Definition:
post hoc ergo proctor hoc, a fallacy in argumentation that means 'it happened after, therefore was caused by'.
When I used to work in the police department's dispatch center, it was a joke that you NEVER said the word "quiet" in that room, as in "Boy it sure is quiet tonight" as immediately after you'd say that all Hell would (usually) break loose.
A post hoc ergo proctor hoc would be to insist that saying the word "quiet" in the PD dispatch center caused utter chaos to erupt.
*edit...what Righty said
Thank you righty for the translation. Good choice of phrasing for this subject!
And thank you too lawdawg...I know all about the police chatter...my father was a police officer kille din the line of duty in Suffolk county long Island when I was 7 (1976) and I still have many family and friends in law enforcement, and they talk shop all the time! lol
And thank you too lawdawg...I know all about the police chatter...my father was a police officer kille din the line of duty in Suffolk county long Island when I was 7 (1976) and I still have many family and friends in law enforcement, and they talk shop all the time! lol
beaslbob":3sj0fwp1 said:
People kept saying that you should experiment with odd ways of bringing up your magnesium levels in your softie tank? Who? Where? And why did you feel compelled to do what 'they' said?
There is no evidence that your oyster shells do what you say they do. You don't have a system that demands much ca, and you refuse to remove them to see if the level drops.
Or look at what people who have tried ti before have done and don't kill animals.
More of an example of someone experimenting unnecessarily on pets.
A water change would help. I can understand you not wanting to do a water change when everything is doing just fine, but refusing to do one when you know you added something bad to the water seems simply irresponsible.
ctgretzky99":3cpinynj said:
Righty uses this as in the above post to disprove things like my crushed oyster shells. With no other support than his assertion.
It is correct to not assume that because you have an change, it is the result of something else. science demand more. And it demands more than just stating that fallacy. Correlation does not prove causality.
In the oyster shell case, calcium carbonate does dissolve at nightly ph values in my system. A very similiar tank with no shells added did not increase the calcium. Yet the calcium did rise to and say at 400ppm after adding the shells with no other changes. Just as calcium carbonate substraits are used to buffer ph higher by adding calcium carbonate at ph's below 8 in any aquarium.
When I first started my tank, my daytime ph had dropped to very low levels. Buffers like baking soda would recover the ph to 8.4 then the ph would drop then nect day. I added macros and only added macors and the daytime rose to and has stayed at 8.4 for two years. And Ph does drop because of carbon dioxide.
It is the same exact fallacy to state than when you press down on the gas you car goes faster.
So righty uses that fallacy to state I should not tell newbies to add macros to raise their daytime ph. That I should not tell people that oyster shells increase calcium.
And I presume he also tells driving instructors not to tell new drivers to press down and the gas pedal to make the car go faster.
Afterall it is exactly the same fallacy.
beaslbob":3o6tek2d said:
Bob, it's getting very hard to stay civil.
Righty has NOT BEEN SAYING THAT!!!! He is NOT DISPROVING WHAT YOUR ARE SAYING!! He is stating that YOU HAVE NO PROOF THAT YOUR OYSTER SHELLS HAVE CAUSED YOUR CA TO CLIMB ASIDE FROM OBSERVATION. You obviously do mess with your tanks, hence your newest die off so how do you know exactly what is with the oyster shells?
We've been over this numerous times Bob. You keep refusing to listen to what people say and instead read into it what you want to hear to try and support your 'Everyone is out to get me and they're part of a vast conspiracy to keep newbies buying lots of equipment and stuff like that which fails'
Methinks you sniffed a few too many rocket fumes or whatever you were smokin in the AF
Bob,
What were your Ca reading before adding the oyster shells? What high calcium demanding inhabitants do you keep? Have you tested your tap water for Ca? What level is it? Do you have numbers of the calcium usage for your system? What is the rate the oyster shells supply the calcium? How often do you need to add more oyster shells due to them being dissolved into your system?
edit
In another thread you state you have 1 oz of coral and 3-5 lbs of oyster shells. Is this the ratio (1:48-80) you need for your oyster shells to provide Ca?
What were your Ca reading before adding the oyster shells? What high calcium demanding inhabitants do you keep? Have you tested your tap water for Ca? What level is it? Do you have numbers of the calcium usage for your system? What is the rate the oyster shells supply the calcium? How often do you need to add more oyster shells due to them being dissolved into your system?
edit
In another thread you state you have 1 oz of coral and 3-5 lbs of oyster shells. Is this the ratio (1:48-80) you need for your oyster shells to provide Ca?
Sorry Bob, I'm not discussing this subject anymore....seacrest out. Your tank is fugly, regardless of what you claim works, and it may be so that it does work. Either way, I'd rather put a little effort into my tank and have it look clean, neat and beautiful as well as healthy, then to have what looks like a salt water swamp. Water changes work for me, I don't mind the little bit of work or money it takes to keep it up, and I enjoy when people come to my house and see this in my living room. If your tank was in my home, I'd drain it and use it as a big potato chip bowl.
You're a nice guy Bob, and I appreciate you sharing your method and your thoughts. I just think you choose to see things one way, and expect that what you propose is the only and best way. I have seen so many people be forgiving to you and agree your method works for what you want to accomplish, yet not once have I seen you agree that doing a water change is still another way of doing things. Unfortunately this makes any valid points you make seem so insignifigant.
A newbie who might otherwise enjoy a fine hobby will leave the hobby because by trying your method-tap water, no changes etc...an inexperienced person will kill a bunch of fish quickly. If you are going to continue to advocate your method, which you have every right to do and I respect, you should be telling people to start with a stable system first, then experiement at their own risk, knowing they could potentially lose specimens because of it. This is the last I'll write about this, because frankly it is like trying to jump off the roof of my house to reach the moon.
best wishes in the future!
You're a nice guy Bob, and I appreciate you sharing your method and your thoughts. I just think you choose to see things one way, and expect that what you propose is the only and best way. I have seen so many people be forgiving to you and agree your method works for what you want to accomplish, yet not once have I seen you agree that doing a water change is still another way of doing things. Unfortunately this makes any valid points you make seem so insignifigant.
A newbie who might otherwise enjoy a fine hobby will leave the hobby because by trying your method-tap water, no changes etc...an inexperienced person will kill a bunch of fish quickly. If you are going to continue to advocate your method, which you have every right to do and I respect, you should be telling people to start with a stable system first, then experiement at their own risk, knowing they could potentially lose specimens because of it. This is the last I'll write about this, because frankly it is like trying to jump off the roof of my house to reach the moon.
best wishes in the future!
beaslbob":35fylvho said:
That is not at all what I am doing. I am calling in to question your evidence for your theories. It is very flimsy, and based on logical fallacies. That you don't understand this makes it very difficult to have a meaningful discussion with you. I really am getting the feeling you know this and are just posting to watch other people react.
There is plenty of evidence that your oyster shell theory won't work. It has been posted uncountable times in threads involving you, and it really seems pointless to post it again because you will simply ignore it again.
Strange that you say you understand that, but you still do exactly that.
Good thing I am not trying to prove anything.
Just because you keep saying it doesn't make it true. You have absolutely no way of showing it is the case.
Sure - until you dig deeper and show that it is the case that pressing on the gas does indeed make the car go faster. We have many many tests to show that pressing down on the gas pedal does indeed make the car go faster. There is much evidence. That mechanism is very well understood, and you can show it working to just about anyone.
Your oyster shell ideas has only you saying it works, and science says the mechanism you are claiming doesn't work the way you say it does.
Never have I said any such thing.
I think you are doing this on purpose to get a rise out of me.
You betcha. You have no evidence that they do this. You won't even perform the simplest of experiments to see if you are correct.
That's silly and shows a shocking lack of reasoning.
Sponsor Reefs
We're a FREE website, and we exist because of hobbyists like YOU who help us run this community.
Click here to sponsor $10:
