effectiveness of water changes

[Anonymous]

I'm hoping that atleast one of you is more concerned over him giving n00bs like me bad advice than you are about being 'more right' than bob. To you I say: Thank you!

The main reason I respond to bob at all is to quelch his bad reasoning before it takes hold.

 

[Anonymous]

Same here. I have no problem with an experienced reefkeeper experimenting with Bob's methods they will know what they're getting into.

The concern is the new hobbiest being lured by a promise of cheap & easy not knowing that everything will fall apart 2 or 3 years down the road (or sooner).

 

[Anonymous]

I only advocate eliminating any water change that's less than 30%. I only do water changes that are 40% or more and really would like to see people do 50% changes every few months. To bad i know that this will never happen; the excuses will now begin, too hard, no place to keep water, no money blah blah blah blah...

Why?

I'm generally with leftovers on this. If one of the keys to dealing with pollution is dilution, then I wanna actually dilute the pollution. Whats the statistic? Something like 10 10% water changes doesn't dilute as much as a single 50% water change.
There is a risk of shock, but it can be minimized by letting the water and salt mix, heat and areate for a couple days

I have a remote sump, and I have room for a 150 gallon mixing container so I pretty much always have 150 gallons of extra water around. I do a 100-130 gallon water change every month or three.

 

[Anonymous]

effectiveness of breathing

...The purpose of this thread is to simply evaulate exactly how effective a breath compose of 20% of your lung capacity really is.... <fomulae deleted ...>... So say you want 0 CO2 but that CO2 is building up at 10 ppb bewteen each breath. And the replacement air has 2ppt CO2. ... <more fomula deleted....>

Therefore, it is not advice that you do any excise, since it is going to get your body to create more CO2 than usual, and taking breath does not decrease your blood CO2 level to zero, even if you breath 100% pure oxygen, so all of you should just hold on to your breath.

 

[HClH2OFish]

effectiveness of breathing

...The purpose of this thread is to simply evaulate exactly how effective a breath compose of 20% of your lung capacity really is.... <fomulae deleted ...>... So say you want 0 CO2 but that CO2 is building up at 10 ppb bewteen each breath. And the replacement air has 2ppt CO2. ... <more fomula deleted....>

Therefore, it is not advice that you do any excise, since it is going to get your body to create more CO2 than usual, and taking breath does not decrease your blood CO2 level to zero, even if you breath 100% pure oxygen, so all of you should just hold on to your breath.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[Anonymous]

Ive said this in the last few topics regarding Bob...I think he wants attention, even if it is negative..There is a difference between trends and factual evidence that a certain methodology works...Such as Acanthus Lordhowensis is a trend, Protein skimmers HELP clean up the water which is a fact..One is a fad the other is fact. Water changes are just another way of helping clean a tank..I dont even know why this is even being discussed since I had already brought up a similar subject a few weeks ago.. Which by the way turned into a 15pg back and forth disagreement...RDO members vs Bob...I also find it funny that Bob advocates his methods yet cant find at the very least someone to corraborate his claims..Unfortunately this is the only way to deal with Bob..By negating his claims or Admin banning him..I think Bob is a decent, nice guy, seeing how he deals with the criticizm that he choses to ignore. There must be a time when you put up or shut up..A high post count doesnt mean you have experience just look at some of the members in the sump :wink:

 

[HClH2OFish]

Ive said this in the last few topics regarding Bob...I think he wants attention, even if it is negative..There is a difference between trends and factual evidence that a certain methodology works...Such as Acanthus Lordhowensis is a trend, Protein skimmers HELP clean up the water which is a fact..One is a fad the other is fact. Water changes are just another way of helping clean a tank..I dont even know why this is even being discussed since I had already brought up a similar subject a few weeks ago.. Which by the way turned into a 15pg back and forth disagreement...RDO members vs Bob...I also find it funny that Bob advocates his methods yet cant find at the very least someone to corraborate his claims..Unfortunately this is the only way to deal with Bob..By negating his claims or Admin banning him..I think Bob is a decent, nice guy, seeing how he deals with the criticizm that he choses to ignore. There must be a time when you put up or shut up..A high post count doesnt mean you have experience just look at some of the members in the sump :wink:

I believe that sums up my feelings to a 'T' as well....

 

[Anonymous]

Here is some advice I can agree with.

Yes, it is possible to maintain a healthy aquarium for very extended periods (years) without water changes, but the value of this practice appears to be more a sense of dogmatic mental satisfaction than anything else, and to recommend it, ESPICALLY TO BEGINNERS who are less able to distinguish a situation which dictates the need for water change is IRRESPONSIBLE, in our opinion.

The Reef Aquarium Vol 1. J Charles Delbeek and Julian Sprung.


I will take the advice of these two over the advice of Bob anytime.

 

[Anonymous]

Any noob questioning the merits of established methods, need only look at beaslbobs septic....I mean "reef" tank - period.

 

[beanpole209]

No flippin way

 

[leftovers]

I only advocate eliminating any water change that's less than 30%. I only do water changes that are 40% or more and really would like to see people do 50% changes every few months. To bad i know that this will never happen; the excuses will now begin, too hard, no place to keep water, no money blah blah blah blah...

Why?

basic math.

If we follow your "dilution is the solution" it will take you next to forever to dilute with even 20%.... compared to even a 40%.

Of course those few of you with massive tanks this is impractical. But those with massive tanks have massive volume that takes longer to polute to begin with. Even with all things being relative, more fish more corals etc... you also have more plankton:zoo/phyto and more life to complete the process of biological reduction.

 

[Anonymous]

basic math.

If we follow your "dilution is the solution" it will take you next to forever to dilute with even 20%.... compared to even a 40%.

Of course those few of you with massive tanks this is impractical. But those with massive tanks have massive volume that takes longer to polute to begin with. Even with all things being relative, more fish more corals etc... you also have more plankton:zoo/phyto and more life to complete the process of biological reduction.

That's true enough, but if you do regular water changes your "pollution" should not be bad enough to make that a factor . If it is, you have other issues to deal with.

 

[RobertoVespucci]

That's true enough, but if you do regular water changes your "pollution" should not be bad enough to make that a factor . If it is, you have other issues to deal with.

If you start with clean water, salt, and rocks, you never need to do water changes.

 

[RobertoVespucci]

Ok, but how do you do a 50% water change? Wouldn't that require half your tank to be dry for atleast part of the process?

 

[leftovers]

That's true enough, but if you do regular water changes your "pollution" should not be bad enough to make that a factor . If it is, you have other issues to deal with.

If you start with clean water, salt, and rocks, you never need to do water changes.

And the instant you add food you start to add PO4 metals etc to the water. Its not about what you start with, its about whats added to keep what you start with alive and healthy.

That's true enough, but if you do regular water changes your "pollution" should not be bad enough to make that a factor Wink. If it is, you have other issues to deal with.

You need to look at what regular water changes are doing. If you do 10%every other week it will take MONTHS before you get where doing a 40% change will.

For example, lets say you want to dilute 50%. Doing 10% changes every other week, it will take you 8 changes to get to 48% dilute. thats 4 months.

Doing even a 30% change will take at least 3 changes or 6 weeks.

Doing a 40% will take 3 changes or 6 weeks but will result in dilution to 36% of original volume.

And if you want to get dilution down to say 20% or less well then be prepared to kick back and wait cause at 10% every week it will take 17 water changes....20% change will make you perform 9 water changes, 30% is 6 and 40%...5 but again your dilution is 12% of original volume vs. 16.7% at 20%.

My performing a 50% water change every other month (6 changes), gets me 3.125% of original volume remaining at the end of every year.

10% every other week (24 water changes) leaves me with 8. So you tell me which would you rather do?

 

[RobertoVespucci]

If you start with clean water, salt, and rocks, you never need to do water changes.

And the instant you add food you start to add PO4 metals etc to the water. Its not about what you start with, its about whats added to keep what you start with alive and healthy.

Sorry, I was trying for that irony thing. Maybe someday I'll get it right.

 

[leftovers]

If you start with clean water, salt, and rocks, you never need to do water changes.

And the instant you add food you start to add PO4 metals etc to the water. Its not about what you start with, its about whats added to keep what you start with alive and healthy.

Sorry, I was trying for that irony thing. Maybe someday I'll get it right.

heh try [irony] and [/irony]

 

[Anonymous]

Ok, but how do you do a 50% water change? Wouldn't that require half your tank to be dry for atleast part of the process?

I just pump the water out of my sump, but I have very big sump. You could also do the change in tank; pump in new water that is slightly colder than the tank and siphon from the top of the tank at the same time.

 

[Anonymous]

I made up a quick excel spreadsheet. I made it quite simple. We add 10 parts of X every week. I then had 4 options for water changes to remove X: 10% every week, 25% every week, 25% every 2 weeks, 50% every month and 50% every 2 months.

After 2 years: 10% weekly = 90 parts X, 25% weekly = 30 parts X, 25% 2 weeks = 60 parts, 50% monthly = 40 parts, and 50% every two months = 80 parts.

The problem with just calculating your dilutions is you are not counting what you are constantly adding.

 

[wade1]

Keep in mind as well, while constant addition of nutritive waste is normal, addition of some chemicals can be as well. An example... in the spring, when you and/or any neighbors within range of your house add pesticides to the yard or spray the house, those pesticides will end up in your tank. The amount entering the system varies with the type and properties, but it does occur.

A frying pan on the stove generates huge amounts of aerosol hydrocarbons and even nitrates (ie- bacon).

Pesticide use (herbicide for example, like 2,4-D) used within 100 yards of your house is usually detectable in the house within minutes of application.

And so on... so while you may not inadvertantly spill a gallon of chemical X into your tank, the addition can be sporadic or constant. Leftover's example is for a time point addition... which works int he case of spills or accidental input. JDM's is more accurate regarding food derived sources (but very debatable depending on input frequency and amount).