DSB Diagram -- Seeking Consensus

Well now I'm thoroughly confused. I just did some looking up of the "nitrifying" and "denitrifying" and it appears I had it right the first time. I'm no longer clear on what the Capn means. Unfortunately, he's no longer in the thread. So can anyone give me some clarification on this? Are these good terms to be using and where do they belong?
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15091430#post15091430 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Whys
You know Capn, if you're reading this, I find your announced unsubscription a little egotistical. First, you accuse me of placing "anaerobic bacteria" in the "oxygenated" layer. Which I did not, and yes, your overlooking that made me wonder just how much effort you were actually making in your analysis. That annoyed me and I said so. I then apologized for being irritable, which I was. Now I've refined the diagram, included a couple of your suggests, and yet you find the need to announce that you're leaving the thread without so much as an explanation. Is it really because I didn't include sulfate? Is it really because you just want me to create a chemistry diagram for your own blog? I say again, create your own diagram, Capn. I usually get paid for that.

Now I'm irritable again. :rolleyes:

The only way I see to add sulfate is to place a left pointing arrow on the right side of the anaerobic bacteria in the anoxic/anaerobic layer. But that would literally be coming out of right field and I don't believe would help visual understanding. But I'm willing to hear further arguments to that effect or any other suggestions for how that information could be effectively included in what is becoming an increasingly cluttered and cramped diagram.

Thanks again for everyone's help and sorry for the outburst. But damn it, this things has been work, there is never going to be absolute consensus, and I'm not here to placate egos. I don't think I should be creating this diagram specifically for other members blogs anymore than other members should be creating their blogs specifically for my diagram.

*sigh*...
Click to expand...

ouch Whys----the unsuscribing post was a mistake--not discovered until tonight.
Admitadly I do not know as much as the other contributors on here including yourself but I am trying to learn.

The blogs I created are two fold---I learn this way and I like to share my "free" efforts with others----I like to help others and have never expected anymore on RC then the occasional thank you and acceptance by my learned peers. The blogs I create always give credit to the efforts of the posters on here--I really don't see that using people for my own gain or notorarity.

I really think you are taking this dsb thread a little too seriouslly and a little too personally.

I wish you had let me explain by pm before you felt you needed to vent at me on line--it doesn't look good for either of us.

Your diagram is outstanding by the way and seeking and using the advise of others is to be commended.
 
My appologies Capn, but how was I to know? It appeared intentionally short.

This is why I typically work alone. :)

In any event, made the fix and looking for final checks.

DSB_consensus_010.jpg
 
To me, they symbolize all that remains unknown about the DSB. They represent the magical qualities of DSB theory, representing both the good and the bad.

I for one believe there are small gnomes within the depths of every DSB, and they are ultimately responsible for everything that either does or does not go on there.

They're cute... and I had an open space. :)
 
But after reading the whole thread I think you did a fantastic job, KODUS.

The only thing I would add, if it were at all possible or known info. Is the depth of each layer. I know it can vary from tank to tank or kind of substrate, but it would be very good info for anyone setting up a DSB. Maybe not absolutely necessary, and maybe to variable to give depths.

One bullet you might want to consider is, info on the substrate material itself. Or maybe just put a suggestion on the top or bottom some where. Because that is a very common question for a newbie. They often aren't even sure what substrate to use.
 
My appologies Capn, but how was I to know? It appeared intentionally short.

That's okay but remember in the future that we are on the same team here and most of the time on the same page.
Click to expand...
This is why I typically work alone. :)
[/B][/QUOTE]

I can understand that---its hard to squeeze two people into these new computer chairs :)

DSB_consensus_010.jpg
[/B]
Click to expand...

a really great job Whys. Having been on many many curriculum teams , colaborating is a very hard and sometimes frustrating process. But usually the end product is worth it.
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15093619#post15093619 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Whys
To me, they symbolize all that remains unknown about the DSB. They represent the magical qualities of DSB theory, representing both the good and the bad.

I for one believe there are small gnomes within the depths of every DSB, and they are ultimately responsible for everything that either does or does not go on there.

They're cute... and I had an open space. :)
Click to expand...

your just looking for kudos from the boss:;)

wkgnome.jpg
 
No need to make excuses for me Capn. I'm an uptight and insanely defensive a** while working on projects of this magnitude. You'll notice, I've included in some way nearly every idea that irked me. I'm odd that way. :)

I thank all of you for your collaboration and putting up with me. I'll look over any bullets given before submitting the diagram to Waterkeeper. Credit will be given to the RC community.
 
Credit where credit's due whys, dont let the naysayers get you down, I like the gnomes, and be careful what you say some people have a habit of overeacting.;)
 
Currently, here is what I have for the bullets. Please help fill in the blanks, especially where ever you see question marks. Feel free to suggest additional bullets. Thanks. :)

BULLETS
------------


Terminology:

- detritus: particulate & dissolved.
- oxygen: oxic, hypoxic, anoxic.
- environmentalists: facultative, anoxic, anaerobic.
- nitrifying & denitrifying ???


Substrate:

- composition.
- total depth: 4" to 6".
- oxic depth: ???
- hypoxic depth: ???
- hypoxic/anoxic depth: ???
- anoxic/anaerobic depth: ???
- avoid benthic eaters: hermits, sand sifting stars, ???.


Remote DSB:

- ???

^^^ There is enough difference of opinion on this that I hesitate to include any of it. Some say fast flow, some say slow flow, and RDSBs are often deeper and/or without organisms. I know Capn has an ideal in mind, but I'd like to keep things to what we all mostly agree upon. So what can be safely added to this section?


Reduction:

- sulfate to hydrogen sulfide (and more?) ???


Other:

- PO4 binding nature of calcium ???

^^^ I know nothing about this one, but jenglish mentioned it.


Anything else?
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15097841#post15097841 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Whys


Other:

- PO4 binding nature of calcium ???

^^^ I know nothing about this one, but jenglish mentioned it.


Anything else?
Click to expand...

Calcium based sand and rock can bind up PO4. When you are cooking rock you are using bacteria to pull the PO4 out of the rock for food and push themselves out with their own growth rates. There isn't really a method for removing PO4 from sand. Eventually a DSB will reach saturation point, be full of PO4 and start leaching it back into the water. This would generally mean a DSB needs replaced. The time frame of this is varied of course and a DSB can last for years or even decades. I don't know chemically how it is bound, perhaps since the main focus of this is the nitrogen compounds it would be best to leave it out or make it only a brief footnote... or at least find somebody that knows more than I about it :lol:
 
I think PO4 saturation along with H2S and other toxic buildup is worth mentioning. Thank you for this addition.
 
But just like LR can eventually be purged of PO4 in a tank if the water parameters are correct for long enough, I think the same would be true with a DSB. So I don't think saying they will have to be replaced at some point is really totally true. It would have to include LR at that point and I have never heard any one say you will have to replace your LR at some point.
 
I think it's worth mentioning what can happen while acknowledging that it will not necessarily happen.

As I see it, the purpose is to educate just enough to let others come to their own conclusions. Where we disagree, we can simply say it is a matter of debate.
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15098807#post15098807 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by luther1200
But just like LR can eventually be purged of PO4 in a tank if the water parameters are correct for long enough, I think the same would be true with a DSB. So I don't think saying they will have to be replaced at some point is really totally true. It would have to include LR at that point and I have never heard any one say you will have to replace your LR at some point.
Click to expand...

The difference is you can cook LR, a DSB could of course be cleansed through osmosis via enough w/c or GFO, but at that point it is probably more time and expense than replacing. WHile it is theoretically possible to keep a DSB from ever absorbing any PO4 it is not likely IMO. :)
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15099895#post15099895 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by luther1200
Would you say that most people will have to cook there rock if they have a tank long enough?
Click to expand...

If you have rock on sand... probably eventually. Rock can wick PO4 from the sand. It all gets down to the nutrients in, nutrients out. If there is more nutrients going in than being removed then PO4 is going to bond to calcium.

The disadvantage sand has to rock is gravity. Poo is sitting on the sand as it is being broken down providing contact. WIth a bare bottom or a rock lift you can more effectively starve out bacteria to converting bound PO4 and cook in tank. There are so many factors going in to it that perhaps it would be an overstatement that all rocks and all SB will eventually fill with PO4, but for the most part you have nutrient flowing in and not flowing out. I know DSB that have been running w/o GFO or even many w/c since 1995, in a well maintained tank perhaps the DSB and rock can both outlive the builder w/o needing cooked or replaced. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

A
How to Install Linear Actuators for Easy Lifting of Your Reef Tank SPS Light
Replies
4
Views
2K
oreo57
oreo57
L
Lighting Advise for 36 x 18 SPS
Replies
7
Views
551
Uncle99
Uncle99
R
Stay Away
Replies
6
Views
278
saltypilot
S
A
Overflowbox work?
Replies
7
Views
478
wvned
wvned
A
Overflowbox work?
Replies
4
Views
399
griss
griss
Back
Top