DSB Heresy
- Thread starter ldrhawke
- Start date
cutting
New member
First off, I gave up after getting to page 7 in one reading. I started around 2130, its now 0223 (yes military time, cause I am in the military) and the Jim Beam was helping me undrstand what was being said, which scared me enough to call it quits for tonight.
Back on topic; I think this system has its merits, but I dont neccessarily agree with draining 3 times a day, but if it is working thats cool.
Something that made a lot of sense to me was in regards to the DSB approach is that even in the natural reef, the sand bed is disturbed, either by weather fluctuations (hurricanes, typhoons, etc) or by various animals (hermit crabs, sea slugs, even sharks). So why should we allow our systems to stagnate.
BTW this post falls under the "tweakage" category, not insults or the "look at me I'm opinionated and special" variety.
Side note: Just remember, this forum exists because most of us dont have the time or resources to find experts in chemistry, biology, water treatment, and in some cases a LFS. So try not to scare said experts off, even if they do sound condensending at times. Its just a sign of confidence.
Back on topic; I think this system has its merits, but I dont neccessarily agree with draining 3 times a day, but if it is working thats cool.
Something that made a lot of sense to me was in regards to the DSB approach is that even in the natural reef, the sand bed is disturbed, either by weather fluctuations (hurricanes, typhoons, etc) or by various animals (hermit crabs, sea slugs, even sharks). So why should we allow our systems to stagnate.
BTW this post falls under the "tweakage" category, not insults or the "look at me I'm opinionated and special" variety.
Side note: Just remember, this forum exists because most of us dont have the time or resources to find experts in chemistry, biology, water treatment, and in some cases a LFS. So try not to scare said experts off, even if they do sound condensending at times. Its just a sign of confidence.
rpgraff
Premium Member
ldrhawke said:I'm sitting in a hotel room across country in Portland and just found time to log on to RC.I find it very humorous how some people fall down and cry like 4 year old kids when they get responded too in kind. Grow up kids....or better yet learn some manners.
If asking questions is crying like a 4 year old then I guess I'm guilty as charged. Dismissing those questions like you did is just as guilty.
In defense of the CEO (you can simply call me brown noser from here on out). I think his point was that he doesn't have all the answers, and being that DSB's fail after several years, it will likely be several years before we know if it works. It was mentioned on page 4 (okay, somewhere about 10 pages back) that no testing was done on the "waste" however there are reports from other sources which did test the plenum water, so he doesn't know what the chemistry of the waste is, and also that it "purges" the plenum once a day for a few seconds (or is it a minute now), not 3 times.
Anyway, that all being said, the response did come across a little rude, despite smileys. But I wouldn't take it personally, after all it is the internet, and I am just a 4 year old....but damn am I gifted.
So...children play nice now, or there will be no dessert.
Anyway, that all being said, the response did come across a little rude, despite smileys. But I wouldn't take it personally, after all it is the internet, and I am just a 4 year old....but damn am I gifted.
So...children play nice now, or there will be no dessert.
ldrhawke said:
This idea may end up working well long term or it could end up crashing peopleââ"šÂ¬Ã¢"žÂ¢s tanks. Hopefully everyone that implements this in their tanks will continue to share their results and ask questions in spite of how their questions might be answered. The saying "There is no such thing as a stupid question", doesn't mean there are no stupid questions, it means if we have a question about something we won't ask it if we feel like we will be treated like an idiot when we ask it. If we don't ask questions (including the occasional stupid ones) we will never learn anything that will advance this hobby and allow us to better care for the living things in our glass boxes.
As much as I have been annoyed by the rude, arrogant, condescending and immature manner that ldrhawke has chosen to respond to some people's questions, this board really wouldn't be worth visiting without people who share their ideas. Maybe ldrhawke will learn something about dealing with people in a respectful manner while he teaches us a new method of filtration for our tanks.
I have no plans to implement this, a bare bottom tank works great for me. Still, I find the potential interesting and will continue to follow this thread to see how this works for those who have chosen to implement it. Hopefully they will continue to share their results with us.
Brent
Shoestring Reefer
New member
Well, that's bound to happen with new ideas, and even with well-developed ideas. A change in opinion (or methodology) shows an open mind, and is better than being stubborn IMO.vmichael said:
aqua_obs
New member
You guys, cut it out... Just call it business. He ain't tryin' to smooth talk anyone, nor anyone luvn' up to him... though I could use a new job. Does any of you watch that TV show with Donald Trump? "The Board" or what reality name they gave it. That is a bunch of CEOs and they are arse-holes. Comes with the job. Obviously the communications can be too horendous. Shoestring was the first to get into the flames and he's still here!
I think this method is destined to CRASH, but I hope NOT. I think it'll eventually "tweak" the bacteria in the sand bed. O2 levels are important from everything I've read and heard. Keeping them consistant vs depth in the sand bed should produce consistant tank results, which for our systems which are very small is important. All said is just opinion. So far the CEO of Sludge is having good luck, but from what I can remember he is making changes to compensate for changes in water chemistry. That could be an indication of things not working or him improving them. Good luck to him.
CEO of sludge, do you watch "the Board" with D. Trump? Whaddya think?
I think this method is destined to CRASH, but I hope NOT. I think it'll eventually "tweak" the bacteria in the sand bed. O2 levels are important from everything I've read and heard. Keeping them consistant vs depth in the sand bed should produce consistant tank results, which for our systems which are very small is important. All said is just opinion. So far the CEO of Sludge is having good luck, but from what I can remember he is making changes to compensate for changes in water chemistry. That could be an indication of things not working or him improving them. Good luck to him.
CEO of sludge, do you watch "the Board" with D. Trump? Whaddya think?
aqua_obs
New member
You guys, cut it out... Just call it business. He ain't tryin' to smooth talk anyone, nor anyone luvn' up to him... though I could use a new job. Does any of you watch that TV show with Donald Trump? "The Board" or what reality name they gave it. That is a bunch of CEOs and they are arse-holes. Comes with the job. Obviously the communications can be too horendous. Shoestring was the first to get into the flames and he's still here!
I think this method is destined to CRASH, but I hope NOT. I think it'll eventually "tweak" the bacteria in the sand bed. O2 levels are important from everything I've read and heard. Keeping them consistant vs depth in the sand bed should produce consistant tank results, which for our systems which are very small is important. All said is just opinion. So far the CEO of Sludge is having good luck, but from what I can remember he is making changes to compensate for changes in water chemistry. That could be an indication of things not working or him improving them. Good luck to him.
CEO of sludge, do you watch "the Board" with D. Trump? Whaddya think?
I think this method is destined to CRASH, but I hope NOT. I think it'll eventually "tweak" the bacteria in the sand bed. O2 levels are important from everything I've read and heard. Keeping them consistant vs depth in the sand bed should produce consistant tank results, which for our systems which are very small is important. All said is just opinion. So far the CEO of Sludge is having good luck, but from what I can remember he is making changes to compensate for changes in water chemistry. That could be an indication of things not working or him improving them. Good luck to him.
CEO of sludge, do you watch "the Board" with D. Trump? Whaddya think?
aqua_obs said:
Yes....and I think you are pretty astute.......:mixed:
As somone else has said, and as I have said numerous times. The long term benefits of CPW will probably only be realized over time, especially when you are trying to compare the perfomance to a conventional DSB that works for years for some people and fails for others in less than a year.
If CPW allows me to have a DSB that still reduces nitrates to zero, doesn't crash, and doesn't release phosphates back into the water column after it has collected them.......it is an improvement and a step forward.
Chicago
New member
alot of bashing at each other. some must have too much time on their hands. this hobby only moves forward because some question the means by which we reach the end. they at the cost to them both their tanks and wallet move to adapt, change, modify, improve or go in a new direction. Yes, there are set backs, but with each set back there are movemeents forward.
We should not bash those who try to experiment and improve things. self labled experts are quite transparent but yet clearly visable to those who know what to look for. that all having been said and some not making sense, lets see where this idea goes and discuss some data as it becomes available.
We should not bash those who try to experiment and improve things. self labled experts are quite transparent but yet clearly visable to those who know what to look for. that all having been said and some not making sense, lets see where this idea goes and discuss some data as it becomes available.
Okay guys and gals, lets try to keep the messages useful as well as courteous. These threads get long enough without the derogatory comments.
ldrhawke, I would first like to thank you for posting this thread. I like the idea of the CPW system that you propose and I would like to institute something like it in my next tank. I agree with you and others that it does have potential but of course will take time to work out the kinks and optimize it.
In regards to some of you wanting to use fine sand (like Southdown) in this type of system I had an idea will form a ââ"šÂ¬Ã…"œpseudoââ"šÂ¬Ã‚ plenium and will reduce any short circuiting effect, eliminate blockage of the PVC holes, and allow for slow constant draining:
1. Set up the PVC grid as ldrhawke has described including wrapping the tubes in cloth (larger holes than 1/32 is appropriate in this particular setup)
2. Add enough large particle substrate (like large CC) to cover the PVC (about an inch)
3. Now cover the entire layer of CC with more cloth
4. On top of the cloth barrier add a mixture of substrate sizes (CC, fine sand, etc) at around 3-4 inches of depth.
This should in effect take the place of the small number of 1/32 inch holes by creating a gradient of larger particles (close to the PVC near the bottom of the tank) to smaller particles as you move up through the sand bed. As a result, the chance of short circuiting and dead spots will be reduced, if not eliminated. The large particle substrate in the bottom essentially acts as a pseudo plenium to prevent the short circuiting caused with an empty plenium. The second layer of cloth over the large particle substrate should eliminate small sand particles from getting though and clogging the holes in the PVC as well as maintaining the gradient of particles in the sand bed and yielding an even draw of fluid through the sand bed even with slow draining. Let me know if you all think this concept will work?
ldrhawke, I would first like to thank you for posting this thread. I like the idea of the CPW system that you propose and I would like to institute something like it in my next tank. I agree with you and others that it does have potential but of course will take time to work out the kinks and optimize it.
In regards to some of you wanting to use fine sand (like Southdown) in this type of system I had an idea will form a ââ"šÂ¬Ã…"œpseudoââ"šÂ¬Ã‚ plenium and will reduce any short circuiting effect, eliminate blockage of the PVC holes, and allow for slow constant draining:
1. Set up the PVC grid as ldrhawke has described including wrapping the tubes in cloth (larger holes than 1/32 is appropriate in this particular setup)
2. Add enough large particle substrate (like large CC) to cover the PVC (about an inch)
3. Now cover the entire layer of CC with more cloth
4. On top of the cloth barrier add a mixture of substrate sizes (CC, fine sand, etc) at around 3-4 inches of depth.
This should in effect take the place of the small number of 1/32 inch holes by creating a gradient of larger particles (close to the PVC near the bottom of the tank) to smaller particles as you move up through the sand bed. As a result, the chance of short circuiting and dead spots will be reduced, if not eliminated. The large particle substrate in the bottom essentially acts as a pseudo plenium to prevent the short circuiting caused with an empty plenium. The second layer of cloth over the large particle substrate should eliminate small sand particles from getting though and clogging the holes in the PVC as well as maintaining the gradient of particles in the sand bed and yielding an even draw of fluid through the sand bed even with slow draining. Let me know if you all think this concept will work?
It should work fine. Good approach and implementation. I just question if sugar sand is more trouble than it is worth.
We always here about all the large surface area available for biological growth in sugar sand, but the problem becomes getting the bacteria enough food and/or oxygen to grow and survive. Even with the approach you describe there is still a great chance of major dead zones in the bed, although they will be greatly reduced.
I do not think a DSB's problem is adequate biological surface area as much as it is starting and sustaining a biological biomass. This is one reason they often feed anoxic zones of a denitrification filter with a carbon source like alcohol or vinegar.
I have read a lot of posts where digging down into the lower part of an established DSB and found little signs of life and nothing but clean white sand. Which means they were virtually dead biological zones, in the fine sugar sand.
The chance of fine sugar sand working will be enhanced with what you propose. Personalyl I would still use a coarser substrate to assure of positive even fluid movement through it.
ldrhawke
Can't say a agree more with what you say. Logically a coarser bed will provide much more water movement than fine sand. Less surface area of course, however, if there is no water getting there than what is the use of fine sand? The DSB experts all say that sugar fine sand is the ONLY way to go and that going with a course substrate like CC will not allow the DSB to function properly. From reading this time after time after time it has biased my thinking that sugar sand IS the only way to go. Whoes me, have I been brainwashed? From what I remember of the literature is that the low oxygen areas will not exist without several inches of very fine sand. I think their problem with CC was that it did provide too much water movement in the DSB and not provide these low areas of oxygen. I also remember something about sifting critters did not like the courser/sharper substrate as much? Did you seed your bed with the typical DSB sifting critters and are they happy? Perhaps with the CPW setup this changes the dynamics a bit as the system calls for a much more even water flow without dead spots. This obviously will be very difficult to achieve with fine sand unless the bed is shallow. God forbid, the experts find out one is using a shallow DSB, they will all have stokes and/or turn in their graves!
It is very difficult deciding how to set up a new tank when there are so many different views/opinions on how to do it. I do remember a famous quote that goes something like ââ"šÂ¬Ã…"œthe more you know, the more you donââ"šÂ¬Ã¢"žÂ¢t knowââ"šÂ¬Ã‚Â; so so true!
Can't say a agree more with what you say. Logically a coarser bed will provide much more water movement than fine sand. Less surface area of course, however, if there is no water getting there than what is the use of fine sand? The DSB experts all say that sugar fine sand is the ONLY way to go and that going with a course substrate like CC will not allow the DSB to function properly. From reading this time after time after time it has biased my thinking that sugar sand IS the only way to go. Whoes me, have I been brainwashed? From what I remember of the literature is that the low oxygen areas will not exist without several inches of very fine sand. I think their problem with CC was that it did provide too much water movement in the DSB and not provide these low areas of oxygen. I also remember something about sifting critters did not like the courser/sharper substrate as much? Did you seed your bed with the typical DSB sifting critters and are they happy? Perhaps with the CPW setup this changes the dynamics a bit as the system calls for a much more even water flow without dead spots. This obviously will be very difficult to achieve with fine sand unless the bed is shallow. God forbid, the experts find out one is using a shallow DSB, they will all have stokes and/or turn in their graves!
It is very difficult deciding how to set up a new tank when there are so many different views/opinions on how to do it. I do remember a famous quote that goes something like ââ"šÂ¬Ã…"œthe more you know, the more you donââ"šÂ¬Ã¢"žÂ¢t knowââ"šÂ¬Ã‚Â; so so true!
In any DSB low oxygen areas are often within 1 to 2 inches of the surface. Below a couple of inches, coarse crushed coral substrate, gets just as anoxic as sugar sand without a positive exchange of fluid. I do not believe critters make that much difference in getting oxygen deep into a DSB, you will rapidly have anoxic conditions as the aerobic bacteria use up the oxygen in the bottom of any DSB; coarse or fine.
The Carib Special grade substrate I used in my tank is a uniform coarse crushed coral. There is plenty of life in the substrate. It is easy to see worm burrows from top to bottom and plenty of discoloration all the way to the bottom of the substrate where the substrate and acrylic meet in the front.
My snails continue to burrow just below the surface when the lights are on. The pod population is keeping my Mandarins fat. The whole bottom is densely cover with spaghetti worms. In fact, on several occasions I have watched the spaghetti worms disburse heavy white clouds of eggs into the water column.
pH is 8.3, S.G is 1.026, calcium is 425, nitrates is 0, nitrites are 0, and ammonia is 0. I have a small fuge with macro algae.
A few weeks ago the phosphates started to climb and reached as high as 5 after feeding the fish. The skimmer doesn't pull all the phosphate out. I do not believe any is being leached from the substrate. I have a dozen fish in a 60g system and feed heavily which is why the phosphates started building.
When the phosphate climbed I immediately had a hair algae bloom on the live rock. I started using RowaPhos in a bag. After a couple of days the Rowaphos started to solidify in the bag and wasn't very pervious to the water flow. But the phosphated still quickly dropped to 1.
I have since made my own fluidized bed filter to put the Rowaphos in and have now reduced the phosphates close to 0. The Rowaphos slowly rolls and boils at the bottom of the fluidized filter I built and no longer clumps. The filter sits in and over flows into my fuge. It was simple to build and requires little maintenance. Once a week I add a teaspoon of fresh RowaPhos in with the old while the filter is running.
All of the hair algae is gone, except in a few spots at the top of my live rock column where the live rock is breaking the water surface, just in front of the over flow where excess food can collect. The little algae that remains at the top has not completely gone away, but it has turned gray and is dying. My yellow tang should have it all the dead algae eaten within a couple of weeks. The algae in the fuge grows very slowly, indicating low nitrates and phosphates.
I am in the process of redoing my lighting to two 250w MH, a 20k and 10k bulb, to increase the intensity for the sps. The lighting will be on a slide rack that easily moves it out of the way, so I can get at the top of the tank. The original lighting unit, (5) 75w VHO and a single 250 w MH, was very heavy and a pain to remove. *Any one want to buy 5-24"VHO's and a IceCap electronic ballast?
All of the coral, soft and sps are growing very well, now that the phosphates are getting close to 0. I get little to no algae growth on the tank glass or anywhere in the tank now. So if any phosphate is leaching from the substrate it can't be very much.
I plan on running an experiment in which I will slowly meter a small quantity of vinegar, using the CPW system, into the bottom of the bed. The idea is to increase the microbe population and drop the pH in the very bottom of the bed. I would like to see if it helps to put any phosphate plating out deep in the bed back into solution, so it can be flushed out with a water change or during the CPW wasting and eliminate the need for RowaPhos.
If it doesn't work I will simply keep using RowaPhos in the fluidized filter and add a teaspoon a week to keep phosphates near zero and the coral happy.
Last edited:
shannonbarry
New member
I have been tagging along and I know this is slightly off topic but where can I buy some " RowaPhos"?
I have heard that it is the best.
Thanks Shannon
I have heard that it is the best.
Thanks Shannon
Scleractinian
Premium Member
ldrhawke said:I'm sitting in a hotel room across country in Portland and just found time to log on to RC.
Ummm...
Nevermind... I'm probably just too slow to understand why I shouldn't find this amusing.
(the following is meant to be sarcastic in a friendly way)
Oh! Wait! Here ya go: "Nice power tie! It 'complements' your ego just so!" (end intentional sarcasm--mostly)
Whoops! Sorry! I'm a bit spent after spending much of the last week on SCBA and encapsulated in Saranex. Due respect restored!
I might have missed it as I've haven't really been keeping up with this thread, but: has regular monitoring of any kind continued, or did we just decide that the approach is a good idea and that we'd decide in 4 years if it's better than the DSB approach?
Also, ldrhawke, do you prefer RowaPhos over the TLF version, and might you have any potential industry source for this magic rust in bulk?
Similar threads
