Dsb's work, what makes them work best?

[inwall75]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6498021#post6498021 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Weatherman
Maybe there are no ââ"šÂ¬Ã…"œrightsââ"šÂ¬Ã‚ or ââ"šÂ¬Ã…"œwrongsââ"šÂ¬Ã‚.

In nature a sand bed can exist anywhere from a wave-pounded beach, where deep sand is in constant motion, to the bottom of an ocean trench, where except for critter movement, the sand grains may have not shifted position in thousands of years.

Not only that, in many lagoons, there are periodic resets from storms. Dana Riddle recently posted that a lagoon he was studying was completely emptied of just about every single grain of sand. Obviously, the sand will be returned to this lagoon but at the beginning it's not going to have all of the infauna that were there before. Here's my guess....when the sand returns, bacteria will figure out how to deal with ETS and denitrification in spite of the lack of infauna, in spite of the size of the sand grains, etc.

BTW, someone posted this on another board. I thought it was pretty good. http://www.sp.uconn.edu/~terry/Common/respiration.html

 

[joefish]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6497985#post6497985 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by inwall75
There is a difference. A skimmer completely removes a nutrient from the system. A refugium leaves it in situ, and a UV kills but doesn't remove the nutrients at all. It leaves the remains to be picked up by a skimmer.

Not talking nutients , sorry inwall.

Talking about this posted by Bertoni.

The UV would kill any pelagic larvae from DSB animals, and thus might inhibit their reproduction. Any animal with a planktonic development stage would be an issue.

 

[barryhc]

I can understand your frustration Joe, We are all "trying".

You notice though, that someone will say what is right, and sure enough someone else says "nope, not happenin". And so here we are. If these things were so simply and definitively known, we wouldn't be discussing this.

I believe, however that those of us who participate in these discussions over a long period of time, become exceedingly well educated in the ART of Reef Keeping.

At this stage, this really is an art, where we use science to our best benefit. It remains an art just the same, and each Aqaurist is the artist .

This thread should be around for a while. It will likely get better as we go. It has gotten pretty good already.

Thanks everybody! > barryhc

 

[inwall75]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6498089#post6498089 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by joefish
Not talking nutients , sorry inwall.

Talking about this posted by Bertoni.

Same thing. If the spawn doesn't become productive, it dies and becomes a nutrient. Whether it is killed by UV or whether the sperm can't find an egg or vice-versa, it becomes a nutrient. Obviously, we want some nutrients in our tanks. Then afterwards we want to remove them with a skimmer.

 

[inwall75]

Great post Barry!!!

 

[barryhc]

Geeze Curt, here I was getting into the "seeking to understand" part, and doing quite well I thought when yo umanaged to "sneak in" while I was previewing my post ! ! !

That just isn't fair. :lol: :lol:

> barryhc

ooPS: Look what you did to my spelling ! ! It's gonta get mesce know.

 

[inwall75]

Just flyin' in under radar.

 

[bertoni]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6497810#post6497810 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by joefish
Why would this be different from the use of a skimmer , other then a skimmer rips it from the water and a uv kills it ?

A skimmer won't necessarily remove larvae. They can swim and move, and have methods of dealing with flow. The skimmer also won't necessarily catch everything, but UV is pretty much a death sentence, if properly installed.

 

[bertoni]

Okay, I want to stress that the purpose of the quotes was to encourage some reading, if anyone wants to understand the details. These papers are many pages long, in very small type. Also, these aren't books, but research papers, and you can get them for free at libraries.

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6497828#post6497828 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by barryhc

Alright, so we need to know what is coarse deposits, what is medium, and what is mud. Then there is the definition of "infauna". Secondly then, is the definition of Epifauna, which are most diverse in "coarse substrates", whatever that is.


Mud is like the "flour" I discussed. For the other definitions, you'd probably want to see this article:

G. Y. Craig and N. S. Jones, 1966, Paleontology, 9, 30-38.

For our tanks, as measured in the class I took, a substrate with phi value 1.2 was too coarse to support proper infauna.

Infauna live in the substrate. Epifauna live on the surface.


> barryhc

 

[bertoni]

Okay, so Eric Borneman responded to my question. He wasn't too happy about talking on the subject, since the topic gets too argumentative on a regular basis, but he confirmed that his DSB tank ran without measureable phosphate in the water column.

 

[barryhc]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6499493#post6499493 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by bertoni
A skimmer won't necessarily remove larvae. They can swim and move, and have methods of dealing with flow. The skimmer also won't necessarily catch everything, but UV is pretty much a death sentence, if properly installed.

"They" can swim and move, and deal with flow, to avoid the UV, EXACTLY the same as they can "avoid" the skimmer, as far as being "exposed to the unit". In many cases, the skimmer water and UV canister water, follow very similar if not identical paths.

Therefore, if you want to make a distinction, as to the death rate between the two devices, you can assume that 100% are killed with the "UV unit", but you must then also define the death rate for the "Skimmer unit", musn't you ? ? ?

SO, what is good for the Goose, is good for the Gander, is it not?

> barryhc

 

[barryhc]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6499551#post6499551 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by bertoni
Okay, I want to stress that the purpose of the quotes was to encourage some reading, if anyone wants to understand the details. These papers are many pages long, in very small type. Also, these aren't books, but research papers, and you can get them for free at libraries.

I just can't find the time to go to libraries, and this is again, why myself and many others spend so much time at RC, and other intermet resources.

If we all ran off to the library for our information, RC would be out of business, in very short order.

.063 mm equals .0024", which is the thickness of hair for people with rather thin hair ( average human hairs are closer to .0035" ).

This is the value from Shimek's book, as you have posted, for the SMALLEST particles, in his "prescribed substrate mixture".

Flour is WAY SMALLER than that, and I am going to measure it ! ! !

You go get whatever info. you have on the specific size of "flour", and then we can "sift them together".

Now I know that there a lot of different versions of flour, but since that term is being used as an analogy here, I am going to use the most common version that is familiar to every one here, and that is the "white stuff" in my wife's kitchen cabinet.

Okey-Dokey ? ?

> barryhc

 

[inwall75]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6499575#post6499575 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by bertoni
Okay, so Eric Borneman responded to my question. He wasn't too happy about talking on the subject, since the topic gets too argumentative on a regular basis, but he confirmed that his DSB tank ran without measureable phosphate in the water column.

Didn't he also say he has 11 BB culture tanks that don't measure any "testable" phosphates? I've run BB/SSB/DSB systems that don't have measurable phosphates. Near the beginning of this thread, we pointed out how few phosphates are testable. We've also discussed that they are going through the water column even if we can't test for them. I'm trying to figure out where you are going with this.

 

[barryhc]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6499551#post6499551 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by bertoni
For our tanks, as measured in the class I took, a substrate with phi value 1.2 was too coarse to support proper infauna.

The problem with that figure, is that the grain size that I have been promoting, is .1 to 1.1 mm which I have also given you the source for, and that is certainly smaller than the 1.2 figure that you are stating here.

If you are giving this figure, in relation to the "surface rubble", or alternate grain size "at the surface" that I have been referencing, then you need to say so, and the figures that you quote, also have to state the particular condition that the numbers are relative to.

Thanks again, > barryhc

 

[joefish]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6499493#post6499493 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by bertoni
A skimmer won't necessarily remove larvae. They can swim and move, and have methods of dealing with flow. The skimmer also won't necessarily catch everything, but UV is pretty much a death sentence, if properly installed.

I would think the same way about a skimmer , if it's properly installed nothing would escape .

To me it's the same death sentence .

 

[joefish]

Oh ! I might be wrong but doesn't a UV help brake the bonds that PO4 has on the NO3 to make it more skimmable ?


I know who said it , just not where and how true it is.

 

[joefish]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6498150#post6498150 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by inwall75
Same thing. If the spawn doesn't become productive, it dies and becomes a nutrient. Whether it is killed by UV or whether the sperm can't find an egg or vice-versa, it becomes a nutrient. Obviously, we want some nutrients in our tanks. Then afterwards we want to remove them with a skimmer.

Your 100% right . I was still talking about the disavantage that Bertoni said a UV makes on a DSB . This being that UV kills Larvae and plankton life . I was questiong what was the difference between a skimmer ripping it out of the water or a UV that kills it and then a skimmer pulls it out .

I might be dumb , but not quit that bad yet !:lol:

 

[joefish]

Back to diagnosing my tank .

Could the sand bed be clean if it's leaching PO4 ?

The NO3 was measured at o at the time .

If there was a separate source for the PO4 , why would turf algae attach to the rock and coraline and nothing else ?

 

[aubee91]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6500131#post6500131 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by joefish
Back to diagnosing my tank .

Could the sand bed be clean if it's leaching PO4 ?

The NO3 was measured at o at the time .

If there was a separate source for the PO4 , why would turf algae attach to the rock and coraline and nothing else ?

I would have expected you to see algae on the DSB as well. Were you getting measurable levels of PO4 in the water column?

Another thought or speculation...is it possible that you had an adequate amount of critters to keep the bed clean so it stayed white, but that it had still sunk enough phosphate that it was leaking?

 

[Sindjin]

Back to diagnosing my tank .

Could the sand bed be clean if it's leaching PO4 ?

The NO3 was measured at o at the time .

If there was a separate source for the PO4 , why would turf algae attach to the rock and coraline and nothing else ?

Actually. IMO its the rock thats releaseing PO4....thats where the algae is. This is why, also IMO, that Rock Cooking becomes evidentally more important.