:lol: Phixer, you should probably not post from the same computer when you're trying to pretend to be new.
2 minutes ago I thought there was someone agreeing with Phixer. Now you're telling me my reality was wrong??!!
:lol: Phixer, you should probably not post from the same computer when you're trying to pretend to be new.
:lol: Phixer, you should probably not post from the same computer when you're trying to pretend to be new.
Three years of growth with Adee's scrubbed tank:
![]()
Hey Decadence, glad you popped back in, and brought the conversation back to water changes. Although the thread has gotten perhaps more heated than it should have I don't think that anyone is on trial, but I do agree that the burden of proof lies on someone making a claim.
My point with water changes is and has always been that the reason we do them is not just for nutrient export (although that is the primary conceived reason for them by new aquariests), but because there are so many things going on in our water that we can't reliably measure and correct for, so out with the old and in with the new, presumably better, water. It's cheap, it's easy, and it does everything you could possibly want for correcting your water chemistry. I disagree with your assertion that going without water changes works for so many people. Even you do a 50% water change a couple times a year, which isn't a lot but it's not nothing either. I would argue that for the vast majority of healthy tanks, water changes are the routine and they play a role in the health of those tanks.
Now to the point of algae as a filtration method. I would agree with you that algae can be a good method of nutrient export. I run chaeto myself, growing wild and dark green under the Red and Blue LED's (originally experimented with by the ATS crowd, thanks for fueling the mad scientist in me guys). But like anything else the devil is in the details. Different species of algae may produce more harmful compounds than others, so we might want to shy away from those species in favor of others. I would also point out that the purported benefits of ATS earlier in this thread earlier seem inflated to say the least.
As a final comment, I would point out that many things can work, but be non-ideal. I know this is certainly true in my tank, as I am not perfect and don't know everything, so we are all engaged in a constant learning process to hopefully get more "ideal." Considering this, the argument over what works and what doesn't work is very different than what is best practice and is not best practice.
Please dont take this the wrong way as this is only my 2nd post. But from an outsiders perspective and looking over your posts, it seems like you like do not respect differences of opinion or maybe you just know everything.
:lol: Phixer, you should probably not post from the same computer when you're trying to pretend to be new.
Hey Decadence, glad you popped back in, and brought the conversation back to water changes. Although the thread has gotten perhaps more heated than it should have I don't think that anyone is on trial, but I do agree that the burden of proof lies on someone making a claim.
My point with water changes is and has always been that the reason we do them is not just for nutrient export (although that is the primary conceived reason for them by new aquariests), but because there are so many things going on in our water that we can't reliably measure and correct for, so out with the old and in with the new, presumably better, water. It's cheap, it's easy, and it does everything you could possibly want for correcting your water chemistry. I disagree with your assertion that going without water changes works for so many people. Even you do a 50% water change a couple times a year, which isn't a lot but it's not nothing either. I would argue that for the vast majority of healthy tanks, water changes are the routine and they play a role in the health of those tanks.
Now to the point of algae as a filtration method. I would agree with you that algae can be a good method of nutrient export. I run chaeto myself, growing wild and dark green under the Red and Blue LED's (originally experimented with by the ATS crowd, thanks for fueling the mad scientist in me guys). But like anything else the devil is in the details. Different species of algae may produce more harmful compounds than others, so we might want to shy away from those species in favor of others. I would also point out that the purported benefits of ATS earlier in this thread earlier seem inflated to say the least.
As a final comment, I would point out that many things can work, but be non-ideal. I know this is certainly true in my tank, as I am not perfect and don't know everything, so we are all engaged in a constant learning process to hopefully get more "ideal." Considering this, the argument over what works and what doesn't work is very different than what is best practice and is not best practice.
just out of curiosity-if you took 2 tall cylindrical beakers, filled one with water from your tank, and one w/ freshly prepared sw, placed them over a piece of white paper, and looked down, do you notice a visible difference between the two in color ?
fwiw-NO ONE is saying that you CAN'T run a tank using adey's, (or even jaubert's), methodolgy-there's always 37 different ways to skin a cat, sometimes more.
the issue (and the most fundamental of my argument)-is that when honestly compared to a far simpler and cheaper method, it's not the best alternative.
the 1st lfs i worked in had ALL ug filters, and this was considered the highest 'tech' of it's time. we had a beautiful thriving reef display 125 gal, iirc, in the fish room bill's wonderland of pets in south jersey, circa '78-79
it doesn't mean anyone's trying to compel anyone who still uses one to trash it simply because there are 'newer' or 'better' or 'more proven methods.
the only thing i'm taking exception to are baseless claims that truly mislead the unaware. there's currently a plethora of relative noobs in this country who think their tanks look 'awesome' when they really haven't a clue as to how awesome they could really be, in the same time frame. and many of them cannot distinguish between coincidence and causality, when it come to what they *think* they're seeing happen in their tanks.
and *no one* can deny or refute that any algae scrubber releases substances into the water column that are undesirable-leading to yet another class of waste products that need to be 'worried about'. why anyone would want to take the route of adding a filter that then needs to be 're-filtered' is simply beyond me
and you have a nice tank, btw![]()
I just feel old.
So is the ATS sales scam and the junk that's being sold as ATS systems.
Distorted science. misrepresentations of scientific literature. Pick a study, cite it, misrepresent what it says ; just prop up an image of smart and concerned about the hobby to mask the true snake oil sales approach.
When that still meets with resistance sling out personal attacks or get someone to do it for you Generally a waste of time ;if you are an easy sell a waste of money too.
I has nothing to do with the subject of water changes ; pretty blatant shilling in my book.
There are no studies of the use of an ATS and the type of algae which grows on it.
wow im new but I change water every week. is that must?
wow im new but I change water every week. is that must?