Limits of Foam Fractionation
- Thread starter pjf
- Start date
mr.wilson
.Registered Member
All protein molecules are polarized, so they are both hydrophobic and hydrophilic. It's possible to remove largely hydrophilic proteins, but you must obey the laws of bombardment and dwell time.
Commercial skimmer manufacturers use very little science in designing their products. Science doesn't sell. Today's market wants lots of air in their skimmers, and that's exactly what they get. Science has proven that there is such thing as too much air in a protein skimmer, as bubbles will prematurely merge and pop before they reach the collection cup (P. Escobal). It's also widely accepted that smaller bubbles are exponentially more stable, and offer greater surface area, yet air-driven skimmers have fallen out of fashion, and needle/pinwheel methods, with much larger bubbles, are now the norm.
A longer dwell time is required to remove largely hydrophilic proteins, yet manufacturers offer 28" tall skimmers that look good under the hood. It's like the saying goes, horse power sells cars, but torque makes them go faster. In our case, air volume sells protein skimmers, but dwell time skims proteins.
The reason why hobbyists spend most of their resources on protein skimmers, and very few on equally or more effective methods of chemical filtration, is marketing hype and the nature of hobbyists.
Many reef hobbyists are the same people who spend $3,000.00 on new camera body, when they haven't taken the time to learn how to use their old one. There's nothing boastful or sexy about buying polymeric absorbents, carbon, or ion exchange resins (unless you make a cult out of it), so how can they compete with protein skimmer sales. Poly-bio-marine and Dick Boyd developed their products in a time where there were no forums, so they never got a following like the Zeolots.
Choosing technology and methodology depends on what your goals and limiting factors are. If reducing residual nitrate to zero is the goal, then efforts should be re-directed to biological filtration (denitrifying methods). If reducing POC and DOC are your limiting factors, then increasing mechanical filtration (a lost art) and employing chemical media filters (as listed above) is the solution.
I think protein skimmers are as good as they need to be as it is, and further resources need to be spent in other directions like nutrition and fine tuning nutrient export and assimilation technics (ecosystem methods).
Technophiles will always chase the next thing. These are the forum members who post like crazy and immerse themselves deep into the hobby, then suddenly disappear. The lifers and old-timers truly enjoy studying their aquariums and don't fall for marketing hype. They're the ones with 6' tall, air-driven, skimmers and zero nitrates or nuisance algae problems.
Commercial skimmer manufacturers use very little science in designing their products. Science doesn't sell. Today's market wants lots of air in their skimmers, and that's exactly what they get. Science has proven that there is such thing as too much air in a protein skimmer, as bubbles will prematurely merge and pop before they reach the collection cup (P. Escobal). It's also widely accepted that smaller bubbles are exponentially more stable, and offer greater surface area, yet air-driven skimmers have fallen out of fashion, and needle/pinwheel methods, with much larger bubbles, are now the norm.
A longer dwell time is required to remove largely hydrophilic proteins, yet manufacturers offer 28" tall skimmers that look good under the hood. It's like the saying goes, horse power sells cars, but torque makes them go faster. In our case, air volume sells protein skimmers, but dwell time skims proteins.
The reason why hobbyists spend most of their resources on protein skimmers, and very few on equally or more effective methods of chemical filtration, is marketing hype and the nature of hobbyists.
Many reef hobbyists are the same people who spend $3,000.00 on new camera body, when they haven't taken the time to learn how to use their old one. There's nothing boastful or sexy about buying polymeric absorbents, carbon, or ion exchange resins (unless you make a cult out of it), so how can they compete with protein skimmer sales. Poly-bio-marine and Dick Boyd developed their products in a time where there were no forums, so they never got a following like the Zeolots.
Choosing technology and methodology depends on what your goals and limiting factors are. If reducing residual nitrate to zero is the goal, then efforts should be re-directed to biological filtration (denitrifying methods). If reducing POC and DOC are your limiting factors, then increasing mechanical filtration (a lost art) and employing chemical media filters (as listed above) is the solution.
I think protein skimmers are as good as they need to be as it is, and further resources need to be spent in other directions like nutrition and fine tuning nutrient export and assimilation technics (ecosystem methods).
Technophiles will always chase the next thing. These are the forum members who post like crazy and immerse themselves deep into the hobby, then suddenly disappear. The lifers and old-timers truly enjoy studying their aquariums and don't fall for marketing hype. They're the ones with 6' tall, air-driven, skimmers and zero nitrates or nuisance algae problems.
hahnmeister
In Memoriam
Purigen baby... another thing Im shocked there isnt more use of in the hobby.
mr.wilson
.Registered Member
Yah, they need to come out with a "new and improved", "Purigen Power Platinum, Mach iv", and make some kind of a claim that the space shuttle, and George Bush's cowboy boots are coated in the stuff.
For some reason, hobbyists shy away from anything with operational costs, even if it's drastically lower than the initial purchase cost of new gear. The cost of a new $1,200.00 skimmer would keep you in Purigen for the rest of your life; while the skimmer will be stuffed in a box in your garage in three years.
pjf
Premium Member
Smaller Bubbles
Smaller Bubbles
Smaller Bubbles
Greater dwell time is definitely needed to improve skimming of dissolved organic compounds (DOC). Another requirement for DOC skimming is the prodigious formation of small bubbles without turbulence. What air-driven methods are able to produce smaller bubbles than needle/pinwheel methods?
mr.wilson
.Registered Member
Sorry, by "air-driven", I meant wood air diffuser-driven. Wood air diffuser skimmers fell out of fashion when marketers told us that venturi skimmers were maintenance free. We became liberated by the idea that we would never have to buy another $1.00 air diffuser four times a year. Ozone was popular back then, so that doubled your diffuser expenses to $16.00 per annum, assuming you had a double diffuser skimmer.
The other benefit we bought hook line and sinker, was that venturi (and later on pinwheel) skimmers will do the job at only 24" tall. Now we don't have to put a lamp shade on the 6' tall skimmer to make it blend in with the living-room.
Back then, we weren't prepared to shell out $1,200.00 - $2,400.00 for a protein skimmer, so our air diffuser skimmers had inferior 4-6" contact columns. For some reason, all of the equipment we use has dropped in price with exception to protein skimmers. If you were to apply todays consumer budget to a wood diffuser system, you would be able to follow all of the guidelines set out by P. Escobal with tangible results (better skimming of a variety of protein molecules).
Turbulence is fine in the lower regions of the contact chamber, but the upper 2/3 should be smooth sailing so attached protein molecules aren't knocked off.
I like the magnet and bucket analogy. Unfortunately, our bucket only has a handful of nails, so have to fish for them. Some are light finishing nails (largely hydrophobic), some are heavier 3" framing nails (partially hydrophobic), and some are heavy 6" spikes (largely hydrophilic).
We have a shot at picking up all of the nails, but we need a strong magnet (or as Don Ho would say, "tiny Bubbles"), we need enough (dwell) time to swing the magnet around the bucket long enough to reach all of the nails, and we need a slow path to the top of the bucket (limited turbulence) so we don't lose our catch.
Mechanically aspirated methods (venturi, Beckett, pin/needlewheel) of air induction offer one benefit that wood air diffusers lack, and that's the circular motion generated by the water pumps. Wood air diffuser skimmers excel in the top 2/3 of the contact column, but they are of little use in the bottom 1/3 where the air leaves the diffuser, as they quickly rise to the surface without a circular motion to extend contact time.
I believe the best system is a wood air diffuser skimmer with a second, closed loop (recirculatory) pump near the bottom to offer circular turbulence. Most recirculating skimmer manufacturers miss out on the circular flow effect because it's easier to install the pump with a straight effluent, rather than a custom fit 90 elbow. Elbows cause back pressure, and will retard venturi intake, so the elbows were lost years ago.
We want to move water through the skimmer, and keep the air that came in with it for a longer duration. A well built skimmer will allow for an accumulation of older, stable bubbles.
Beckett and downdraft skimmers work on a different principal. They work in an atmosphere where there is more air than water, so it's a very rapid (instant) degassing and protein stripping process. I don't believe these skimmers benefit from any contact time in the column, other than to separate the air from the water.
The other benefit we bought hook line and sinker, was that venturi (and later on pinwheel) skimmers will do the job at only 24" tall. Now we don't have to put a lamp shade on the 6' tall skimmer to make it blend in with the living-room.
Back then, we weren't prepared to shell out $1,200.00 - $2,400.00 for a protein skimmer, so our air diffuser skimmers had inferior 4-6" contact columns. For some reason, all of the equipment we use has dropped in price with exception to protein skimmers. If you were to apply todays consumer budget to a wood diffuser system, you would be able to follow all of the guidelines set out by P. Escobal with tangible results (better skimming of a variety of protein molecules).
Turbulence is fine in the lower regions of the contact chamber, but the upper 2/3 should be smooth sailing so attached protein molecules aren't knocked off.
I like the magnet and bucket analogy. Unfortunately, our bucket only has a handful of nails, so have to fish for them. Some are light finishing nails (largely hydrophobic), some are heavier 3" framing nails (partially hydrophobic), and some are heavy 6" spikes (largely hydrophilic).
We have a shot at picking up all of the nails, but we need a strong magnet (or as Don Ho would say, "tiny Bubbles"), we need enough (dwell) time to swing the magnet around the bucket long enough to reach all of the nails, and we need a slow path to the top of the bucket (limited turbulence) so we don't lose our catch.
Mechanically aspirated methods (venturi, Beckett, pin/needlewheel) of air induction offer one benefit that wood air diffusers lack, and that's the circular motion generated by the water pumps. Wood air diffuser skimmers excel in the top 2/3 of the contact column, but they are of little use in the bottom 1/3 where the air leaves the diffuser, as they quickly rise to the surface without a circular motion to extend contact time.
I believe the best system is a wood air diffuser skimmer with a second, closed loop (recirculatory) pump near the bottom to offer circular turbulence. Most recirculating skimmer manufacturers miss out on the circular flow effect because it's easier to install the pump with a straight effluent, rather than a custom fit 90 elbow. Elbows cause back pressure, and will retard venturi intake, so the elbows were lost years ago.
We want to move water through the skimmer, and keep the air that came in with it for a longer duration. A well built skimmer will allow for an accumulation of older, stable bubbles.
Beckett and downdraft skimmers work on a different principal. They work in an atmosphere where there is more air than water, so it's a very rapid (instant) degassing and protein stripping process. I don't believe these skimmers benefit from any contact time in the column, other than to separate the air from the water.
hahnmeister
In Memoriam
I differ only in that I believe the better system would be a force fed needlewheel on a tall body. This eliminates the maintainence and back pressure of stones, and gives back the 'circular turbulence' at the bottom. I mean... how many stones would it take to allow 2000lph of air? Alot.
As for what might be better than a needlewheel/pinwheel... duh... threadwheel/loopwheel... ha ha... same thing, I know. I just had to be a stinker.
As for what might be better than a needlewheel/pinwheel... duh... threadwheel/loopwheel... ha ha... same thing, I know. I just had to be a stinker.
pjf
Premium Member
I wasn't aware that a wooden airstone can produce smaller bubbles than a recirculating pump but I've only used airstones in low-volume applications such as freshwater tanks and brine shrimp nurseries. Are finer bubbles are produced under more pressure? I can experiment with limewood and Sweetwater "Fine-Pore" glass-bonded air stones from Aquatic Eco-Systems.
Here’s an idea from Hahnmeister on how to produce both small bubbles and recirculation at the lower levels of a skimmer. The idea is to use an air pump to force air into the Venturi of a skimmer's recirculating pump (http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/s...10770535&highlight=shaving+cream#post10770535):
Here’s an idea from Hahnmeister on how to produce both small bubbles and recirculation at the lower levels of a skimmer. The idea is to use an air pump to force air into the Venturi of a skimmer's recirculating pump (http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/s...10770535&highlight=shaving+cream#post10770535):
hahnmeister
In Memoriam
Actually, to clarify, dont run force fed air into a venturi... just a 'T' on the inlet because otherwise you will have flow problems.
mr.wilson
.Registered Member
Don't waste your time with glass, plastic, or ceramic air diffusers. They clog quickly, and produce larger bubbles. Basswood or limewood diffusers will produce 0.5mm bubbles.
You don't need to match the air injection rates of needlewheel or venturi skimmers because the smaller bubbles have exponentially greater surface area and are more stable (less premature popping). A single wood air diffuser will put out about 250 LPH of air, so you would need two of them for every one needlewheel pump in order to match the injection rate.
I have a few Aqua-Medic T5000 Twin skimmers in use on different aquariums. They're a great size (78" tall and about 8" wide), but the OR 3700 pumps aren't the most efficient. When I get the time, I will add four wood air diffusers with a strong air pump. I'll unplug one of the OR 3700 pumps so I just get enough movement to make the lower 1/3 of the reaction chamber more effective. If it works well, I'll start ordering the T5000 Single and add my diffusers.
I'd also like to try hahnmeister's idea, but I'm not sure I understand exactly what he suggests. Do I inject air directly into the needlewheel breather hose? Won't this greatly restrict how much water it moves by tripping up the impeller?
You don't need to match the air injection rates of needlewheel or venturi skimmers because the smaller bubbles have exponentially greater surface area and are more stable (less premature popping). A single wood air diffuser will put out about 250 LPH of air, so you would need two of them for every one needlewheel pump in order to match the injection rate.
I have a few Aqua-Medic T5000 Twin skimmers in use on different aquariums. They're a great size (78" tall and about 8" wide), but the OR 3700 pumps aren't the most efficient. When I get the time, I will add four wood air diffusers with a strong air pump. I'll unplug one of the OR 3700 pumps so I just get enough movement to make the lower 1/3 of the reaction chamber more effective. If it works well, I'll start ordering the T5000 Single and add my diffusers.
I'd also like to try hahnmeister's idea, but I'm not sure I understand exactly what he suggests. Do I inject air directly into the needlewheel breather hose? Won't this greatly restrict how much water it moves by tripping up the impeller?
hahnmeister
In Memoriam
I can get smaller bubbles with a needle/threadwheel than I can with any diffuser though. The mechanical mixing just works. Plus, I can pump 2000lph through a single pump... something I would need 8 diffusers for, and have to maintain.
I can see where you are coming from though if the T5000 is what you are basing your experience on. The OR3500s are a great match for that skimmer... but only that type of skimmer. They have a small volute, and high water flow. This helps them maintain water pressure and ability to function even on a 6' tall body, when other pumps wouldnt be able to function at all. Its basicly a 'higher pressure' needlewheel pump. As a consequence, the needlewheel they use is better for pressure and flow rather than mixing. The volute is small, so it can resist back-pressure better, but because it is small, its air capacity is small relative to its water flow. Simply put, the water is drawn in, and passed throught the pump much faster than most needlewheels, so it doesnt 'chop' them nearly as well as many others like eheim threadwheels, Red Dragons, and Sicces.
Another option for you other than adding stones would be to replace the pumps with eheim 1260/62s, needlewheel or better yet, threadwheels. Then, force feed it with an air pump. The result will be like shaving cream coming out of the pumps.
I can see where you are coming from though if the T5000 is what you are basing your experience on. The OR3500s are a great match for that skimmer... but only that type of skimmer. They have a small volute, and high water flow. This helps them maintain water pressure and ability to function even on a 6' tall body, when other pumps wouldnt be able to function at all. Its basicly a 'higher pressure' needlewheel pump. As a consequence, the needlewheel they use is better for pressure and flow rather than mixing. The volute is small, so it can resist back-pressure better, but because it is small, its air capacity is small relative to its water flow. Simply put, the water is drawn in, and passed throught the pump much faster than most needlewheels, so it doesnt 'chop' them nearly as well as many others like eheim threadwheels, Red Dragons, and Sicces.
Another option for you other than adding stones would be to replace the pumps with eheim 1260/62s, needlewheel or better yet, threadwheels. Then, force feed it with an air pump. The result will be like shaving cream coming out of the pumps.
30reef
New member
I have to say I agree with mr. wilson about the marketing of new products.
I have been around long enough (although not as long as some) to say I used a Sander air driven skimmer on my first reef attempt. It was about 3' tall and had the input and output valves built into the top of the cylinder housing in a green composite block. Those wooden airstones made bubbles like there was no tomorrow with a Supra 4 air pump.
I have been around long enough (although not as long as some) to say I used a Sander air driven skimmer on my first reef attempt. It was about 3' tall and had the input and output valves built into the top of the cylinder housing in a green composite block. Those wooden airstones made bubbles like there was no tomorrow with a Supra 4 air pump.
mr.wilson
.Registered Member
I had the 8' tall Sanders skimmer. The weird green plastic was tough, but the acrylic was brittle and very thin. Ozone didn't help with longevity, but it was more a matter of wear and tear of fish warehouse life that brought on it's demise in my case.
I added a cheap Kent venturi to one of the T5000's that isn't fed by the display tank drain line. It helped add a few more bubbles to the upper end of the skimmer, but not enough to make a huge difference.
Sorry, I don't get around the DIY forum much, so what's a threadwheel? Is that the DLS one, or something new? Do you have a link.
I'll try the Eheim pump idea. Thanks
I added a cheap Kent venturi to one of the T5000's that isn't fed by the display tank drain line. It helped add a few more bubbles to the upper end of the skimmer, but not enough to make a huge difference.
Sorry, I don't get around the DIY forum much, so what's a threadwheel? Is that the DLS one, or something new? Do you have a link.
I'll try the Eheim pump idea. Thanks
pjf
Premium Member
I believe that we have discussed the following problems with the hobbyist skimmer market:
• Rapid surface skimming with prodigious amounts of air is marketed.
• A trend towards shorter skimmers with co-current flow violates Escobal's principles.
• There is neither accounting for nor testing of dissolved organic compound filtration.
• Costs have inflated with no objective measures of increased filtration benefits.
The following solutions are being discussed:
• Dwell time needs to be increased. This can be accomplished with increased skimmer height and counter-current flow.
• Turbulence needs to be reduced. This can be accomplished with ring inlets, forced-fed air, bubble plates and bubble spheres.
• Bubble size needs to be reduced. This can be accomplished with force-feeding air into a recirculating pump.
While turbulence at the counter-current inlet is not a hot issue, inlet devices such as ring or halo inlets may help on shorter skimmers such as this ATB airstone skimmer:
I’d like more detail on force-feeding. On a small recirculating skimmer with a 75-gph flow rate, a 4†to 5†diameter body, and 3 feet of height would the following pumps suffice?
• Eheim 1250 recirculating pump (1200 lph)
• Silent Air Pump V301 (http://www.aquaticeco.com/index.cfm/fuseaction/product.detail/iid/6577/cid/1790)
When force-feeding, would I benefit from a bubble plate or sphere?
• Rapid surface skimming with prodigious amounts of air is marketed.
• A trend towards shorter skimmers with co-current flow violates Escobal's principles.
• There is neither accounting for nor testing of dissolved organic compound filtration.
• Costs have inflated with no objective measures of increased filtration benefits.
The following solutions are being discussed:
• Dwell time needs to be increased. This can be accomplished with increased skimmer height and counter-current flow.
• Turbulence needs to be reduced. This can be accomplished with ring inlets, forced-fed air, bubble plates and bubble spheres.
• Bubble size needs to be reduced. This can be accomplished with force-feeding air into a recirculating pump.
While turbulence at the counter-current inlet is not a hot issue, inlet devices such as ring or halo inlets may help on shorter skimmers such as this ATB airstone skimmer:
I’d like more detail on force-feeding. On a small recirculating skimmer with a 75-gph flow rate, a 4†to 5†diameter body, and 3 feet of height would the following pumps suffice?
• Eheim 1250 recirculating pump (1200 lph)
• Silent Air Pump V301 (http://www.aquaticeco.com/index.cfm/fuseaction/product.detail/iid/6577/cid/1790)
When force-feeding, would I benefit from a bubble plate or sphere?
mr.wilson
.Registered Member
You're absolutely right about the direction the skimmer market has gone. It wouldn't take much money to study the quantity and quality of the liquid and solids collected by a protein skimmer, yet manufacturers fail to even explain why their product is superior from a scientific point of view, and ignore what little science we know of skimmer technology.
Dr. Ron Shimek did some limited research into the contents of skimmer collection cups from a handful of skimmers on different tanks. http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2002-12/rs/feature/index.php
Protein skimmer manufacturers certainly have the capital to conduct such testing. The prices are continuing to climb over the $2,000.00 dollar mark, and all you get is a few submersible pumps, an acrylic tube, and some PVC fittings. The production cost of a high end unit differs little from that of a cheap knock-off units from China (likely made in the same factory). I'm not convinced that they spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on R&D. It only takes a few weeks before a hobbyist on an aquarium forum finds the flaws with a new ("tested") skimmer and comes up with a better solution.
If you're looking for a progression in technology, do a search on air strippers (used in sewage treatment). Aquarium protein skimmers were developed in the late 60's, and have changed little since then. They were adapted from commercial air strippers of the time. This kind of technology has been left far behind by the engineers who design them. They now work as a series of pressurized drip trays (similar to the one Bubble King has), or a series of very fine sprayer nozzles (somewhat similar to Aqua C units).
It isn't the exact process we are trying to achieve, but it offers alternative ways of separating molecules from water.
http://www.lowryh2o.com/AirStrippers.html
http://www.qedenv.com/products/treatment/EZ_Tray_Air_Stripper/EZ Tray Air Stripper.html
Dr. Ron Shimek did some limited research into the contents of skimmer collection cups from a handful of skimmers on different tanks. http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2002-12/rs/feature/index.php
Protein skimmer manufacturers certainly have the capital to conduct such testing. The prices are continuing to climb over the $2,000.00 dollar mark, and all you get is a few submersible pumps, an acrylic tube, and some PVC fittings. The production cost of a high end unit differs little from that of a cheap knock-off units from China (likely made in the same factory). I'm not convinced that they spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on R&D. It only takes a few weeks before a hobbyist on an aquarium forum finds the flaws with a new ("tested") skimmer and comes up with a better solution.
If you're looking for a progression in technology, do a search on air strippers (used in sewage treatment). Aquarium protein skimmers were developed in the late 60's, and have changed little since then. They were adapted from commercial air strippers of the time. This kind of technology has been left far behind by the engineers who design them. They now work as a series of pressurized drip trays (similar to the one Bubble King has), or a series of very fine sprayer nozzles (somewhat similar to Aqua C units).
It isn't the exact process we are trying to achieve, but it offers alternative ways of separating molecules from water.
http://www.lowryh2o.com/AirStrippers.html
http://www.qedenv.com/products/treatment/EZ_Tray_Air_Stripper/EZ Tray Air Stripper.html
pjf
Premium Member
We don't even have to analyze the collection cup contents. We can analyze the aquarium water column to see how well the skimmer filtered it. Here's a university professor's plan to do just that:
The above was from a Reef Chemistry forum thread, entitled "Comparative Organics Test for Skimmers" (http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1188344).
mr.wilson
.Registered Member
Interesting stuff. I'm satisfied with a catch-all test of just one protein to get a general idea of how effective they are.
As Dr. Stephen Spotte pointed out in one of his books from the early 90's, there is no scientific proof of the benefits of protein skimming. Not much has changed over the past decade, with the exception to the peripheral study carried out by Shimek. That isn't to say they aren't beneficial, but it illustrates that we are still working in the dark.
I find it hard to quantify how much a skimmer removes, as some produce quite a bit of semi-viscous liquid, while others generate a substantial amount of "mud" in the neck. I have no idea what the exchange rate is for mud to liquid, but I'm betting on the mud.
It would be interesting to run parallel tanks that use only molecular absorption media.
As Dr. Stephen Spotte pointed out in one of his books from the early 90's, there is no scientific proof of the benefits of protein skimming. Not much has changed over the past decade, with the exception to the peripheral study carried out by Shimek. That isn't to say they aren't beneficial, but it illustrates that we are still working in the dark.
I find it hard to quantify how much a skimmer removes, as some produce quite a bit of semi-viscous liquid, while others generate a substantial amount of "mud" in the neck. I have no idea what the exchange rate is for mud to liquid, but I'm betting on the mud.
It would be interesting to run parallel tanks that use only molecular absorption media.
BeanAnimal
Premium Member
PJF:
Tis the same exact stuff you posted in the other thread. It was pretty much shown to be impossible to easily do the tests that you propose. I suppose the reason it is being posted here is becuase you did not like the answers or the direction the other thread took?
Correct me if I am wrong, but it would appear that you are not trying to hold a debate, but rather attempting to step up to the soap box and teach us all even if we don't agree with the the course material or the conclusions that you are drawing from the varied sources you are quoting.
We pretty much covered this entire subject in the other thread.
Tis the same exact stuff you posted in the other thread. It was pretty much shown to be impossible to easily do the tests that you propose. I suppose the reason it is being posted here is becuase you did not like the answers or the direction the other thread took?
Correct me if I am wrong, but it would appear that you are not trying to hold a debate, but rather attempting to step up to the soap box and teach us all even if we don't agree with the the course material or the conclusions that you are drawing from the varied sources you are quoting.
We pretty much covered this entire subject in the other thread.
BeanAnimal
Premium Member
IT was just a week or so ago... Lemme look back
Similar threads
