Nitrate control devices
- Thread starter kenjung
- Start date
BeanAnimal
Premium Member
Floyd....
You are getting played the fool. He has you jumping through hoops to offer proof of something he can't disprove. It is the role of the classic protagonist that can't prove his point and uses confusion and projection to appear like the one in the know. You can't debate they guy because he skates around valid points and offers new tangents to make you appear like the one who is the "rubber ducky" scientist.
This entire "debate" has been off the rails form the getgo, when you (me, we, whatever) were accused of using "rubber ducky science" by a guy using the same "rubber ducky science" that he defined. It has goone downhill since. I would have prefered a sound exchange of points, as the subject is certainly valid: "Does an ATS have negative effects on the captive reef aquarium, if so are they worth the benefits". Instead we were suckered into debate with a moving target:
Floyd: "We build cars with V8 engines and achieve 30 MPG with 360HP and 300 Ft/lbs of torque"
EC: "V8 engines are terrible. They are a thing of the past and anybody who uses one is an uninformed idiot"
Floyd: "I can show you real world examples of cars with V8 engines that produce 360HP and 300 Ft/lbs of torque and get over 30mpg. I drive one every day, as does everyone on my block"
EC: "I call that rubber ducky science! Did you ever consider you only get 30mpg because you are driving down hill all the time? When you can PROVE that you are getting 30mpg with 360hp and 300 ftq let us know. You have a lot to learn about science."
Floyd: "I just showed you proof. But to explain why, we have decreased the weight of the automobile and engine components. The air intakes have been optimized and the timing is computer controlled."
EC: "Gasoline is a carbon based product. We tried it in the 80's and only got 10mpg at 360hp and 300 ft/lb of torque. Here is a link to an article showing why gasoline is not efficient for electrical generation. Here is a photo of a 1968 V8 camaro that only got 11 MPG. Here is the window sticker from a 1980 station wagon showing 16 MPG. You see, we tried V8s and they suck!"
Floyd: "We are not producing electricity, we are using an internal combustion engine to power a car. Furthermore, you are referencing old technology out of context. Nobody cared about MPG back then so they didn't give optimization a second thought!"
EC: "Power plants burn fosil fuels and some use internal combustion engines to produce electricity. So again, your V8 car can't do what you say it does and it is bad!"
Etc. Etc... It never ends and only devolves into more nonsense. With each exhange, it becomes harder and harder to wrangle the response sback toward the main topic, conext and point. We are now onto the subject of humans using organic carbon and plants creating organic, with the underlying context that somehow this proves that ATS are bad.
For me, the whole plot of trees analogy was pretty much it. It simply takes too much enery to respond to something like that.
I spent part of yesterday afternoon with another club member who has a 500, 225 and 120. All of them have ATS systems. One of them (225) is a dense SPS tank:
Sure looks brown and ugly to me
You are getting played the fool. He has you jumping through hoops to offer proof of something he can't disprove. It is the role of the classic protagonist that can't prove his point and uses confusion and projection to appear like the one in the know. You can't debate they guy because he skates around valid points and offers new tangents to make you appear like the one who is the "rubber ducky" scientist.
This entire "debate" has been off the rails form the getgo, when you (me, we, whatever) were accused of using "rubber ducky science" by a guy using the same "rubber ducky science" that he defined. It has goone downhill since. I would have prefered a sound exchange of points, as the subject is certainly valid: "Does an ATS have negative effects on the captive reef aquarium, if so are they worth the benefits". Instead we were suckered into debate with a moving target:
Floyd: "We build cars with V8 engines and achieve 30 MPG with 360HP and 300 Ft/lbs of torque"
EC: "V8 engines are terrible. They are a thing of the past and anybody who uses one is an uninformed idiot"
Floyd: "I can show you real world examples of cars with V8 engines that produce 360HP and 300 Ft/lbs of torque and get over 30mpg. I drive one every day, as does everyone on my block"
EC: "I call that rubber ducky science! Did you ever consider you only get 30mpg because you are driving down hill all the time? When you can PROVE that you are getting 30mpg with 360hp and 300 ftq let us know. You have a lot to learn about science."
Floyd: "I just showed you proof. But to explain why, we have decreased the weight of the automobile and engine components. The air intakes have been optimized and the timing is computer controlled."
EC: "Gasoline is a carbon based product. We tried it in the 80's and only got 10mpg at 360hp and 300 ft/lb of torque. Here is a link to an article showing why gasoline is not efficient for electrical generation. Here is a photo of a 1968 V8 camaro that only got 11 MPG. Here is the window sticker from a 1980 station wagon showing 16 MPG. You see, we tried V8s and they suck!"
Floyd: "We are not producing electricity, we are using an internal combustion engine to power a car. Furthermore, you are referencing old technology out of context. Nobody cared about MPG back then so they didn't give optimization a second thought!"
EC: "Power plants burn fosil fuels and some use internal combustion engines to produce electricity. So again, your V8 car can't do what you say it does and it is bad!"
Etc. Etc... It never ends and only devolves into more nonsense. With each exhange, it becomes harder and harder to wrangle the response sback toward the main topic, conext and point. We are now onto the subject of humans using organic carbon and plants creating organic, with the underlying context that somehow this proves that ATS are bad.
For me, the whole plot of trees analogy was pretty much it. It simply takes too much enery to respond to something like that.
I spent part of yesterday afternoon with another club member who has a 500, 225 and 120. All of them have ATS systems. One of them (225) is a dense SPS tank:
Sure looks brown and ugly to me
Last edited:
Floyd R Turbo
Either busy or sleeping
Bean, you are somehow deep inside my head and sorting out my thoughts and feelings, then expressing them in a way that I could for some reason not.
Thank you. But please get out of my brain now.
Thank you. But please get out of my brain now.
BeanAnimal
Premium Member
Sweeper,
The tank owner has always pretty much been an ATS guy. All of his ATS systems are the dump tray style (seasaw type). The tank photo above is illuminated with T5's and has a modest skimmer. He is not big on water changes (maybe once a month, if I remember) simply due to the volumes required. There is a Ca reactor and thats about it.
The 500 gallon tank used to look like this as well (for 5 years or so WITH an ATS), but had its share of problems several years ago after a move. The corals recovered from the move but the brand new sandbed (southdown from bags if I remember) was not able to keep up with the biological load and coupled with phosphates in the source water (he didn't know at the time) the tank took a year to recover from the mnove and then thrived for 2 or so years and then began to crash. Moreover, several of his large fish were destroying coral in the tank pictured above, so he moved those to the 500 and what was left of the sps to the 225 (it may be 300... I can never remember).
The smaller 120 tank also has an ATS and is so dense with LPS and softies (including a nuisance carpet of mojanos) and a few large RBTAs that happily split, that you can barely see through it. The 120 has also runs an ats (dump tray style).
The tank owner has always pretty much been an ATS guy. All of his ATS systems are the dump tray style (seasaw type). The tank photo above is illuminated with T5's and has a modest skimmer. He is not big on water changes (maybe once a month, if I remember) simply due to the volumes required. There is a Ca reactor and thats about it.
The 500 gallon tank used to look like this as well (for 5 years or so WITH an ATS), but had its share of problems several years ago after a move. The corals recovered from the move but the brand new sandbed (southdown from bags if I remember) was not able to keep up with the biological load and coupled with phosphates in the source water (he didn't know at the time) the tank took a year to recover from the mnove and then thrived for 2 or so years and then began to crash. Moreover, several of his large fish were destroying coral in the tank pictured above, so he moved those to the 500 and what was left of the sps to the 225 (it may be 300... I can never remember).
The smaller 120 tank also has an ATS and is so dense with LPS and softies (including a nuisance carpet of mojanos) and a few large RBTAs that happily split, that you can barely see through it. The 120 has also runs an ats (dump tray style).
Thread title is "Nitrate control devices"
ATS (micro algae) is and will definitely continue to be a viable way to export nitrates.
Macro algae and DSB's are and will continue to be a viable way to export nitrates.
Bio-Pellets, vodka dosing, vinegar dosing, sugar dosing, etc (carbon) are and will continue to be a viable method to reduce nitrates.
Skimmers remove particles before they breakdown into nitrate so they too reduce nitrate.
Water changes are a viable method to reduce nitrate.
And in respect for PaulB, the undergravel filter method he's used successfully for over 20 years absolutely reduces nitrate! :celeb1:
We all know that there are many more nitrate control solutions out there but the point I'm making is that there are credible, experienced aquarists running combinations of these methods with great success for years. The aquarists with 10+years have the credibility in my book and they will tell you point blank that they can keep their water parameters exactly where they want for their SPS using combinations of all of these systems all working together.
One of my favorite TOTM's is reefkeeper2's from 2009. His 400+gal reef tank in a solarium room is absolutely an incredible SPS dominant reef. He provides updates every year on youtube so I can follow his continuing success. Reefkeeper2 uses Bio-Pellets and ATS and he does water changes. He combines them and gets great results![/B] I've been in the hobby a mere 5 years now and I believe that it's the combination approach that works best long term. Bean mentioned that he added an ATS to his six foot tall skimmer and he drastically improved his water parameters as a result. Floyd knows from experience that he can drop an ATS into a system that has been unhealthy for a long time and he can bring it back into check with relative ease. The point is clear.
Bean, Reefkeeper2, PaulB, and so many others use combinations of systems working together to achieve balance and that, I believe, is the ultimate reason for their long term success in decades, not a few years. Every system has periods when it is not working so well so I'm not in favor of advocating a silver bullet solution even if there is one. I work in IT and the number one rule in my field is to avoid having a single point of failure at all costs so combining them makes sense.
A combination of multiple smaller, overlapping systems can do a better job of managing nitrates than a single system and algae (micro or macro) grown in a sump is a good complement to an overall system.
My own system includes a skimmer (picks up a little goo), bio-pellets (under powered), automated water changes (2% a week), ATS(nothing special) and even a little cheato for good luck and I couldn't be happier with the results.
Thanks for reading...
ATS (micro algae) is and will definitely continue to be a viable way to export nitrates.
Macro algae and DSB's are and will continue to be a viable way to export nitrates.
Bio-Pellets, vodka dosing, vinegar dosing, sugar dosing, etc (carbon) are and will continue to be a viable method to reduce nitrates.
Skimmers remove particles before they breakdown into nitrate so they too reduce nitrate.
Water changes are a viable method to reduce nitrate.
And in respect for PaulB, the undergravel filter method he's used successfully for over 20 years absolutely reduces nitrate! :celeb1:
We all know that there are many more nitrate control solutions out there but the point I'm making is that there are credible, experienced aquarists running combinations of these methods with great success for years. The aquarists with 10+years have the credibility in my book and they will tell you point blank that they can keep their water parameters exactly where they want for their SPS using combinations of all of these systems all working together.
One of my favorite TOTM's is reefkeeper2's from 2009. His 400+gal reef tank in a solarium room is absolutely an incredible SPS dominant reef. He provides updates every year on youtube so I can follow his continuing success. Reefkeeper2 uses Bio-Pellets and ATS and he does water changes. He combines them and gets great results![/B] I've been in the hobby a mere 5 years now and I believe that it's the combination approach that works best long term. Bean mentioned that he added an ATS to his six foot tall skimmer and he drastically improved his water parameters as a result. Floyd knows from experience that he can drop an ATS into a system that has been unhealthy for a long time and he can bring it back into check with relative ease. The point is clear.
Bean, Reefkeeper2, PaulB, and so many others use combinations of systems working together to achieve balance and that, I believe, is the ultimate reason for their long term success in decades, not a few years. Every system has periods when it is not working so well so I'm not in favor of advocating a silver bullet solution even if there is one. I work in IT and the number one rule in my field is to avoid having a single point of failure at all costs so combining them makes sense.
A combination of multiple smaller, overlapping systems can do a better job of managing nitrates than a single system and algae (micro or macro) grown in a sump is a good complement to an overall system.
My own system includes a skimmer (picks up a little goo), bio-pellets (under powered), automated water changes (2% a week), ATS(nothing special) and even a little cheato for good luck and I couldn't be happier with the results.
Thanks for reading...
Last edited:
Floyd....
You are getting played the fool. He has you jumping through hoops to offer proof of something he can't disprove. It is the role of the classic protagonist that can't prove his point and uses confusion and projection to appear like the one in the know. You can't debate they guy because he skates around valid points and offers new tangents to make you appear like the one who is the "rubber ducky" scientist.
This entire "debate" has been off the rails form the getgo, when you (me, we, whatever) were accused of using "rubber ducky science" by a guy using the same "rubber ducky science" that he defined. It has goone downhill since. I would have prefered a sound exchange of points, as the subject is certainly valid: "Does an ATS have negative effects on the captive reef aquarium, if so are they worth the benefits". Instead we were suckered into debate with a moving target:
Floyd: "We build cars with V8 engines and achieve 30 MPG with 360HP and 300 Ft/lbs of torque"
EC: "V8 engines are terrible. They are a thing of the past and anybody who uses one is an uninformed idiot"
Floyd: "I can show you real world examples of cars with V8 engines that produce 360HP and 300 Ft/lbs of torque and get over 30mpg. I drive one every day, as does everyone on my block"
EC: "I call that rubber ducky science! Did you ever consider you only get 30mpg because you are driving down hill all the time? When you can PROVE that you are getting 30mpg with 360hp and 300 ftq let us know. You have a lot to learn about science."
Floyd: "I just showed you proof. But to explain why, we have decreased the weight of the automobile and engine components. The air intakes have been optimized and the timing is computer controlled."
EC: "Gasoline is a carbon based product. We tried it in the 80's and only got 10mpg at 360hp and 300 ft/lb of torque. Here is a link to an article showing why gasoline is not efficient for electrical generation. Here is a photo of a 1968 V8 camaro that only got 11 MPG. Here is the window sticker from a 1980 station wagon showing 16 MPG. You see, we tried V8s and they suck!"
Floyd: "We are not producing electricity, we are using an internal combustion engine to power a car. Furthermore, you are referencing old technology out of context. Nobody cared about MPG back then so they didn't give optimization a second thought!"
EC: "Power plants burn fosil fuels and some use internal combustion engines to produce electricity. So again, your V8 car can't do what you say it does and it is bad!"
Etc. Etc... It never ends and only devolves into more nonsense. With each exhange, it becomes harder and harder to wrangle the response sback toward the main topic, conext and point. We are now onto the subject of humans using organic carbon and plants creating organic, with the underlying context that somehow this proves that ATS are bad.
For me, the whole plot of trees analogy was pretty much it. It simply takes too much enery to respond to something like that.
I spent part of yesterday afternoon with another club member who has a 500, 225 and 120. All of them have ATS systems. One of them (225) is a dense SPS tank:
Sure looks brown and ugly to me
I wish there was an emoticon for hitting the nail on the head
Floyd R Turbo
Either busy or sleeping
Agreed, and very well put.
goreef170
New member
I have not read thru this thread, so don't know if this has been discussed?
I use and highly recommend " Aquaripure Nitrate Filter, if you are having problems with nitrates. Been using this for over a year. I have a medium to heavy bio load, and I can honestly say my nitrates are always at O. Easy to install, I just inject 8 ml. of vodka into the filter, adjust the flow once a week, and thats it ! It really doesn't get better then this.
I use and highly recommend " Aquaripure Nitrate Filter, if you are having problems with nitrates. Been using this for over a year. I have a medium to heavy bio load, and I can honestly say my nitrates are always at O. Easy to install, I just inject 8 ml. of vodka into the filter, adjust the flow once a week, and thats it ! It really doesn't get better then this.
Floyd R Turbo
Either busy or sleeping
I think the Aquaripure and similar products get about as much flack as algae scrubbers do. I had an e-mail exchange with the Aquaripure guys a while back and we were definitely feeling in the same boat. From what I can tell that's a good product, and other people that I personally know that run such devices also think they are wonderful.
Similar threads
