RichConley
New member
Which doesnt produce nitrate.
Sumps are bad for reefkeeping
- Thread starter kysard1
- Start date
Which doesnt produce nitrate.
marinelife
Active member
I wonder what I fall under? I have no skimmer and use a filter sock, I have been thinking of removing the filter sock. My sump is used for macro algae and output location for my CA Reactor. I have been thinking of adding some Xenia to the sump.
papagimp
COMAS Rocks!
in order for xenia to export any decent amount of excess nurtients, it would have to be a mighty large fuge with large colony of xenia, otherwise the Macro is going to be far superior for this purpose. since you do not run a skimmer, I'd advice leaving the skimmer sock in place and just clean/replace more often.
Aquarist007
New member
I have a flow rate of around 2100 gph and run a micron bag--I assume this is what you mean by a filter sock?
I have to change that sock every two days and look at the size of it---as for comparing it to bioballs----with the micron bag we are removing the nitrates alot faster then people clean the bioballs
<a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://i142.photobucket.com/albums/r107/reefescapetangster/IMG_4200.jpg" border="0" alt="Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket"></a>
I have to change that sock every two days and look at the size of it---as for comparing it to bioballs----with the micron bag we are removing the nitrates alot faster then people clean the bioballs
<a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://i142.photobucket.com/albums/r107/reefescapetangster/IMG_4200.jpg" border="0" alt="Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket"></a>
grallster
New member
It is true that aerobic bacteria on the surface produce nitrate--but it is also true that the anerobic bacteria use the nitrate and convert it into nitrogen gas. Unless you have anerobic zones, the end product is nitrate (bad), with anerobic zones the end product is nitrogen gas (good).
RichConley
New member
No, you're not, because the anaerobic bacteria under them eat the nitrate.
The rock as a whole is USING nitrate, not producing it.
papagimp
COMAS Rocks!
Am I the only one who took English here? I swear, Here I'll explain myself a little better. the aerobic zone on the surface of the rock is riddled with aerobic bacteria which DOES 100% WITHOUT ANY DOUBT CREATE NITRATES!!!!! My statement is completely accurate. You guys are taking my words and giving meaning to them that I did not and then telling me I'm wrong, sorry if you are "understanding" me incorrectly but doesn't change the facts. Just because I didn't say that "nitrates will then be eaten by the anerobic bacteria" does not mean my statment is wrong. That's like saying that the aerobic bacteria is not creating any nitrite in the tank....it sure as crap is, but as we all know, it then gets converted into nitrates. does'nt mean the part of the process is not happening now does it. If you guys wanna prove me wrong that's great, I'm all up for having mistakes corrected, but don't misunderstand my statment and say I'm wrong. That would be were you can "add" to my statment with further information.
BeanAnimal
Premium Member
looked at another way:
You are taking a literal and using it to forward a truthful ,albeit useless, point.
I could honestly care less... but from my perspective you are fixated on explaining this point because you appear to have stuck your foot in your mouth at the start of the conversation and must backtrack and explain the literal to justify the statement. The convenience is that by looking at the process and NOT the product, your original statements can be said to be true.
It should be obvious from the conversation that the final product is of concern, not the intermediate stages of the nitrogen cycle.
Throw the bioballs in a figurative "black box" and the LR in another figurative "black box" and the net nitrate output of the boxes is NOT going to be the same, given the same input. Your original statements appear to convey that they would be. Upon being confronted with "further information" your statements now appear to be talking about the inner workings of the "black boxes" and intermediate products of the process.
Just my observation. But you did ask (in a rather snide manner) if you were the only person who understood the English language!
So we are all on the same page:
YOU SAID:
I hardly see how you can backtrack and say that you were talking about the process. It is rather clear that your statements were very forward and very unambiguous. You clearly state that there is no difference and that husbandry is the delimiter.
Sorry to be such a jerk... but the "English" speaks for itself.
Looked at another way (did we just say that?) If YOU understood English so well, then YOU would have clearly articulated that the LR and BIOBALLS both make nitrate but differ greatly in the other functions that they perform with regards to the process. (you may want to check the English spelling of several of your words also...
You are taking a literal and using it to forward a truthful ,albeit useless, point.
I could honestly care less... but from my perspective you are fixated on explaining this point because you appear to have stuck your foot in your mouth at the start of the conversation and must backtrack and explain the literal to justify the statement. The convenience is that by looking at the process and NOT the product, your original statements can be said to be true.
It should be obvious from the conversation that the final product is of concern, not the intermediate stages of the nitrogen cycle.
Throw the bioballs in a figurative "black box" and the LR in another figurative "black box" and the net nitrate output of the boxes is NOT going to be the same, given the same input. Your original statements appear to convey that they would be. Upon being confronted with "further information" your statements now appear to be talking about the inner workings of the "black boxes" and intermediate products of the process.
Just my observation. But you did ask (in a rather snide manner) if you were the only person who understood the English language!
So we are all on the same page:
YOU SAID:
I hardly see how you can backtrack and say that you were talking about the process. It is rather clear that your statements were very forward and very unambiguous. You clearly state that there is no difference and that husbandry is the delimiter.
Sorry to be such a jerk... but the "English" speaks for itself.
Looked at another way (did we just say that?) If YOU understood English so well, then YOU would have clearly articulated that the LR and BIOBALLS both make nitrate but differ greatly in the other functions that they perform with regards to the process. (you may want to check the English spelling of several of your words also...
Last edited:
papagimp
COMAS Rocks!
No, I'm justifying myself since I was told i'm wrong and should research before posting on the advanced forum. I am using the literal because that is how I am, If I meant something else, I would have said something else. I do agree, it was a semi-useless point and should not have had a big ordeal made out of it, but that wasn't the way some people saw it. The way I'm reading all this would lead newbies to believe that just because they have live rock in the tank, they won't have nitrate problems cause of the anerobic zones in the rock....all rock is hardly equal and this is not always the case, understanding this entire process will make a difference. I gave an advanced answer to advanced people, if you don't care for the "why" then why come in here, the newbie forum has lot's of people that will tell you what to do so you don't have to understand it. But if you do not care about the entire process, that's fine, scroll past my posts and continue reading, I won't be offended then, I promise.
And technically, since I"m all riled up now, I didn't stick my foot in my mouth in my original post, I said "You can get the whole "nitrate factory" from anything you allow to build up bacteria." but I felt the small exceptions to the normal wasn't worth arguing, which it isn't, I just don't like being told I'm wrong when I'm not.
And technically, since I"m all riled up now, I didn't stick my foot in my mouth in my original post, I said "You can get the whole "nitrate factory" from anything you allow to build up bacteria." but I felt the small exceptions to the normal wasn't worth arguing, which it isn't, I just don't like being told I'm wrong when I'm not.
Fishbulb2
New member
Also in the 10%. I have a 29 gallon sump and no mini-bubbles. Possibly micro-bubbles but don't want to check with a microscope. I also have no baffles and no filter socks. I have a turboflotor skimmer which does not produce any bubbles. From what i've seen with other peoples' tanks is that the number one reason for bubbles is having way too large a return pump for their sump size. Once you have a properly sized sump and return pump, you shouldn't need tricks at all to eliminate bubbles. My advice to OP is to just see if someone local can come check out your set up and help you out. Or post in the lighting and equipment forum and I and others can give you tips. I've had freshwater tanks for decades and now after having a sump in my reef tank, I could never set up another tank without a sump. I love the clean look and ability to store equipment (heaters, filters and such) down there.
Good luck,
FB
Good luck,
FB
BeanAnimal
Premium Member
Twisting the whole thing even more is not going to generate a different meaning. Your post and words were pretty straight forward. I quoted them above for that reason.
If you are THAT literal, then you would have explained exactly what you meant. Like I said, your statemens were NOT ambiguous, do you want us to beleive that they WERE? You can't have it both ways
Your answer was NOT advanced by any means and adding "advanced" explanations to it is not going to help.
Please don't treat us all like we have no idea how to fathom your "advanced" knowledge. I certainly have a firm grasp of the subject matter here along with a firm grasp of the English language. Do not fool yourself into thinking you are enlightening me about the "process". My "I could honestly care less" statement was directed towards YOUR explanation of what YOU think you understand. I responded because of your rude statement, not because I do not understand the nitrogen cycle as it relates to this conversation.
The simple fact is that you made a blanket statement that by any reasonable measure is simply incorrect. You have provided subsuquent explanations to wriggle it into being correct by disecting the individual statements and showing them to be true even if the over arching premise was wrong to begin with. It has become kind of funny.
If you are THAT literal, then you would have explained exactly what you meant. Like I said, your statemens were NOT ambiguous, do you want us to beleive that they WERE? You can't have it both ways
Your answer was NOT advanced by any means and adding "advanced" explanations to it is not going to help.
Please don't treat us all like we have no idea how to fathom your "advanced" knowledge. I certainly have a firm grasp of the subject matter here along with a firm grasp of the English language. Do not fool yourself into thinking you are enlightening me about the "process". My "I could honestly care less" statement was directed towards YOUR explanation of what YOU think you understand. I responded because of your rude statement, not because I do not understand the nitrogen cycle as it relates to this conversation.
The simple fact is that you made a blanket statement that by any reasonable measure is simply incorrect. You have provided subsuquent explanations to wriggle it into being correct by disecting the individual statements and showing them to be true even if the over arching premise was wrong to begin with. It has become kind of funny.
BeanAnimal
Premium Member
The OP was not looking for advice. He was trying to make a profound intellectual statement regarding how archaic and silly the use of a sump is
The problem was that his theory is not supported by the facts... Ooops.
oct2274
New member
i think kysard1 was just trying to start an arguement, i have no microbubbles from my sump either.......what i do have in my sump/refugium is alot of chaeto for nutrient export and baffles to get rid of any microbubbles that come out of my skimmer, which isn't very many. Sumps are also great for adding water, keeping the water level in the main tank at the same level, and many many more things..............he just wants an arguement. it's kinda cute
BeanAnimal
Premium Member
Either looking to start a fight... or honestly thought he had come up with something profound. I will give him the benefit of the doubt and just call it the later. Upon closer inspection of the basis for the theory, it is not hard to show that it is not well thought out or supported
Not to say that tank height sumps are a bad idea... they are certainly a great idea if you have the room. The reduction in energy usage and need for mechanical bubble traps is certainly a benefit.
Not to say that tank height sumps are a bad idea... they are certainly a great idea if you have the room. The reduction in energy usage and need for mechanical bubble traps is certainly a benefit.
seattlerob
Member
Well, there are certainly much stranger predictions that people make, so I guess you can be entitled to whatever predictions you want.
My prediction is in 5 years you'll be proven wrong. We can revive this thread then I suppose.
My prediction is in 5 years you'll be proven wrong. We can revive this thread then I suppose.
Back to the first post that started all of this I have a question.
Even if the behind and above (if I am reading this correctly) sump was used the return pipe could still pick up air and wouldn't you still see "those microbubbles" in your display tank?
One major problem I see with an above sump system is the width. If you have a 24 - 36" tank and an additional 4" width stand plus your sump width you are easily at 4 - 5'. If you don't have a fish room what are you going to do?
Even if the behind and above (if I am reading this correctly) sump was used the return pipe could still pick up air and wouldn't you still see "those microbubbles" in your display tank?
One major problem I see with an above sump system is the width. If you have a 24 - 36" tank and an additional 4" width stand plus your sump width you are easily at 4 - 5'. If you don't have a fish room what are you going to do?
seattlerob
Member
Yep, that's the same major problem I see with the whole tank-level sump idea: real estate!
The beauty of the under the tank sump is that it uses already available real estate: the aquarium's stand/cabinet. And, the fact that I don't have to see it & all the equipment in it either.
The beauty of the under the tank sump is that it uses already available real estate: the aquarium's stand/cabinet. And, the fact that I don't have to see it & all the equipment in it either.
Similar threads
