<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9358274#post9358274 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Travis L. Stevens
The reason is because the WWM version of rocks is the old oyster shell/sand/cement mix that lends very little porosity to the rocks even when done correctly.
Wow Travis. That is a very incorrect assumption, and I can't believe
you were the one to say this. I will try to keep this from being "flamey", lol - 'cuz I like you.
:smokin:
First off, cements without polymers or epoxies are already porous, to a certain degree. Google: cement chemistry porosity capillary
if you really want to know about this - these terms should get you in the right direction anyway.
Until I found this thread, I had been making rock by the "WWM/GARF" method/recipe. I've very rarely made nonporous rocks, and most of my rock was more porous than the real thing. The rocks I made are probably not as porous as your rocks are, Travis, but I bet they come pretty darn close.
GARF has been in business for what? 15 years? More? Selling MMLR that convinced a lot of the USA reefers that MMLR was a decent substitute for real LR. Aquariums use the old method of rock, or more recently, some are using "sprayed" cements.
MMLR by the "old" methods does take skill and finesse to make really, really porous rocks - unlike the salt:cement only recipes which allow even idiots to make round ball rocks that are porous.
I've also never made a batch of rock and had it disintegrate during kure. Cement is designed to act as a glue between aggregates, and in this case, salt can't be considered an aggregate - so there is really nothing for the cement to form a bond with. Cement and salt rocks do work, but considering how many folks are reporting "They crumbled", during kure (and it happened to me - I tried them too), do I really want to risk these in my tank? Or to risk my reputation on selling these to others? Not really.
It comes down to a choice, really, since we are mostly only guessing that more porous rock is better - very little true research has been done on the matter. One can use an old, tried and true method, and not have to worry about if the rocks are going to start disintegrating in one's tank tomorrow, next week or in five years. Or one can be a more pioneering spirit, and try the new method of rock, which certainly has potential, as it is
so very economical to produce, and easy to work into interesting shapes. But except for Travis himself, very little research has been done with this type of rock, so a certain amount of "trial and error" is to be expected.
I'm a fence sitter, lol. I'm ok with my rock not floating - I'll use salt in my mix, certainly, but it will never be the only thing in my rocks.
The "trickle test" is a nice way to see how porous your rock is. Take one cup of water, in like a measuring cup, and pour it slowly into/over your dry finished rock. It should take about 10-15 seconds per inch thickness of rock for most of the water to exit on the bottom side. If it did, your rock is more porous than 75% of true LR. It isn't very accurate, I know, but a guy on a BBS (remember those old folks?) many years back had posted this, and it does seem to work for a gauge, at least for the ol' skool rock, lol.
And a side note on the Trickle Test - most true LR will shed a third to half the water off its surface before any seeps in to trickle through.
Im done ranting, but I had to for ol' skool rock honor, man...