trickle tower/external filtration-why do they give MORE nitrate?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Thanks Tom.

Obligate anerobes it is.Hey, how about obligate anaerobic chemotrophic heterotrophs?

Yep, sulfate is probably too abundant for the bacteria to move on to metals in most practical situations.

I also think a deeper bed with bio agitiation works.Keeping that going as you've noted in the past with live sand replenishment is a key.
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15025118#post15025118 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by tmz
:lol: :lol: :rolleyes: There you go again.

Attacking someone's tank or husbandry when you have not seen it or know nothing about it is temerarious.

I just finished reading this thread to this point and I have yet to see anything where anybody attacked you personally. Yet you keep claiming that is what he is doing when he isn't. He has said that if you couldn't get it to work for you, then its your issue but that the concept is valid (and it is). Can you stick to the topic and leave the personal stuff out of it? It makes the thread almost miserable to read when its a "You are attacking me" thread.
 
The concept of a bucket full of sand functioning as an efficient denitrator is not valid in my opinion. I know that opinion may be contrary to a once and perhaps still popular trend which should be challenged.People are passionate about the hobby and many love their buckets .

When you say the concept is valid, is it fair to assume you mean the concept of a deep sand bucket serving as a denitrator? If not what concept do you mean? If so, is there as basis for that opinion? They have been around for years yet there is no data or study to support the idea that unassisted diffusion or the very limited advection in such a bucket will provide enough organic carbon or nitrate for that matter to the deep sections to do much of anything. There are is no published information on them other than anecdotal accounts and you don't see those much anymore.

On the otehr hand ,there is quite a bit of information cited above
to strongly suggest they won't work very well.

I think a bucket full of sand is convenient ,space friendly and relativey inexpensive and will do some nitrification and denitrification at the top and the extra sand will not do much harm or good if any and there are more efficient and effective alternatives available.
 
A RDSB will work just the same as a DSB. With the same guidelines. It can't be to deep, at some point it will cut out all O2 and do nothing (maybe have a negative impact). And it has to be kept clean some how, whether its micro organism's or what ever means.

I personally have a DSB in my fuge. Which was converted into a fuge from a Model 1 AGA wet/dry. I couldn't get my NO3 below 15 or so, so I removed the bio-balls added a DSB and macro algae. I now have 0 NO3. And have for the few years since I made the switch. I use a weak gravel vac to remove any detritus that gets past my skimmer and filter tray. And every other week or so I turn off the return pump and really gravel vac good and stir the bed a little. It is still almost as clean as the first day I put it in. So IMO as long as you maintain RDSB it will work just fine. I'm not saying go fill a bucket with 14" of sand run a hose and return pump and forget about it. That would lead to a problem, but that should be obvious.
 
It's not that obvious to many. I do agree that rsdbs work just fine. There are ways to make them more efficient than a 14 inch deep or even 9 inch deep bucket though. Here's what I said earlier in this post:

A remote deep sand bed (ie not in the display) can be more productive in denitrification with a larger surface area since even the small sand grains cause advective wave action and upwelling. Placing live rock on a bed can enhance it's effectivenes as a denitrifier since the effects of advection will enhance water movement under the rock to a depth equal to the height of the submerged rock per the model presented by Sprung and Delbeek.It will also enhance movement of water through the rock.
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15044909#post15044909 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by tmz
The concept of a bucket full of sand functioning as an efficient denitrator is not valid in my opinion.

That is your opinion and you are welcome to it. But it seems that if people are disagreeing with your opinion then you take it as an attack on your personally when that isn't the case. And noone has attacked you personally. I simply disagree with your opinion. But, it doesn't have to be a bucket of sand. It can be an inverted container with floating plastic balls (1/8" diameter or so).

Do I think there are other ways to do it? Sure. There are hundreds of ways to do something in this hobby.
They all have benefits, they all have drawbacks. And in the end, you pick your poison and move along with it.
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15054404#post15054404 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by One Dumm Hikk
move along with it.
Yes, indeed do.

Tom

In your last post you mentioned water movement through the LR. I'm not sure I know any mechanism that lets water flow through LR.
 
As I understand it the endo upwelling from advection enhances the movement of water upward into the rock as ocean currents do when they hit a reef.
From Sprung and Delbeek,

" A rock placed on a sand bottom in the presence of flowing water promotes advection that directs water from deep layers directly into the space provided by the rock, which .............stimulates nitrification and denitrification within the rock.

and;

''The flow of water into the substratum by advection also results in the transport of particles and dissolved substances from the water column ............particulate organic matter will all enter the sand , gravel or rocks by this process............Rocks are also porous , so advection makes them fiter water particles....."

The amount of horizontal flow and the porosity of the rock would govern the amount of upwelling water moving into the rock.

In the advection model they present,horizontal flow at 10cm per second , which produces an upwelling under the rock at a rate of 10mm/hr( 1cm per hour). At the 10cm/s horizontal flow rate the intrusion of the rock into the horizontal water flow produces a pressure drop under it of about - 2 Pa which results in the water underneath the rock coming up from a depth equal to the height of the submerged rock.

I don't know how much of this upwelling water would move out around the perimeter of the rock but it seems it would have to go up since the water pressure outside the rock's foot print would be higher.
 
Well, this thread has gotten very active rather suddenly. I think it's going to take some time to work through all the posts. Let's be sure to keep it civil, okay?
 
I will not even address the hilarity of the water movement through stone posting or the other statements and quotations of equal hilarity.

However, Waterkeeper suggested I post this so here it is. Perhaps it will put things into perspective. I however, will not argue further or post further in argument.

gs=C * (V^4*n^3)/(d^1.5*D)
gs = sediment transport rate per unit width
C = constant for the channel
d = sediment particle diameter
D = water depth
N = Manning roughness value for channel

When the available sediments of the stream are greater than the sediment capacity, deposition will occur. If the velocity in a channel is increased by 10 percent, the sediment transport capacity will increase by nearly 50 percent. Lets also assume that the velocity is equal across the tanks width.

ie: For simplicity lets use 1 as the sediment transport beginning rate (meaning one unit of sediment is being moved horizontally) and Vo=1 as the beginning velocity and Do=1 as the beginning depth.

gs=C * (V^4*n^3)/(d^1.5*D) = Gs=1* (V/V0)^4*(Do/D) = 1*(1.1/1)^4*(1/1) = 1.46

This means an increase of velocity will increase the transport of sediment 46 percent if the velocity was increased without decreasing the water depth. Usually an increase in velocity means a decrease in depth as Flow = Velocity * area, so velocity is Flow/area and area is width X depth in a channel.

This means if we use proportionally a decrease in depth of 10% percent to make up for a 10% increase in velocity we have:

Gs=1*(1.1/1)^4*(1/0.9) = 1.63

Now lets further put this in to context. Advection means sediment in transport horizontally. The biologists/zooologists choose the inappropriate approach for their studies not me. For the study they used advection as an excuse or reason for increased diffusion that means the for the initial conditions there were already conditions present causing sediment transport. As no sediment transport conditions means no advection. This means the assignment of the number 1 in the above example is acceptable for use here. The only methods of increasing the diffusion is to increase above the GS above the initial gs. However if the initial gs is 1 that means sediment is already being moved in the direction of the water. An increase of Gs would mean more sediment is moved but diffusion would be higher because more sediment moved means more water is exchanged within the sediment pore spaces. While this may be OK in a test using a flume like they showed in the German articles or in an ocean where new sediment is also being moved in to replace that which is moved out that would not be an logical approach to a reef tank. In a tank all the sediment would mainly end up piled at one end of the tank or all the sediment would remain in suspension and cause a sand cloud. The only way their research or another forum posters arguments have any value is if they could find somehow that magical sweet spot where the gravel is lifted but not moved. However, if the sediment is not moved horizontally then there is no advection meaning their approaches to the studies and their conclusion are just more junk science. As the capability of finding the sweet spot under all the continually changing conditions in a reef tank are about nill, the whole deep bed diffusion due to advection argument used by them and the other forum poster is moot. As anyone will note when looking at the study illustrations they show sediment transport and replenishment and the increased diffusion that happens during this action. They also discuss the diffusion is increased horizontally, and when velocity is increased sedimentation transport happens more deeply. This is shown by the above equations also. Without that increased velocity the diffusion is pretty slow and shallow. I have found nothing to show increasing the surface area increases diffusion vertically. Actually the follwing paragraph shows the opposite is true. For a rock on top of sand to increase diffusion to any extent at all sedimentation transport would have to take place also so the velocity needed to actually cause the diffusion another poster suggests via reading junk science from “touted experts” would mean the rock itself would have to extend nearly as deep as the alleged diffusion increase.

Also as can be seen by the above equations: decreasing the depth of the water stream will increase the sediment moved and therefore the diffusion will be increased even without increasing the input velocity. This happens as it increases the velocity of water across the sand. ie. A smaller area means greater velocity less flow across the sand area. As velocity is the incoming velocity divide by the area and the area is smaller when the depth is decreased.

I do not know of anyone on this forum with any knowledge of sediment transport other than Boomer or myself so you can see why I did not previously post the above. However, Waterkeeper thought that it was appropraiate to post and agreed with its content to exclude comments about others.

If some touted American aquarium experts want to foolishly try to explain their beliefs about diffusion in deep sand beds through the use of a sediment transport approach which even the German ASLO biologists directly state is not an adequate approach to addressing the diffusion study in deep sand beds it is just a show of how some touted aquarium reef experts obviously need to bring in some other disciplines to help them do what they seem incapable of doing in a proper scientific manner. Another reason to look across the waters for reef aquarium expert information.

Also as can be seen by the above equations: decreasing the depth of the water stream will increase the sediment moved and therefore the diffusion will be increased even without increasing the the input velocity. This happens as it increases the velocity of water across the sand. ie. A smaller area means greater velocity less flow across the sand area. As velocity is the incoming velocity divide by the area and the area is smaller when the depth is decreased. And I even provide the equation that shows the sedimentation transport is increased with the decreased water depth.

fatman

I am out of here. bye.
 
Last edited:
Tom I’m not on vacation but there was just too much to read here but will add some things

Obligate anerobes

It is by far the Faculative bacteria that bring about the greatest denitrification in SB


A rock placed on a sand bottom in the presence of flowing water promotes advection that directs water from deep layers directly into the space provided by the rock, which .............stimulates nitrification and denitrification within the rock.

It most certainly will and is a well known fact in bridge columns where hair-pin vortices are formed or in near gravel bed hydraulics with stones. If the velocity is high enough then sediment transport comes into play causing large frontal and side erosional scour/ depressions around the bridge column support structures. These will even be carried downstream to a degree. However, I would not call it “the space provided by the rock” as it is the area around the rock to is front and sides where the velocity increases. In the rear of the rock is a dead zone and lower velocity.

and;

''The flow of water into the substratum by advection also results in the transport of particles and dissolved substances from the water column ............particulate organic matter will all enter the sand , gravel or rocks by this process............Rocks are also porous , so advection makes them filter water particles....."

Yes


The amount of horizontal flow and the porosity of the rock would govern the amount of upwelling water moving into the rock.

Yes,

In the advection model they present,horizontal flow at 10cm per second , which produces an upwelling under the rock at a rate of 10mm/hr( 1cm per hour). At the 10cm/s horizontal flow rate the intrusion of the rock into the horizontal water flow produces a pressure drop under it of about - 2 Pa which results in the water underneath the rock coming up from a depth equal to the height of the submerged rock.


Yes, basic fluid dynamics. Increased velocity lowers the pressure of that area. That means that the pressure at the surface is less and the pressure lower is higher. So, there is a pressure gradient from high to low and the water moves upwards. The flow of water across the surface in short is also creating a venturi like action. Even with no rock the increased velocity will increase upwelling. At IMAC a couple of years ago, and I missed his talk was;


Dr. Markus Huettel
Professor
Biological Oceanography
Ph.D. University of Kiel, 1988


Dr. Markus Huettel



My research addresses biological and physical transport processes at the sea floor and how these processes affect benthic organisms and sediment biogeochemistry. Central themes of my work are the ecology of sandy shelf beds, the influence of currents and waves on bottom dwellers and sea grasses, the impact of biological and physical transport on mineralization in coastal sediments, and the cycling of matter in coral reefs. The investigations combine fieldwork and laboratory flow channel studies


His present was on how increased velocity across a SB in a reef tank increases upwelling and how important it was for the SB. And he had all kinds of measurements to prove it.

I don't know how much of this upwelling water would move out around the perimeter of the rock but it seems it would have to go up since the water pressure outside the rock's foot print would be higher.

And it is dependent on a number of fluvial parameters.

Fat’s

That is a nice post on fluid dynamics but has about nothing to do with this last discussion/say. We are not dealing with open channel flow here. You do not have to have sediment transport to have we you guys are calling advection. At least that seems to be where these posts are going. Your equations are dealing with sediment transport, in open channle flow and the discussion in on non- sediment transport more or less or where this is what is called particle movement, Transitional, i.e., particles are more or less wiggling.

As no sediment transport conditions means no advection

This is in error. You do not have to have sediment transport to have advection/convection. Temp alone can cause advection/convection. Warm water in a SB will rise and be replaced by cooler water. This is how many Germans’ run SB in planted aquariums. They warm up the SB with a cable heater. I use to just attach a water bed heater to the bottom of the glass on an open frame tank for that very reason.

Increased velocity litterly pulls water up for the lower levels and if there is sediment transport it will be even greater.

I have found nothing to show increasing the surface area increases diffusion vertically

No, as larger particle size, which has less SA, would increase it. That makes about as much sense as saying a fine sand bed will allow better diffusion than coarse sand bed. That defies Darcy’s Law. However, it can also with more surface area. As surface area increases, which smaller particles have, there is a shift in the vertical velocity vector profiles due to increased bed roughness. This will give a higher overall velocity for smaller particles than larger ones as larger ones have a larger roughness coefficient, thus a higher diffusion rate vertically for more surface area. All one needs to do is look at Reynolds or Manning numbers and what they mean.

One thing I do not see here are links or ref to so called claims for person x, y or z. You guys are picking at things without looking at the whole picture

I would suggest the library and look for


Fluid Mechanics

Fluvial Hydraulics by Dingman

Porous Media: Fluid Transport and Pore Structure by Dullen

Biology and Mechanics of the Wave Swept Environment by Denny

Loose Boundary Hydraulics by Raudkivi




On bacteria issues.

Geochemistry of Marine Sediments by Burdige

Introduction to Geomicrobiology by Konhauser

Freshwater Microbiology by Sigee




I’m here as I was asked to come here.

Any more here and I will have Mesocosm come here and beat us all up as this is his pet field more than any of us. And I'm just to rusty to carry it on any further or spend hrs of reading.
 
You sure you didn't want to add more Boom? :D

It will take me awhile to respond myself and I really didn't write all those quotes that you attributed to me. ;)
 
It will take me awhile to respond myself and I really didn't write all those quotes that you attributed to me

Ah nope I think only like two words are yours buddy :)

I will add no more ? For now. I think this thread is now just going in circles of he said she said. I always say, a good set of ref shuts- one up ;)

typo error

there is a shift in the vertical velocity vector profiles due to ***increased*** bed roughness


Should be
there is a shift in the vertical velocity vector profiles due to ***decreased*** bed roughness

but again there may be a shift in the vertical velocity vector profiles due to ***increased*** bed roughness with large particles, as deflection off rocks and pebbles can increase velocity greatly in a upwards mode. So, here rougher may mean more advection and not less. Fluid dynamics in moving water is a very, very deep subject. Go look up the Reynolds Equation. Then I will tell you there are like 4 or 5 Reynolds Equations depending on what you are dealing with.
 
Last edited:
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15064984#post15064984 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Boomer
I think this thread is now just going in circles of he said she said. I always say, a good set of ref shuts- one up ;)

You've known me to long to know that won't stop me abit. :D
 
''The flow of water into the substratum by advection also results in the transport of particles and dissolved substances from the water column ............particulate organic matter will all enter the sand , gravel or rocks by this process............Rocks are also porous , so advection makes them filter water particles....."

Yes


Yes, advection can be a reason for this particle movement if we were in a channel not an Ocean, but that does not mean water is moving through the Live Rock rock as interpreted and written in the post in reply to Waterkeeper’s question.

However, as advection is the hydrological approach to sediment transport in channels the statement is in error, as advection is the approach to the transport of sediments, gravel etc in a horizontal flow of water caused by a velocity of water to high in relation to particles, size shape and density.

The amount of horizontal flow and the porosity of the rock would govern the amount of upwelling water moving into the rock.

Yes,


Moving into the rock pores is believable. But once again this statement was given in support of the statement water is moving through the Live Rock, not into th rock pore spaces.

In the advection model they present,horizontal flow at 10cm per second , which produces an upwelling under the rock at a rate of 10mm/hr( 1cm per hour). At the 10cm/s horizontal flow rate the intrusion of the rock into the horizontal water flow produces a pressure drop under it of about - 2 Pa which results in the water underneath the rock coming up from a depth equal to the height of the submerged rock.


Yes, basic fluid dynamics. Increased velocity lowers the pressure of that area. That means that the pressure at the surface is less and the pressure lower is higher. So, there is a pressure gradient from high to low and the water moves upwards. The flow of water across the surface in short is also creating a venturi like action. Even with no rock the increased velocity will increase upwelling. At IMAC a couple of years ago, and I missed his talk was;


Once again this is not advection so the statement is incorrect.

Fat’s

That is a nice post on fluid dynamics but has about nothing to do with this last discussion/say. We are not dealing with open channel flow here. You do not have to have sediment transport to have we you guys are calling advection. At least that seems to be where these posts are going. Your equations are dealing with sediment transport, in open channel flow and the discussion in on non- sediment transport more or less or where this is what is called particle movement, Transitional, i.e., particles are more or less wiggling.


Sorry, you are partially wrong in your view of this matter. If you had looked at the entire thread to include the OSLO URL posted you would see they only used Channel modeling in a Flume. A flume is a channel not an ocean. They used a hydrological approach designed for channels (advection) to approach their study, therefore for that reason my bringing this up is only proper. I merely used the advection approach they used as it is the only advection approach they were using.

As no sediment transport conditions means no advection


This is in error. You do not have to have sediment transport to have advection/convection. Temp alone can cause advection/convection. Warm water in a SB will rise and be replaced by cooler water. This is how many Germans’ run SB in planted aquariums. They warm up the SB with a cable heater. I use to just attach a water bed heater to the bottom of the glass on an open frame tank for that very reason.

Increased velocity litterly pulls water up for the lower levels and if there is sediment transport it will be even greater.


Lets not be silly now and get sidetracked. I quit responding before because of the sidetracking and twisting, and bobbing.

Advection or advection/convection due to water temperature changes was not even addressed and is inappropriate to this discussion.

Advection in the sense you describe is outside the scope of the prior discussion.

Horizontal water movement across a waters surface is the major cause of advection. Unless the water velocity is high enough for sediment transport there is only negligible amounts of water pulled from deep within the sands. If there is enough advection (sediment transport due to horizontal velocity) the amount of water exchange in the pore spaces will be increased. I clearly sated that earlier. Water being pulled up from from lower depths means water exchange in the pore spaces and yes it is velocity based which I clearly stated.

In brief I am not wrong in discussing sedimentation transport due to velocity of water in a channel. That is the advection the articles used to attempt improperly to discuss diffusion in ocean sediments due to the velocity of a horizontal flow of water.

In brief the “scientists” improperly used a hydrologists approach to advection that only deals with sediment transport caused by a high velocity of water in the horizontal direction and this approach is called advection. Temperatures of the water was unnecessarily and improperly entered into the discussion as it has no bearing in the prior discussion or the topic at hand.

The topic is diffusion increases caused by advection and advection moving water through live rock.


Perhaps if the touted scientista had read a few of the Fluid dynamics and hydrlogy books you list they woulf d not have tried to explain things using a very limited approach (advection). However, obviously they did not read enough and like I said should have brought in another discipline to assist them such as a hydrologist. A good set of references being read by the scientists working outside areas adeqautely taught within their fields of study prior to their reserach would have prevented the ludicrous use of advection sediment transport approachs in their studies is possibly true. A simple posting of references alone doesn't mean jack as another poster has already shown that people can misinterpret what scientists put into print very easily. However, You did not really cover that, but "muddied it up instead."

It is obvious the scientist s did not read the following references or advection would not have been part of the studies.
Fluid Mechanics

Fluvial Hydraulics by Dingman
Porous Media: Fluid Transport and Pore Structure by Dullen
Biology and Mechanics of the Wave Swept Environment by Denny
Loose Boundary Hydraulics by Raudkivi
 
Last edited:
Boomer, Thankyou for the references.

The obigate anerobe thing is my mistake not Waterkeeper's. I originaly mispoke noting heterotrophic bacteria that performed denitrification do not do well in oxic water. Tom pointed out that if that's what I meant to say I should say obligate anerobe. Does faculative heterotroph fit ?
(meaning may use oxygen directly or from nitrate and can not use inorganic carbon as an autotroph can).

Thanks
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top