Water changes or not

Work up a spreadsheet and factor what a water change of 20% water or another value works out to. Run the numbers over a period of time and show us the dilution amount in doing it to remove excess buildup and what is being a benefit to the new addition of water change. I will be looking forward in reviewing the data.

No, I'll let Mr. Randy Holmes-Farley take care of that. I would like to see your tank though.
 
Last edited:
No, because I'm not wasting my time. I would like to see your tank though.

I've been thinking about this and I think fishytoo may be correct actually. As he obviously lives in his own universe, it is incorrect for us to assume our laws of physics apply there.
 
Adding off the shelf supplements without knowning the purity is a unknown of what components that you don't want to introduce back in to the tank and would require that be removed again. There are ways around doing water changes that would leave the tank more stable.


I'm still not sure why you are harping on supplements as the only reason to need water changes. Or even the main one. I know the purity of some supplements. I've tested them (and also gathered published data) and published the results. I also know the impurities in foods and in CaCO3 reactor media. They too can be significant. I posted a link for you to read. Did you?

Which is more in my case? I expect foods are the biggest source for certain metals relative to what supplements I use. Organic toxins are either from foods or produced in the tank. Certainly not from my supplement (limewater).

I have been involved in many 510k trials. The word Clinically is in reference to the inhabitants and the observation there of. I didn't miss type.

I won’t debate the semantics. You edited your post containing the “clinically” comment after I already responded to it, so I won’t go chasing ghosts, whether imagined or misremembered.
 
The point being removing water and replacing it a 20% every week or month does not reduce toxins only to a small degree.

I presume you meant that it does reduce toxins only to a small degree.?

Yes, by exactly 20%.

Work up a spreadsheet and factor what a water change of 20% water or another value works out to.

Yes, I've done that extensively and published the results. It was linked in the third post of this thread. Did you check it out?

Here's a graph from it that is relevant for anything that is not also being continually added. You can clearly see that an impurity is dropped substantially. :)

Figure1sm.GIF


Figure 1. Nitrate concentration as a function of time when performing water changes of 0% (no changes), 7.5%, 15% and 30% of the total volume each month. In this example, nitrate is present at 100 ppm at the start, and is not added or depleted during the course of the year except via the water changes. The y-axis can alternatively be thought of as the percent of the original concentration remaining for any material that is not being added or depleted from the water except via the water change.



and this one shows what happens generally with something that is being added continually, as from foods, supplements, CaCO3 reactor inputs, etc. I used nitrate as an example, but the concentration of anything that starts high and is slowly added applies equally well:

Figure3sm.GIF
:


Figure 3. Nitrate concentration as a function of time when performing water changes of 0% (no changes), 7.5%, 15% and 30% of the total volume each month. In this example, nitrate is present at 100 ppm at the start, and is accumulated at a rate of 0.1 ppm per day when no water is changed.
You are making an assumption tank is on its own without a protein skimmer, macro and O3 and this would be the end point. Factor in the natural and mechanical effects. You still can’t not factor what is being introduced with a water change that is not helpful, do to the fact that you cannot account for the impurities of the products being added. Test kits should be used to determine where the problem is and what maybe missing. Not guessing a water change would resolve the problem. I am open to your response. Taking a ie 150 gal tank and reducing it by 20% per month with water and the next month you do the same your ppm’s of exchange are very little of unwanted components.

So if none of the mechanical and biological options are in place then you are correct. Who run’s a reef tank in a single loop without and mechanical or biological systems in place, only someone who will run into a problem and it is not even likely a water change would resolve the issues.
 
You are making an assumption tank is on its own without a protein skimmer, macro and O3 and this would be the end point. Factor in the natural and mechanical effects. You still can't not factor what is being introduced with a water change that is not helpful, do to the fact that you cannot account for the impurities of the products being added. Test kits should be used to determine where the problem is and what maybe missing. Not guessing a water change would resolve the problem. I am open to your response. Taking a ie 150 gal tank and reducing it by 20% per month with water and the next month you do the same your ppm's of exchange are very little of unwanted components.

So if none of the mechanical and biological options are in place then you are correct. Who run's a reef tank in a single loop without and mechanical or biological systems in place, only someone who will run into a problem and it is not even likely a water change would resolve the issues.

Come on you are from Cornell and Harvard don't put out something without factoring the potential unknowns. You must know there is some uncertainty that should be added to you math. You make it look so grave and that isn't the case. Be logical and factor in all that is happening in an enclosed reef eco system.
 
You are making an assumption tank is on its own without a protein skimmer, macro and O3 and this would be the end point.

No, I only assumed nitrate is accumulating at the rate I stated. Instead of nitrate, this could be copper or anything else. Anything that accumulates in the absence of water changes is corrected as I stated. Whether from foods, supplements, or anything else. :)
 
You are making an assumption tank is on its own without a protein skimmer, macro and O3 and this would be the end point.

No, I only assumed nitrate is accumulating at the rate I stated. Instead of nitrate, this could be copper or anything else. Anything that accumulates in the absence of water changes is corrected as I stated. Whether from foods, supplements, or anything else. :)

Next time you find an absolute without uncertainties. I will be glad to interject. I have never seen something without any uncertainties, however your math doesn't work for me and it shouldn't be clear to you with your expertise.
 
Next time you find an absolute without uncertainties. I will be glad to interject. I have never seen something without any uncertainties, however your math doesn’t work for me and it shouldn’t be clear to you with your expertise.

I don't want to mislead anyone with a new tank. I am refuring to a mature tank which should not have any NITRATES. And the nitrites should not be a issue. And if you find copper, you need to know where that came from. In 20 years I have never had copper in the tank unless I introduce it in the 1980's.
 
I have never seen something without any uncertainties, however your math doesn’t work for me and it shouldn’t be clear to you with your expertise.

YOU asked for results of a spreadsheet analysis of what typical water change can do.

That is EXACTLY what I did. EXACTLY the way I did it. I showed it.

Then you complain that it is too simple.

Sure, it is a simplification, as I make abundantly clear in the article. It is NOT intended to claim what nitrate level a tank will attain. It is and DOES show what water changes COULD accomplish relative to not doing those same changes in that same tank.

Case closed.
 
In 20 years I have never had copper in the tank unless I introduce it in the 1980's.

I guess you never added any food? All seafoods contain copper. All reef tanks and the ocean will also contain copper. You just didn't look with a adequately sensitive tools, if you could not detect any. There are no kits that test low enough to be useful in this regard.
 
Hi all,

This is an interesting thread. I have kept marine aquariums for almost 20 years. When I started in the early 90's I worked at a nice upscale aquarium store in Clearwater FL. My set up at home was a 55g tank with a 10g sump. Only a protien skimmer. A jaubert plenim, about 4 in of aragonite. All of evap water was replaced with kalkwauser water. And I dosed about 25% of the recommended amount of an all around trace element sup. Dont remember what. Never did water changes after the initial cycling. The tank exploded, wish I had pics! I was young then. Everything did well, kept clams, acros, mont, stylophora, lpss, softies, mushrooms, ect. Coraline exploded, was plating off itself. It was the easiest tank. I moved after 3.5 yrs. and got a different tank and set up.

I should say I new 3 other brilliant aquarists that had almost the exact same set up, different size tanks though. All amazing results.

FFwd 20 yrs, I have a 65 with a 20 sump. Skimmer, no jaubert. top off with kalkwauser. I do a water change every week, 5 gallons its easy. Siphon out open gravel spots, rocks ect. Tank pars are great. Corals, fish are great.

I will say this, back then we did not keep as many fish in a tank, or feed them as much.
Now I keep 10 fish and feed them well. It seems this method requires the water changes. I siphon out amazing amounts of detrirus, food, ect. I am starting to think this method of feeding yields an unstable water chemestry. Or has a greater potential for instability. And then the water changes make it more unstable. What I mean is a sudden jump from one point to another, as far as ph, dkh, temp, ect. that comes with a water change. But who knows. Lots of unknowns.

I think that certain parameters need to reach high levels for certain biological processes to kick in and counter act. That doesnt get a chance to happen with weekly water changes.

Fishy Two, I would like to know what you recommend to remove excess detritus, food, ect. In place of water changes.

The only thing I can see is an extreme amount of flow in the aquarium rendering every particle suspended. Then a prefilter, skimmer, dsb, and ref. would have a shot at it. But the corals wouldn't like it. Not the amount of flow, it wouldn't allow for nice polyp extension, softies would hate it. Maybe bump the flow in the middle of night for a period of time.

Thanks Sean
 
In 20 years I have never had copper in the tank unless I introduce it in the 1980's.

I guess you never added any food? All seafoods contain copper. All reef tanks and the ocean will also contain copper. You just didn't look with a adequately sensitive tools, if you could not detect any. There are no kits that test low enough to be useful in this regard.

This is the key randy- he is worried about the unknowns in the additives he thinks we use-yet is not worried about the unknowns in his own system organic or otherwise. He sees ammonia,nitrie,nitrate,phos,and kh-ca as the only components of a system. As a previous poster has stated- he has substituted his own reality for the one the rest of us dwell in.
 
In 20 years I have never had copper in the tank unless I introduce it in the 1980's.

I guess you never added any food? All seafoods contain copper. All reef tanks and the ocean will also contain copper. You just didn't look with a adequately sensitive tools, if you could not detect any. There are no kits that test low enough to be useful in this regard.

I asked for a spreadsheet in the real world not one that composes of one item that is usually happens in a new tank. And you didn't provide any uncertainly in you chart. I am not sure how you optained your degree or did you studies. It wouldn't be something I would present.

If you want to be smart about food then we can run studies on that. However you are missing the point. My point is adding supplements without any COA (and I hope you know what that means from all you studies an developments that you have completed). Aas far as exporting, redo your graph. If 20% of water is removed and fresh is added then some time later 20% is removed again. DO the math what is the reduction????
 
Fishytoo I would like to see a pic of your tank.

You are demanding of essays and charts. They were provided. A simple photo can't be too much trouble to ask.

Without the photo your just trolling.

DO the math what is the reduction????

YOU do the math AND YOU show us. You started the topic but have not added anything other then troll.
 
still waiting for your parameters- can you give nothing while randy gives all? I can tell you are not unbad with fish, so let us see your setup. So far your about as useful to the no water change debate as a duck with a slide whistle.
 
still waiting for your parameters- can you give nothing while randy gives all? I can tell you are not unbad with fish, so let us see your setup. So far your about as useful to the no water change debate as a duck with a slide whistle.

I can give you my numbers. Is it meaningful?

I run a show tank of 144gal and have a sump of 150gal. The skimmer is 2 gal which I run low with O3 the macro is 2' x 2" about 6” thick. Hey if you want to do water changes and buy whatever supplements it is up to you. My results it isn't necessary and causes more instability.

I am out. I said what is needed. It is up to you to make a decision.
I don't need someone to profess what is needed.


I can do my own math to the befit of water changes.

But others can't do the math correctly and add uncertainty and what you profess doesn't work with that data you provided.


E=mc2
 
Last edited:
Back
Top