Carbon Limited VS Carbon Balanced - Ugly Stage

[sixty_reefer]

I too, would like to know what is the mechanism to qualify, quantify, and control the compounds when it comes to Nitrogen in all its forms, and how it can fuel growth. We DO want to be able to repeat findings, yeah?

That question doesn’t have a direct answer. If I was to ask you could you tell me how much nitrogen is your tank producing in 24h? And would that have a meaningful importance in terms of having a stable tank.

In this experiment I can, to a certain degree. Prior to start this thread to observe the effects of a tank balanced by organic carbon, I’ve done testing in dark environment. In that experiment I’ve added nitrogen with a known equivalent to nitrate in mg/l, I’ve added phosphate with a known mg/l and I’ve added carbohydrates with a known weight.
During that experiment I’ve concluded that a balance between the 3 nutrients could be reached and that a ratio could be determined from it. Balance in aquaria means that import and export will translate to a stable No3 and Po4 this translated to stability.
That balanced came from chemotrophs and heterotrophs.
In this experiment I’m adding light to identify if the balanced achievement by those chemotrophs and heterotrophs can outcompete some of the undesirable autotrophs with the aid of organic carbon and one autotroph that is being stimulated by silica (diatoms).

The addition of organic carbon to increase heterotrophic organisms is not a necessary thing to do, the same nutrients can be reduced with autotrophic organisms (Ex. macro algae’s) they just use a different type of carbon.
Using autotrophic organisms to balance systems that are organic carbon limited is something that we have been doing since the hobby started. The introduction of refugiums are a good example.

As far as mimicking this experience, I haven’t seen any indication that it would be a good idea, it’s only been one week since the start of lights on and I don’t have anything positive or negative to say in relation to the main objective of the thread. This could fairly easily fail and illustrate that it’s only positive outcome was to increase microbial and zooplankton biodiversity in aquaria.

As I stated several times before, at this moment I’m only observing the effects.

 

[twentyleagues]

Just let the guy do his thing,

I maybe "we" want to. Its just that we are not sure what the thing is. I mean @sixty_reefer posted this in a public forum doing so invites questions and criticisms. If you dont have answers to these what is the point in posting in a way that indicates you may have answers? We know that controlling "nutrients" may lead to less uglies. Sixty has alluded to knowing the ratio of "nutrients" to keep the uglies at bay, but as far as most of us know there is no way to properly test for all the variables to insure those answers. Explaining that phosphate in a deficit effects the ability to get denitrification doesnt help we know that or at least its a common theory. Alluding to an alternate source of carbon without going into that and how you know there isnt other biological processes happening with no shown tests or controls to prove it and that you got this "ratio" correct, I mean it may as well be a build thread without the title that is going to grab attention and invite debate. Hmm my build thread gets very little in the way of comments, maybe when I start up the 180 I will come up with a title to get 8 pages of comments in the first 2 weeks of the build. I did learn something!

 

[sixty_reefer]

I maybe "we" want to. Its just that we are not sure what the thing is. I mean @sixty_reefer posted this in a public forum doing so invites questions and criticisms. If you dont have answers to these what is the point in posting in a way that indicates you may have answers? We know that controlling "nutrients" may lead to less uglies. Sixty has alluded to knowing the ratio of "nutrients" to keep the uglies at bay, but as far as most of us know there is no way to properly test for all the variables to insure those answers. Explaining that phosphate in a deficit effects the ability to get denitrification doesnt help we know that or at least its a common theory. Alluding to an alternate source of carbon without going into that and how you know there isnt other biological processes happening with no shown tests or controls to prove it and that you got this "ratio" correct, I mean it may as well be a build thread without the title that is going to grab attention and invite debate. Hmm my build thread gets very little in the way of comments, maybe when I start up the 180 I will come up with a title to get 8 pages of comments in the first 2 weeks of the build. I did learn something!

Not what I’ve said, I’ve mentioned that nitrate and phosphate may have little to no effect on the photosynthetic nuisances and that earlier forms of nitrogen could potentially be the cause of it.
I’ve made this thread to evaluate if this specific type of organic carbon (carbohydrate from algae’s) could potentially aid reducing some of those photosynthetic nuisances that are dependent on organic carbon to multiply and colonise the tank, we all know that using more efficient ways such as refugiums work to a certain extend they just use inorganic carbon instead of organic carbon.
I’ve never stated that I’ve found the ratio that limits the growth of nuisance, just the ratio that some heterotrophs need to stay balanced and not limited in organic carbon.

Depleted phosphate doesn’t just affect denitrification, it affects all organisms that require it.

 

[Dan_P]

Just let the guy do his thing,

No one is in the least bit interested in interfering with the work. The discussion you are witnessing usually flares up from a) after the use of odd or incorrect technical statements, and then b) not clarifying the statements but instead increasing the disinformation. I use disinformation to cover the range of intent from deliberate misleading statements to mistakes. I have no clue about intentions, only what they seem to be based on what is said.

 

[sixty_reefer]

No one is in the least bit interested in interfering with the work. The discussion you are witnessing usually flares up from a) after the use of odd or incorrect technical statements, and then b) not clarifying the statements but instead increasing the disinformation. I use disinformation to cover the range of intent from deliberate misleading statements to mistakes. I have no clue about intentions, only what they seem to be based on what is said.

Are you going to point out the disinformation? Or are we supposed to just take your word for it? You cannot use words like that just because you find it amusing, I would like to see proof that disinformation have been done in this thread! If not I would take it that you are calling me directly and that goes against TOS.

 

[Garf]

I’ve made this thread to evaluate if this specific type of organic carbon (carbohydrate from algae’s) could potentially aid reducing some of those photosynthetic nuisances that are dependent on organic carbon

https://search.app?link=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.researchgate.net%2Fpublication%2F251570624_Influence_of_coral_and_alga_exudates_on_microbially_mediated_reef_metabolism&utm_campaign=aga&utm_source=agsadl2%2Csh%2Fx%2Fgs%2Fm2%2F4

 

[Garf]

Biological oxygen demand optode analysis of coral reef-associated microbial communities exposed to algal exudates

Algae-derived dissolved organic matter has been hypothesized to induce mortality of reef building corals. One proposed killing mechanism is a zone of hypoxia created by rapidly growing microbes. To investigate this hypothesis, biological oxygen demand (BOD) optodes were used to quantify the...

search.app

Conclusion​

This study supports the hypothesis that hypoxia in close proximity to turf algae is driven in part by increased microbial oxygen demand. Despite variation in oxygen demand of individual bacterial strains, oxygen drawdown at the community level showed no significant differences among different community types. Changes in the source of organic matter, on the other hand, affected oxygen consumption rates of cultured bacterial communities significantly. This suggests that hypoxia, commonly found at the interface of coral-algal interactions, is a result of the complex interactions of coral-associated microbial communities and the properties of the organic matter available. The increased input of bioavailable DOM accompanying phase shifts from calcifier-dominated (i.e., CCA- and coral-dominated) to non-calcifier-dominated (i.e., turf algae- and fleshy macroalgae-dominated) systems can thus change microbial metabolism in a way that oxygen demand outweighs production, possibly leading to a shift towards a net heterotrophic microbial reef community (see companion study Haas et al., 2013b). Initially, these effects are likely taking place on a very small spatial scale; however, due to the DDAM positive feedback loop, turf algae are able to slowly crawl further in on the coral eventually overgrowing it, potentially leading to coral-algal phase shifts. Similar results of turf exudate-induced increases of microbial respiration, obtained from two different ocean systems, suggest that this microbially-mediated hypoxic stress could have important implications in the structure and health of the worlds coral reef systems.

 

[HomebroodExotics]

Any chance that you share your experimental results?

No, I've tried that and got the same mess as OP. I'm satisfied knowing the answers myself.

MMM, that sounds like a conspiracy theory. I suspect the companies supporting the aquarium trade generally can’t afford to perform research nor even to have experts on their staff.

Have you ever heard of seachem, Tropic marin, brightwell? How about Alken-Murray?

What does this mean? What is “connect the cycle”? What is “complete the cycle”?

It means to turn your waste into food.

What does this mean? How are bacteria decoded?

Majority of bacteria species have all been identified and propagated that are useful by companies and their scientists, we just don't have access to the information. That's where waste treatment bacteria come from along with dr tims and all the other bacterial blends. We are just trying to figure out what companies have already figured out many years ago.

 

[ReneReef]

Are you going to point out the disinformation? Or are we supposed to just take your word for it? You cannot use words like that just because you find it amusing, I would like to see proof that disinformation have been done in this thread! If not I would take it that you are calling me directly and that goes against TOS.

To your defence I think the term disinformation is too strong.
The definition of disinformation is: misleading content deliberately spread to deceive people. I don't believe you are doing that.

However you keep asking us to list the unsupported claims and such that we perceive.
So I went over this thread.
Methodological limitation: I went over the thread once, so I likely have missed some instances.


From post 1:
"a tank that is organic carbon balanced vs a traditional organic carbon limited tank"

There is no way to quantify between these conditions. You do not explain how you are able to do the impossible.
Therefore this is an unsupported claim.


"C - carbohydrate"

Vague. Do you mean Reef Actif? Reason I think this: in post 105 you mention that one of the possible ingredients is agar.
So you are using a product you do not actually know the contents of. Yet to your public you seem to present a fact here.


"N - Nitro+"

What is in this? If you don't know, then you don't know what nitrogen compound(s) you are dosing.
Yet, you later try to draw conclusions on what organism is using/producing what nitrogen compound and how much.


"The system has been just over 30 days dark with just mature media from a cycled tank in the back sump baffle, no mechanical filtration, just protein skimmer."

The description of the experiment is contradicted by your own previously posted content. As Bean Animal pointed out: "Something is not adding up here. How is this tank only 30 days old freshly cycled in the dark if the crinoid was living in it on Nov 4th and it was established prior to Oct 3 and was running at least 10% blue light during the time the crinoid was in it?"


"I’m expecting a extra ugly tank due to silica dosing."

You add a variable that conflicts with the experimental goal without addressing that as a limitation of your experiment or provide data to support otherwise.


Post 4:

What do you mean by balancing?

"By adding organic carbon without affecting Nitrates or Phosphate.
To me balance translates to a steady residual No3 and Po4.
A little different from what most in the hobby use organic carbon."

Unsupported claim. In a complex biological system this premise is impossible.


Post 6:

Let’s get technical. When co2 enters the water and combines to make alkalinity; that is a carbon source.

How do you plan on measuring that?

"Planing on keeping a stable PH and alkalinity. That should help keeping my inorganic carbon balanced."

Again, unsupported claim. In a complex biological system this premise is impossible.


Post 25:
"This experiment is just a “what if”

What if, instead of feeding nuisance, it was possible to move all nutrients produced in a new tank into bacteria biomass and extract them via protein skimmer.
Less nutrients should in theory translate to less ugliness and nuisance in a system that doesn’t have enough photosynthetic organisms to deal with them at this point."

Plot twist: Here we go from "balancing nutrients" to lets put all nutrients in bacteria.


Post 41:

If the goal is:

Let’s add organics, nitrate, phosphate and silicate and see what happens to rocks in the water, then this plan seems fine.

"Yes. That’s the basic behind the idea"

Plot twist: And here we go from lets put all nutrients in bacteria to lets add organics and see what happens.


Post 52:
"In my view the non-nitrate nitrogen compounds (yes that’s a new word and evolution) play a major role in fuelling nuisances such as GHA and film algae, my aim here is to reduce those by increasing competition for those nutrients by using organic carbon and silica that will transform those into forms that can be used by beneficial organisms such as snails, bacteria and Protozoa that will be exported via skimming or mechanical filtration."

Plot twist: "Lets see what happens" is out of the picture already.
And an invented term that bares no meaning is introduced: non-nitrate nitrogen.


Post 66:
"I’m going to avoid the ugly stage altogether while maintaining a high nutrient system, nitrates 10mg/l phosphate 0.4 mg/l and strong light, I’m going to do it by using nutrients to influence biological pathways of my choosing that affect mainly non-nitrate nitrogen compounds."

Plot twist: Yet another goal shift.


Post 78:
"Non-nitrate nitrogen compounds it’s what fuels algae growth and per effect the zooxanthellae in coral."

Another unsupported claim, known to be false.
As pointed out by Randy Holmes Farley: organics are not known to be used by algae.
To claim otherwise requires evidence.


Post 83:
"In this thread I’m experimenting with biological pathways that can happen in reef aquaria that are usually limited by organic carbon.
Some of those pathways could be as simple as single cell zooplankton that preys on the increased bacteria."

You claim to influence individual biological pathways, yet you never identify which ones you are influencing and how. The provided photo does not provide evidence, its a picture with some arrows pointing at some bits. You don't describe how you identified those bits or provide data for us to verify the identification.
This makes these results not evidence, but more unsupported claims.


Post 123:

I was going stay out of this but I feel it necessary to ask a question that I eluded to near the beginning of this thread, to see if I get an answer this time. How on earth can you know what impact your snail is having on controlling "nuisances" in relation to your carbon dosing? I feel adding consumers invalidates any results from the outset. I'm just not understanding, I guess.

"the important aspect for me, is that they are also producers.
Initially they were added to consume diatoms produced by silica and create extra nutrients for copepods and by effect more nitrogen.

On prior experiments I was able to find that X amount of organic carbon would reduce the equivalent to 0.8 mg/l nitrate.
As snails started consuming diatoms and excreting fezes, the organic carbon dose had to be increased to Y.

Don’t hold me to it, as I need to check my initial results but this could potentially mean that each snail in this tank is producing on average the equivalent of 0.96 mg/l Nitrate a day.
If someone was to introduce 6 snails to a 50 litre system, could potentially mean that there would be a production of the equivalent of 5.76 mg/l nitrate in ammonium form.

No ground breaking material but the consumer (snail) could potentially be adding more nutrients into the water column that is removing becoming one of the main producers during cycling, especially if their waste is not being removed from the aquarium effectively.
What I’ve “observed” so far is that a large quantity of their droppings would stay trapped in the rock work and on the glass base, if it was sand it would disappear fairly easily. Their droppings seem heavy and even a decent flow can’t remove it from the front of my display."

Claims:
- Diatoms produced by silica.
- Diatoms feed copepods and that creates Nitrogen.
- X amount of organic carbon would reduce the equivalent to 0.8 mg/l nitrate.
- As snails started consuming diatoms and excreting fezes, the organic carbon dose had to be increased to Y.
- each snail in this tank is producing on average the equivalent of 0.96 mg/l Nitrate a day.
- the consumer (snail) could potentially be adding more nutrients into the water column that is removing becoming one of the main producers during cycling, especially if their waste is not being removed from the aquarium effectively.

These claims are all either unsupported, vast oversimplifications or simply physically impossible.


Post 147:
"I’ve made this thread to evaluate if this specific type of organic carbon (carbohydrate from algae’s) could potentially aid reducing some of those photosynthetic nuisances that are dependent on organic carbon to multiply and colonise the tank"

Plot twist: Another shift in goal.
Now uglies are limited to "photosynthetic nuisances", another vague term. The term includes algae, but as previously mentioned algae are not known to use organics.

 

[HomebroodExotics]

To your defence I think the term disinformation is too strong.
The definition of disinformation is: misleading content deliberately spread to deceive people. I don't believe you are doing that.

However you keep asking us to list the unsupported claims and such that we perceive.
So I went over this thread.
Methodological limitation: I went over the thread once, so I likely have missed some instances.


From post 1:
"a tank that is organic carbon balanced vs a traditional organic carbon limited tank"

There is no way to quantify between these conditions. You do not explain how you are able to do the impossible.
Therefore this is an unsupported claim.


"C - carbohydrate"

Vague. Do you mean Reef Actif? Reason I think this: in post 105 you mention that one of the possible ingredients is agar.
So you are using a product you do not actually know the contents of. Yet to your public you seem to present a fact here.


"N - Nitro+"

What is in this? If you don't know, then you don't know what nitrogen compound(s) you are dosing.
Yet, you later try to draw conclusions on what organism is using/producing what nitrogen compound and how much.


"The system has been just over 30 days dark with just mature media from a cycled tank in the back sump baffle, no mechanical filtration, just protein skimmer."

The description of the experiment is contradicted by your own previously posted content. As Bean Animal pointed out: "Something is not adding up here. How is this tank only 30 days old freshly cycled in the dark if the crinoid was living in it on Nov 4th and it was established prior to Oct 3 and was running at least 10% blue light during the time the crinoid was in it?"


"I’m expecting a extra ugly tank due to silica dosing."

You add a variable that conflicts with the experimental goal without addressing that as a limitation of your experiment or provide data to support otherwise.


Post 4:

"By adding organic carbon without affecting Nitrates or Phosphate.
To me balance translates to a steady residual No3 and Po4.
A little different from what most in the hobby use organic carbon."

Unsupported claim. In a complex biological system this premise is impossible.


Post 6:

"Planing on keeping a stable PH and alkalinity. That should help keeping my inorganic carbon balanced."

Again, unsupported claim. In a complex biological system this premise is impossible.


Post 25:
"This experiment is just a “what if”

What if, instead of feeding nuisance, it was possible to move all nutrients produced in a new tank into bacteria biomass and extract them via protein skimmer.
Less nutrients should in theory translate to less ugliness and nuisance in a system that doesn’t have enough photosynthetic organisms to deal with them at this point."

Plot twist: Here we go from "balancing nutrients" to lets put all nutrients in bacteria.


Post 41:

"Yes. That’s the basic behind the idea"

Plot twist: And here we go from lets put all nutrients in bacteria to lets add organics and see what happens.


Post 52:
"In my view the non-nitrate nitrogen compounds (yes that’s a new word and evolution) play a major role in fuelling nuisances such as GHA and film algae, my aim here is to reduce those by increasing competition for those nutrients by using organic carbon and silica that will transform those into forms that can be used by beneficial organisms such as snails, bacteria and Protozoa that will be exported via skimming or mechanical filtration."

Plot twist: "Lets see what happens" is out of the picture already.
And an invented term that bares no meaning is introduced: non-nitrate nitrogen.


Post 66:
"I’m going to avoid the ugly stage altogether while maintaining a high nutrient system, nitrates 10mg/l phosphate 0.4 mg/l and strong light, I’m going to do it by using nutrients to influence biological pathways of my choosing that affect mainly non-nitrate nitrogen compounds."

Plot twist: Yet another goal shift.


Post 78:
"Non-nitrate nitrogen compounds it’s what fuels algae growth and per effect the zooxanthellae in coral."

Another unsupported claim, known to be false.
As pointed out by Randy Holmes Farley: organics are not known to be used by algae.
To claim otherwise requires evidence.


Post 83:
"In this thread I’m experimenting with biological pathways that can happen in reef aquaria that are usually limited by organic carbon.
Some of those pathways could be as simple as single cell zooplankton that preys on the increased bacteria."

You claim to influence individual biological pathways, yet you never identify which ones you are influencing and how. The provided photo does not provide evidence, its a picture with some arrows pointing at some bits. You don't describe how you identified those bits or provide data for us to verify the identification.
This makes these results not evidence, but more unsupported claims.


Post 123:

"the important aspect for me, is that they are also producers.
Initially they were added to consume diatoms produced by silica and create extra nutrients for copepods and by effect more nitrogen.

On prior experiments I was able to find that X amount of organic carbon would reduce the equivalent to 0.8 mg/l nitrate.
As snails started consuming diatoms and excreting fezes, the organic carbon dose had to be increased to Y.

Don’t hold me to it, as I need to check my initial results but this could potentially mean that each snail in this tank is producing on average the equivalent of 0.96 mg/l Nitrate a day.
If someone was to introduce 6 snails to a 50 litre system, could potentially mean that there would be a production of the equivalent of 5.76 mg/l nitrate in ammonium form.

No ground breaking material but the consumer (snail) could potentially be adding more nutrients into the water column that is removing becoming one of the main producers during cycling, especially if their waste is not being removed from the aquarium effectively.
What I’ve “observed” so far is that a large quantity of their droppings would stay trapped in the rock work and on the glass base, if it was sand it would disappear fairly easily. Their droppings seem heavy and even a decent flow can’t remove it from the front of my display."

Claims:
- Diatoms produced by silica.
- Diatoms feed copepods and that creates Nitrogen.
- X amount of organic carbon would reduce the equivalent to 0.8 mg/l nitrate.
- As snails started consuming diatoms and excreting fezes, the organic carbon dose had to be increased to Y.
- each snail in this tank is producing on average the equivalent of 0.96 mg/l Nitrate a day.
- the consumer (snail) could potentially be adding more nutrients into the water column that is removing becoming one of the main producers during cycling, especially if their waste is not being removed from the aquarium effectively.

These claims are all either unsupported, vast oversimplifications or simply physically impossible.


Post 147:
"I’ve made this thread to evaluate if this specific type of organic carbon (carbohydrate from algae’s) could potentially aid reducing some of those photosynthetic nuisances that are dependent on organic carbon to multiply and colonise the tank"

Plot twist: Another shift in goal.
Now uglies are limited to "photosynthetic nuisances", another vague term. The term includes algae, but as previously mentioned algae are not known to use organics.

The problem isn't OP, it's in your own understanding of these topics. Just reading through what you wrote I can tell that you don't have the first idea about what you are talking about and yet you are trying to correct the OP. I'm not trying to be mean to you, it's just true that you do not understand at all what the OP is talking about and instead of asking him some questions to better your understanding you are attacking him.

 

[HomebroodExotics]

Feels like a bit of dither and another pivot. You now claim to have only made this thread to evaluate the effects of a specific type of organic carbon, but that doesn’t align with the earlier claims you’ve made (ReneReef kindly pointed out some of them). Your threads (including this one) are littered with bold assertions about nitrogen forms, nutrient pathways, and supposed “ratios” without providing actual evidence. This pattern is why the discussions escalate -- not because anyone is out to get you, but because you consistently introduce unsupported claims and refuse to address the critiques directly.

But lets take your latest response at face value...

"Nitrate and phosphate may have little to no effect on photosynthetic nuisances" - That is a pretty bold postulate that contradicts decades of understanding about nutrients and cycling involving inorganic N and P. If you wish to prove this, then this "experiment" would require for more rigorous controls, not anecdotal observations on an uncontrolled tank. To that end, what exactly is a "photosynthetic nuisance" and how to you intend to quantify that against "non-photosynthetic nuisances" or "photosynthetic beneficial organisms".

"Organic carbon could aid in reducing photosynthetic nuisances dependent on organic carbon to multiply" - This feels like circular logic. Organisms that require organic carbon to grow would likely be influenced by carbon sources. Your "experiment" has no means to measure or quantify this, and to that end (again), what exactly is a "photosynthetic nuisance" and how to you intend to quantify that against "non-photosynthetic nuisances" or "photosynthetic beneficial organisms".

"I’ve never stated that I’ve found the ratio that limits nuisance growth" -
You have repeatedly insinuated that your work with “ratios” provides insight into controlling nutrient pathways and limiting certain organisms. You have done so in this thread. Now, you’re downplaying your earlier claims, which again feels like more of the same evasive behavior.


"Depleted phosphate affects all organisms that require it":
This is true but irrelevant. Phosphate depletion isn’t the discussion here -- it’s your attempt to correlate various nutrient inputs with specific organismal growth or decline without any controls or measurable outcomes and is rooted in your "ratio" thinking.

Finally, regarding Dan's and others comments:

None of us are violating the TOS -- you are not a victim -- you are posting in a public forum under the pretense of being an expert in this subject matter. The very foundation of your arguments have been challenged, along with numerous other tangent and wildly unrelated and incorrect statements, assumptions and understandings. Regardless of you intention, this is misinformation and it is amplified by the fact that you that you refuse to address it head on. We keep providing "proof" and you keep changing the subject.

Your threads will continue to draw criticism not because people are against you, but because the claims you’re making don’t stand up to scrutiny and you deflect or pivot every time they are addressed.

Weird, I clearly understood everything OP is talking about....Am I special, or do I just understand the terms and definitions that he's using?

 

[CHSUB]

you are posting in a public forum under the pretense of being an expert in this subject matter

Not sure he is claiming to be an expert? Imo, while on his lunch break from work, wanted to see what happens when he puts some sugar in a reef tank right after cycling without lights.

 

[lakai]

No one is in the least bit interested in interfering with the work. The discussion you are witnessing usually flares up from a) after the use of odd or incorrect technical statements, and then b) not clarifying the statements but instead increasing the disinformation. I use disinformation to cover the range of intent from deliberate misleading statements to mistakes. I have no clue about intentions, only what they seem to be based on what is said.

I have no dog in this fight, you all clearly seem to have history with the guy. happy holidays

 

[Subsea]

Weird, I clearly understood everything OP is talking about....Am I special, or do I just understand the terms and definitions that he's using?

Outstanding for you.

As a marine engineer that focuses on technical writing, what text are you using to define the terms used?

 

[Garf]

without lights.

That would certainly disadvantage "photosynthetic nuisances", lol

 

[sixty_reefer]

To your defence I think the term disinformation is too strong.
The definition of disinformation is: misleading content deliberately spread to deceive people. I don't believe you are doing that.

I’ll address some of the points just as a courtesy.

"The system has been just over 30 days dark with just mature media from a cycled tank in the back sump baffle, no mechanical filtration, just protein skimmer."

The description of the experiment is contradicted by your own previously posted content. As Bean Animal pointed out: "Something is not adding up here. How is this tank only 30 days old freshly cycled in the dark if the crinoid was living in it on Nov 4th and it was established prior to Oct 3 and was running at least 10% blue light during the time the crinoid was in it?"

I’ve bought the media on the 2 of October, the tank was left for a a few days with just ammonia to evaluate if it was being transformed and if the tank was cycled, from there I’ve experimented with vinegar to evaluate a few other aspects of the experiment post this I had to allow for the bloom caused by the vinegar to pass and I believe this took me to around the 8th or 10th of October.
From that date onwards I’ve started implementing the basis of this experiment.

I’ve started this experiment around the 19th or 20th, that makes the overall concept between 39 to 41 days. (Trying to be as precise as I can)

So how do you understand the term just over 30 days?

Do you read it as 30 days and one hour? 30 days and 5 minutes?

To me write just over 30 days, was just not to have and look at all the exact amount of days but if you want to go that route is looking a little sad.

Post 4:

"By adding organic carbon without affecting Nitrates or Phosphate.
To me balance translates to a steady residual No3 and Po4.
A little different from what most in the hobby use organic carbon."

Unsupported claim. In a complex biological system this premise is impossible.

Is it really?

Post 147:
"I’ve made this thread to evaluate if this specific type of organic carbon (carbohydrate from algae’s) could potentially aid reducing some of those photosynthetic nuisances that are dependent on organic carbon to multiply and colonise the tank"

Plot twist: Another shift in goal.
Now uglies are limited to "photosynthetic nuisances", another vague term. The term includes algae, but as previously mentioned algae are not known to use organics.

Were did I mention that algae’s need organic carbon, this is just another example of taking things out of context and create confusion. I’m pretty sure I was referring to heterotrophic organisms. But for some reason you had the need to take it out of context.

 

[HomebroodExotics]

Outstanding for you.

As a marine engineer that focuses on technical writing, what text are you using to define the terms used?

I thought I responded already, but maybe I'm crazy. I'm just a stay at home dad but if you need some help defining the terms just let me know which ones and I'll gladly do what I can.

 

[BeanAnimal]

Not sure he is claiming to be an expert? Imo, while on his lunch break from work, wanted to see what happens when he puts some sugar in a reef tank right after cycling without lights.

Hi - let's not head down another rabbit hole. My wording was clear.
I said "posting in a public forum under the pretense of being an expert in this subject matter"

Pretense -
noun:
-an attempt to make something that is not the case appear true.
synonyms:
make-believe, act, acting, ...

The OP regularly cites and backs his own claims using phrases similar to
- "my research"
- "my experiments"
- "my findings"

OP regularly responds to criticisms in the context that he is informed and those critiquing him are untrained. He titles threads and presents in the third person "Sixty's Equation" - "Sixty's observations" - 'Sixty's Experiment" kind of thing. In this thread he has even attempted to coin a scientific term "non-nitrate nitrogen" or whatever. So yes, the pretense is purposeful and regular and one can only assume that the wording is used to convey a certain level of understanding and knowledge.

I’ll address some of the points just as a courtesy.

Huh? You are posting assertions to a public forum and being challenged, responding is not a courtesy, it is an expected prerequisite. I see you also cherry picked one or two of ReneReef's bullet points to respond to.

I’ve bought the media on the 2 of October, the tank was left for a a few days with just ammonia to evaluate if it was being transformed and if the tank was cycled, from there I’ve experimented with vinegar to evaluate a few other aspects of the experiment post this I had to allow for the bloom caused by the vinegar to pass and I believe this took me to around the 8th or 10th of October.
From that date onwards I’ve started implementing the basis of this experiment.

I’ve started this experiment around the 19th or 20th, that makes the overall concept between 39 to 41 days. (Trying to be as precise as I can)

So how do you understand the term just over 30 days?

Do you read it as 30 days and one hour? 30 days and 5 minutes?

To me write just over 30 days, was just not to have and look at all the exact amount of days but if you want to go that route is looking a little sad.

You are deflecting again. You were specific here and in other threads and your posts and photos are memorialized via timestamps. I addressed the timeline and asked you to help me understand, you chose to deflect, so I am going by your specific words and timestamps. Is the crinoid dead? It was in there during the time that this "experiment" was to be cycling "dark" for 30 days prior to adding the rock on day 31, per your initial posts in this thread.

If you are now intending to say that all three threads with the three (more?) different experiments started at the beginning of Oct when you purchased the tank, and the 30 days was way back then, then the "cycle", then "protozoa snow" or whatever you called it, then the "crinoid" and now the "rock"... All in the same tank continuum -- well that means that A) your words led us all to believe differently) and B) there are absolutely no controls between any of these "experiments" and that makes any observations here even more speculative than they already are.

Were did I mention that algae’s need organic carbon, this is just another example of taking things out of context and create confusion. I’m pretty sure I was referring to heterotrophic organisms. But for some reason you had the need to take it out of context.

Nobody is taking you out of context, on the contrary we are trying to hold you to context and you keep wandering away from it to create confusion.

 

[Subsea]

“Nobody is taking you out of context, on the contrary we are trying to hold you to context and you keep wandering away from it to create confusion“

@BeanAnimal
Kudos to your post.

Because I value honest communication for sharing ideas, it saddened me to witness that the gathering of a large number of post & likes indicates Expert Status.

 

[HomebroodExotics]

“Nobody is taking you out of context, on the contrary we are trying to hold you to context and you keep wandering away from it to create confusion“

@BeanAnimal
Kudos to your post.

Because I value honest communication for sharing ideas, it saddened me to witness that the gathering of a large number of post & likes indicates Expert Status.

Hey, you still need to specify what terms you are having difficulty with. I've agreed to spend my time to help you understand, now this?