OP
OP
Coxey81
Well-Known Member
I've got some smaller pieces in my sump if yall want me to weigh those and toss them in???
Effects of tap water on Nitrifying during Rip-Clean method: Experiment
- Thread starter Coxey81
- Start date
- Tagged users None
I've got some smaller pieces in my sump if yall want me to weigh those and toss them in???
I think if you change stuff, other folks will come up with something else, it’ll never end, rock porosity etc.
DrZoidburg
Valuable Member
Seems logical if scale to size was a must.
OP
OP
Coxey81
Well-Known Member
This is my QT tank, but I have never used it. All equipment was previously cleaned and is sterile. It has never had any meds in it. There is no filter, only the power head and heater. Power head was used, but cleaned well. Heater is brand new.
The HOB is on there, but it's not touching the water and it is sterile as well.
DrZoidburg
Valuable Member
everyone's tank though would not be the same scale. Ex I like to go by 1.25lbs/gal. Not a lot of people actually weight their scape after gluing, breaking rocks.. etc
MnFish1
10K Club member
I meant any other issues. FWIW - I disagree with you - only because this is the absolute first time that I have read ANYTHING in ANY of these multiple threads about a cleaning process requiring rocks of a certain size or shape. But - Either way - we will know - if the ammonia is processed in step 1 - we will certainly know whether the surface area is adequate (or not). Thats part of the way it was designed. Just to make sure I understand - if he broke the rock up into 20 pieces, that would be the only objection you have? Again I'm not trying to debate you - I'm trying to discuss the plusses and minuses of the experiment itself.
to make this test honorable a few of the realignments would have been:
a benchmark reading of the kit from the tank before the dose, to show what safe zone looks like here. Its not the same on each red sea, it differs the low end reading on known safe water.
we would have calculated and input the first half ppm dose by itself into the tank before the test rocks were in, this shows whether the test can even indicate that much. they commonly can't and must be hyperdosed to show a change. if the kit couldnt show half a ppm when that amount was in the water, we'd stop the test right there and await a kit that can.
after minor motion was proven in steps, with two pics now leading up to the big test, we'd have done 1 ppm as the final full amount since this was a zero suspension cycling study. I realize that's where the critical group differs, but again that doesn't make the disagreement real or based on anything critics actually study, its just a means to disagree.
we would have used the degree of live rocks found on all rip clean threads you can see, four times this much to handle the open water areas of the tank. we would have engineered a fairer representation of midwater contact that ALL rip cleans we can study show clearly.
we could have used this arrangement and the kit to actually get some insight into the matter, but then again that wasn't the real goal
a benchmark reading of the kit from the tank before the dose, to show what safe zone looks like here. Its not the same on each red sea, it differs the low end reading on known safe water.
we would have calculated and input the first half ppm dose by itself into the tank before the test rocks were in, this shows whether the test can even indicate that much. they commonly can't and must be hyperdosed to show a change. if the kit couldnt show half a ppm when that amount was in the water, we'd stop the test right there and await a kit that can.
after minor motion was proven in steps, with two pics now leading up to the big test, we'd have done 1 ppm as the final full amount since this was a zero suspension cycling study. I realize that's where the critical group differs, but again that doesn't make the disagreement real or based on anything critics actually study, its just a means to disagree.
we would have used the degree of live rocks found on all rip clean threads you can see, four times this much to handle the open water areas of the tank. we would have engineered a fairer representation of midwater contact that ALL rip cleans we can study show clearly.
we could have used this arrangement and the kit to actually get some insight into the matter, but then again that wasn't the real goal
DrZoidburg
Valuable Member
Do you happen to have an average of all of these weights?
MnFish1
10K Club member
The funny thing here (or sad?) - is that a couple are critiquing/predicting/discounting the 'results' of an experiment before the experiment is done. I think its important to get input for the OP before he does it - because it will help interpret the results. It would be easy to add more rock, for example.
In the end what we will know is whether (or not) the ability rock that has been proven to process 2 ppm ammonia is affected by a 10 minute tap water rinse and minor scrubbing. I do not think this will prove, disprove or say anything more than this.
I am sending my prediction to @Garf also.
In the end what we will know is whether (or not) the ability rock that has been proven to process 2 ppm ammonia is affected by a 10 minute tap water rinse and minor scrubbing. I do not think this will prove, disprove or say anything more than this.
I am sending my prediction to @Garf also.
Sorry - i do not understand what that have with this thread and argue here to do? Help me understand please.
Sincerely Lasse
Little c big D
Well-Known Member
You disproved this with your own example having less rock per gallon by nearly half.to make this test honorable a few of the realignments would have been:
a benchmark reading of the kit from the tank before the dose, to show what safe zone looks like here. Its not the same on each red sea, it differs the low end reading on known safe water.
we would have calculated and input the first half ppm dose by itself into the tank before the test rocks were in, this shows whether the test can even indicate that much. they commonly can't and must be hyperdosed to show a change. if the kit couldnt show half a ppm when that amount was in the water, we'd stop the test right there and await a kit that can.
after minor motion was proven in steps, with two pics now leading up to the big test, we'd have done 1 ppm as the final full amount since this was a zero suspension cycling study. I realize that's where the critical group differs, but again that doesn't make the disagreement real or based on anything critics actually study, its just a means to disagree.
we would have used the degree of live rocks found on all rip clean threads you can see, four times this much to handle the open water areas of the tank. we would have engineered a fairer representation of midwater contact that ALL rip cleans we can study show clearly.
we could have used this arrangement and the kit to actually get some insight into the matter, but then again that wasn't the real goal
OP
OP
Coxey81
Well-Known Member
Jedi1199
2500 Club Member
Again, to use my own rip-clean as an example. My scape is composed of 20-25 pieces of individual rocks, some glued together and some freestanding. All of this rock was cycled at the same time.
If the rock in the test example is simply broken up into pieces, that would most definitely amplify the surface area. However, the new exposed surfaces would not have the bacterial colonies that the exterior areas have. The newly broken up rock would need to be "seasoned" so that all of the surface area available has a supply of the bacteria. Then each small piece would have to be scrubbed under hot running tap water. I am curious if the rocks were broken up this way and then placed back into the sump for a week or 2, if that would be enough time to create the colonies on the required amount of surface area to replicate the test to mimic the results of my Rip-clean, which after all is what I believe the OP is attempting.
Pleas - every one. Concentrate on what the OP try to do and try not to answer on things that is not on topic for this thread. The OP have declare that he/she has not any ability to do the test in another way - and let him/her do and report the experiment that is one of the best set up I seen in order to test just this. after that - we can discuss the result.
love, tenderness and discipline - thank you
Sincerely Lasse
love, tenderness and discipline - thank you
Sincerely Lasse
The Hot water test is going to be interesting.
OP
OP
Coxey81
Well-Known Member
Surface area really won't affect anything in regards to the tap water test if it is proven first that the same rocks are capable of processing the ammonia in 24 hours in the first place.
The bacteria will have been proven to be present and capable of processing it.
OP
OP
Coxey81
Well-Known Member
Also, my water company provides our yearly tap water results. I've thrown them away... but I can probably run by and get a copy if anyone is interested in what's in my tap water.
MnFish1
10K Club member
Thanks - I read it as 10 minutes. It might be good to get input from @brandon429 - what the average rinse time should be. And BTW - what Brandon said above - is true - you do need to verify that the background ammonia before starting is correct (i.e. make sure your test is reading correctly) - which is why I suggested duplicate tests.
The setup is fail proof - IMO - first he test and let the rock pieces adapt its nitrifying biomass to a certain load. If it does not direct convert the added ammonia into nitrate (and he/she measure nitrite too). The OP will wait until the biomass is high enough to process the same load again. At that moment OP will clean the rocks with fresh water and repeat the stress test.
The only concern I have is the aquarium itself and maybe the water but if it is a rather particle free water - its maybe enough to take out the saltwater - clean even the aquarium with fresh water - put back the salt water and the cleaned rocks
Go for it
Sincerely Lasse
The only concern I have is the aquarium itself and maybe the water but if it is a rather particle free water - its maybe enough to take out the saltwater - clean even the aquarium with fresh water - put back the salt water and the cleaned rocks
Go for it
Sincerely Lasse
MnFish1
10K Club member
I think there are some very easy things that could be done. Mainly just documenting that he has a good ammonia kit. I think the rest is fine.
Similar threads
