thread: Bubble Tower
View Single Post
Old 02/24/2007, 10:14 AM   #24
douggiestyle
Registered Member
 
douggiestyle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: MOON
Posts: 1,736
No, I still disagree Hahn. I have not really contradicted myself, I am just stating that a wet/dry filter does not create the problems people claim. If it did then I would be having those problems. So there must be more to nitrate problems than just having a wet/dry
filter. I think you would agree with me on that point simply for the fact that people without wet/dry filters have nitrate problems. In addition, because I have a wet/dry filter and do not have nitrate problems then it is safe to say that wet/dry filters alone do not cause nitrate problems.

Still surface area is surface area. Moreover, high flow is high flow. Therefore, the more live rock and the more flow you have around it the closer you come to the parameters of a wet/dry filter, according to your suggestions. I think we would agree that is not the case. The argument could be made that live rock does not cause the problem because it is so porous therefore; it creates those dead zones needed for anaerobic bacteria. Well if they are dead then little nitrate will enter as well as the O2, now that is a contradiction. Yet, flow rates are frequently being increased within the tank. I do not believe that is the case nor would most people. lets say we perpetuate this belief that live rocks porosity is what makes its surface area ok. Then it can be assumed that any thing relatively nonporous added to the tank would create surface area similar to bioballs. Well this would create a contradiction for all those that have used less porous "base" rock, fossilized reef rock (Florida live rock), ceramic rock, homemade rock (the kind that many people are making that does not use rock salt to make it more porous) or limestone as base rock. Do to their lower porosity all these products would create the nitrate problems you have cited especially if they are in a high flow area. I think we would all agree that is not the case. Look at this http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2007/2/aquarium 10,000 pounds of limestone. That is 1/4 of all the rock (by weight) in the tank. No nitrate problems. So using all the evidence presented to us it can safely be said that increasing surface area with in the tank does not create a nitrate problem regardless of what its constructed of. At least that is my theory, a theory based on available evidence.


In addition, in regards to CPR, they may only be reflecting consumer demand. The fact that they removed the bio balls does not mean that CPR has tested their effect and found that the bioballs ruin the overall health of the tank. If it sounds like I am being vague, its because I am not sure on what this all means for the tank. That is why I also suggested that no one use my drivel to design his or her tank around. However, continue doing what you are doing as long as it works.

All this aside it is a moot point in regards to this thread because as you have pointed out, as a bubble remover, you have found that submerged bio balls work poorly. I trust that you are correct.


douggiestyle is offline   Reply With Quote