2 issues- Algae and Dying torch

[Reef Pilot]

Don't know what else to say.... Do the math for yourself and you will see. You can use any example or proportion you want. The point is the same. And that is that changing the same vol of water less frequently gives you a bigger bang for the buck with nutrient exchange.

I am not arguing that frequent water changes are bad. It's just that you need to do bigger volumes to make up the difference over time. In fact, if your tank has high nutrients, a big water change is not as good because of the possible rapid composition change of your parameters. But that is another issue... My point above is just about the math...

[reefwars]

RHF:

"Previous articles on water changes have "shown" that small water changes are not useful, and have sometimes left the impression that even many small water changes are not beneficial. It is also "common knowledge" among many reef aquarists that continuous water changes (where water is added and removed at the same time, usually by automatic pumping) is not very useful "because this removes some of the new water that was just added." As I'll show, these assumptions do not stand up to analysis for typical water change scenarios. Consequently, whether choosing to change a lot of water, or only a little, and whether it is done continually, daily, or only rarely, more water change options are available to aquarists than many realize. These increased options' availability may permit busy aquarists to spend time on other important activities, and less time on water changes, while still accomplishing the same goals."



haha well if all the same to you folks ill take my advice from scientists as i usually do as they have put the actual research into it and done the math using the variables and not ignoring them , especially the ones that have debunked many aquarium myths.....like apples and oranges

[Reef Pilot]

Originally Posted by reefwars

RHF:

"Previous articles on water changes have "shown" that small water changes are not useful, and have sometimes left the impression that even many small water changes are not beneficial. It is also "common knowledge" among many reef aquarists that continuous water changes (where water is added and removed at the same time, usually by automatic pumping) is not very useful "because this removes some of the new water that was just added." As I'll show, these assumptions do not stand up to analysis for typical water change scenarios. Consequently, whether choosing to change a lot of water, or only a little, and whether it is done continually, daily, or only rarely, more water change options are available to aquarists than many realize. These increased options' availability may permit busy aquarists to spend time on other important activities, and less time on water changes, while still accomplishing the same goals."



haha well if all the same to you folks ill take my advice from scientists as i usually do as they have put the actual research into it and done the math using the variables and not ignoring them , especially the ones that have debunked many aquarium myths.....like apples and oranges

Are you trying to rationalize your incorrect math?
Like I said before, I am not arguing the merits of frequent vs infrequent water changes (although I do question small daily changes). My point is about the math, which even RHF above acknowledges.
It's good to quote articles, but it is also important to understand what they are saying, too.

[denny_C]

Originally Posted by Reef Pilot

My point is about the math, which even RHF above acknowledges.

yes but the math is a very small difference when applied permanently , if you read the article you'll see in the graphs how small the differences actually were ....very small.......randy also clearly states that the amount is so small that its irrelevant while the risks are many and not so irrelevant


not sure whats so hard to understand......seems the rest of the experienced reef world gets it so not sure what you question about smaller water changes lol

are you saying that small water changes arn't adequate enough of a practice?

why would you think a larger water change that not only removes but changes the system overall the more the larger it gets is any better than a small one?

[Reef Pilot]

Originally Posted by denny@concept

yes but the math is a very small difference when applied permanently , if you read the article you'll see in the graphs how small the differences actually were ....very small.......randy also clearly states that the amount is so small that its irrelevant while the risks are many and not so irrelevant


not sure whats so hard to understand......seems the rest of the experienced reef world gets it so not sure what you question about smaller water changes lol

are you saying that small water changes arn't adequate enough of a practice?

why would you think a larger water change that not only removes but changes the system overall the more the larger it gets is any better than a small one?

OK, to cut through the chase... Do you believe that changing 1.75 gal per day (ie 16% total vol over 3 weeks) on a 235 gal system is a good regime?? Yes, or no.

As I stated before, even 16% all at once every 3 weeks is not enough vol.

[Masonjames]

What Denny? You mean to tell me you have never done the research yourself? That's it, from now on I don't believe a thing you say... Ha ha ha ; )

I gotta agree with RHF ( and not Denny for his lack of research) as well. The only problem with the apple and oranges math, is that it is only considering the values your choosing to acknowledge while deliberately choosing to ignore others.

But tomatoes tomatos. Apples to oranges. As long as buddy is doing water changes then we all can be happy.

Sorry if we got a bit off topic op. Not much value in all that considering the context of your original post.

[denny_C]

Originally Posted by Reef Pilot

OK, to cut through the chase... Do you believe that changing 1.75 gal per day (ie 16% total vol over 3 weeks) on a 235 gal system is a good regime?? Yes, or no.

i would shoot for 1-2% or around there per day , be it in large or small. its the large or small part i dont think matters if your looking at it from a removal of nutirents point of view

[Reef Pilot]

Originally Posted by denny@concept

i would shoot for 1-2% or around there per day , be it in large or small. its the large or small part i dont think matters if your looking at it from a removal of nutirents point of view

Well, that's about double the quantity the OP is changing per day. So, I guess your answer is no, that is not a good water change regime that he is using... Wow, we agree...

[denny_C]

Originally Posted by Reef Pilot

Well, that's about double the quantity the OP is changing per day. So, I guess your answer is no, that is not a good water change regime that he is using... Wow, we agree...

for sure , haha i think james said it best as long as hes DOING water changes thats the important part.

right now like you my water changes are in bulk cause the hobby over the years beat into my head that it has to be better , but now i look at it from a whats important point of view ...i dont suffer from excess nutrients, i dont use water changes to replenish calcium/alk or mg and i dont use water changes to syphon out ditrius i believe a system can be simple and automation is pretty practical alot of the numbers that weren't know years ago are better detailed today as actual data so i believe a more stable approach to things and assurances it works is easier than its ever been and overall its the health and impacts on the animals i keep i care most about

i will be looking in the future to doing smaller changes continuously vs weekly , right now the way im set up is more convenient to do bulk but that doesnt mean my system wouldnt do well with smaller one either.

[Reef Pilot]

Originally Posted by denny@concept

for sure , haha i think james said it best as long as hes DOING water changes thats the important part.

Very graceful backpeddle... Have a great Black Friday. You want to keep Dave happy..., that's what really important,... haha.