Torn between two methods

[beaslbob]

either and any. makes no difference as long as the build up is linearnever said that. but it is possible water changes add stuff to the tankCould be.

Lets try this pictorially (graphically)

consider a 10% water change with a build up of 10 between water changes and 0 in replacement water. Kinda like nitrates for instance.



top line is before water change, blue is after water change (middle line) bottom line is buildup between changes.
equation is replacement water+buildup/fraction of change or 0+10/(1/10)=100

and consider 10% water change, -10 (consumed) between water changes and 400 in replacement water. kinda like calcium



again gray line is before water change in this case the middle line, blue is after water change in this case the upper line, the orange line is the -10 between changes
using the super duper beaslbob equation 400 (replacement water)+(-10)(buildup)/(1/10 fraction of change)=4

either and any. makes no difference as long as the build up is linearnever said that. but it is possible water changes add stuff to the tankCould be.

Lets try this pictorially (graphically)

consider a 10% water change with a build up of 10 between water changes and 0 in replacement water. Kinda like nitrates for instance.



top line is before water change, blue is after water change (middle line) bottom line is buildup between changes.
equation is replacement water+buildup/fraction of change or 0+10/(1/10)=100

and consider 10% water change, -10 (consumed) between water changes and 400 in replacement water. kinda like calcium



again gray line is before water change in this case the middle line, blue is after water change in this case the upper line, the orange line is the -10 between changes
using the super duper beaslbob equation 400 (replacement water)+(-10)(buildup)/(1/10 fraction of change)=400-100=300 just before any water changes.

Hopefully that's all clearer than mud.

These are done with an excel spreadsheet I can email to anyone. [email protected]. It would be better for you to do your own IMHO as that helps understanding what's happening.

00-100=300 just before any water changes.

Hopefully that's all clearer than mud.

These are done with an excel spreadsheet I can email to anyone. [email protected]. It would be better for you to do your own IMHO as that helps understanding what's happening.

well I ain't perfect LOL

second graph was wrong and labled wrong. it shows 300 -10 1/10



here's the one for 400 replacement water, -10 between water changes and 1/10 water changes

equation 400+(-10)/)1/10)=400-100=300. as the gray line shows above. Blue is after water change and orange is the -10 change between changes.

I appreciate ya'all not jumping on me. Even if it was because no one was checking. LOL

 

[Whipples]

ICP testing is a great innovation for the hobby. I've been using Aquaforest 1-2-3 and recently did a Triton ICP test. The parameters came back pretty good except K was a bit low. I'm bumping that up with AF K supplement. I need to compare Triton Core 7 to AF in terms of concentration/monthly cost. If I use the four Triton Core 7 bottles as dosing containers (like I do with the three 5 liter AF 1-2-3 jugs) I will need another dosing pump so I can continue automatic dosing of AcroPower.

I believe two of the triton components (a/b) can be mixed together and dosed that way, saves you a pump . I would check with the Triton sub-forum first, though.

 

[Greybeard]

I believe two of the triton components (a/b) can be mixed together and dosed that way, saves you a pump . I would check with the Triton sub-forum first, though.

Two of them can be, I remember reading that clearly... but I can't recall which two. Mix them together, dose twice as much of that mixed as you would have for each individual.

 

[d2mini]

Because the most successful tank I've ever run was one that used a large macro algae refugeum as the primary method of nutrient export. Their system makes sense to me.

Exact reasons why I started my current tank with Triton.
Just don't make the same mistakes I did with the fuge.

 

[d2mini]

Two of them can be, I remember reading that clearly... but I can't recall which two. Mix them together, dose twice as much of that mixed as you would have for each individual.

It was 3a and 3b, but that was the "classic" Elementz. Not sure you can still do with the new Core7. I know the contents of each bottle changed/switched around.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

Triton 3a and 3b are both alkalinity and can be combined, although they "suggest' dosing separately.

 

[Alfrareef]

I to have gone different roads. Almost crash the tank with some additives and now I'm just using FM balling light, 10% WC every 2 weeks and we are all happy.

 

[UNCFAN]

The Triton folks told me that 3a and 3b can be combined and to dose twice the normal amount.

 

[foxt]

Exact reasons why I started my current tank with Triton.
Just don't make the same mistakes I did with the fuge.

Your "mistake" was starving the system of nitrate, correct? Anything else?

 

[d2mini]

Your "mistake" was starving the system of nitrate, correct? Anything else?

Yes and if I did it again I'd be trimming the fuge periodically instead of leaving it be like Triton suggested.

 

[Greybeard]

Exact reasons why I started my current tank with Triton.
Just don't make the same mistakes I did with the fuge.

I've read your thread. Painful. I will be harvesting algae from the fuge, as needed.

I kinda have to... I have three different varieties of macro algae (Triton suggests having several). If I just 'let it grow'... I'll end up with one. Probably Caulerpa. Something is going to 'win' that competition for space. I've got to keep it trimmed back so that there is room for all three varieties.

 

[d2mini]

I've read your thread. Painful. I will be harvesting algae from the fuge, as needed.

I kinda have to... I have three different varieties of macro algae (Triton suggests having several). If I just 'let it grow'... I'll end up with one. Probably Caulerpa. Something is going to 'win' that competition for space. I've got to keep it trimmed back so that there is room for all three varieties.

Yup, I started with 3-4 different kinds and the Chaeto took over, as expected. Just like Highlander... There can be only one! lol

 

[SashimiTurtle]

You know what the one thing I find in common in EVERY SINGLE CASE of a successful reef tank? A conscientious reefkeeper. A hobbyist who enjoys what they're doing, and strives to keep these beautiful little slices of reef thriving. The rate of fallout from this hobby is enormous. Why? Because it's hard! It's a very demanding hobby. You don't want to spend the time, do the reading, make the effort... you're gonna have a tank full of green hair and dead animals in no time at all.

Best advice in this thread.

 

[USMA36]

Okay, after weeks of research I think I am going to give Triton a go. My tank is young only about 8 months so far. My total water volume is around 100 gallons and I have a mixed reef set up. I have to use Triton for other methods because my fuge is only 7% total volume and as of now only has chaeto in it. I have a question for @Randy Holmes-Farley What method do you use? Do you have an opinion on the Triton other methods method? I respect your advice and read your articles as I come across them. Thank you for those, I have learned a lot. I also appreciate everyone’s input here. Definitely lots of options. Thread actually ,add it harder to choose! Thank you.

 

[Flatlandreefer]

Isn't Jamie craggs using the Triton method at the horniman museum to successfully spawn corals?

 

[Grigs]

So your solution is 100% polluted 100% of the time?

At least a 50% water change would eliminate 50% of the build up. Will it get back to 100% polluted? Yes, and another water change will be required. My numbers are only for simple math....

I'm a reefing noob, but I am a bit of a nerd.

The mathmatical concept can be expressed as:
C1V1 + C2V2 = C3V3
where
C1= concentration of element in tank
V1= volume of tank water not being changed
C2= concentration of element in replacement water
V2= volume of water being replaced
C3= final concentration
V3= final volume

For example, a hypothetical 100g tank has 5ppm concentration... let's call it PO4. I perform 10% water change with fresh mix containing 0% PO4.

C1= 5ppm
V1= 90g
C2= 0ppm
V2= 10g
C3= 4.5ppm
V3= 100g

Therefore, I can expect a 0.5ppm reduction in PO4 from a single weekly water change.

If I run a daily water change of 1.43% (10%/7 days) assuming no further source production I will see the following

Day 1 4.93
Day 2 4.86
Day 3 4.79
Day 4 4.72
Day 5 4.65
Day 6 4.59
Day 7 4.52

While the 10% water change on a weekly basis produces the same reduction in concentration, a slower transition is attained when performed daily. At some point an equilirium will be reached due to source production, but the daily changes will prevent swings due to buildup followed by periodic dilution.

Hope that helps.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

The mathmatical concept can be expressed as:
C1V1 + C2V2 = C3V3
where
C1= concentration of element in tank
V1= volume of tank water not being changed
C2= concentration of element in replacement water
V2= volume of water being replaced
C3= final concentration
V3= final volume

.

That sort of equation works perfectly for some (most) things (e.g., nitrate) and fails for others (e.g., phosphate).

The reason it fails for some things is that they are not only present in the water, but can also be bound to the surfaces of rock and sand in equilibrium with the water.

With phosphate, for example, the amount bound to rock and sand can be vastly higher than the amount in the water itself, and even a 100% change with zero phosphate water will not reduce it to zero or near zero because right after doing that water change, it comes off the rock and sand, establishing a new equilibrium.

Phosphate is the most common one we encounter with this issue, but it may also happen to some trace elements that will bind to calcium carbonate. Say, copper.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

What method do you use? Do you have an opinion on the Triton other methods method? I respect your advice and read your articles as I come across them. Thank you for those, I have learned a lot. I also appreciate everyone’s input here. Definitely lots of options. Thread actually ,add it harder to choose! Thank you.

Thanks.

I used limewater plus some selected elements that I dosed (silicate and iron, mostly, but ICP testing suggested a few others might have also been beneficial but which I did not get to test before taking the tank down after it was up 20 years..

I also did 1% daily, slowly and nearly continuously changing the water with normal IO.

I think the Triton type of ICP testing and dosing scheme is a fine one, but I would modify it in various ways.

This is a mostly repeated post from a recent thread asking folks what they consider to be the best "method". I bolded some items that seem contrary to Triton method recommendations:

In terms of water chemistry maintenance, I'd maintain calcium and alkalinity with limewater or a high pH (hydroxide based, probably)two part (maybe pH limited to pH 8.55 or less to prevent overdose; probably on dosing timer rather than ATO) and a two part (if needed; maybe also pH limited to pH 8.55 or less). I'd like a continuous alk monitor, and if Mindstream comes on line, I'd monitor ammonia 24/7 and in different system location (main tank, exit from refugium, etc.) for interests sake.

There are some ions I would dose essentially independent of measurement because I don't think measurement is particularly useful for them (e.g., iron because it is typically below detection limits; silicate because it depletes so fast).

There are a bunch of ions that I do not consider important at the levels reefers typically have (e.g., lithium, maybe barium, I'd need to think through this list) and I would make no effort to control those either by export or by dosing.

I would likely experiment on the tank over time to re-verify for myself that my longstanding opinions on certain chemicals are not useful if dosed to maintain natural levels, despite the fact that many reefers do. If they showed a positive effect, I'd rethink dosing them. These include iodide and strontium.

There are a whole bunch of biologically active trace elements that I'd likely measure and dose which I did not in the past, but which also tested low (e.g., molybdenum) and I'd likely dose these to roughly NSW levels. I might experiment on these in a variety of ways (e.g., allowing one to go undosed for a long time and then restart and see if anything apparently changed).

I'd probably do automatic water changes, but again, might also experiment on the amount, from none to a couple of percent a day.

As to other "methods", I'd likely do some or most of these that I partly copied from another post:

Ato
Temperature control (temp controller to kick on heaters or cooling system)
Skimmer
Rodi unit with inline tds
Nutrient export (macroalgae, gfo, organic carbon dosing, GAC, maybe experiment with organic resins like Purigen)
Might try LED lights to save electricity, but I'm not yet convinced I'd like the look

 

[Grigs]

That sort of equation works perfectly for some (most) things (e.g., nitrate) and fails for others (e.g., phosphate).

The reason it fails for some things is that they are not only present in the water, but can also be bound to the surfaces of rock and sand in equilibrium with the water.

With phosphate, for example, the amount bound to rock and sand can be vastly higher than the amount in the water itself, and even a 100% change with zero phosphate water will not reduce it to zero or near zero because right after doing that water change, it comes off the rock and sand, establishing a new equilibrium

Makes perfect sense, Randy!

 

[beaslbob]

I'm a reefing noob, but I am a bit of a nerd.

The mathmatical concept can be expressed as:
C1V1 + C2V2 = C3V3
where
C1= concentration of element in tank
V1= volume of tank water not being changed
C2= concentration of element in replacement water
V2= volume of water being replaced
C3= final concentration
V3= final volume

For example, a hypothetical 100g tank has 5ppm concentration... let's call it PO4. I perform 10% water change with fresh mix containing 0% PO4.

C1= 5ppm
V1= 90g
C2= 0ppm
V2= 10g
C3= 4.5ppm
V3= 100g

Therefore, I can expect a 0.5ppm reduction in PO4 from a single weekly water change.

If I run a daily water change of 1.43% (10%/7 days) assuming no further source production I will see the following

Day 1 4.93
Day 2 4.86
Day 3 4.79
Day 4 4.72
Day 5 4.65
Day 6 4.59
Day 7 4.52

While the 10% water change on a weekly basis produces the same reduction in concentration, a slower transition is attained when performed daily. At some point an equilirium will be reached due to source production, but the daily changes will prevent swings due to buildup followed by periodic dilution.

Hope that helps.

(note click on above to expand and see my boldand underlining.)


If you follow my super duper nerdy equation, 0% production, 0% in replacement water means the tank will wind up at 0.

With production (constant increase) of say 1ppm/day a 1/10 water change every 10 days will result on 100ppm just before water changes. 100ppm down to 90ppm back up to 100 10 days later. 10%/day water change will result in 10ppm just before the water changes. 10ppm before water change, 9 ppm after, back up to 10ppm the next day.

I may be a nerdy old engineer who forgot most of my math, so I prefer simple equations. LOL

my .02