i HATE people who think that they can explain away all our problems on paper but in the reality of it all the practicality is so far off base that its all wrong. Happens all the time. Engineers tell the techs the way it should be, but the techs do it the way it works.
Adding Fuel to the Nitrate Debate: Why Water Changes DONT Reduce Nitrates
- Thread starter JardiniBoy
- Start date
My wife introduces me as "My hunny, who does calculus in his head".
I was going to teach math, but I had such a hard time grasping the fact that some people actually need to be taught math.
Spelling, now thats something I should teach (and learn).
insert LYMP here
Gosh !!
Where do I fit in? I can explain it on paper & I get it done in a way that actually works.
I would recommend a system that changes water at a constant rate. This will minimize the variance in the baseline caused by waste buildup between water changes, as well a the potential shock to the fish.
In a practical world, this can be done. But even with continuous water changes, assume a rate of 50% over 1 week, you will still end up being stable at a constant 2 weeks of waste in the tank.
As crazy as it sounds; no matter what frequency you change water, the rate will determine the solution.
70% a week or 10 % a day will result in the same MAX pollutants.
Frequency = daily vs weekly
Rate is the same 70% per week
70% weekly change will have max pollutants of about 1.428571 weeks worth.
Go back to the beer glass post.
My dang head is killing me....
Hey I think I actually like this guy. Practical knowledge with field tested use. Finally someone who is actually smart enough to combine the two worlds! lol
Your alright in my eyes.
Manager has 25
Bellhop has 2
People have 3
total 30
I miss led you & said 30 - 3 + 2 = 29 where is the other one?
it could be said correctly 30 - 3 - 2 = 25 (actual room cost)
It is just that once a person is lead down an incorrect mathematical path, they tend to stay on that path. especialy when actual numbers are used.
take this example
a = room cost
b = over payment
a + b = c (original paymet )
d = actual returned amount
b - d = e (stolen amount)
so
c - e - d = a
not
c - (e-d) = a
see how simple it is without the numbers?
The incorrect order of operations was forced on you.
I appreciate the acceptance.
First I have never seen an engineer on the jobsite, second they aren't in charge of safety and third I have met alot of engineers that have the common sense of a tree stump. Also to answer your joke an engineer that couldn't cut the mustard is a fast food employee.
