ceramic rings

[vfc]

Marketing is successful when it creates "true believers" for products without any scientific evidence to prove the product is worth believing in. They create a product perception and appeal to the ego; and people take the bait hook, line, and sinker.

Appealing to the ego is very persuasive. >50% of the post on this forum are people bragging about excesses in filtration, tank size, and even the number of pounds of bio-media they have .

Today's super-charged marketing machine overwhelms the weak minded and weakens the strong minded enough for them to give a product a try even though they know it won't work as advertised.

We need discussions like this to further [FONT=&quot]strengthen[/FONT] the strong minded's will to resist the marketing machine. Unfortunately, there is no hope for the weak minded.

 

[brianp]

Bderick, If your 150 gal has been up and running for some time… and you change one thing about it (quantity of “bio media”) then your experience with the set up prior to the change can serve as the “control” for your experiment. But as suggested, if you change multiple things (quantity of “bio media” & flow rate) then we do not know which change to ‘blame’ any changes on…
　
　
I wouldn’t say “every” test needs a control. For example doing a fishless cycle on a tank with a measured amount of surface area. The purpose is to relate the amount of ammonia that is oxidized in a system with a given a surface area. No control is needed.
　
Sure I could set up a 10 gal with bio media, but what point would it serve? We all know it will be able to oxidize more ammonia per day due to being able to house more bacteria. But since it will be an unquantified amount of surface area, no conclusions will be able to be drawn from this “control”…
　
BrianP, While I agree with your explanation of what “bio media” (note quotations) is and how it is properly used… the theory you explained that makes it so ‘efficient’ is what I and some others are debating. I’m not saying your science isn’t true, I’m saying these are irrelevant details as any old thing will do. And to qualify that statement we use the example of many many years of successful fish keeping prior to the introduction of “bio media” (note the quotations).
　
　
I simply do not understand how anyone can embrace the side of the debate that suggests “bio media is needed”, when the hobby existed for many many years prior to the creation of “bio media” and matured systems had no problem keeping ammonia/nitrites at zero…
　
No one is saying “Bio Media” doesn’t work… it does, bacteria can and will live on it… our argument is that bacteria will live and grow on just about anything and in typical situations there is already an ample amount of space for it to grow… thus… in typical situations “bio media” isn’t needed…
　
I think this rather simple debate is being pulled and twisted all over the board by overlooking the most simple basic truths…
　
　
I do have concern that complex “testing” is going to be performed and “blame” for certain outcomes will be misplaced and false conclusions will be drawn…

You are a successful aquariast and that is the important thing. We simply have different perspectives. I have my doubts about the value of this experimentation.

 

[kallmond]

We're all scientists, and biologists, we just may not get paid for it. Aquariums are immensely complex biological entities. The very fact that we're all here reading this thread proves that we're scientists which is according to the dictionary on my desk "someone who studies a science, particularly a natural science"

No special training is required to study. No college, certifications, laboratory or salary makes one a scientist. There are established "Scientific Methods" but great discoveries were made prior to those being accepted as the norm.

Some here are more learned than others, that's true. But that doesn't mean we can't have intelligent discussion about a topic of great passion.

 

[kallmond]

This thread is an example of this discussion taken to extreme. 3 fx5's! Because he can afford to 'spoil' his fish.

 

[fwiffo]

We're all scientists, and biologists, we just may not get paid for it. Aquariums are immensely complex biological entities. The very fact that we're all here reading this thread proves that we're scientists which is according to the dictionary on my desk "someone who studies a science, particularly a natural science"

No special training is required to study. No college, certifications, laboratory or salary makes one a scientist. There are established "Scientific Methods" but great discoveries were made prior to those being accepted as the norm.

Some here are more learned than others, that's true. But that doesn't mean we can't have intelligent discussion about a topic of great passion.

yea that's one thing, but tossing around chemistry terms for reactions is another. that's what i meant, nothing more.

 

[yogurt_21]

I'm no marine biologist, I just like to experiment and see results. It helps me determine how to best setup my tanks.

Obviously I lack the resources of a lab but I can at least peform an experiment on equal terms. If for nothign more than to sastisfy my curiousty. The results of my 100g test were interesting but to me they have no meaning yet. I need to have a baseline to compare to. This will help my own records if nothign else. After all i plan on passing my hobby to my little girl. It would be nice for her to be able to use my data as a reference in the future.

 

[tcarswell]

yea that's one thing, but tossing around chemistry terms for reactions is another. that's what i meant, nothing more.

Yes that was very "Humble" of you to do so. come in to a thread and flame someone for using a scientific term....

And for those curious as to how this could spark such a debate its simple.

1) Bio media is very expensive especially the "Top notch" stuff (Substrate pro , fluval bio max etc)

2) It is common practice to over use it to "Be safe"

Now if you can provide evidence (Which is now being worked on and tested) that it is almost completely unnecessary then it is most certainly worthy of debate/ testing. Giving us a better idea of how much we need or if we need it in general.

 

[Bderick67]

Once I am left with the two AC110s and the if the tank balances to the amount of flow and bio media of those two filters, that will be the all the "control" you will get. I'm sure as hell not going to go buy powerheads that cost more money then the bio media I'm removing

The tank has be running with the fluorite substrat for well over a year. Currnet tank stock has varied a little but pretty much the same bioload and decor for the last 4-5 months.

 

[Toby_H]

lol, i get a kick out of people who throw chemistry terms around here, like "oxidize". what a joke.

　
Your lack of understanding proper terminology does not make proper terminology a joke...
　
In our tanks, the bacteria "oxidizes" the ammonia. I also refer to Ammonia Oxidizing Bacteria. If you do a Google search on the term, I use it in complete conjunction with what the scientists have to say about it. There are a few other terms that equally describe the bacteria, and a few that allow assumptions to be made.
　
Forgive me for my desire to speak in accurate terms... lol
　

yea that's one thing, but tossing around chemistry terms for reactions is another. that's what i meant, nothing more.

　
Your lack of understanding is not my limitation
　


A wise man once said…
　

Having an intellectual conversation on this forum is impossible with every Tom, Dick and Harry twisting intelligent comments into nonsense for the purpose of promoting drama...

　
*Please note referring to myself as a “wise man” was done with a smirk…

 

[fwiffo]

hey, im a chemist, not some certified google slouch from his desktop. i do these reactions in the real world and such. i feel that if i reply to the nasty remarks made above, it would further irritate the situation which is already very hot already. so let me just say this:

my opinion on bio media (that's separate from chemistry terms, not connected) being alot of hype is just me. these companies claim 67% faster conversion from ammonia to nitriet to nitrate and such, yet they give no real world lab results to back up these claims. that is all i meant.

it just amazes me how something like this could really enrage so many. it is just a hobby people, so calm down! after all, a hobby is supposed to be a relaxing exercise!