Effects of tap water on Nitrifying during Rip-Clean method: Experiment

[Coxey81]

Build Thread - Amalee’s 75g Build

Hey friends ❤️ Finally pulled the trigger and made a “dream” purchase. It’s not an expensive addition, just one I was a bit nervous about so it doesn’t disrupt the balance in the tank. But I could not be happier to have this guy! Torch mountain will be finished up next week too! I got the...

www.reef2reef.com

there's my first proof. middle pages, tap water on rocks.


see that degree of live rock? that's not four tiny chunks soaked for hours.

I'm able to provide direct work examples for my claims, I'm needing half that effort from this collective questions group

go find a work example you think turned out poorly, or one using as few rock we can inspect that turned out well.

They aren't 4 tiny chunks soaked for hours it's 4.5 pounds easily and they have been in the sump for six months. Since the tank was initially cycled.

 

[brandon429]

find me a four pounds of rock at the finish rip clean, just one.

then post that link and we'll review it. See I claim you saw ten times that much rock in any rip clean you ever read, but assembled really shy of that anyway the test here today.

 

[Coxey81]

They aren't 4 tiny chunks soaked for hours it's 4.5 pounds easily and they have been in the sump for six months. Since the tank was initially cycled.

This is a scaled down version of a typical larger tank. 1-1.5 pounds of rock per gallon.

 

[Little c big D]

Build Thread - Amalee’s 75g Build

Hey friends ❤️ Finally pulled the trigger and made a “dream” purchase. It’s not an expensive addition, just one I was a bit nervous about so it doesn’t disrupt the balance in the tank. But I could not be happier to have this guy! Torch mountain will be finished up next week too! I got the...

www.reef2reef.com

there's my first proof. middle pages, tap water on rocks.


see that degree of live rock? that's not four tiny chunks soaked for hours.

I'm able to provide direct work examples for my claims, I'm needing half that effort from this collective questions group

go find a work example you think turned out poorly, or one using as few rock we can inspect that turned out well.

That's 40lbs on a 75 gallon, and less lbs per gallon than OP test.

 

[MnFish1]

The test isn't setup to handle or account for or exclude misreads, there's no starting measure to show how this kit reads on the water sample before the test dose. the test dose is too high for that kit, but not for digital kits

too many preps are skipped here for the test to be valid, the test continues testing my method but not being arranged in a fair manner to have insight on the method.

those answers I skipped above didnt change the major confounds in the test as its assembled. You would need to use the same degree of rocks we use in skip cycle works, that's a tenth of the degree we use, its a quarter of what Ninja used in his tap water rinse rip clean. its one tenth of the amount of rocks amalee used in her tap water rinse 75 gallon.

the test doesnt seem invalid though to the cheering group, I get that.

In the end your collective responses can be summarized as: you each think a dead biofilter can support someone's full reef after we reassemble it.

Both Ninja's biofilter and Amalee's were clearly dead due to tap you're about to show with a misaligned test, and their whole reefs were then built on uncycled system, carrying fish and feed from there on out is that right



that you guys accept validity here and unfactor literally eight years of collected results using actual reefs I find lol bigtime, its a total safezone where notbody has to ever do any real prediction and follow though.

@brandon429 This is where it's clear you don't understand 'science'. The OP is testing a specific hypothesis - the design is actually pretty good. He is not testing 'Rip Cleaning'. 1. No one has accepted 'validity' - in fact I mentioned several confounding issues that may affect the results (and without the results - its hard to say whether they look valid or not at this point). 2. In the end this experiment will not prove or disprove whether a 'rip clean' works or doesn't work - in fact it will stand on its own. Nor was it designed to do as (as far as I know) - so the only person that seems to think this is some kind of questioning or criticism of 'your methods' is you?

EDIT - I was stupid in one sentence here - The words 'Rip-Cleaning' are in the OP's title. I believe I said I did not think this experiment will specifically test 'Rip Cleaning'. multiple times - and I also apologized to @brandon429

 

[Little c big D]

find me a four pounds of rock at the finish rip clean, just one.

then post that link and we'll review it. See I claim you saw ten times that much rock in any rip clean you ever read, but assembled really shy of that anyway the test here today.

To be fairly scaled, and before I dig through this forum. Is there a 4 gallon tank that was rip cleaned for comparison? Your 75g example boasted less rock per gallon than this experiment

 

[Rmckoy]

That's 40lbs on a 75 gallon, and less lbs per gallon than OP test.

But at the same time claims 10x more rock

 

[brandon429]

there's some nanos we did with that much rock at the end, I just wanted you to see that you weren't basing this on any work we've actually done. 2ppm dosed ammonia into a tiny nano is more bioload at once than all its fish and corals ever contributed in 5 days of running, your test is designed to mislead but I honestly don't think you read enough to angle it that way. everyone believes their non digital test kit this passionately, it takes reef maturing to grow from that phase.


2 ppm comes from bottle bac studies that have massive amounts of suspension cycling going on, which you robbed here
suspension cycling is when bottle bac dosed from a bottle (where the 2 ppm comes from) is added to water and actually removes ammonia while swirling about, you assembled zero suspension cycling and then quadrupled the test load and on seneye it might actually have a chance of passing.


If I linked here two recent studies that showed these kits delaying out ten days to seneye showing ready, this group would just disavow those findings and keep on course where you've designed the ending to be.

that alone ruins your test. you're using bottle bac standards in a no suspension cycling setup.


Coxey you'd have to work with other's reefs a while, see how misreads occur and on what kits, in order to know that your test is completely misaligned and reflective of very little preparation thought or effort to match real world conditions.

I provided two links above that show counter proof. Analyze those, how did their biofilter die exactly?

 

[Little c big D]

But at the same time claims 10x more rock

Mathematically sure but we should be scaling this. I know without a doubt my 40lbs of rock in my current tank wouldn't even fit tightly packed into a 10gallon tank

 

[MnFish1]

In my opinion, the idea behind the test has merit. I do agree with Brandon however that the methodology is inaccurate.

I'm curious - what about the methodology is inaccurate? I posted some issues that I noted. But - its good to discuss the experiment itself.

 

[FEED ME ZOAS]

Before anyone asks me bandwagoning questions there's a new requirement, to show prior thought and study vs flippant coat tailing

go get a specific rip clean example off the web, and post it, and ask me about the direct example. Pick one that uses as few rocks as we have here


prediction: not one person here makes that effort.

You get the explanation once you take your proposed challenge and match it to a job on file. Begin by showing a rip clean that re assembled with four small rocks in the display.

here's two counter proofs that tap on rocks didn't cause biofilter loss, living animals are the proof:

Characterize my question as you will, but I'm not going to jump through hoops to get you to clarify a simple statement. I'm not against you here. I'm interested in your methods and plan to delve into your threads. This is completely unnecessary.

 

[Garf]

@brandon429 This is where it's clear you don't understand 'science'. The OP is testing a specific hypothesis - the design is actually pretty good. He is not testing 'Rip Cleaning'. 1. No one has accepted 'validity' - in fact I mentioned several confounding issues that may affect the results (and without the results - its hard to say whether they look valid or not at this point). 2. In the end this experiment will not prove or disprove whether a 'rip clean' works or doesn't work - in fact it will stand on its own. Nor was it designed to do as (as far as I know) - so the only person that seems to think this is some kind of questioning or criticism of 'your methods' is you?

I think rip cleaning involves scrubbing algae off the rocks or spot treating with H2O2. I don’t think that’s in this test.

 

[DrZoidburg]

filter from freshwater and use in saltwater

I have done this to cycle rocks faster, and save money on salt. Starting with fresh water. 0.00 and just api bacteria. One of which is found in both products they have. Only that the marine one has more diversity.

Completely different bacteria from freshwater to saltwater

There are however some than can be found in both salt/fresh.

 

[brandon429]

I wasnt expecting you do to any research its ok, we can move past it.

 

[Coxey81]

there's some nanos we did with that much rock at the end, I just wanted you to see that you weren't basing this on any work we've actually done. 2ppm dosed ammonia into a tiny nano is more bioload at once than all its fish and corals ever contributed in 5 days of running, your test is designed to mislead but I honestly don't think you read enough to angle it that way. everyone believes their non digital test kit this passionately, it takes reef maturing to grow from that phase.


2 ppm comes from bottle bac studies that have massive amounts of suspension cycling going on, which you robbed here
suspension cycling is when bottle bac dosed from a bottle (where the 2 ppm comes from) is added to water and actually removes ammonia while swirling about, you assembled zero suspension cycling and then quadrupled the test load and on seneye it might actually have a chance of passing.


If I linked here two recent studies that showed these kits delaying out ten days to seneye showing ready, this group would just disavow those findings and keep on course where you've designed the ending to be.

that alone ruins your test. you're using bottle bac standards in a no suspension cycling setup.


Coxey you'd have to work with other's reefs a while, see how misreads occur and on what kits, in order to know that your test is completely misaligned and reflective of very little preparation thought or effort to match real world conditions.

I provided two links above that show counter proof. Analyze those, how did their biofilter die exactly?

I think rip cleaning involves scrubbing algae off the rocks or spot treating with H2O2. I don’t think that’s in this test.

I plan to gently brush the rock while rinsing for 1 minutes to mimmick the removal of algae. I don't plan to use any H202.

Is this a perfect representation of rip cleaning it? No. But what exactly would be? Every scenario of doing so would require a random amount of time and scrubbing.

 

[Jedi1199]

I'm curious - what about the methodology is inaccurate? I posted some issues that I noted. But - its good to discuss the experiment itself.

As I stated prior to the quote you posted, the scale is off. In the pictures the OP posted, he had 5 pieces of rock weighing in at 4.5 Lbs. To be a truly accurate example, he would need to use 20-25 pieces of rock that totals 4.5 Lbs. This would be realistically scaled down example of a larger tank.

 

[MnFish1]

I think rip cleaning involves scrubbing algae off the rocks or spot treating with H2O2. I don’t think that’s in this test.

Well - thats not my complete understanding - my understanding is washing the sand, scrubbing and washing the rocks, as you said possible H2O2. In any case - The only person that made this about 'rip cleaning' was @brandon429. This seems to be a very common issue in many threads concerning cycling. @sixty_reefer said both sides are 'defensive' - In reality - what are the 2 sides??? Who has said anything criticizing 'Rip Cleaning'? These threads become a 'false debate', lose total track of the original post - which was about what I think will be an interesting experiment. The debate comes in when people's posts are mischaracterized IMHO

 

[sixty_reefer]

Do it the way you planned than - do not use RO water - that can change the whole set up - I can explain if you ask for an explanation

I do not agree in this.

Sincerely Lasse

For me the use of a used quarantine tank and equipment used for quarantine example pump, heaters, filters and tank that have been contaminated with medication on a experience involving bacteria is a big RED FLAG to me, that just one example.

 

[brandon429]

2 ppm is designed for aquariums where massive colony counts of bacteria are swirling in the water, mid - attachment phase onto the rocks, and an overload test designed to mimic a worst case bioload.

this test here reversed every prep and then still input the same load test, its 100% backwards testing setup to any real presentation. I wanted any critic here to see in the searchable rip clean threads, even the small nanos had more rock than this and it looked actually aged, where we could tell it wasn't just pulled off a shelf.

2 ppm is for bottle bac cycles, from a bottle bac cycling set of instructions. to carve that portion out of context is unacceptable but also not something I didn't do in my first year in nine different ways just the same.

 

[brandon429]

Sixty reefer I did not see those details. I'm sure they'll be claimed as rinsed, or not from the copper group, but still you were remarking on good details there just the same.