http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showp ... count=6542
This guy does live from selling aquarium setups.
http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showp ... count=6542
This guy does live from selling aquarium setups.
Its an interesting discussion guys.
Two different opinions os ATS and refugiums...
Time will show
That guy is off base in so many ways. watch for my post.
Well, I tried to be nice...check out my post on that thread an tell me what you think!
Yes, MrWilson is the most-uninformed person I have seen yet. Actually he's smart, and he's just spreading wrong information. Post this info for him on that thread; you can use the copy-paste code box at the end...
If there is more than 1/4 inch of water, then it is not rapid because it has no laminar flow:The refugiums I use are as shallow as an ATS, the water is just as rapid
(from: http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/boundlay.html )
This boundary layer area of the water has zero flow, because it has to have the same flow as the algae, which of course is zero. Since there is no flow (velocity) here, nutrient transport through it is slow. The faster the water flow, the smaller the boundary layer, and the faster the nutrients can get to/from the algae from the water.
The reason algae grows better in an overflow, or where water hits a scrubber screen, is because the flow is higher and thus the water's boundary layer is thinner, which allows for better nutrient transfer between the algae and the water. This is what a vertical waterfall scrubber tries to achieve: Fast flow from top to bottom. Further info can be found here:
Seagrasses: Biology, Ecology, and Conservation, p 199, by AWD Larkum, Robert Joseph Orth, Carlos M. Duarte:
"As water flows through seagrass [or algae] beds, a boundary layer develops on the sediment surface, as well as on each seagrass [and algae] component exposed to the moving water. The faster the water moves, the thinner the diffusive boundary layer (DBL) becomes, and consequently, the faster the transfer of molecules from the water column to the sediment and/or seagrass [or algae]. It follows then that when currents [flow] are weak, the flux of molecules to the seagrass [or algae] surface may be limited by diffusion through the [boundary layer] (i.e., physical limitation). Under those conditions, many biological sites or enzymes in the seagrass [or algae] tissue are available to assimilate molecules when/if [!] they reach the plant's [or algal] surface.
He has 1 watt per gallon within 1 inch of all surfaces of the algae, with no "back side" that is shaded at all? If his chaeto is more than 1 inch thick, it's impossible to not have shading.the lighting is more intense
Who cares if it's new. Strawman.Refugia are not a new idea
Yes, it does. Unless you remove the entire ball, which would leave you with no chaeto.Harvesting Chaetomorpha does not require the breaking of the thallus
He thinks readers are dumb enough to not know the basic rule: Remove screens before cleaning.Conversely, hair algae must be torn to harvest the trays
No "repair" is needed. Once the algal contents "spill out" in the sink, they are spilled.A better ATS system would be to keep the trimmed algae turf trays in a "hospital tank" for a day or two to repair itself.
Any monkey, and certainly any reefer that's been using a scrubber for more than a few weeks, will tell you that scrubbers remove algae from displays; they do not spread to displays. But if Wilson mis-states things enough times to enough forums, he will confuse enough people. This is a basic tenet of promotion which he does understand.This will not only limit nutrient leak, but also avoid hair algae from spreading to the display tank
Hair algae is macro algae. True expert.Macro algae will grow equally as fast as hair algae
Apparently the true expert has never put a scrubber on a tank with a fuge, and watched the fuge macros melt away. Actually I think he has, and he's hiding it. Remember, he builds and maintains fuges.Chaetomorpha will adequately remove Po4 and No3, so there is no need for other forms of algae.
Tell him to post the studies that say this. He won't be able to, because they don't exist.The stress of cutting/tearing hair algae will however cause it to react more competitively.
Macros in a fuge do the yellowing because of the broken pieces, which of course Wilson says does not occur.Macro algae will also yellow the water to a certain degree, but as you have mentioned, carbon is more than enough to deal with tannins.
Ever feed nori? That's "importing damaged macro" into the display. Ever watch your tangs eat algae off of rocks? That's "importing damaged macro" into the display. And of course there is the "tearing of the chaeto", which Wilson says does not occur; That's "importing damaged macro" into the display.Importing damaged hair or turf (nuisance) algae into the display tank is never a good idea
What salt is getting outside of my acrylic? What noise? (silent). What hazard (U.L. approved Current Nova Extreme lights on the dry side of acrylic). What bubbles? (water enters one side of the fuge, and has no bubble by the time it returns). What vertical space? (7 inches). What maintenance? (5 minute cleaning). He must have been referring to the scrubber he built for himself, which unfortunately shows his lack of DIY ability. Actually, I think he's smart and he did it on purpose.Vertical ATS cause salt creep, noise, electrical hazard (lighting), add microbubbles, increase evaporation, use too much vertical space, and require too much maintenance.
Algae release C02 at night. A much smaller amount of C02, by the way, than is absorbed in the light.but algae does release some of its trapped nutrients at night
I would have discontinued too, if I had the original dump-style no-screen-removal styles of the 80's and 90's. But the fact that Adey recalled his license, so that nobody was allowed to build them anymore, had a pretty good impact too, wouldn't you say? It's tough to buy one of those dump-style ATS units when they are no longer for sale. Wilson smartly forgets to explain this.ATS gained moderate attention in the late 80's with Addey's book, but anyone who set one up discontinued after a few months or years.
Wilson seems to have not read anything about those tanks:The tank he set up at the Smithsonian has never been a success story
http://walteradey.com/ecosystems.php
"A 130 gallon (456 liter) coral reef microcosm, that after 8 years of closure [to the environment], had its chemical parameters controlled solely by an algal turf scrubber. This system, studied by a multidisciplinary team of biologists, demonstrated calcification [coral growth] rates equal to the best 4 percent of wild reefs, and at 543 identified species, and an estimated 800 species, ranked per unit area as the most biodiverse reef ever measured."
...and larger versions:
Nutrient Cycling In The Great Barrier Reef Aquarium. Proceedings of the 6th International Coral Reef Symposium, Australia, 1988, Vol. 2
http://www.reefbase.org/resource_center ... efid=10859
(needs a free account to download)
"The Reef Tank represents the first application of algal scrubber technology to large volume aquarium systems. Aquaria using conventional water purification methods (e.g. bacterial filters) generally have nutrient levels in parts per million, while algal scrubbers have maintained parts per billion concentrations [much lower], despite heavy biological loading in the Reef Tank. The success of the algal scrubbers in maintaining suitable water quality for a coral reef was demonstrated in the observed spawning of scleractinian corals and many other tank inhabitants." (Too bad they did not add calcium to this public tank... the calcium was fully depleted after two or three years.)
That's me. I don't sell plastic screens. And I'm not trying to revive "ATS" because dumping-buckets are not effective enough. And "ATS" is a trademark.There is a promotion company trying to revive the ATS idea to sell plastic screens
Yes, there are a lot of forums with skimmer advertisers. Algae can't advertise; it has no budget.but they are banned from more aquarium forums than I can keep track of
All proven by hundreds of users on my forums, and thousands of users on other forums, and by research studies like the ones posted above. I can post as many studies as he would like me to. He has not posted one.The misinformation and junk science offered by these companies
Oh yes, that's why people with fuge's add scrubbers; because the fuge's did "everything needed".Yes ATS can work, but they don't offer anything you can't get with a simple refugium.
That's quite a reach. That's why I put the person's username, so you can search for them and read it yourself. Every one. There is not a single report that Wilson can link to that cannot be searched for and verified. Not one. And he knows it.in some cases the reports are entirely fabricated marketing
This is bordering on a libelous statement. I will pursue this if he goes any farther.
Oh really. I would never have known.In all fairness, I haven't tried the method in over 15 years, and I agree a lot has changed.
Here is the text in the box below; just copy and paste it:
[code]If there is more than 1/4 inch of water, then it is not rapid because it has no laminar flow:The refugiums I use are as shallow as an ATS, the water is just as rapid
(from: http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/boundlay.html )
This boundary layer area of the water has zero flow, because it has to have the same flow as the algae, which of course is zero. Since there is no flow (velocity) here, nutrient transport through it is slow. The faster the water flow, the smaller the boundary layer, and the faster the nutrients can get to/from the algae from the water.
The reason algae grows better in an overflow, or where water hits a scrubber screen, is because the flow is higher and thus the water's boundary layer is thinner, which allows for better nutrient transfer between the algae and the water. This is what a vertical waterfall scrubber tries to achieve: Fast flow from top to bottom. Further info can be found here:
Seagrasses: Biology, Ecology, and Conservation, p 199, by AWD Larkum, Robert Joseph Orth, Carlos M. Duarte:
"As water flows through seagrass [or algae] beds, a boundary layer develops on the sediment surface, as well as on each seagrass [and algae] component exposed to the moving water. The faster the water moves, the thinner the diffusive boundary layer (DBL) becomes, and consequently, the faster the transfer of molecules from the water column to the sediment and/or seagrass [or algae]. It follows then that when currents [flow] are weak, the flux of molecules to the seagrass [or algae] surface may be limited by diffusion through the [boundary layer] (i.e., physical limitation). Under those conditions, many biological sites or enzymes in the seagrass [or algae] tissue are available to assimilate molecules when/if [!] they reach the plant's [or algal] surface.
He has 1 watt per gallon within 1 inch of all surfaces of the algae, with no "back side" that is shaded at all? If his chaeto is more than 1 inch thick, it's impossible to not have shading.the lighting is more intense
Who cares if it's new. Strawman.Refugia are not a new idea
Yes, it does. Unless you remove the entire ball, which would leave you with no chaeto.Harvesting Chaetomorpha does not require the breaking of the thallus
He thinks readers are dumb enough to not know the basic rule: Remove screens before cleaning.Conversely, hair algae must be torn to harvest the trays
No "repair" is needed. Once the algal contents "spill out" in the sink, they are spilled.A better ATS system would be to keep the trimmed algae turf trays in a "hospital tank" for a day or two to repair itself.
Any monkey, and certainly any reefer that's been using a scrubber for more than a few weeks, will tell you that scrubbers remove algae from displays; they do not spread to displays. But if Wilson mis-states things enough times to enough forums, he will confuse enough people. This is a basic tenet of promotion which he does understand.This will not only limit nutrient leak, but also avoid hair algae from spreading to the display tank
Hair algae is macro algae. True expert.Macro algae will grow equally as fast as hair algae
Apparently the true expert has never put a scrubber on a tank with a fuge, and watched the fuge macros melt away. Actually I think he has, and he's hiding it. Remember, he builds and maintains fuges.Chaetomorpha will adequately remove Po4 and No3, so there is no need for other forms of algae.
Tell him to post the studies that say this. He won't be able to, because they don't exist.The stress of cutting/tearing hair algae will however cause it to react more competitively.
Macros in a fuge do the yellowing because of the broken pieces, which of course Wilson says does not occur.Macro algae will also yellow the water to a certain degree, but as you have mentioned, carbon is more than enough to deal with tannins.
Ever feed nori? That's "importing damaged macro" into the display. Ever watch your tangs eat algae off of rocks? That's "importing damaged macro" into the display. And of course there is the "tearing of the chaeto", which Wilson says does not occur; That's "importing damaged macro" into the display.Importing damaged hair or turf (nuisance) algae into the display tank is never a good idea
What salt is getting outside of my acrylic? What noise? (silent). What hazard (U.L. approved Current Nova Extreme lights on the dry side of acrylic). What bubbles? (water enters one side of the fuge, and has no bubble by the time it returns). What vertical space? (7 inches). What maintenance? (5 minute cleaning). He must have been referring to the scrubber he built for himself, which unfortunately shows his lack of DIY ability. Actually, I think he's smart and he did it on purpose.Vertical ATS cause salt creep, noise, electrical hazard (lighting), add microbubbles, increase evaporation, use too much vertical space, and require too much maintenance.
Algae release C02 at night. A much smaller amount of C02, by the way, than is absorbed in the light.but algae does release some of its trapped nutrients at night
I would have discontinued too, if I had the original dump-style no-screen-removal styles of the 80's and 90's. But the fact that Adey recalled his license, so that nobody was allowed to build them anymore, had a pretty good impact too, wouldn't you say? It's tough to buy one of those but dump-style ATS units when they are no longer for sale. Wilson smartly forgets to explain this.ATS gained moderate attention in the late 80's with Addey's book, but anyone who set one up discontinued after a few months or years.
Wilson seems to have not read anything about those tanks:The tank he set up at the Smithsonian has never been a success story
http://walteradey.com/ecosystems.php
"A 130 gallon (456 liter) coral reef microcosm, that after 8 years of closure [to the environment], had its chemical parameters controlled solely by an algal turf scrubber. This system, studied by a multidisciplinary team of biologists, demonstrated calcification [coral growth] rates equal to the best 4 percent of wild reefs, and at 543 identified species, and an estimated 800 species, ranked per unit area as the most biodiverse reef ever measured."
...and larger versions:
Nutrient Cycling In The Great Barrier Reef Aquarium. Proceedings of the 6th International Coral Reef Symposium, Australia, 1988, Vol. 2
http://www.reefbase.org/resource_cen...px?refid=10859
(needs a free account to download)
"The Reef Tank represents the first application of algal scrubber technology to large volume aquarium systems. Aquaria using conventional water purification methods (e.g. bacterial filters) generally have nutrient levels in parts per million, while algal scrubbers have maintained parts per billion concentrations [much lower], despite heavy biological loading in the Reef Tank. The success of the algal scrubbers in maintaining suitable water quality for a coral reef was demonstrated in the observed spawning of scleractinian corals and many other tank inhabitants." (Too bad they did not add calcium to this public tank... the calcium was fully depleted after two or three years.)
That's me. I don't sell plastic screens. And I'm not trying to revive "ATS" because dumping-buckets are not effective enough. And "ATS" is a trademark.There is a promotion company trying to revive the ATS idea to sell plastic screens
Yes, there are a lot of forums with skimmer advertisers. Algae can't advertise; it has no budget.but they are banned from more aquarium forums than I can keep track of
All proven by hundreds of users on my forums, and thousands of users on other forums, and by research studies like the ones posted above. I can post as many studies as he would like me to. He has not posted one.The misinformation and junk science offered by these companies
Oh yes, that's why people with fuge's add scrubbers; because the fuge's did "everything needed".Yes ATS can work, but they don't offer anything you can't get with a simple refugium.
That's quite a reach. That's why I put the person's username, so you can search for them and read it yourself. Every one. There is not a single report that Wilson can link to that cannot be searched for and verified. Not one. And he knows it.in some cases the reports are entirely fabricated marketing
Oh really. I would never have known.In all fairness, I haven't tried the method in over 15 years, and I agree a lot has changed.
[/code]
Now see, THAT's the Santa Monica that makes me laugh!! I love it! Totally true! I can tell you've had your head-bashing with Wilson. I don't think I'm going to change his mind, but I'll give it a shot. I'll have to do a little wordsmithing with your post if you don't mind. That's way he won't know it came from you. "Strawman" gives it away. Hilarious. Maybe I'll change that to "Poser" LOL
Yeah, was thinking the same thing.
You can also use my correspondance with Mr Adey himself on this topic. I met Sprung and Alf Jakob Nilsen not too long ago. They both have very flawed view of the scrubber system we use now. Also, Mr. Adey said he repeatedly urged the GBR Aquarium to keep alkalinity up, wich they failed to do. No wonder it stopped growing after a while. There where also lots and lots of other errors wich "killed" that aquarium.
That exchange is comical. He is clearly spouting opinion, has no experience with the ATS in the discussion and apparently a closed mind. I feel bad for the guy.
75RR / 20g sump / DIY Scrubber / 3 x 150DE MH & single T5 actinic
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote