[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Dupla Cables

From: Steve Pushak <teban at powersonic_bc.ca> 
Date: Mon, 04 Jan 1999 01:24:11 -0800 

>The whole discussion seems predicated on the assumption that water
>should for some unknown reason be circulated through the substrate. It
>is also predicated on the assumption that heating cables are somehow
>efficient at causing water to circulate in the substrate. Both of these
>assumptions are unwarranted.

Let me recap our last go-around for any new APD members that may be
interested.

After yet again suffering attempted ridicule for supporting the evil of
substrate heating coils, I presented my HYPOTHESIS that heating cables
produced convention currents which caused nutrient laden water to be pulled
into the substrate where the nutrients were attracted to the negatively
charged binding sites provided by laterite. Thus stabilized, the nutrients
were available to plant roots for adsorption. This system is also
HYPOTHESIZED to maintain a sufficiently (not overly) fertile substrate by
constantly replacing the nutrients adsorbed by the plants, thus avoiding
long-lasting and well documented problems caused by starting with an overly
and usually poorly controlled "fertile" substrate.

I also presented photographic evidence, which you accepted, that said
system produces hobbyist-satisfying "good growth". 

You then proclaimed my hypothesis unproven, and thus, by your standards,
false. I agree that it is, as far as I know, "scientifically" unproven. 

However, by the studies you have cited, my plain gravel substrate, with a
smidgen of laterite clay and nutrients in the water column could NOT, in
fact, produce satisfying growth. But, whatever the unscientific evidence
presented, you proclaimed the hypothesis unproven, and thus false (now
upgraded to "unwarranted"). 

A hypothesis, according to my dictionary, is
  
 An assertion subject to verification or proof as:
 a) A proposition stated as a basis for argument or reasoning,
 b) A premise from which a conclusion is drawn,
 c) A conjecture that accounts, within a theory or ideational franework,
for a     set of facts that can used as a basis for further investigation.
 
This definition would seem to preclude you from unilaterally proclaiming my
hypothesis false unless YOU could prove it was false. Until you prove it
false or I prove it true, it remains a hypothesis and a valid basis for
discussion. 

So why don't you fall off that high horse and stop bad-mouthing something
you have never used nor have even seen. Heating coils work for me, they
work for many members of this list and they work for satisfied Dupla
customers all over the world.   
 
>What happens it that through marketing propaganda, a myth starts to
>evolve. Pretty soon folks start trying to copy or duplicate the
>technology and the myth grows. Everybody just ASSUMES that those smart
>folks at Dupla would never sell us a load of bunk (just to make
>money)... Would they??

Hmmm, couldn't the same thing be said for the vaunted HTBASS technique?
Except, of course, you're not doing it for money. 



George Booth, Ft. Collins, Colorado (booth at frii_com)
  Back on-line! New URL! Slightly new look! Same good data!
    http://www.frii.com/~booth/AquaticConcepts/