[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Musing on water change
You guys are driving me crazy with all of this water talk. It makes a person
begin to question whether they should stick with what they are doing or try
to improve on their present system to see if it helps. I can't seem to keep
up with all of the discussion and often do not fully understand everthing.
Isn"t there a simple way to approach all of this with out getting so
Sorry Everyone, I just had to vent a little. Carry on.
Wright Huntley wrote:
> Roger Hawthorne wrote:
> > I'm glad I'm not a mathematician. Possibly not even a speller.
> :-) You share the puzzlement of some of us at the bizarre definitions of
> things like equilibrium that have been posted here, perhaps?
> Beer can certainly upset one's equilibrium, if consumed in sufficient
> quantity, but chemical equilibrium is when a balance has been achieved
> between two opposing reactions or activities. In the partial-change
> scenario, if the poop in equals the poop out, averaged over some
> reasonable time interval, then poop quantity settles out, roughly
> centered around some equilibrium value after a while. For 25% weekly
> changes, it is 3.5 weeks worth of poop accumulation that is that balance
> point. It oscillates up and down by 0.5 weeks worth after that.
> If we start with a sterile, clean tank, the poop builds up,
> asymptotically approaching an end value, and then gently oscillates as
> poop accumulates for a week and then is suddenly removed on Sat. Poop
> removal and addition have reached their equilibrium value, but
> mathematically they never really do reach it. The errors just get too
> small to matter.
> Tyrone probably argues that to reach the wall you must first walk half
> way to the wall. Then you must go the new half way, ad infinitum, never
> reaching the wall. Ergo, there is no wall! ;-)
> > Our municipal water is very soft. Our well water is carbonic.
> > Wouldn't the water you add have a lot to do with how often
> > a change is required? Certainly some reidues left over are
> > less detrimental than others. Anyone have info on that?
> The frequency of change is determined by many factors, but your starting
> water is one of the less important of those. The change is to give the
> fish a chance to live outside the toilet, to paraphrase Charles, and the
> new water should be an improvement or the change would be a bad thing.
> My suspicion is that there are less good things in old water than some
> have reported, but that changing too much at once has caused some kind
> of shock. Shortening the change interval can help that, and flow-through
> systems are the end point of that process -- probably as good as it gets.
> > The Killies I saw ( certainly could actually be fundulus or a
> > similar fish ) in Cuba seemed to prefer the very end of a
> > body of water, opposite the inlet. Even when I set up my
> > camcorder and left, they spent most of their time in the mulm.
> > Maybe for instant hiding. Yet if I approached, they sped off
> > in a different direction. Few dropped down into the mulm to
> > hide. Maybe that is where they spawn? I should have asked
> > Barry. These guys were not afraid of the saltier areas either.
> Estuarine fish are really fun to watch. If you realize the changes in
> salinity they willingly swim through, it is amazing at how easily we can
> damage other killies with a simple sudden drop in tds. Maybe someone
> here on the list can offer an explanation (or guess) as to how they
> adjust or protect themselves from osmotic shock.
> I wish I had been more observant when I lived on Tampa Bay, back in my
> early years. I was more into catching than watching, in those days.
> "Deport all the product-liability lawyers to Iraq;"
> -- Dave Barry --
> [Best suggestion of 2002, by far...]
> See http://www.aka.org/AKA/subkillietalk.html to unsubscribe
> Join the AKA at http://www.aka.org/AKA/Applic.htm
See http://www.aka.org/AKA/subkillietalk.html to unsubscribe
Join the AKA at http://www.aka.org/AKA/Applic.htm