Continuous water change systems

[curbdog]

Anyone using a continuous water change in their setup?
I would like information on this if anyone can help.
Michael.

[BeanAnimal]

The slickest (least hassle) is using two matched peristaltic pumps. One pulls water from the resevoir and the other dumbs tank water to the sewer.

[BrainBandAid]

From what I understand, from my limited noob viewpoint :D , wouldn't the efficiency of your water change be lowered, because you're essentially dumping out a small portion of your fresh saltwater with the old? Or is it too small an amount?

[BeanAnimal]

Brian, yes in theory you will be throwing away some of the "new" salt water. However, you can do some math and figure out what is really taking place... it is a classic dilution problem :)

Even though it is "continuous" we can look at it from a static standpoint. Lets just make it easy.

Lets say you have 100 Gallons Total (we will call it dirty water)
Lets say autochanger does 2 gallons a day.

The first change is a 2% of the total water (day 1) That leaves 98 gallons of dirtywater mixed with 2 gallons of clean water. In other words the "bad water" is now at 98% concentration.


Day two is 98 gallons - 2%. In other words we now have have 96.04 gallons of dirty water left.

Day three would be that 96.04 gallons - 2% = 94.1192 gallons of dirty water left.

Day THIRTY is 54.5 gallons of dirty water left
Day SIXTY is 29.75 gallons of dirty water left
Day NINETY is 16.25 gallons of dirty water left

Upping your water change volume to 3 Gallons a day would get you to that 16.25 dirty gallons in about 60 days.

If I have made any mistakes... somebody please jump in and correct me :)

[BeanAnimal]

Of course a manual large water change (say 20% even) would do wonders. The continuous change could be looked at as more of a stabilizer for water quality and ease the burden of doing so many changes.


In addition, if you nutrient accumulation is less than your change rate, then once you get ahead of the problem you will stay ahead. On the other hand if your nutrients outrun your auto change system, then you will never get ahead and the concentrations will increase.

I hope that makes sense.

[orlenz]

.

[scaryperson27]

You would not have 16.25 gallons of the original volume left. There is a lot more math involved than that. In order to get the volume of the original dirty water then you would have to take into perspective the 2% that you added every day. I think you can make a logarithm to compile and display this information. In order for the water changes to take effect in the way you mentioned the new water would have to be isolated from the old water.

[BeanAnimal]

What I showed does take into cosideration the 2% added every day :)

The first day you have 100 cups of moonshine in the jug and you drink 2 cups. (2%)

That leaves you with 98 cups in the jug. So you don't get caught, you pour 2 cups of water in to replace what you drank. You now have a 98% jug of moonshine.

The next day you drink 2 cups out of the jug. Remeber the jug has 100 cups of 98% moonshine. (Or 98 CUPS of moonshine mixed with 2 cups of water). So if you take 2 cups out (2% of the total volume) you would be left with 98 gallons of moonshine in the jug. The stuff you drank was 98% strong, as is the stuff you left in the jug.

So you don't get caught, you pour 2 cups of water into the jug. That means that the 98 cups of 98% moonshine are now 100 cups with the new water added. The water dilutes the 98% to 96.04% moohsine. In other words there is 96.04 cups of moonshine left in the 100 CUP jug. OR you could say that you have a 98 to 2 ratio of moonshine to water.

I hope this makes sense :)

[Cuervo]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7917869#post7917869 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by BeanAnimal
Brian, yes in theory you will be throwing away some of the "new" salt water. However, you can do some math and figure out what is really taking place... it is a classic dilution problem :)

Even though it is "continuous" we can look at it from a static standpoint. Lets just make it easy.

Lets say you have 100 Gallons Total (we will call it dirty water)
Lets say autochanger does 2 gallons a day.

The first change is a 2% of the total water (day 1) That leaves 98 gallons of dirtywater mixed with 2 gallons of clean water. In other words the "bad water" is now at 98% concentration.


Day two is 98 gallons - 2%. In other words we now have have 96.04 gallons of dirty water left.

Day three would be that 96.04 gallons - 2% = 94.1192 gallons of dirty water left.

Day THIRTY is 54.5 gallons of dirty water left
Day SIXTY is 29.75 gallons of dirty water left
Day NINETY is 16.25 gallons of dirty water left

Upping your water change volume to 3 Gallons a day would get you to that 16.25 dirty gallons in about 60 days.

If I have made any mistakes... somebody please jump in and correct me :)

I could also be wrong, but don't you need to account for new waste generated.

If the system is creating 1% of dirty water per day then the equation changes slightly.

So that:
Day 1 - 100Gal Dirty - 2%Clean + 1% New waste = 99gal Clean
Day 2 - 99Gal Dirty - 2%Clean + 1% New Waste = 98.01Gal Clean
Day 3 - 98.01 Gal Dirty -2Gal Clean +1% New Waste = 97.02Gal Clean
Day 4 - 96.05Gal
Day 5 - 95.09Gal
Day 6 - 94.14Gal
Day 7 - 93.20Gal

You used 14 Gal of Clean water to get to 93.2% clean water.

If you did a 14 Gal water change weekly, you would be much better off.
Day 1 - 100 Gal Dirty Water -14% Clean +1% New Waste = 87% Dirty
Over the course of the week, you add that same 1% New Waste per day.
Day 2 - 87.87 Gal
Day 3 - 88.75 Gal
Day 4 - 89.64 Gal
Day 5 - 90.53 Gal
Day 6 - 91.44 Gal
Day 7 - 92.35 Gal - 14% Clean +1% New Waste = 76.65Gal Dirty

If you look at only the first week, the difference is insignificant - 93.20 Gal vs 92.35 Gal, but on Day8, you are way better off just changing the 14 gal per week.

Actually, in the long term, you are better off with the daily water change system, because it is going to maintain your system at like 1% dirty all the time (new waste), whereas with the weekly water change, it is going to build up over the course of a week until you do the change.

My math could also be wrong, so feel free to correct me.

[scaryperson27]

Thats why in my post I said original waist water. I didn't feel like getting too into math at 1 in the morning. Lol

[BeanAnimal]

Yes, you can account for the new waste generated. Like I said, if your water changes are correct, you will get ahead of it after a few months... if not, you will fall behind. A BIG water change now and then will help a lot to keep things ahead. I simply did not want to try and wrap my head around explaining that math as well.

Your math appears to be correct.

[BeanAnimal]

honestly scary... I don't know what you tried to say. Your first post seemed to indicate that my math was wrong and that I had not accounted for the 2%. Thats a lot differnet than not accounting for the daily waste created in the tank (which can by a HUGE variable depending on the system).

My point (maybe not well stated) was exactly what Cuervo stated. If you get ahead of it, then you will stay ahead of it with the daily water changes (automated or not).

[BeanAnimal]

A quick search for turned up a few sites if anybody wants to read further (and distance themselves from my horrible explanation)

http://www.simplydiscus.com/library/discus_husbandry/discus_basics/wc_formula.shtml

http://www.reefs.org/library/article/t_brightbill_wc.html

[Cuervo]

Another thought occured to me on this.

When you remove the waste water, you are also removing the good stuff that is mixed in with it.

For example, on my small tank, I dose calcium by hand. I always make sure to add the calcium after I do my water change, because doing it before would just cause some of it to be wasted.

I suppose if you have a Kalk and Calc reactor, you could just adjust them a bit to compensate, but still, each day you will be sending some of that stuff right down the drain.

**Edit - damn it's late... :(
In the short term, it doesn't matter, because you need to do the water changes in order to keep the waste down on the system.

In the long term, you could easily be wasting water and all the stuff you dose, when you really don't need too.

On top of all that, I'm not sure that you really want 100% clean water in your system, it kind of makes sense to me that you might want just a little bit of "dirt" in there.

[hahnmeister]

I dont like auto water changers... as its been said before, you need more to really get the same effect as simply draining the tank 10% and replacing it with 10%... or whatever. I remember this being a hot topic among cichlid breeders back when I used to do that. I was on a well, so running 300gallons a day (and runoff into the back yard) in water changes was easy... but for those that had to treat (city water) the water... as in this case... the volumes being able to be changed werent great enough to be worth it...

I doubt that keeping all those gallons of mixed saltwater on hand would be worth it.

OTOH, rather than constantly running feed pumps, I have seen some setups that arent continuous feed, and are on timers. They are usually basement sumps... anyways... there is a secondary sump attached to the main sump... no water from the main tank's loop runs through it, but it does have a small powerhead going from the main sump into a secondary tank, and overflow going back to the main sump so it keeps in circulation with the main system. This sump has two valves on it... one at the bottom that empties on a timer, and another that fills it from the RO. Anyways, once a week, the circulation powerhead shuts off, and the drain valve opens. Then this secondary sump slowly fills with RO water on a float valve. The next step is up to the hobbyist... he/she has to remember to dump in the right amount of salt on the right day. Then there is a small mixing pump in the sump to mix it. The next day the circuit for the mixing pump shuts off (it comes on a few hours after the tank drains the next week as the RO water comes in), the circuit for the circulation pump comes on...mixing the system's sump water with the fresh saltwater sump. The next weekend, the process starts all over. All the user has to remember is to add salt every Saturday. I like it because it makes the process very easy and you HAVE TO change the water every week.

[otterpop510]

wow, that sounds like a cool setup hahnmeister.. takes one of the more tiring chores out of the equation..

maybe one of these days when i have a dedicated room setup.. one can dream..

[Aquaduck]

hahnmeister, that sounds like an amazing setup. I'm having trouble picturing it. Any block diagrams or flow charts of such a system? My next tank will have this feature if I can figure out how to implement it.

[BeanAnimal]

I can't follow your description...

In any case. Your still keeping mixed saltwater on hand. If you do 2 gallons a day, you need 30 Gallons every 2 weeks. That is not much different than a lot of folks use for water changes.

They may be less efficient in the short term than large net water changes, but the idea is to get the nasties down to a low level and keep them there.

With regards to ALK and CA, you simply buffer your makeup water accordingly. If you add trace, then they can be added to the makup as well, no different than a regular water change.

There are plenty of folks (Randy Farley included if I remember) that use a continuous system.

If you don't want to do continuous then there are several choices for automation. However because vulumes need to be considered and ATO and other items come into play, the setups get somewhat complicated.

In a nutshell, you would still need a salt water resevoir and a series of actuated valves and float switches to waste water to the sewer and then replace it from the resevoir (similar to what your washing machine does each cycle). The ATO will have to be disabled so that it does not start pushing fresh water into the tank. You also need some failsafes to prevent the cycle from starting if there is insufficient make up water or an error in the process. So instead of simply floats and relays, some logic (solid state or latches) needs to be implemented.

Why go through the trouble... when you can just use a dual peristaltic pump :) the water level never changes in the tank, and a simple float switch will shut the system down when you run out of saltwater makup.

[hahnmeister]

Well, the other thing I dont like about auto changers is that then you tend to neglect the other cleaning (or I know I would). When I do changes, I go ahead and suck out out a pocket of sand as well (I am a firm believer in a shallow sand bed that gets maintained) for cleaning. I scrape the glass, and try to remove any pockets of detritus I can find in the sump and main tank. An auto water changer doesnt do that... and IMO, going after these pockets of detritus is more important than water changes. The corals filter the water, clams eat the nitrates and ammonia and even phosphates. But detritus is the source of phosphates, nitrates, etc. Just my own opinion, because in my experiences, water changes arent all that important on a stable reef tank. I keep the fish low, the feeding low (is it just me, or does every wrasse stay fat w/o even needing feedings?), and as long as I keep the Ca and alk high, the corals keep growing. I do feed phyto for the corals and clams, but by the next day its all picked up in the skimmer anyways. OTOH, I had a couple tanks that I didnt scoop out the detritus...thinking I was feeding the pods, the plankton, dsb, etc. Then I needed even more water changes to keep the organics down... and every once&awhile I would get some phosphates. I can easily go a year w/o any water changes and everything grows just fine cuz the tanks are nice and stable. I base my water changing schedule on when I start to notice detritus of dirt that should be removed.

Heck, for some people, water changes cause more problems than good. The phosphates and hard metals that come with freshly mixed saltwater can be more of a shock...and by the time these chemicals settle out, then you do another water change... so your corals are always slightly stressed, grow slower, etc.

I have one good friend that was doing 50-80g almost every week on his 300g system and when I suggested he buy a calcium reactor instead and cut back on the changes... his corals all colored in more and started growing faster.

[BeanAnimal]

Water changes bad? Increasing the disolved metals? Come on.. thats a stretch! I can see water changes causing some stress... but being worse than not doing them? Unless you have another suitable means of export, they are a must.

[BeanAnimal]

Though, not all is lost. You have inspired me to get out the old Heavy Metal soundtrack and listen to... Heavy Metal (Takin' A Ride) by Don Felder... what a great tune. Thanks hahn!

[hahnmeister]

No really... its a big problem for some. There is a good deal of heavy metals (trace by human standards, but enough to cause ion imbalances in fresh saltwater) and phosphates in freshly mixed SW, and its even worse for those who have cruddy tapwater to begin with (ROs cant get everything...like nitrates for instance).

There have been articles written on it, and its been a topic that comes up here&there on RC and other forums. One potential benefit of a slow constant water changer could be that the slow rate means these levels will be kept very low, but if the rate is just high enough, or the dissolved metals, and phosphates (and whatever else) are fed too fast, you could end up doing 24/7 inhibiting as well. Thats why I prefer to just do one large cahnge and get it over with all at once...things level out after a few days, and its back to normal.

For some, doing water changes is more harm than good (for those with really cruddy tap/RO water), but for most, there is a good deal of nasty stuff in saltwater mix that just needs some time in the system to settle out.

[BeanAnimal]

Hahn, please show me studies that show this.

Also, you mention the fact that "the shock of water changes" and the elevated levels are causing this. The logic does not...well hold water if you try to apply it to a continuous change. There is no shock factor!

So assuming YOU MUST change water, then you could argue that you will have the shock factor. The nonstop change would alevite that problem. As well as move much of that proposed contaminate out before it is allowed to react in the system.

Like I said, I don't buy a bit of it. Please show some proof.

Your last point is also silly. Of course dumping bad water into your tank is a bad thing! Doing water changes with mud puddle water is certainly not the same as doing water changes with PROPERLY prepared water.

Like I said, your theory is a big loooong stretch that continuous water changes are more harmful than large intermitant changes.

Enjoy (and while your at it look up that tune, it will be good for you!)

[hahnmeister]

http://reefcentral.com/gallery/data/500/101919AUTO_water_changer.JPG

The powerhead, the mixing pump, and the drain solenoid are on timers. An example of the timing would be... Normal Operation (M-F): The powerhead pumps water from the main system's sump to the mixing tank from 2pm to 12am (lights are on from 2pm to 10pm). The mixing pump is on from 12am until 2pm every day. This way, the mixing tub is cut off from the main system and gets cooler, and then when the powerhead comes on every day during the week, it cools the system with its cooler water. The RO is always on, but controlled by a float valve. On Saturday/Sunday, the mixing operation changes things... The mixing pump and powerhead shut off/stay off at 12 am Saturday. The Drain Solenoid on the mixing tank opens at 12:05 and drains the tank until 12:10 when it shuts. The RO then fills the mixing tank for the rest of the day. The mixing pump comes back on at 6am Saturday. On Sunday, th user must remember to add salt. A heater is optional in the beginning, but after time, you just cold mix it because you know exactly how much to add. Then, on Monday at 2pm when the lights come on, the powerhead turns on, mixing pump turns off, and the cool fresh saltwater mixes into the system for a water change, as well as added volume and cooling on M-F.

[BeanAnimal]

I don't get it... so I cant tell you if it would work or not.

But it seems overly complicated with no failsafes. A very simple system can be setup without all the timers and tanks and resevoirs. It would consist of your ATO for RO/DI and a SALT WATER makup container. THATS IT. The level controls could be float switched, but a far simpler float valve and solenoid setup could be used.

I have designed several such systems and the failsafes that would prevent disaster.

On the same token, I feel that EVERY SUMP should have a drain to the sewer right below the rim. and a way to limit fresh water in the even of top-off failure.

HINT: Simple "spill trough" on a bobber can allow top off water into the tank, or direct it to the sewer in the event of solenoid failure.

[hahnmeister]

Ok, here it goes... Im not going to go hunting for the articles, but Im sure Riddle/Pro/Calfo/Holmes-Farley/etc can tell you if you ask. But here is what I remember...

Fresh Saltwater contains higher than normal amounts of phosphates and heavy metals (even newer mixes). These chemicals can take a few days to stabilize and get out of the water. This is why people run airstones after mixing the water, as well as let the water sit for a day or longer, but some of these chemicals still aren't dealt with until they are in the main system for a while. There are many reefers who used to do weekly water changes, thinking that the smaller changes would be better, but then there tanks were spending 2/3 of every week just going through this cycle. When they cut back to only doing one larger water change once a month, that meant the tank only was dealing with this fresh saltwater 3 days out of every month, rather than 3 days out of every week... and so things grew more.

If an auto water changer were constantly running... sure, its possible that the low % of fresh saltwater every day would mean no shock... but depending on the sensitivity and concentrations involved, it could mean a constant burden on the system as well... much in the same way that doing water changes weekly was causing more stress than just once a month.

It comes down to this... If you knew that in the process of a water change, there would be some sort of toxin added at the same time that would last 3 days, would you rather introduce that water slowly and constantly over the entire month, or do it all at once, have 3 days of stress, and then the rest w/o any? If you know your corals can deal with the stress of the 'all at once' water change... then why wouldnt you? The constant stress could slow growth or effect corals in other ways. Besides, most corals deal pretty well with shock... they slime up, they retract, etc. ... as long as conditions return to normal they pretty much just wait it out w/o complications. They do worse when constantly subjected to a stressor like excessive heat, a toxin or elevated nutrient level, etc. You could raise the temps to 90 on some corals for a day and have no problem... but 85 degrees for a month, and that coral will most likely bleach. Heck, many corals can sit out of the water for hours on end and be fine (even Xenia). Its my opinion that corals deal better with a big shock than with constant stressors.

Perhaps you should feel silly for being so quick to criticize. I know a few tunes that have that in the lyrics...

[BeanAnimal]

Hahn... Randy uses a continuous system if I remember correctly! And Anthony is a HUGE advocate of continuous water change systems. We have talked about it at length. I would be more than happy bring up your questions next time I see him (next week is our club picnic and the week after is our monthly meeting)

He (Anthony) likes to point out that sending colder water into the tank will allow it to drop in comaprison to the warmer tank water (bullrushing is the term he loves to use). His basic setup (model of the idea) would be a simple overflow pipe at the sump operating level. You nonstop dump colder water into the sump and the warmer water trickles out the overflow (in a nutshell).

Secondly, like I said, your reasoning is a pretty loooong stretch. Until you show supporting proof, I will view it as such.

Both sources you cited use or advocate the same method you are trying to paint as possibly detrimintal.....

I am not quick to critisize... I am quick to point out when I don't think something jives with the facts. Its that simple.

[hahnmeister]

Im never said that they were for or against anything with regards to auto water changers, but that they have confirmed and talked about the unstable contents of fresh mixed saltwater. Im sure that the amount of stress that an auto water changer can produce would be determined by the rate you are doing it. Whatever that percentage would be would determine how much of a concern these newly introduced heavy metals and chemicals would be. They might only be changing 1% per day, and someone else might be going for 10% a day... completely different. That threshold would be a good thing to know though...

Perhaps a good question for your next meeting?

[BeanAnimal]

BTW hahn... your making this into a complicated set of tangents again :)...

what if's
temperatures and how corals react
stressors
and tons of variables like bad makup water
unaged saltwater
etc.

Lets not go down this read... just cite the studies that say water changes are harmful. I think your making a looong stretch here (to say it again nicely)

[Aquaduck]

On these continuous auto water change systems, how do you accountfor freshwater evaporation? Daily evaporation rates can flutuate quite a bit with temperature and humidity. Do you just "ball park" it and dilute the new saltwater somewhat?

[hahnmeister]

Those 'complicated set of tangents' that you always like to ignore could be the unseen reasons why one person's corals grow and another's dont. Pretty relevant if you ask me.

I have asked for the threads/studies. They should be easy to find.. just have to ask the right people.

Aquaduck... On a continuous system, you would have to rely on exact metering pumps to be sure you removed as much as you added. This means that the water level in the sump for a Auto-Top-Off would still function as normal. On the 'weekly' auto changer, the water levels do the same thing since its only 1x per week that new saltwater is added.

[seattlerob]

I am by no means an expert on this subject, but have read the posts and something hahn states doesn't make sense to me....

Assuming my new SW mix does contain bad stuff (higher levels of phosphates & heavy metals, etc, which BTW I am not sure is actually true or not), would it make sense that 20g of new SW mix would have 4 times as much bad stuff as 5g? And if I added 5g of new SW once a week, and it took 3 days for that bad stuff to stablize in my tank, how could 20g added once a month also only take 3 days to stablize? I would think with 4 times as much bad stuff, the amount of time to stablize would be longer than 3 days....maybe 4 times as long?

In that same line of thought, wouldn't 0.71g (that's 5g divided by 7) of new SW have 7 times less bad stuff, which I would think would stablize in just under 12 hrs (3 days divided by 7 being less than 1/2 day)?

I know I'm over simplifying the math, but the concept that doing less frequent/more volume water changes would be less stressful to the tank's inhabitants than more frequent/less volume water changes is hard for me to grasp.

Also, I really hope the line of thought that new SW mix contains higher than normal levels of phos & heavy metals is not correct...cuz I've been thinking this whole time that water changes helps to improve the quality of the water in the tank!

[BeanAnimal]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7921272#post7921272 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by hahnmeister
Those 'complicated set of tangents' that you always like to ignore could be the unseen reasons why one person's corals grow and another's dont. Pretty relevant if you ask me. Hahn, I don't ignore them. I just don'y buy the way you tend to put them together to make conclusions. It's that simple.

You have a very distinct pattern of saying something, then over teh course of a dozen posts, confusing the issue with all kinds of science and techno mumbo jumbo that really proves nothing other than that your point has drifted from the original.

Please go back and read what your initial post on this subject was! I am not here to argue that makeup of saltwater. I responded to your comment in a very simple way. You have 100% contradicted yourself and at this point we are just wasting peoples time. You have cited sources to back up your claim, but they seem to be doing the contrary to what you feel is detrimental. If this confuses you, please go read your initial post regarding the cons of the continuous water change and the stress caused by "hard metals" and phosphates again.

[Aquaduck]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7921272#post7921272 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by hahnmeister
Aquaduck... On a continuous system, you would have to rely on exact metering pumps to be sure you removed as much as you added. This means that the water level in the sump for a Auto-Top-Off would still function as normal. On the 'weekly' auto changer, the water levels do the same thing since its only 1x per week that new saltwater is added.

Right. I mean for an autochanger with an overflow drain in the sump that goes direct to a sink or floor drain. When using one metering pump line to elevate the water level in the sump so that whatever volume is added flows to the drain, how can you regulate the salinity with this method?

[BeanAnimal]

Duck...

There are a lot fo thing to consider when setting up a changer like this.

You have 2 distinct systems that need to be tied together

1) Evaporative top off.
2) Water change services.

Depeding on the style of the ATO and the desired level of automation, many things will differ in a working setup.

In other words thats a pretty open ended question. The "basic" model is pretty easy to come up with. The failsafes to prevent unexpected results are another.

There are several methods you could use. As I mentioned, you could employ the use of solenoid valve on the sump itself and use a timer to disable the ATO and then dump water from the SALT resevoir, afterwards renabling the ATO. To keep things stable, the same float valve or switch could be used so that that ATO shutoff level and the changewater level match exactly.

A second method is to pump water from the sump into a metered container or using float switches to define a metered level in the sump. You would then pump the same amount of metered water back into the sum either from a metered container or using float valves or switches in the sump. Again the ATO would have to be disabled during the process.

Like I said, I have put a lot fo thought into the process and the logic involved to keep it running without incident. BTW this is a perfect job for a PLC and some float switches and valves. A PIC or ATMEL could also be employed to do the logic (or relays if you like ladder logic).

Bean

[Aquaduck]

I'm thinking maybe I could use my Aquacontroller III to automate a daily mini water change. I have a 45 gallon plastic barrell in the basement just collecting dust. I could use that as my new water storage vessell. Getting out the paper and pencil now....

[hahnmeister]

I am finding some of the info Bean was asking about... It appears Ron Shimek's was the one who was doing this research... until of course all the experts left RC. But just look at some of these levels in synthetic mix. Many of them dont go away until introduced to the tank as well (precipitate into the sandbed, get processed by bacteria, etc).
compare the 2...
http://www.caspianenvironment.org/itcamp/iran1_4_5.htm
http://www.aist.go.jp/GSJ/~imai/info/seawater.html

I havent heard back from Calfo yet, but Im told he is the king of massive water changes... not slow and constant.

[BeanAnimal]

You provided links to natural saltwater content? So freakin what? We don't have a natural soltwater environmnet hahns. We can find dozens of difference between our setups and the ocean. Not only are mineral and metal concentrations going to be different. Disolved gasses will differ, temperatures and lighting differ.

Find some real evidence and get back on topic.

You cite Anthony a lot, as if you want us to think you have an open dialog with the guy and are being mentored by him. If that is the case, then you may want to start following his adivce! You say you don't do water changes for a year? He would say that is 100% studid (but in a much nicer way).

You have tried to use him as an evidentiary source to denounce continuous water changes. But, you were informed that he likes the idea. You now are telling us that he likes MASSIVE water changes in an atempt to discredit the continuous water change idea. Yes hahn, HE and other members of our club have been known to do almost 100% water changes.... that still has NOTHING to do with the point here!!!!!

So that we get back on track. This thread is about continuous water changes. You have bent over backwards to try and prove that they are not desirable. You have yet to show why. It's that simple.

Now let me provide you with some information from the same guy that you so willing use as a source for your arguements:

In the article "water changes/exchanges" (http://www.wetwebmedia.com/watchgantart.htm) on wwm by ANTHONY CALFO he says:
The first and single-most stimulating thing you can do for aquarium vigor is to improve water quality; do more frequent water changes. It is completely lost on me why so many aquarists resist doing regular and hearty water exchanges.

He goes on to say:
But we cannot avoid water exchanges altogether. Do consider that even with a 50% monthly water change, 50% of the undesirables, and depleted desirables, are still left behind.

READ THE ARTICLE!!!

When you are done, then please go read the other author you cited: Randy Holmes Farley. Here is the LINK (http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2005-10/rhf/index.php) There is a LARGE SECTION ON THE BENEFITS OF CONTINUOUS WATER CHANGES!!!! In the article he says (and uses for a basis of his conculusion)These changes are slightly less efficient than single batch water changes of the same total volume. A continuous water change of 30% exactly matches one batch 26% water change. As with very small batch water changes, these have the advantage of neither stressing the organisms (assuming the change is done reasonably slowly), nor altering the water level in the aquarium. The ease of doing such changes automatically also makes it far more likely that busy or lazy aquarists will actually do them.

Here is an article by Shimek: ARTICLE (http://www.reefkeeping.com/issues/2002-02/rs/feature/index.php) Where he pretty much sums it up by saying most cases, it appears that about the only similarities that Reef Aquarium Water has to Natural Sea Water is that they both are wet, and they both contain somewhere in the range of three and one half percent (or 35%) salt by weight. It can truly be said that very little else is similar.

He notes the differences between SSW and NSW and some of the reasons (the extra STUFF in SSW) and end the article by saying
Questions as to why these differences occur, and discussions of their importance will be the subject of the subsequent articles discussing the results of this project. For the present, it is apparent that much of the worry over various chemical compositions and levels is simply unnecessary. It appears that the animals have significant latitude in altering either their external or internal environments to adjust for the differences seen in this study.


So you have cited (3) sources that are saying exactly the opposite if what you want them to. Can we please drop this whole subject now? Honestly Hahn...

If you point was that SSW has higher levels of "stuff" we all know that and can read it from the salt studies... if that is your point it is common knowledge and not part of the topic here. (back to the loonnnn stretch)

Your POINT was that those levels are harmful to your tank and that continuous water changes (or at one point did you say ANY water changes) were harmful to the tank! I said it was a LOOOOONNN STRETCH. You cited (3) people (experts) in an attempt to show I was wrong. However those (3) people (experts) say you are wrong. Go figure. Par for the course.

[curbdog]

Thanks BeanAnimal for the web links and the information.
I did not get the whole natural sea water thing, or salt water mix having heavy metals and othet bad stuff? I am using RO/DI water (as I thought everone was), and mix in advance of any water changes.
I am thinking of using a continuous water change set up with the overflow at one end of the system going into the floor drain, and salt water make up at the other end. I also have to consider fresh water make up. I like the idea of using peristaltic pumps at both ends of this system, and for fresh water make up.
The reasoning is that I would be doing a less amount of water change more often as opposed to a larger change less often.
I will have to figure out the % amount of water to change in a 24 hour or a 12 hour cycle. I have about 150 gl. net.
Thanks again everone for your input and knowledge.
Michael

[BeanAnimal]

Synthetic Salt Water may have elveated levels of some "metals" and other minerals or even chemicals that are not found in Natural Ocean Water. The reason is that the man made stuff has various contaminated from the manufacturing process or raw materials that are used. It is "close enough" for our purposes. The Ocean on the other hand balances itself out more or less. It is a LARGE self sustaining (for the most part) mechanism.

I suppose at some cost a much better salt mix could be produced.. but the question becomes one of value or benefit.

Those three articles will have plenty of information to get you started.

Yes the peristaltic pump idea is great! You can start off small and adjust as needed.

Bean

[hahnmeister]

Just keep an open mind before you go blasting away Bean, I havent finished yet... Also, I find it odd that you think I am merely trying to find '3 people to prove you wrong'... as if it all has to do with you or something. I never stated I was out to prove you wrong in the first place... but you seem to take any line of thinking other than your own as that. I am merely trying to have a discussion, bring up potential problems that a person might want to address, and most of all, keep an open mind. When we start behaving like fascists, constantly trying to find fault with each other's ways of thinking, and looking at things in black & white terms of right and wrong... then there is no longer a reason to have a forum. It might as well just be the www.askbean.com, then you can do your forcible suppression of opposing thoughts as much as you like. And its not 'PAR for course'... you just chose not to accept when I do have a point, and would rather mitigate any possibility of your opinion being questioned.

It adds up to something like this... what would you rather do? Lets look at drinking alchohol... would you rather be a little drunk all of the time, or just get blasted for a few nights and then have the rest of the month so you can have clarity? Being that some SW mixes have up to 50x the natural concentration of phosphate, that would mean that you could be adding a slow and steady supply of phosphate to your water that if done all at once, would precipitate out. Look at it as the equal and opposite of a calcium reactor or kalk drip, if you can wrap your head around it... if you add alot at once... calcium precipitates out right away. But if you constantly add a little, your calcium levels stay high. By doing a larger water change all at once... you could be removing all the phosphates right off the bat because their high concentration facilitates their removal.

Im still waiting for my response. Tell you what... In the future, Ill just go off and do my own research w/o letting you know, and then Ill just present the final results or responses from others so that you dont have so much time to scrutinize opposing thoughts. Get back on the meds man... this is just a reefkeeping forum.

[BeanAnimal]

hahn, I am not blasting away. You enetered a thread and made some statements regarding your opinion on continuous water changes. You took a stance and used what you considered fact to back that stance up.

When that fact was refuted for what it was; "opinion"; you dug in harder to prove your point. You went as far as saying water changes are bad for our systems. From there you said that the disproportionate amount of some substances in SSW compared to NSW are the main reason for these water changes being bad. You have tried to tie (3) experts to that opinion. I have shown that those three experts have the opposite opinion.

LETS BE VERY CLEAR ABOUT THIS! We are not debating the content of the change water. We are debating the effect of continuous water changes and their negative effect on the tank. That was the basis of your statement.

Hell hahns, you even touted your own method of doing a change every year at best. You did so almost in the same breath as citing Anthony Calfo to back up your point. If you have not figured it out yet, Anthony is a very opposed to the idea of not doing fequent or substantial water changes, no matter what other type of export you are using.

Did you even bother to read the posted links?

You started with continuous water changes being bad, but lept over to all water changes. Which btw would show that the continuous water change would be better from a stress standpoind (something that RANDY FARLEY ALSO SEEMS TO AGREE WITH! Did you read that link either?". So you have basically contradicted yourself. You have tried to use the (3) "experts" to back your claims. I DID NOT BRING THEM UP YOU DID!!!! However each of those experts has said the exact opposite of what you are trying to prove.

So not it is not about me or the "experts". It is about the statements you made and their validity.

Please don't waste my time with a page full of posts about the content of NSW as oppossed to SSW. IT IS NOT THE POINT HERE.

The point is very simple. Somebody asked about continuous water changes. You said it was a bad idea and gave reasons. Your reasons don't stand up to logic or the writings of the experts you so often refer to. Instead your going twist this entire topic into some scientific tangent that has no bearing on the original question... something you do time and time again.

This is a waste of my time and everybody elses who has trudged through yet one more thread you have left your mark on.

Please stop!

[hahnmeister]

I did use fact to back up my stance.. yes... go back and read exactly what I said. We both know that continuous changes result in some of the fresh water being drained off and wasted. I do know a few people where weekly water changes caused problems and these problems went away when they switched to monthly changes. I stated that many people look at automatic water changers as a means to not bother doing the other cleaning in their tank (vacuuming mulm, cleaning filters, running carbon/phosguard, etc) and then they end up with other problems related to this. These were the only things that I stated as absolutes. I merely suggested that it would be a good idea to look into the effects of the constant addition of excessive nutrients to the system through the mixed water. I came up with a question. I then make theories based on this even if they are wrong so that the problem can be thought out. Then I ask for educated opinions from open minded people who can also entertain the idea. If the potential problem is proven to not be so, then its forgotten. No big deal. It doesnt mean that it shouldnt even be thought about.

You say that we are not debating the content of the change water... ok, fine. Ill entertain that. IF the change water is 100% great and no problems can arise from its contents, then I agree... constant water changers are great! But its always a good idea to take into account the content of synthetic saltwater you are mixing, as it is part of that automatic changing system... without it, the constant changer doesnt exist.

I never said that I think not doing water changes is superior... just that its possible and one can still have a reef tank with great growth and color.

The reasons I stated that I didnt like constant change systems werent related to me questioning the content of the synthetic mixes... there were other reasons.

Ok, so I wont waste your time with links to how SSW compares to NSW. Ill just finish asking some others about their opinions and post here when Im done.

[BeanAnimal]

Also, I find it odd that you think I am merely trying to find '3 people to prove you wrong'... as if it all has to do with you or something.

You have cited those (3) people hahn. All I did was show you that they said the exact opposite of what you are trying to assert.

I never stated I was out to prove you wrong in the first place... but you seem to take any line of thinking other than your own as that. I am merely trying to have a discussion, bring up potential problems that a person might want to address, and most of all, keep an open mind. There is no problem with that, other than the fact that you don't EVER admit to being wrong. It is not a discussion. It's a constant defense of your assumptions with a never ending twist.

When we start behaving like fascists, constantly trying to find fault with each other's ways of thinking, and looking at things in black & white terms of right and wrong... Your the one who seems to have a knack four bouncing in the door with your lab robe on to teach everybody why they are wrong. The problem is you don't take well to being told you are incorrect. Instead you just dig in and flood the thread with science and tangents in hopes that something will stick.

It might as well just be the www.askbean.com, then you can do your forcible suppression of opposing thoughts as much as you like And its not 'PAR for course'... you just chose not to accept when I do have a point, and would rather mitigate any possibility of your opinion being questioned. Hahn you make good points sometimes and even get the science and fact correct as well. The problem is that you tie it all together in the wrong way and continue to think you are correct. You kill any good point you have with the rest of the nonsense.

This is one more thread that I would ask you to go REREAD until you understand where you got sidetracked. My point has remained the same.. yours keeps adapting in an attempt to keep you afloat.

It adds up to something like this... what would you rather do? Lets look at drinking alchohol... would you rather be a little drunk all of the time, or just get blasted for a few nights and then have the rest of the month so you can have clarity? There you go again. It is just not a usefull analogy. What about drinking 2 glasses of wine a day hahns? Most studies indicate that that is good for your health in MANY aspects and has not been found to be a problem.... unless of course you have OTHER problems to begin with. Your analogy is useless for our purposes here, so how can we use it to draw a conclusion. Your opinion can be explored, but if you look at the provided links, a scientist has already done that for you.

Being that some SW mixes have up to 50x the natural concentration of phosphate, that would mean that you could be adding a slow and steady supply of phosphate to your water that if done all at once, would precipitate out. Hahn, if it precipitates out, would you then conclude that the water you put it into was already saturated or the MIX water was already saturated? You can not increase the concentration of either liquid past the precipitation point by adding one to the other. ONE OF THEM would have already precipitated on it's own.

Look at it as the equal and opposite of a calcium reactor or kalk drip, if you can wrap your head around it... if you add alot at once... calcium precipitates out right away. But if you constantly add a little, your calcium levels stay high. Hahn again, if the system is already saturated, adding more will cause precipitation. If you add it slower than it is used, or at the same rate, then it will not precipitate. Again a 100% wrong analogy. Nothing to wrap your head around... your just totaly off base here.

By doing a larger water change all at once... you could be removing all the phosphates right off the bat because their high concentration facilitates their removal. You are now contradicting yourself. I suggest you go read your entier post from the getting drunk part downwards. Your all over the map here dude.

A really suggest reading the Article by Mr Farley. All of the above questions are answered in very concise detail with the math and science to prove it.

Just give it a break.

[hahnmeister]

Give what a break exactly? Im not sure what you see this as...

[seattlerob]

Bean: thanks for the links...very good reading. It seems that those articles all indicate water changes are good.

From what I took away, when comparing small/frequent water changes (including continuous water changes) vs large/less frequent water changes, the PRO to the small/frequent changes would be less stress to the organisms in the tank, since the percentage of change of all things (both good & bad) is much lower. The CON would be less effective than large/less frequent changes, that being because the small/frequent changes you actually end up removing a percentage of the newly changed water. The example of a continuous water change of 30% exactly matching one 26% water change.

To me, the PRO of less stress would seem to outweigh the CON of effectiveness, since the CON only amounts to using a little more SSW to accomplish the same net result.

I've been doing 5% water changes 2x/weekly, but I'm very inclined into looking into something like a litermeter to be used for continuous water changes (actually I've been looking into a litermeter to automate my CA & Alk supplementation, but I think I could also set it up to do the continuous water changes).

[BeanAnimal]

You pretty much got it.

The other pro is the "hands off" portion of the change. You simply mix saltwater and put it into the resevoir. You can use the math randy showed (or from the other links here) to develop a continuous change rate that will be similar to the 5%@ 2x per week.

Check with Randy in the chem forum... I think there is a more reliable continuous duty pump that will do the same thing but "better?".

I would oncorporate a "high level" and "low level" float switch or latch circuit into the system just in case something does get out of whack between the two metered hoses.