• You are viewing the forum as a Guest, please login (you can use your Facebook, Twitter, Google or Microsoft account to login) or register using this link: Log in or Sign Up

"Aquarium Science" has some new planted tank articles

"Sanity Check
Let’s do some simple math here. One PPM per 100 gallons is 0.36 grams. One ppm per 20 gallons is 0.09 grams. Many have established that any decent planted aquarium will reduce the CO2 levels from 10 to 4 ppm in three hours"
I think I will stop reading that now.
 
Whatever you think of the author he’s being cheeky lifting photos from social media and associating it with his advice. Social media copyright is image copyright.

His site:

1636231469268.jpeg


Original Facebook post:

1636232907843.jpeg


There’s a certain irony that he used a photo of a tank that was setup in a manner that was the complete opposite to anything he suggests.

No credit on the photo @Aquarium Gardens so assuming this is copyright infringement.
 
MichaelJ said:
Well, I hate to disagree with you on that one JPC. I know you have a scientific background (just as I do) but his (aquariumscience.org) approach is not very scientific at all...
Click to expand...
Hi @MichaelJ

No problem, Michael. What is interesting to me about his website is how he has highlighted our polarized views. And I've noticed a similar response on other forums. It's also interesting to speculate on his motive behind AquariumScience. His choice of a .org domain extension is used by nonprofit organizations. So, presumably, he's not in it for the money. Beyond that, we can but guess!

JPC
 
Nick potts said:
Had a read through some of the articles (mostly the planted ones), sounds to me like mostly the ramblings of a "superior" degreed chemist with a hate for "profit-driven marketers" who likes to stay anonymous.

A lot of what he says can be disproven just on here in a few minutes.
Click to expand...
I will skip reading his articles. Having a science degree doesn't necessarily validate his arguments. A case in point is Dennis Wong. His articles are well written, thoroughly researched and supported by science and practice. I have not found any of his arguments I disagree with. Yet I am surprised that his profession is not in science, but in legal and business,.

dw1305 said:
Hi all,

I wouldn't argue with that. I think they are laudable aims and the majority of what he says makes perfect sense (or re-inforces my own prejudices, delete as appropriate). This is what he has to say about <"Diana Walstad's book">.


cheers Darrel
Click to expand...
Another case in point is Diana Walstad. She has a degree in microbiology and her book, Ecology of Planted Aquarium, is well regarded in the hobby. I found her arguments convincing, thoroughly referenced, and sound scientific on paper, yet cannot always be backed up in practice. One example is that she promotes no water change, no dosing approach by backing up her argument with data that fish food and tap water contain all nutrients plants need.

Ecology is not an exact science as no two sites are identical, not to mention that an aquarium is a different environment. Transferring findings from outdoor studies to a glass box environment is an extrapolation and not necessarily applicable.
 
Hi all,
jaypeecee said:
And I've noticed a similar response on other forums. It's also interesting to speculate on his motive behind AquariumScience. His choice of a .org domain extension is used by nonprofit organizations. So, presumably, he's not in it for the money.
Click to expand...
I honestly think the main motive is just to help people have successful aquariums that they can enjoy, and that is a laudable aim.

I think of him/her/them as an aquatic <"James Randi debunking the paranormal">. I would actually recommend <"it as a web site">, other than the <"planted tank pages">.
jaypeecee said:
What is interesting to me about his website is how he has highlighted our polarized views.
Click to expand...
I think that it is quite divisive, mainly because it is very "black" and "white", there are no shades of grey and no nuanced arguments, it is just <"my way or the highway">. If you express an opinion, but with the proviso it is an opinion, usually people <"won't take offence">, but if you say <"THE EARTH IS DEFINITELY FLAT"> then people are probably less likely to listen to the rest of your argument, even if that does make some sense.
tiger15 said:
Another case in point is Diana Walstad. She has a degree in microbiology and her book, Ecology of Planted Aquarium, is well regarded in the hobby. I found her arguments convincing, thoroughly referenced, and sound scientific on paper, yet cannot always be backed up in practice. One example is that she promotes no water change, no dosing approach by backing up her argument with data that fish food and tap water contain all nutrients plants need.
Click to expand...
She revised her opinion about water movement and water changes, have a look at <"Walstad revises">. I'd be honest and say that I've always felt that using an organic rich sediment to generate CO2 without sufficient water movement has the potential to be a <"recipe for disaster">.
tiger15 said:
Ecology is not an exact science as no two sites are identical, not to mention that an aquarium is a different environment. Transferring findings from outdoor studies to a glass box environment is an extrapolation and not necessarily applicable.
Click to expand...
That is the problem for me. I can see the appeal of <"empirical measurement">, but there are a lot of variables and I think <"a multivariate approach"> is more likely to be successful.

cheers Darrel
 
dw1305 said:
Back to <"Lord Kelvin and stamp collecting">. I think "shades of grey" are conceptually easier for scientists who work in the "softer", more inferential sciences.
Click to expand...
Hi Darrel (@dw1305)

When Newtonian mechanics is sufficient to describe our observations, I can handle that. But, there must be many shades of grey for those working in Quantum Mechanics. Heisenberg encapsulated this in his famous Uncertainty Principle. Of all Newton's laws, I like his fourth one the best. Fourth, I hear you say. Yes, his fourth. If you'd like to know more, I'll PM you. ;)

JPC
 
Hi all,
Rockfella said:
This !
Click to expand...
Yes, it is an interesting table.
.......... Green is the “Alert” level where increased testing is called for, yellow is the “Alarm” level where one should do a 50% water change. And “Toxic” is the level where one should do a 75% water change. Note many of these levels require diluting the aquarium water with 9 parts of distilled water. Test the diluted water. Multiply the results by ten and you have the levels in the aquarium.

The numbers for the toxicity of ammonia, nitrite and nitrate will come as a shock to most experienced hobbyists. But the numbers are supported by a lot of research by universities...........
Click to expand...
I'll ignore the "but what happens when the pH rises?" argument, other than to <"say your fish die">, but I'd agree these aren't the sort of water parameters that many of us would be happy with. He actually <"acknowledge this">.
.......... Having said that one should keep ammonia at the “undetectable level”. Note that the API ammonia test will measure 0.25 ppm (very light green) even with distilled water. So “undetectable level” actually means equal to or less than 0.25 ammonia as measured by the API test. An aquarium which has ammonia at an “undetectable level” is probably a healthy aquarium with low bacterial counts. Low bacterial count is always the chief goal in aquarium water. Low ammonia and low bacteria count typically go hand in hand in any established aquarium ........
Click to expand...
........ And this supposedly gives one a clear picture of whatever disease the fish has. This is simply hogwash. There is simply no way to determine what disease a fish has from the water parameters. And red spots on a fish are only very rarely ammonia poisoning, 99% of the time it is a bacterial disease called “hemorrhagic septicemia”.

A related myth is that it is that somehow it is important to test your water frequently with test kits such as API Master test Kit, Nutrafin Test Kit, Tetra easy strips, Sera Aquatest, API 5 in 1 Test Strips or the Fluval Water test Kit. This makes a lot of money for a lot of manufacturers of test kits but it does little good for most aquarium hobbyists.........
Click to expand...
When I first read through the site a thought was that a lot of the information was more applicable to waste water treatment (or at a pinch aquaculture), but at that time I had no idea about quite how <"insane the stocking densities were">.

cheers Darrel
 
Hi all,
MichaelJ said:
When people are mad, they move faster ?
Click to expand...
How about: "when people are mad they write posts and emails they will later regret?"
jaypeecee said:
Of all Newton's laws, I like his fourth one the best.
Click to expand...
I think there really is a fourth law? Something to do with the loss of heat over time.
So: "If your blood is boiling wait until it cools before you send that email"

You may be getting a theme here.

cheers Darrel
 
dw1305 said:
I think there really is a fourth law? Something to do with the loss of heat over time.

cheers Darrel
Click to expand...

Newton's law of cooling that relates temperture difference to heat rate. Most commonly used to describe convective heat transfer.

Sent from my SM-G970U1 using Tapatalk
 
Newton has contributions in many field: Mathematics, heat, optics, mechanics and gravity. Newton's first, second and third law refer to his contributions in mechanics and gravity only.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top