Activated Charcoal

[Brett Miller]

I know what AC is and how it works. What exactly does it do in an
aquarium? What is it adsorbing? Not the ammonia, NH3 or NH4 is it?
So what? Color, odor?

Thanks
BM

[dc]

Brett Miller > wrote in
:

> I know what AC is and how it works. What exactly does it do in an
> aquarium? What is it adsorbing? Not the ammonia, NH3 or NH4 is it?
> So what? Color, odor?

Colour, odor, some plant nutrients... lots of stuff, but no not NH3/4. Use
Zeolite if you want something to absorb ammonia.

Active carbon is not really necessary, it is just a polisher, but it can be
detrimental if you are keeping live plants.

[Dick]

On Thu, 07 Sep 2006 16:37:10 -0400, Brett Miller
> wrote:

>I know what AC is and how it works. What exactly does it do in an
>aquarium? What is it adsorbing? Not the ammonia, NH3 or NH4 is it?
>So what? Color, odor?
>
>Thanks
>BM

Not much and not for long. I quit using charcoal.

dick

[[email protected]]

This is what I've been hearing about charcoal... If no charcoal then
what?

I have a clown loack tank, a ciclid/cat fish tank and a spotted green
puffer tank all with AC 500's.... What would one use along with the big
sponges and bio stars thingies? Peat for the CL's- soft water? This
non-charcoal thing is new thinking for me...

Thanks, Karl.

Dick wrote:
> > wrote:
> >What is it adsorbing? Not the ammonia, NH3 or NH4 is it?
> >So what? Color, odor?
>
> Not much and not for long. I quit using charcoal.
>
> dick

[Köi-Lö]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> This is what I've been hearing about charcoal... If no charcoal then
> what?

Partial water changes. I gave up charcoal ages ago and don't miss it.

> I have a clown loack tank, a ciclid/cat fish tank and a spotted green
> puffer tank all with AC 500's.... What would one use along with the big
> sponges and bio stars thingies? Peat for the CL's- soft water? This
> non-charcoal thing is new thinking for me...

Nothing. With partial water changes you don't need anything else in the
filter but the sponges and stars.

--
KL....
Frugal ponding since 1995.
My Pond & Aquarium Pages:
http://tinyurl.com/9do58
~~~~ }<((((*> ~~~ }<{{{{(ö> ~~~~ }<((((({*>

[dc]

wrote in news:1158089791.785515.162800
@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com:

> This is what I've been hearing about charcoal... If no charcoal then
> what?

Biological filtration and good husbandry.

[Dick]

On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 19:37:52 -0500, dc > wrote:

wrote in news:1158089791.785515.162800
:
>
>> This is what I've been hearing about charcoal... If no charcoal then
>> what?
>
>Biological filtration and good husbandry.

What is "biological filtration"?

dick

[Köi-Lö]

"Dick" > wrote in message
...
>
> What is "biological filtration"?
>

That the process where certain bacteria turn ammonia to nitrites, then
another bacteria turn the nitrites to nitrate. Both ammonia and nitrites
are toxic to fish. Nitrates are not unless excessively high.
--
KL....
Frugal ponding since 1995.
My Pond & Aquarium Pages:
http://tinyurl.com/9do58
~~~~ }<((((*> ~~~ }<{{{{(ö> ~~~~ }<((((({*>

[Dick]

On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 09:30:36 -0500, Köi-Lö <$##$$@$##$$.#$$> wrote:

>
>"Dick" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> What is "biological filtration"?
>>
>
>That the process where certain bacteria turn ammonia to nitrites, then
>another bacteria turn the nitrites to nitrate. Both ammonia and nitrites
>are toxic to fish. Nitrates are not unless excessively high.



One does not filter "in" or "out" bacteria. Nitrates are not
biological, they are just chemcals. The bacteria are the active
agents.

Every pond is full of bacteria, all doing special things.

No filter, I can imagine, would be classified as "biological
filtration." Why would one want to filter out bacteria?

dick

[dc]

Dick > wrote in
:

> What is "biological filtration"?

A natural process that occurs everywhere in nature that involves the
recycling of nitrogenous byproducts into various forms. The cycle is
incomplete in aquaria and generally is limited to the conversion of ammonia
into nitrite and nitrite into nitrate.

The first two byproducts are very toxic and can kill fish in short order
when found in quantity, the last byproduct is many times less toxic than
the others and generally only increases stress levels and the chance for
shock and infection when found in very high quantities.

In nature nitrate is further converted into nitrogen.

Without biological filtration every fish in your aquarium would be dead
right now.

[dc]

Dick > wrote in
:

> No filter, I can imagine, would be classified as "biological
> filtration." Why would one want to filter out bacteria?

Your semantics are very limited.

Biological filtration is a widely used term to describe the natural process
of the nitrogen cycle. It has nothing to do with the "filtering out of
bacteria", which doesn't even make sense. Bacteria will adhere to any
surface where it is able to obtains the means for it to survive--it exists
in every part of your filter.

Biological filtration describes the action of biological organisms
(bacteria) on organic chemicals (nitrogenous wastes) as they convert them
into various, and progressively less toxic forms.

[Dick]

On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 18:16:55 -0500, dc > wrote:

>Dick > wrote in
:
>
>> What is "biological filtration"?
>
>A natural process that occurs everywhere in nature that involves the
>recycling of nitrogenous byproducts into various forms. The cycle is
>incomplete in aquaria and generally is limited to the conversion of ammonia
>into nitrite and nitrite into nitrate.
>
>The first two byproducts are very toxic and can kill fish in short order
>when found in quantity, the last byproduct is many times less toxic than
>the others and generally only increases stress levels and the chance for
>shock and infection when found in very high quantities.
>
>In nature nitrate is further converted into nitrogen.
>
>Without biological filtration every fish in your aquarium would be dead
>right now.

The subject of this thread is "Re:activated Charcoal.

You have taken some effort to describe, what appears to be, a natural
process. Even mention of "biological filtration" would appear to be
off topic. Mechanical filtration and their relation to charcoal would
be close to the subject.

Why did you insert your "biological filtration" know how into a
discussion about "activated charcoal"?

dick

[[email protected]]

Ah, perhaps I shouldn't feed the troll....

Because biological filtration is totally relevant. Activated carbon,
especially in the quantities used in some filters (ug filter tube
intakes being the worst case I can think of), isn't necessary in a
well-kept aquarium and can even be detrimental to plants.

Methinks he's just a troll, though, as that comment re filtering
bacteria was just plain stupid.

Ciao.

Dick wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 18:16:55 -0500, dc > wrote:
>
> >Dick > wrote in
> :
> >
> >> What is "biological filtration"?
> >
> >A natural process that occurs everywhere in nature that involves the
> >recycling of nitrogenous byproducts into various forms. The cycle is
> >incomplete in aquaria and generally is limited to the conversion of ammonia
> >into nitrite and nitrite into nitrate.
> >
> >The first two byproducts are very toxic and can kill fish in short order
> >when found in quantity, the last byproduct is many times less toxic than
> >the others and generally only increases stress levels and the chance for
> >shock and infection when found in very high quantities.
> >
> >In nature nitrate is further converted into nitrogen.
> >
> >Without biological filtration every fish in your aquarium would be dead
> >right now.
>
> The subject of this thread is "Re:activated Charcoal.
>
> You have taken some effort to describe, what appears to be, a natural
> process. Even mention of "biological filtration" would appear to be
> off topic. Mechanical filtration and their relation to charcoal would
> be close to the subject.
>
> Why did you insert your "biological filtration" know how into a
> discussion about "activated charcoal"?
>
> dick

[dc]

Dick > wrote in
:

> dick

Your name is very apt.

[Gill Passman]

Dick is not a troll.....he has an easy way of looking after his fish
without needing to be a chemist....if it works for him why should any
the rest of us disrespect his experience...it might not work for all of
us but afterall a good water change and tank maintenance regime is
really the answer to a lot of ills....you don't need to be a chemist to
know this....just a good fishkeeper....

Gill

[dc]

Gill Passman > wrote in news:450b2df6$0
:

> Dick is not a troll.....he has an easy way of looking after his fish
> without needing to be a chemist....if it works for him why should any
> the rest of us disrespect his experience...it might not work for all of

No one is disrespecting his methods. Many people keep fish very well in
blissful ignorance to the specifics of how their little micro-ecosystem
really functions, and that is fine. It is his attitude that is the
problem.

He asked a question, I answered it, and he responded with ignorant slander.
He may not make a living as a troll, but he has the right attitude to be
one.

[dc]

Dick > wrote in
:

> You have taken some effort to describe, what appears to be, a natural
> process. Even mention of "biological filtration" would appear to be
> off topic. Mechanical filtration and their relation to charcoal would
> be close to the subject.

> Why did you insert your "biological filtration" know how into a
> discussion about "activated charcoal"?

I'll have one last go at explaining why it can be helpful to understand
what biological filtration is and why it is beneficial to implement it
well in a filter instead of relying on pure mechanical filtration alone.
If you have the wherewithal to repsond to the following message I hope
you will lose the crass tone you used in your earlier postings.

Before I go any further you might do well to Google "biological
filtration" and "aquarium". You will come up with over 100,000 hits on
the topic. That should give you some clue as to the scope of its
relevance to aquaria.

The difference between biological filtration and pure mechanical
filtration in a filter is simple. Biological filtration goes out of its
way to provide for an environment that favours the bacteria that keep
your water healthy, whereas pure mechanical filtration is usually less
than the ideal environment for healthy bacteria to thrive long-term;
this doesn't mean that biological filtration isn't taking place in
mechanically slanted filter media, just that biologically oriented media
does it a lot better for a lot longer.

Mechanical media is designed to trap as much debris as possible without
getting clogged unreasonably fast. A good example of this kind of
medium is floss or the typical media cartridge you must replace monthly
(according to the manual) on Marineland penguin filters. Floss is very
good at stopping debris, but it can quickly become so thick with it
needs to be replaced to allow for good flow.

If flow is prevented biological filtration can halt to due lack of
oxygen or simple lack of exposure to the pollutant that must be
filtered. The worst case scenario is that ammonia is not effectively
removed from the water as a result of the lack of flow, leading to a
build-up of the toxin which leads to fish death or at least severe
stress or injury to the animals living in that toxic environment.

The sort of bacteria that removes toxic biological byproducts like
ammonia and nitrite can survive on any surface in your tank, but the
sort of filter media that allows for these bacteria to thrive in
abundance without preventing good water flow and oxygenation is the most
resilient to these sorts of "crashes." Biological filtration is
important to understand because while it may be natural, it is not a
given in aquaria.

The most common type of biologically oriented media these days might be
the biowheel. This paddlewheel device typically has constant exposure
to both air and water that has already been filtered mechanically. This
relatively debris free water and high oxygen exposure allows for
nitrifying bacteria to thrive regardless of the conditions elsewhere in
the tank. Biowheels are so effective at removing any free ammonia and
nitrite that many water purification plants use a much larger scaled
version of the biowheel in the process of purifying drinking water.

Sponges are another good biological media. Sponges are porous enough to
allow debris to be trapped effectively without becoming clogged too
quickly. The extremely high internal surface area of a sponge allows
for bacteria to colonize a very large surface that has constant exposure
to flowing water. The nature of this environment allows for
heterotrophic bacteria to have excellent and prolonged contact with the
material it is breaking down while also allowing nitrifying bacteria
constant exposure to the dissolved toxic byproducts. So long as the
flow remains strong inside a sponge adequate oxygen can be supplied to
the nitrifying bacteria allowing them to do their job effectively. This
describes your basic strainer observation without ignoring what is truly
responsible for the breakdown of debris and the toxic organic byproducts
of the breakdown. Sponges must be cleaned or replaced regularly to
allow all this to take place effectively. A sponge will allow free
ammonia and nitrite to pass before it is no longer effective at
preventing the passage of debris-as such tending to the biological
aspects of sponge filters is more important than their mechanical
purpose.

There are biological filter media types that can be placed after a
sponge filter that aid in the removal of this missed ammonia thereby
increasing the lifespan of the average sponge without contributing to
loss of flow and increasing the filters overall potential to perform
proper filtration to a healthy tank. The most common example of this
kind of media is porous ceramic rings. Ceramic rings allow water to
pass easily while exposing it to an enormous surface area without
trapping a lot of waste particles. Ceramic rings are more biological
than mechanical because they are not very good for trapping much debris
but have a great capacity to remove ammonia and nitrite.

There are yet more biological filter media types that combine all these
elements. Eheim produces a substance called Ehfisubstrat which consists
of small and medium sized beads of spun quartz. This media is used in
great quantity in Eheim filters which are renowned as being one of the
best canister filters available commercially. The spun quartz is
ridiculously porous and has the capacity to capture and breakdown huge
volumes of material while allowing for an environment for massive
colonies of nitrifying bacteria to thrive in unimpeded flow. Such
filters usually have mechanically oriented pre-stages which aid in
capturing and eroding larger particles into byproducts small enough to
enter the biological media stage without clogging it.

If you have gotten through all this you should now have a good
understanding of why it may be smart to use filtration that can provide
an environment where these processes can take place long-term without
risk of it all breaking down. Doing so wisely is the most low
maintenance solution to long-term aquarium filtration.

You asked me why I brought up biological filtration in the first place.
The original poster seemed perplexed over the idea of not having to use
active carbon in his filter. He wanted to know if he gave it up what he
should be substituting in its place. The answer is to use a method of
filtration that allows for effective removal of debris and biological
toxic wastes while making sure this process can transpire effectively at
all times.

This entire essay was summed up in a nutshell in my original suggestion
for the original poster to use "biological filtration and good
husbandry."

You apparently accomplish this in your aquariums by ensuring your self-
termed "strainers" always have good flow and constant exposure to
circulating water. That is effective. However, it is ignorant for you
to use your experience as an example to attack the entire notion
mentioning biological filtration especially considering how much effort
there is in the entire water industry in developing new and more
effective means for ensuring that biological filtration takes place
effectively long-term and in resilience to the changing conditions of
the filter and aquarium.

[Dick]

On Sat, 16 Sep 2006 00:50:38 -0500, dc > wrote:

>Dick > wrote in
:
>
>> You have taken some effort to describe, what appears to be, a natural
>> process. Even mention of "biological filtration" would appear to be
>> off topic. Mechanical filtration and their relation to charcoal would
>> be close to the subject.
>
>> Why did you insert your "biological filtration" know how into a
>> discussion about "activated charcoal"?
>
>I'll have one last go at explaining why it can be helpful to understand
>what biological filtration is and why it is beneficial to implement it
>well in a filter instead of relying on pure mechanical filtration alone.
>If you have the wherewithal to repsond to the following message I hope
>you will lose the crass tone you used in your earlier postings.
>
>Before I go any further you might do well to Google "biological
>filtration" and "aquarium". You will come up with over 100,000 hits on
>the topic. That should give you some clue as to the scope of its
>relevance to aquaria.
>
>The difference between biological filtration and pure mechanical
>filtration in a filter is simple. Biological filtration goes out of its
>way to provide for an environment that favours the bacteria that keep
>your water healthy, whereas pure mechanical filtration is usually less
>than the ideal environment for healthy bacteria to thrive long-term;
>this doesn't mean that biological filtration isn't taking place in
>mechanically slanted filter media, just that biologically oriented media
>does it a lot better for a lot longer.
>
>Mechanical media is designed to trap as much debris as possible without
>getting clogged unreasonably fast. A good example of this kind of
>medium is floss or the typical media cartridge you must replace monthly
>(according to the manual) on Marineland penguin filters. Floss is very
>good at stopping debris, but it can quickly become so thick with it
>needs to be replaced to allow for good flow.
>
>If flow is prevented biological filtration can halt to due lack of
>oxygen or simple lack of exposure to the pollutant that must be
>filtered. The worst case scenario is that ammonia is not effectively
>removed from the water as a result of the lack of flow, leading to a
>build-up of the toxin which leads to fish death or at least severe
>stress or injury to the animals living in that toxic environment.
>
>The sort of bacteria that removes toxic biological byproducts like
>ammonia and nitrite can survive on any surface in your tank, but the
>sort of filter media that allows for these bacteria to thrive in
>abundance without preventing good water flow and oxygenation is the most
>resilient to these sorts of "crashes." Biological filtration is
>important to understand because while it may be natural, it is not a
>given in aquaria.
>
>The most common type of biologically oriented media these days might be
>the biowheel. This paddlewheel device typically has constant exposure
>to both air and water that has already been filtered mechanically. This
>relatively debris free water and high oxygen exposure allows for
>nitrifying bacteria to thrive regardless of the conditions elsewhere in
>the tank. Biowheels are so effective at removing any free ammonia and
>nitrite that many water purification plants use a much larger scaled
>version of the biowheel in the process of purifying drinking water.
>
>Sponges are another good biological media. Sponges are porous enough to
>allow debris to be trapped effectively without becoming clogged too
>quickly. The extremely high internal surface area of a sponge allows
>for bacteria to colonize a very large surface that has constant exposure
>to flowing water. The nature of this environment allows for
>heterotrophic bacteria to have excellent and prolonged contact with the
>material it is breaking down while also allowing nitrifying bacteria
>constant exposure to the dissolved toxic byproducts. So long as the
>flow remains strong inside a sponge adequate oxygen can be supplied to
>the nitrifying bacteria allowing them to do their job effectively. This
>describes your basic strainer observation without ignoring what is truly
>responsible for the breakdown of debris and the toxic organic byproducts
>of the breakdown. Sponges must be cleaned or replaced regularly to
>allow all this to take place effectively. A sponge will allow free
>ammonia and nitrite to pass before it is no longer effective at
>preventing the passage of debris-as such tending to the biological
>aspects of sponge filters is more important than their mechanical
>purpose.
>
>There are biological filter media types that can be placed after a
>sponge filter that aid in the removal of this missed ammonia thereby
>increasing the lifespan of the average sponge without contributing to
>loss of flow and increasing the filters overall potential to perform
>proper filtration to a healthy tank. The most common example of this
>kind of media is porous ceramic rings. Ceramic rings allow water to
>pass easily while exposing it to an enormous surface area without
>trapping a lot of waste particles. Ceramic rings are more biological
>than mechanical because they are not very good for trapping much debris
>but have a great capacity to remove ammonia and nitrite.
>
>There are yet more biological filter media types that combine all these
>elements. Eheim produces a substance called Ehfisubstrat which consists
>of small and medium sized beads of spun quartz. This media is used in
>great quantity in Eheim filters which are renowned as being one of the
>best canister filters available commercially. The spun quartz is
>ridiculously porous and has the capacity to capture and breakdown huge
>volumes of material while allowing for an environment for massive
>colonies of nitrifying bacteria to thrive in unimpeded flow. Such
>filters usually have mechanically oriented pre-stages which aid in
>capturing and eroding larger particles into byproducts small enough to
>enter the biological media stage without clogging it.
>
>If you have gotten through all this you should now have a good
>understanding of why it may be smart to use filtration that can provide
>an environment where these processes can take place long-term without
>risk of it all breaking down. Doing so wisely is the most low
>maintenance solution to long-term aquarium filtration.
>
>You asked me why I brought up biological filtration in the first place.
>The original poster seemed perplexed over the idea of not having to use
>active carbon in his filter. He wanted to know if he gave it up what he
>should be substituting in its place. The answer is to use a method of
>filtration that allows for effective removal of debris and biological
>toxic wastes while making sure this process can transpire effectively at
>all times.
>
>This entire essay was summed up in a nutshell in my original suggestion
>for the original poster to use "biological filtration and good
>husbandry."
>
>You apparently accomplish this in your aquariums by ensuring your self-
>termed "strainers" always have good flow and constant exposure to
>circulating water. That is effective. However, it is ignorant for you
>to use your experience as an example to attack the entire notion
>mentioning biological filtration especially considering how much effort
>there is in the entire water industry in developing new and more
>effective means for ensuring that biological filtration takes place
>effectively long-term and in resilience to the changing conditions of
>the filter and aquarium.

You have a lot of detail and use lots of fancy words, but to me you
can't see the forest for all of the trees.

You name numerous filtration media, but I see each as another way to
strain the solids. You do not acknowledge erosion allowing the
reduced solids to return to the tank.

For all of what you say, nothing says how the tank conditions are
better than what my tanks have. I did the charcoal thing, in my 75
gallon I have 2 Penguin 330s which had bio wheels. I had air stones.
One by one I removed these items. Now I merely have filters. The
water quality has not changed. My tanks have been running for over 3
years.

Perhaps my tanks do well thanks to the 20% water changes twice weekly.
If so, that is fine by me. I believe in "keep it simple." Simple
means easier to do which, for me, means I have increased the chance
that I will do the maintenance routinely.

By what measure do you feel your methods to have better results than
mine? Your approach requires more time and more expense. If we both
have good water quality, what do you get for the additional time and
expense?

I do have an attitude towards you, you seem to think knowing all of
the right words imbues you with superior knowledge. You also reveal
an attitude of arrogance.

Where were you last spring when this group was devastated with real
trolls?

dick

[Marco Schwarz]

Hi..

> a good water change and tank maintenance regime is really
> the answer to a lot of ills....you don't need to be a
> chemist to know this....just a good fishkeeper....

[X] I agree but knowledge is important, too.

Is fish keeping rather an art or a science..?
Respectively is an excellent fish keeper an artist or a
scientist..? :-)

--
cu
Marco

[dc]

Dick > wrote in
:

> You name numerous filtration media, but I see each as another way to
> strain the solids. You do not acknowledge erosion allowing the
> reduced solids to return to the tank.

You're fixated on that, but you obviously don't understand what you are
reading or you're not reading it at all. Most biological media does this
exactly. It traps waste particles and holds them for extended periods of
time while bacteria "erode" them. The longer biological medium can hold on
to these particles without becoming clogged the more effective it is at
reducing them to smaller particles before they're expelled and the less
maintenance it will require. A good filter will have an easy to replace
optional mechanical floss stage after the biological stage to trap this
fine debris so nothing returns to the tank.

Other forms of biological media are not designed to trap waste particles at
all but are designed to allow debris to pass so they can consistently
address ammonia and nitrite without becoming clogged. Not all media is
just "straining solids".


> By what measure do you feel your methods to have better results than
> mine? Your approach requires more time and more expense. If we both
> have good water quality, what do you get for the additional time and
> expense?

They do not require any more time, in fact they require a lot less time.
The maintenance on a highly effective biologically oriented filter can be
as little as every 3 to 6 months. Biowheels require no maintenance
whatsoever.

The goal in biologically oriented media is a stable environment where
poisonous nitrogenous wastes can be recycled reliably in spite of all other
changes to the aquarium. With this in mind your filter is more resilient
to change, mishaps, and negligence. Please don't ask me to explain this
yet again.

I'm not saying your methods are lax--I never did, you merely assumed your
methods were under attack. If you like calling your filter media a
strainer and water changing twice a week that's fine. Just because you
don't understand the specifics of what you are doing doesn't mean they
won't work for you.


> I do have an attitude towards you, you seem to think knowing all of
> the right words imbues you with superior knowledge. You also reveal
> an attitude of arrogance.

The arrogance is a natural response to ignorance. It is ignorant to tell
someone they are wrong about a subject which you yourself understand
little.


> Where were you last spring when this group was devastated with real
> trolls?

I was here adamantly contributing to the few legitimate posts while
ignoring all the fighting. Killfiles work wonders. Why do you ask?
Perhaps you're still too wrapped up in all that counterproductive bickering
to "see the forest through the trees" yourself.

[Marco Schwarz]

Hi..

@ you2:

Please stop this boring discussion..!

Thanks..
--
cu
Marco

[dc]

Marco Schwarz > wrote in news:eehbef$h39$1
@news.albasani.net:

> Please stop this boring discussion..!

Why don't you try not reading it instead.

[Gill Passman]

Since deciding to lurk on this group again I am seeing alot of suspicion
and accusations.....we all went through a bad time last year and this
spring on this group which resulted in the setting up of TFA as a
haven.....but I am pretty sickened by all the infighting and accusations
going on right now when rafm can recover....I'm also aware that most of
my posts have not been constructive but have been related to flame wars
and troll accusations....for which I apologise....

None of the people in this thread (and others) are trolls.....alpha,
tynk, swarvgorilla and even hannibal are not trolls.....even if they do
like to flame one another.....Dick, DC, Marco are not trolls...they may
have differences of opinion but that is really what a usenet group is
about.....

I would never kill file any of you....this is the talk of a group under
attack which right now rafm is not....stop looking in the
shadows....post about fish...and maybe one day I'll get over looking at
the accusations and start posting properly....time is a factor...and I'm
pretty much tied up posting where this stuff doesn't happen....

Gill

[swarvegorilla]

> I would never kill file any of you....this is the talk of a group under
> attack which right now rafm is not....stop looking in the shadows....post
> about fish...and maybe one day I'll get over looking at the accusations
> and start posting properly....time is a factor...and I'm pretty much tied
> up posting where this stuff doesn't happen....
>
> Gill

Yea what ever, you'll be back.
they always come back
In accordance with the prophecy once netmax returns and is bio-accumulated
by dc we will need only one more component and our uber guru will be
complete.
Besides aren't you guys even more flooded by n00bs than usual there?
I mean teach a few prodigy the ins and outs of the hobby and hurry on back
ye'all
UNtil then 'death to the unbelievers' or whatever your particular usenet
kookness

[swarvegorilla]

"dc" > wrote in message
...
> Dick > wrote in
> :
>
>> No filter, I can imagine, would be classified as "biological
>> filtration." Why would one want to filter out bacteria?
>
> Your semantics are very limited.
>
> Biological filtration is a widely used term to describe the natural
> process
> of the nitrogen cycle. It has nothing to do with the "filtering out of
> bacteria", which doesn't even make sense. Bacteria will adhere to any
> surface where it is able to obtains the means for it to survive--it exists
> in every part of your filter.
>
> Biological filtration describes the action of biological organisms
> (bacteria) on organic chemicals (nitrogenous wastes) as they convert them
> into various, and progressively less toxic forms.

DC for calm under fire I hereby award a distinguised service medal.
Well done man.

[swarvegorilla]

"dc" > wrote in message
...
> Dick > wrote in
> :
>
>> No filter, I can imagine, would be classified as "biological
>> filtration." Why would one want to filter out bacteria?

there are many mechanical filters capable of your so called 'straining out'
bacteria
the common ones used in the hobby both use plant cells that have been
signifigantly altered.
The carbon/charcoal already mentioned and also the good old diatomous
Only really used to 'polish' water in hastily built displays in my
experience as with established bio filtration they are rarely needed in
general aquaria.


>
> Your semantics are very limited.
>
> Biological filtration is a widely used term to describe the natural
> process
> of the nitrogen cycle. It has nothing to do with the "filtering out of
> bacteria", which doesn't even make sense. Bacteria will adhere to any
> surface where it is able to obtains the means for it to survive--it exists
> in every part of your filter.
>
> Biological filtration describes the action of biological organisms
> (bacteria) on organic chemicals (nitrogenous wastes) as they convert them
> into various, and progressively less toxic forms.

[swarvegorilla]

"dc" > wrote in message
...
> Gill Passman > wrote in news:450b2df6$0
> :
>
>> Dick is not a troll.....he has an easy way of looking after his fish
>> without needing to be a chemist....if it works for him why should any
>> the rest of us disrespect his experience...it might not work for all of
>
> No one is disrespecting his methods. Many people keep fish very well in
> blissful ignorance to the specifics of how their little micro-ecosystem
> really functions, and that is fine. It is his attitude that is the
> problem.
>
> He asked a question, I answered it, and he responded with ignorant
> slander.
> He may not make a living as a troll, but he has the right attitude to be
> one.

I agree only in that dc tells it very straight. He has no reason to lie.
His advice is also worthy
a bit of respec' would have gone a long way.
anyway, the rest of us got a lesson on charcoal anyway so all is not lost
:)

geez the gen public can be.....
idiots
and random ones too

[swarvegorilla]

"Marco Schwarz" > wrote in message
...
> Hi..
>
>> a good water change and tank maintenance regime is really
>> the answer to a lot of ills....you don't need to be a
>> chemist to know this....just a good fishkeeper....
>
> [X] I agree but knowledge is important, too.
>
> Is fish keeping rather an art or a science..?
> Respectively is an excellent fish keeper an artist or a
> scientist..? :-)
>
> --
> cu
> Marco

When one has been the voo-doo laden n00bie
And has endured the 'read until eyes bleed' mission that it is to become an
amateur fish scientist
You often find that it all becomes more an art.
so see, smell, predict problems..... need to test much less (although may
continue to test way anyway)
So with the few ******* little urban fish myths still haunting me soul with
weird promises of great things in plant extracts and ancient voo-doo
spawning trigger rites and fetishes.
The scientist in me continues to try to put back together the ever changing
nightmare of knowledge you accumulate in this hobby. To make sense of the
fish web and assimilate others experience with my own.
But the fish smithing that pays for my bread..... it is more an art.
I have too many tanks to be testing them all and their loads change so much.
I focus like we all do on the problem tanks.
then I work backwards to find where the problems came from.
So I'd say a good fishkeeper is a ritual worshipping, common sense solution
seeking person who enjoys watching fish and is willing to learn how to look
after his charges.... even if it basically means relearning everything over
and over again as our knowledge changes.

[Marco Schwarz]

Hi..

[...]
> So I'd say a good fishkeeper is a
> ritual worshipping, common sense solution seeking person
> who enjoys watching fish and is willing to learn how to
> look after his charges.... even if it basically means
> relearning everything over and over again as our knowledge
> changes.

Wise words, thanks..
--
cu
Marco

[Brett Miller]

An apology to all.
Sorry guys, I ( the original poster ) was just asking a question.
Really, Activated Charcoal is not all that big a deal to get P.O
about.
Perhaps the one fellow did not know the term "Bacterial Filtration"
and took it literally.
You can filter out bacteria though. And if you filtered it out, it is
filtered in on the other side. You can buy survival type drinking
straws that will filter out bacteria. ( Sorry starting to get
oppositional here, but see how I bring myself under control!)
However, BF is a common term to aquarium users.
Is this really worth getting all worked up about?
I think a thesis could be written on how differently people behave on
the net then they do in person. It is like the anononimity gives them
power and removes the rules. Just ask yourself WWJD if he were
posting a message here.( A little too much? you think?) Actually, it
is hard to grasp a persons inflections and body language over then
net, and, something that would be clear in person as a joke or
something unimportant, suddenly becomes a slur or insult when written.
Just my (worthless) opinion. No more or less important or valid then
anyone else's.
Thanks
BM




On Fri, 15 Sep 2006 18:18:51 -0500, dc > wrote:

>Gill Passman > wrote in news:450b2df6$0
:
>
>> Dick is not a troll.....he has an easy way of looking after his fish
>> without needing to be a chemist....if it works for him why should any
>> the rest of us disrespect his experience...it might not work for all of
>
>No one is disrespecting his methods. Many people keep fish very well in
>blissful ignorance to the specifics of how their little micro-ecosystem
>really functions, and that is fine. It is his attitude that is the
>problem.
>
>He asked a question, I answered it, and he responded with ignorant slander.
>He may not make a living as a troll, but he has the right attitude to be
>one.

[swarvegorilla]

No ones getting worked up
It's just nice when the record left here isn't missleading for those who
come after to read.
'BF' is not a common term, and those bacteria filter straws...
I mean a milsbank filter will get your mud out and ya charcoal will rip out
other chemicals
but bacteria are tiny
Ya just smash them with chlorine/iodine or something similar, then detox the
water.
that or UV
I spent enuf time in the j doing your 'survival' **** to know that ya just
use puratabs or straight chems.
show me the link or something, coz intrigued but me bull**** meter has been
tripped.
Dude if Jesus was here I'd track him down and crucify him again



"Brett Miller" > wrote in message
...
> An apology to all.
> Sorry guys, I ( the original poster ) was just asking a question.
> Really, Activated Charcoal is not all that big a deal to get P.O
> about.
> Perhaps the one fellow did not know the term "Bacterial Filtration"
> and took it literally.
> You can filter out bacteria though. And if you filtered it out, it is
> filtered in on the other side. You can buy survival type drinking
> straws that will filter out bacteria. ( Sorry starting to get
> oppositional here, but see how I bring myself under control!)
> However, BF is a common term to aquarium users.
> Is this really worth getting all worked up about?
> I think a thesis could be written on how differently people behave on
> the net then they do in person. It is like the anononimity gives them
> power and removes the rules. Just ask yourself WWJD if he were
> posting a message here.( A little too much? you think?) Actually, it
> is hard to grasp a persons inflections and body language over then
> net, and, something that would be clear in person as a joke or
> something unimportant, suddenly becomes a slur or insult when written.
> Just my (worthless) opinion. No more or less important or valid then
> anyone else's.
> Thanks
> BM
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, 15 Sep 2006 18:18:51 -0500, dc > wrote:
>
>>Gill Passman > wrote in news:450b2df6$0
:
>>
>>> Dick is not a troll.....he has an easy way of looking after his fish
>>> without needing to be a chemist....if it works for him why should any
>>> the rest of us disrespect his experience...it might not work for all of
>>
>>No one is disrespecting his methods. Many people keep fish very well in
>>blissful ignorance to the specifics of how their little micro-ecosystem
>>really functions, and that is fine. It is his attitude that is the
>>problem.
>>
>>He asked a question, I answered it, and he responded with ignorant
>>slander.
>>He may not make a living as a troll, but he has the right attitude to be
>>one.

[Bret Miller]

How So?
Adsorbs micro nutrients?


On Thu, 07 Sep 2006 17:48:18 -0500, dc > wrote:

>Brett Miller > wrote in
:
>
>> I know what AC is and how it works. What exactly does it do in an
>> aquarium? What is it adsorbing? Not the ammonia, NH3 or NH4 is it?
>> So what? Color, odor?
>
>Colour, odor, some plant nutrients... lots of stuff, but no not NH3/4. Use
>Zeolite if you want something to absorb ammonia.
>
>Active carbon is not really necessary, it is just a polisher, but it can be
>detrimental if you are keeping live plants.

[swarvegorilla]

and maybe leechs crap back out if old
hard to know what carbon removes as it's hard to test what was in your water
before
traces and stuff anyway



"Bret Miller" > wrote in message
...
> How So?
> Adsorbs micro nutrients?
>
>
> On Thu, 07 Sep 2006 17:48:18 -0500, dc > wrote:
>
>>Brett Miller > wrote in
:
>>
>>> I know what AC is and how it works. What exactly does it do in an
>>> aquarium? What is it adsorbing? Not the ammonia, NH3 or NH4 is it?
>>> So what? Color, odor?
>>
>>Colour, odor, some plant nutrients... lots of stuff, but no not NH3/4.
>>Use
>>Zeolite if you want something to absorb ammonia.
>>
>>Active carbon is not really necessary, it is just a polisher, but it can
>>be
>>detrimental if you are keeping live plants.