Moving a Reef Tank

Curious about your answer. If a tank can support the water and all of the
rock and sand when it's displayed, why can it not when being moved.
Another forum recommended that I move it with just the sand in it, and
enough water to cover said sand. I was able to do that with no problem.

So you assume that everyone's tank can handle it. Dangerous assumption!

Also, what is the purpose of keeping the original water.

This is might get a little too complicated for you. More original water
means more bio load when you set up.

I was able to transport about half of the water and replaced about half
when I got here. But it seems that it's just like any other water change.
I was under the impression that most of the bacteria that is needed is in
the rock/sand/other filtration, very little of it in the water.

Bad assumption. This is why your bioload is not as high as mine with no
water changes.

Well, I assume the OP did water changes regularly, like 99.9% of reefers
out there. Dangerous assumption.

Also, I note that the majority of tanks can handle holding water and
sand as that's what they are made for. My glass doesn't sit directly on
my stand so the braces which I carried it by are supporting it all the
time. The stand just distributes the weight to the braces. Now I could
see a danger in twisting or something, but that could be eliminated by
carrying it on a piece of plywood. Or are you a Dr. of physics,
chemistry, wit and rhetoric?

The theory behind covering the sand is to keep the bacteria undisturbed
as possible. So that's why I did it....as I said in my initial
discussion, no idea if it was the right thing to do, but it worked for me.

And further, good doctor, I was actually trying to learn, which you are
incapable of helping with. I really wanted to know the answers. The
only reason I got into an argument with you, is because from the first
post you did here, you were a complete prick. Your name is booger for
god's sake, how much do you really want people to believe you. I have
no intention of ruining this guy's post by bickering back and forth with
you again, there is absolutely nothing more you can convince me of,
other than that you get further down the evolutionary chart with every
post. You are at imbecile now. We're working on idiot . I guarantee
that nothing you can muster will ever be too complicated for me. I
promise good doctor that my professionally measured intelligence far
exceeds yours.

bo0ger1 wrote:
Curious about your answer. If a tank can support the water and all of the
rock and sand when it's displayed, why can it not when being moved.
Another forum recommended that I move it with just the sand in it, and
enough water to cover said sand. I was able to do that with no problem.


So you assume that everyone's tank can handle it. Dangerous assumption!


Also, what is the purpose of keeping the original water.


This is might get a little too complicated for you. More original water
means more bio load when you set up.


I was able to transport about half of the water and replaced about half
when I got here. But it seems that it's just like any other water change.
I was under the impression that most of the bacteria that is needed is in
the rock/sand/other filtration, very little of it in the water.


Bad assumption. This is why your bioload is not as high as mine with no
water changes.

Also, I note that the majority of tanks can handle holding water and sand
as that's what they are made for.

Majority is 50% How do you know his is in the majority?

The theory behind covering the sand is to keep the bacteria undisturbed as
possible.

Why do you think it is necessary to keep the bacteria undisturbed?

So that's why I did it....as I said in my initial discussion, no idea if it
was the right thing to do, but it worked for me.

So you assume it will work for everyone?

And further, good doctor, I was actually trying to learn, which you are
incapable of helping with.

You're correct here. I am incapable of helping you learn. You have to
learn on your own by taking in information.

I really wanted to know the answers. The only reason I got into an
argument with you, is because from the first post you did here, you were a
complete prick.

No. You did it because you are a TROLL.

Your name is booger for god's sake, how much do you really want people to
believe you.

Your name is Pat. I don't believe what you write, not because of your name,
but because what you write makes you sound like an idiot.

I promise good doctor that my professionally measured intelligence far
exceeds yours.

You already illustrated in the last thread the exact opposite Pat. Do you
want to do it again?

Have you taken your pill today?

LOL Man your an idiot.

Wayne Sallee
Wayne's Pets



bo0ger1 wrote on 11/13/2006 7:41 PM:
Curious about your answer. If a tank can support the water and all of the
rock and sand when it's displayed, why can it not when being moved.
Another forum recommended that I move it with just the sand in it, and
enough water to cover said sand. I was able to do that with no problem.

So you assume that everyone's tank can handle it. Dangerous assumption!

Also, what is the purpose of keeping the original water.

This is might get a little too complicated for you. More original water
means more bio load when you set up.

I was able to transport about half of the water and replaced about half
when I got here. But it seems that it's just like any other water change.
I was under the impression that most of the bacteria that is needed is in
the rock/sand/other filtration, very little of it in the water.

Bad assumption. This is why your bioload is not as high as mine with no
water changes.

LOL Man your an idiot.

You're a genius. LOL

This is from Wayne's website LOL :
http://www.waynespets.com/CareNitrogenCycle.htm :

Ammonia (NH2) ------WRONG Genius!

Ammonium (NH3) less toxic, occurs more in lower ph conditions -----WRONG
Genius!

Nitrite (NO2) ---WRONG Genius. (It's NO2-1)

Nitrate (NO3) ----WRONG Genius (It's NO3-1)

Nitrogen Gass (N2) ------ ONLY one you got right, except it's Gas not
Gass! LOL



LOL

You are a retard! You give chemistry advice in this forum. You make me
chuckle ROFLMAO!!!

bo0ger1 wrote on 11/14/2006 5:23 PM:

Ammonium (NH3) less toxic, occurs more in lower ph conditions -----WRONG
Genius!

That's correct. The lower the ph, the more ammonia is in
the form of ammonium. And thus it is less toxic.

Wayne Sallee
Wayne's Pets

Ammonium (NH3) less toxic, occurs more in lower ph conditions
-----WRONG Genius!

That's correct. The lower the ph, the more ammonia is in the form of
ammonium. And thus it is less toxic.

No it's NOT correct. Ammonium is NH4+, not NH3. NH3 is ammonia gas! LOL!
ROMLMAO!!


Wayne Sallee
Wayne's Pets

Yep, I messed up on that :-)

Wayne Sallee
Wayne's Pets



bo0ger1 wrote on 11/16/2006 5:54 PM:
Ammonium (NH3) less toxic, occurs more in lower ph conditions
-----WRONG Genius!
That's correct. The lower the ph, the more ammonia is in the form of
ammonium. And thus it is less toxic.

No it's NOT correct. Ammonium is NH4+, not NH3. NH3 is ammonia gas! LOL!
ROMLMAO!!

Wayne Sallee
Wayne's Pets