Water Changes-Galloping Elephants Meet Pouncing Lions

[snakeblitz33]

What Bob advocates is NO water changes and the use of macroalgae. You proved that you have to use "pouncing lions" in conjunction with water changes.
Also, your only variables that you were accounting for is waste in the system, not actual chemistry.
Given that an aquarist does no water changes and uses chemical supplementation for calcium, alkalinity and magnesium, you will gradually increase the salinity by continuously adding chlorides to the tank (calcium cloride, magnesium chloride) (not mentioning magnesium sulfate at the moment.) By continuously adding chlorides, you are off balancing the tank towards more chlorides and less sodium. Given that if you take some saltwater away and add freshwater, you may decrease salinity, but over time with more chemical supplementation, you will come to a point where there is no sodium in the system (everything dies.) Even if you had unlimited space and keep adding freshwater to the system to balance the salinity, you will end up with VERY LITTLE sodium and a whole lot of chloride.
There are more variables to consider how much an accurate water change one needs than simply the nitrate and phosphate contents of the water.

 

[pezenfuego]

Quote:
Originally Posted by SnakeBlitz33 http:///t/393267/water-changes-an-extension-to-galloping-elephants/20#post_3497686
What Bob advocates is NO water changes and the use of macroalgae. You proved that you have to use "pouncing lions" in conjunction with water changes.
Also, your only variables that you were accounting for is waste in the system, not actual chemistry.
Given that an aquarist does no water changes and uses chemical supplementation for calcium, alkalinity and magnesium, you will gradually increase the salinity by continuously adding chlorides to the tank (calcium cloride, magnesium chloride) (not mentioning magnesium sulfate at the moment.) By continuously adding chlorides, you are off balancing the tank towards more chlorides and less sodium. Given that if you take some saltwater away and add freshwater, you may decrease salinity, but over time with more chemical supplementation, you will come to a point where there is no sodium in the system (everything dies.) Even if you had unlimited space and keep adding freshwater to the system to balance the salinity, you will end up with VERY LITTLE sodium and a whole lot of chloride.
There are more variables to consider how much an accurate water change one needs than simply the nitrate and phosphate contents of the water.
All true and worthy of mention
Adding it in now...this thing is getting heavy. My ideas can actually be used to hit on that point. You can flip the idea logically, but perhaps later I will flip the idea mathematically to conclusively prove what you just posted.

 

[snakeblitz33]

Well, you also have to realize that if you are removing ANYTHING From the system, even macroalgae - macroalgae is made of more things than just nitrate and phosphate... they have elements in them such as iron... and a whole host of others... and even if you keep removing the macro from the system and decreasing nitrates and phosphates by this method, you are still removing chemicals/elements from the water column that other forms of life (bacteria, polycates, sponges, microalgaes, microfauna, and a host of other life in the system that count of having those trace elements available for use in the system.
By removing macroalgaes, for example, without any trace element supplementation (or in the right amounts) you limit the growth of certain bacterias - or even destroy entire populations and make the tank homogenous with one bacterial population by simply limiting one trace element. This could have major consequences to the life of the system.
Some trace element bottles do supplement a lot of things, but some things are not in the supplementation that are actually in the salt mixes. - and without TESTING how much you have in the water, you can not accurately replenish that element in a timely and accurate manner... except by water changes which replenish these elements.
WHAT I am getting at is that... life is more complicated then a math equation. Sure you can create some large, long, complex equation, but it doesn't encompass all the variables that LIFE will throw at it.

 

[pezenfuego]

Quote:
Originally Posted by SnakeBlitz33 http:///t/393267/water-changes-galloping-elephants-meet-pouncing-lions/20#post_3497692
Well, you also have to realize that if you are removing ANYTHING From the system, even macroalgae - macroalgae is made of more things than just nitrate and phosphate... they have elements in them such as iron... and a whole host of others... and even if you keep removing the macro from the system and decreasing nitrates and phosphates by this method, you are still removing chemicals/elements from the water column that other forms of life (bacteria, polycates, sponges, microalgaes, microfauna, and a host of other life in the system that count of having those trace elements available for use in the system.
By removing macroalgaes, for example, without any trace element supplementation (or in the right amounts) you limit the growth of certain bacterias - or even destroy entire populations and make the tank homogenous with one bacterial population by simply limiting one trace element. This could have major consequences to the life of the system.
Some trace element bottles do supplement a lot of things, but some things are not in the supplementation that are actually in the salt mixes. - and without TESTING how much you have in the water, you can not accurately replenish that element in a timely and accurate manner... except by water changes which replenish these elements.
WHAT I am getting at is that... life is more complicated then a math equation. Sure you can create some large, long, complex equation, but it doesn't encompass all the variables that LIFE will throw at it.
I agreed with you up until the last sentence. Stuff goes in and stuff comes out. That's what the thread boils down to. We don't need to consider the things that life throws at us. In conjunction:
1) If it isn't in the air, then it isn't in our water.
2) If we don't put it in our water, then it isn't in our water.
3) If something in our tank uses it, then it isn't in our water.
Unless you disagree with that, the proof is sound. What other variables are there to consider?
Don't lose sight of what the thread is about.

 

[beaslbob]

One of the things in my various attempts to simplify all this that I found out it that the galloping elephants before the water change is a fairly simple equation.
But the amount of galloping elephants after the water change is more complicated.
Plus the amount in the water change, just because every thing is linear, just adds to the final values.
So before a water change
amount in tank=amount in replacement water+(change between water changes)/(fraction of water changes).
after a water change:
amount in tank=(amount before change)*(1-(fraction changed)) +(fraction changed)(amount in replacement water)
Which I rapidily got myself "wrapped around the axle" trying to analyze.
So I just looked at the before change values to keep it simple.
assuming 1ppm/day increase, 5% water change every 10 days, with 30 ppm.
increase between water changes =10ppm
fraction=5/100=1/20
before water change=30ppm+(10ppm/(1/20))=30ppm+10*20=30ppm+200=230.
to compute the after value the decrease is 200*(-1/20)=10ppm. So the variyng part without the 30ppm in the replacment water is 200 to 190 to 200 etc.
after water change=30ppm+190ppm=220ppm
so after a water change the tank has 220ppm
Which then increases 10ppm to 230 before the next water change.

 

[pezenfuego]

Quote:
Originally Posted by beaslbob http:///t/393267/water-changes-galloping-elephants-meet-pouncing-lions/20#post_3497997
One of the things in my various attempts to simplify all this that I found out it that the galloping elephants before the water change is a fairly simple equation.
But the amount of galloping elephants after the water change is more complicated.
Plus the amount in the water change, just because every thing is linear, just adds to the final values.
So before a water change
amount in tank=amount in replacement water+(change between water changes)/(fraction of water changes).
after a water change:
amount in tank=(amount before change)*(1-(fraction changed)) +(fraction changed)(amount in replacement water)
Which I rapidily got myself "wrapped around the axle" trying to analyze.
So I just looked at the before change values to keep it simple.
assuming 1ppm/day increase, 5% water change every 10 days, with 30 ppm.
increase between water changes =10ppm
fraction=5/100=1/20
before water change=30ppm+(10ppm/(1/20))=30ppm+10*20=30ppm+200=230.
to compute the after value the decrease is 200*(-1/20)=10ppm. So the variyng part without the 30ppm in the replacment water is 200 to 190 to 200 etc.
after water change=30ppm+190ppm=220ppm
so after a water change the tank has 220ppm
Which then increases 10ppm to 230 before the next water change.
My equation assumes that the replacement water is free of galloping elephants, which is a true approximation for all serious hobbyists.

 

[beaslbob]

Quote:
Originally Posted by PEZenfuego http:///t/393267/water-changes-galloping-elephants-meet-pouncing-lions/20#post_3498043
My equation assumes that the replacement water is free of galloping elephants, which is a true approximation for all serious hobbyists.
only for nitrates, ammonia, and so on.
calcium, alk, magnesium are present in the replacement water.
And again because it is all linear just compute the end results with 0 in the replacement water then add the amount in the replacement water.
and because the analysis is where the tank winds up, initial conditions are not relavant.

 

[pezenfuego]

Quote:
Originally Posted by beaslbob http:///t/393267/water-changes-galloping-elephants-meet-pouncing-lions/20#post_3498154
only for nitrates, ammonia, and so on.
calcium, alk, magnesium are present in the replacement water.
And again because it is all linear just compute the end results with 0 in the replacement water then add the amount in the replacement water.
and because the analysis is where the tank winds up, initial conditions are not relavant.
It's hard to wrap your mind around, but initial conditions do matter. However, as time progresses, those initial conditions matter less and less until they eventually don't matter at all (and by that I mean they are negligible). My proof shows all of that. Also, the equations I was using cannot apply to calcium, alkalinity, and magnesium. For that I would need to flip everything and redefine the galloping elephant, or expand the analogy more. I may do that later.

 

[snakeblitz33]

Quote:
Originally Posted by beaslbob http:///t/393267/water-changes-galloping-elephants-meet-pouncing-lions/20#post_3498154
only for nitrates, ammonia, and so on.
calcium, alk, magnesium are present in the replacement water. Only if you are using tap water. If using RO water, top off water is pure and then supplementation of each chemical occurs.
And again because it is all linear just compute the end results with 0 in the replacement water then add the amount in the replacement water.
and because the analysis is where the tank winds up, initial conditions are not relavant.

 

[beaslbob]

awwww come on snake and PEZ. LOL
We're doing water changes. The assumption is the replacement water is saltwater with certain replacment qualities. Including calcium, alk, magnesium, or beaslbob's superduper mythical majical cure all snake grease measured in galloping elephants.
PEZ as you stated at the "end" conditions in my analysis the initial conditions are fully diluted and irrelevant.
I know it's hard to wrap your head around but because everything is linear you can seperate the effects of the replacement water conditions from the effect of the increase between water changes.
As PEZ did by simply assuming 0 in the replacement water.
Then with the increase solved just add in the replacement water conditions.
For instance, take calcium and assume you are consuming 1ppm calcium/day.
Just like with nitrates a 10% water change every 10 days has a (-1PPM/day*10days)/(1/10)=-10ppm *10=-100ppm between water changes. (a 100ppm decrease.)
And if your replacement water has 400ppm calcium you just add that so the tank is 400-100=300 before a water change. And 400ppm after a water change. Down to 300ppm for the next water change.
Which should indicate why we need to dose calcium to get the 1ppm/day decrease as low as possible. And if 0 then water changes have no effect on calcium.
The way I look at it we can plot graphs, do series, do equations, set up differintal equations and so on.
Or we can do a much more simplified analysis to analyze how effective water changes vrs balancing out the system are.
Still just my nerdy
.02 galloping elephants.

 

[pezenfuego]

Quote:
Originally Posted by beaslbob http:///t/393267/water-changes-galloping-elephants-meet-pouncing-lions/20#post_3498905
awwww come on snake and PEZ. LOL
We're doing water changes. The assumption is the replacement water is saltwater with certain replacment qualities. Including calcium, alk, magnesium, or beaslbob's superduper mythical majical cure all snake grease measured in galloping elephants.
PEZ as you stated at the "end" conditions in my analysis the initial conditions are fully diluted and irrelevant.
I know it's hard to wrap your head around but because everything in linear you can seperate the effects of the replacement water conditions from the effect of the increase between water changes.
As PEZ did by simply assuming 0 in the replacement water.
Then with the increase solved just add in the replacement water conditions.
For instance, take calcium and assume you are consuming 1ppm calcium/day.
Just like with nitrates a 10% water change every 10 days has a (-1PPM/day*10days)/(1/10)=-10ppm *10=-100ppm between water changes. (a 100ppm decrease.)
And if your replacement water has 400ppm calcium you just add that so the tank is 400-100=300 before a water change. And 400ppm after a water change. Down to 300ppm for the next water change.
Which should indicate why we need to dose calcium to get the 1ppm/day decrease as low as possible. And if 0 then water changes have no effect on calcium.
The way I look at it we can plot graphs, do series, do equations, set up differintal equations and so on.
Or we can do a much more simplified analysis to analyze how effective water changes vrs balancing out the system are.
Still just my nerdy
.02 galloping elephants.
It is important to note that while the initial conditions do approach 0, they never do reach 0. They approach 0 as time approaches infinity. In other words, the initial conditions always become negligible, but depending on the specific situation, this may not happen within a tank's lifetime.
The way I look at it is like this:
Let's look at calcium. The tankmates constantly consume calcium, so it constantly decreases. Water changes combat this. However, if you just do water changes, then you are fighting a losing battle and Snake very thoroughly debunked the whole dosing fixes everything conjecture. Water changes just slow the inevitable. And sometimes they slow it so adequately that no problems arise during the entire span of the tank's existence. Even so, a large water change every once in a while is not a bad idea if done properly.

 

[beaslbob]

Quote:
Originally Posted by PEZenfuego http:///t/393267/water-changes-galloping-elephants-meet-pouncing-lions/20#post_3498967
It is important to note that while the initial conditions do approach 0, they never do reach 0. They approach 0 as time approaches infinity. In other words, the initial conditions always become negligible, but depending on the specific situation, this may not happen within a tank's lifetime.
The way I look at it is like this:
Let's look at calcium. The tankmates constantly consume calcium, so it constantly decreases. Water changes combat this. However, if you just do water changes, then you are fighting a losing battle and Snake very thoroughly debunked the whole dosing fixes everything conjecture. Water changes just slow the inevitable. And sometimes they slow it so adequately that no problems arise during the entire span of the tank's existence. Even so, a large water change every once in a while is not a bad idea if done properly.
Except for the occasional 100% (ok large LOL) water change, it appears we are in agreement.
After all my analysis was simply that balancing out the system was more effective then water changes.
my .02 pouncing lions

 

[pezenfuego]

I have expanded the formula to allow galloping elephants to be any parameter. However, I have a minor mathematical mistake. I'm too busy to find it right now, but now this formula will more useful.
You have to understand that I am a symbolic and mathematical thinker. This does not make me intelligent, but this is a very precise and useful way of thinking about the aquarium when it is properly understood.
#not looking forward to reworking the entire thread!
I will actually just start a new thread because little can be salvaged.

 

[beaslbob]

Quote:
Originally Posted by PEZenfuego http:///t/393267/water-changes-galloping-elephants-meet-pouncing-lions/20#post_3499021
.
You have to understand that I am a symbolic and mathematical thinker. This does not make me intelligent, but this is a very precise and useful way of thinking about the aquarium when it is properly understood.
As am I. And not also intelligent either. LOL.
And sure you are being very precise with all the intermediate results as well.
I just simplified it to the end conditions. To make the equations simplier and to analyze the effectiveness of water changes.
short of differiential equarions that is sufficient for us aquariumists. besides partial derivitives become somewhat complex with step functions anyway.
Still just my .02

 

[acrylic51]

So.........On paper does topping off solve the equation of no water changes needed.......

 

[pezenfuego]

Quote:
Originally Posted by acrylic51 http:///t/393267/water-changes-galloping-elephants-meet-pouncing-lions/20#post_3499758
So.........On paper does topping off solve the equation of no water changes needed.......

No. You should realize that water changes have two components which factor into the equation. One is the removal of water and the other is the replacement of water. As topping off removes freshwater, but not galloping elephants, it essentially does nothing. There is no net change and we can ignore it (unless your top off adds galloping elephants-which means that you need to get a better top-off source).
I have all the maths done, but I haven't had the time to submit my new thread. I really like the new approach. It is much cleaner and has much more explanatory power.

 

[acrylic51]

So basically a bunch of hot air to figure out an elaborate water change schedule.....

 

[pezenfuego]

Quote:
Originally Posted by acrylic51 http:///t/393267/water-changes-galloping-elephants-meet-pouncing-lions/20#post_3499764
So basically a bunch of hot air to figure out an elaborate water change schedule.....
Dude. Read the thread before commenting on a thread of this nature. And don't claim that you have read the thread because the thread explicitly states that creating a water change schedule is not the purpose or intention. Just because you don't understand something does not give you the right to personally attack the poster on a level in which you can operate.

 

[snakeblitz33]

Quote:
Originally Posted by PEZenfuego http:///t/393267/water-changes-galloping-elephants-meet-pouncing-lions/20#post_3499767
Dude. Read the thread before commenting on a thread of this nature. And don't claim that you have read the thread because the thread explicitly states that creating a water change schedule is not the purpose or intention. Just because you don't understand something does not give you the right to personally attack the poster on a level in which you can operate.
Whoa, dude... chill. lol All's good here, man. No need tah get offended.
Acrylic, I don't know if you have read the whole thread yet or not - but it's not completely hot air... there is math involved.
I think that if I can get a look at the new equation and see if you can explain it to meet the needs of the tank that I have been discussing, that I will see more of a point. But that's just me.

 

[beaslbob]

Quote:
Originally Posted by acrylic51 http:///t/393267/water-changes-galloping-elephants-meet-pouncing-lions/20#post_3499758
So.........On paper does topping off solve the equation of no water changes needed.......

Topping off just maintains whatever is happing in the tank. So it just counter acts the increases to to less water in the tank from evaporation.
All it means is the water changes are 0%.
Solving the equations of no water changes needed has not been presented here. Just plugs 0% into those equations.
my .02