![]() |
|
#1
|
|||||
|
|||||
![]() Steve, I completely agree that "smaller, more often" produces a more stable system, and this is better; but doesn't a reactor or dosing routine offer higher control of the parameters? ... Hmmm, I guess if you're not as concerned with where they are, just that they are "good enough" then I guess it doesn't matter as much. The only thing is, you need to make sure your incoming water has good parameters and it's a rare salt that offers consistency in numbers year after year: you'll end up dosing into your makeup water anyhow, and at that point does it really matter if you dose your incoming water or your tank?
__________________
-- Tony My next hobby will be flooding my basement while repeatedly banging my head against a brick wall and tearing up $100 bills. Whee! |
#2
|
|||||
|
|||||
![]() Quote:
Dosing or other means of replenishing elements also may not be required if significant water is replaced often, however that will depend on many things. Last edited by sphelps; 09-24-2009 at 06:06 PM. |
#3
|
|||||
|
|||||
![]() Another interesting theory to consider is: No matter how much water you change it's not enough to maintain ultra low nutrients. Something else, like a skimmer for example, is always needed.
Even if a tank starts at 0ppm nutrients, and only adds 0.5ppm a week and you change 25% of water weekly you'll still build up to a stable level of 2ppm. This may not seem like a lot but keep in mind it's just an example to show the theory. You will never maintain 0 nutrients with water changes alone. ![]() Last edited by sphelps; 09-24-2009 at 06:20 PM. |