No mechanical filtration in reef tank?

[The_Paradox]

Without mechanical filtration, the tank will crash one day. Detrius will build up. It's a closed system, without all the diversity and filtration power of ocean.

It’s easy enough to remove detritus with water changes.

 

[jhadaway]

i have never even heard of a reef tank thats only 8 gallons. what a nightmare that will be keeping stable.

I ran a 5.5 gallon without fish for about 6 months. Dosed it with AFR everyday and didn't have any issues. I put some small ORA fish in there for a few weeks to allow them to grow a bit and that threw the organics out of balance. Algae Bloom! I'd do it again but without fish and water changes from my home display tank. I have a 13.5 now with no algae issues.

 

[AtlantiCat]

i have never even heard of a reef tank thats only 8 gallons. what a nightmare that will be keeping stable.

For the record, I have a 1-gallon Small-In-One and it's pretty stable once established, it's about 1.5 years old. It has covers to prevent significant evaporation, so there's only a little salt creep to deal with, no ATO needed. I do water changes every 1-3 weeks, depending on my schedule, and run floss continuously and Chemipure Blue intermittently. It has Zoas, Star Polyps, and Dwarf Ceriths, no fish. I run all the standard water tests every week or two as well.

PNW Custom also makes a 40 oz....

 

[Brisk]

.

 

[reeflection]

I would argue that they are as much or more chemical than mechanical.

That is truly an inaccurate statement, there is nothing chemically happening in the extraction of dissolved organics and I've been in this industry since 96 and have never in all my years heard anything of the such!

 

[Celestion]

i have a wavemaker for gas exchange

What wave maker is going to be used ?

 

[BeanAnimal]

That is truly an inaccurate statement, there is nothing chemically happening in the extraction of dissolved organics and I've been in this industry since 96 and have never in all my years heard anything of the such!

I honestly hesitate to be rude but given your somewhat smug response and self proclaimed decades of industry expertise..... your screen name feels oddly fitting.

The primary mode of operation of a "protein skimmer" is "foam fractionation". The secondary and minor mode of operation is simply buoyancy (floatation) lifting particles into the foam head where they become trapped in the foam and prevented from falling back into the water column.

Sir, foam fractionation is a CHEMICAL PROCESS, specifically adsorption of hydrophobic molecules at the liquid vapor interface.

So "floatation" removes the suspended matter (non-dissolved particles).
"fractionation" chemically bonds dissolved organic compounds for removal.


This isn't a case of semantics or obscurity or an agree to disagree situation.

https://reefkeeping.com/issues/2006-08/rhf/index.php

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/chemistry/foam-fractionation

Foam fractionation - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

@Sisterlimonpot see what you started...

 

[moretor1]

I just purchased a rimless 8 gallon shallow fish tank and I am considering not using any mechanical filtration. I will rely on the biological filtration provided by the rock and sand. What are your thoughts on whether or not I should use a filter? I only plan on having a maximum of 3 fish with a few invertebrates and soft corals in the tank.

sponge filter is great if you want something cheap and low maintanence. You can connect it to a return pump if you dont want to deal with bubbles either

 

[Sisterlimonpot]

@Sisterlimonpot see what you started...

That reefkeeping article from 2006 is vaguely familiar! Certain points flood back to the front on my brain.

 

[The_Paradox]

I honestly hesitate to be rude but given your somewhat smug response and self proclaimed decades of industry expertise..... your screen name feels oddly fitting.

The primary mode of operation of a "protein skimmer" is "foam fractionation". The secondary and minor mode of operation is simply buoyancy (floatation) lifting particles into the foam head where they become trapped in the foam and prevented from falling back into the water column.

Sir, foam fractionation is a CHEMICAL PROCESS, specifically adsorption of hydrophobic molecules at the liquid vapor interface.

So "floatation" removes the suspended matter (non-dissolved particles).
"fractionation" chemically bonds dissolved organic compounds for removal.


This isn't a case of semantics or obscurity or an agree to disagree situation.

https://reefkeeping.com/issues/2006-08/rhf/index.php

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/chemistry/foam-fractionation

Foam fractionation - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

@Sisterlimonpot see what you started...

I think he’s arguing the primary MOA is froth fractionation. Ultimately I think it depends on the type of skimmer and the tank. In predator tanks I would venture a guess the predominant filter mechanism is froth especially with older style Venturi skimmers. In a tank with less or no live feeding and a cone skimmer I would bet foam is playing a larger roll. Either way let’s just agree to gang up on @Sisterlimonpot and say it’s not biological.

 

[Sisterlimonpot]

100% biological, not one of you has compelled me to change my mind.

I will be in the parking lot of Walmart at 0600 tomorrow to fight anyone that disagrees with me

 

[BeanAnimal]

I think he’s arguing the primary MOA is froth fractionation.

No - his statement was pretty clear and insanely uninformed.

"That is truly an inaccurate statement, there is nothing chemically happening in the extraction of dissolved organics"

THE ONLY WAY "DISSOLVED ORGANICS" ARE GOING TO BE REMOVED IS CHEMICALLY

Not a big deal other than the context it was delivered in.

 

[Marquarium]

100% biological, not one of you has compelled me to change my mind.

I will be in the parking lot of Walmart at 0600 tomorrow to fight anyone that disagrees with me

I don't disagree but I'll still go to my local Walmart 0600 tomorrow and fight people

 

[BeanAnimal]

I would venture a guess the predominant filter mechanism is froth especially with older style Venturi skimmers. In a tank with less or no live feeding and a cone skimmer I would bet foam is playing a larger roll

If you are getting "green" or "dark" etc. that is the dissolved organics, tanins, etc. and would be the chemical fractionation. If there are not dissolved compounds or the skimmer is overflowing quickly, yeah most of that is just water or particulate buoyant enough to be carried over the lip of the collection cup.

 

[The_Paradox]

If you are getting "green" or "dark" etc. that is the dissolved organics, tanins, etc. and would be the chemical fractionation. If there are not dissolved compounds or the skimmer is overflowing quickly, yeah most of that is just water or particulate buoyant enough to be carried over the lip of the collection cup.

I get a lot of shrimp pieces and the occasional dog hair mostly.

 

[reeflection]

I honestly hesitate to be rude but given your somewhat smug response and self proclaimed decades of industry expertise..... your screen name feels oddly fitting.

The primary mode of operation of a "protein skimmer" is "foam fractionation". The secondary and minor mode of operation is simply buoyancy (floatation) lifting particles into the foam head where they become trapped in the foam and prevented from falling back into the water column.

Sir, foam fractionation is a CHEMICAL PROCESS, specifically adsorption of hydrophobic molecules at the liquid vapor interface.

So "floatation" removes the suspended matter (non-dissolved particles).
"fractionation" chemically bonds dissolved organic compounds for removal.


This isn't a case of semantics or obscurity or an agree to disagree situation.

https://reefkeeping.com/issues/2006-08/rhf/index.php

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/chemistry/foam-fractionation

Foam fractionation - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

@Sisterlimonpot see what you started...

You sir with all do respect are wrong and here is why Protein skimming, also known as foam fractionation, is a physical process, not a chemical one. It involves the removal of organic compounds, including proteins, from water through the formation of foam. This process relies on the interaction between air bubbles and organic molecules in the water, leading to their separation. It's commonly used in aquariums and wastewater treatment to remove organic pollutants. And all the other references you were making about my screen name and assuming I was being smug, are simply irrelevant.

 

[BeanAnimal]

I get a lot of shrimp pieces and the occasional dog hair mostly.

The nice thing is, even if you tune the skimmer for "dry" you will still get most of this stuff caught in the foam head.

 

[BeanAnimal]

You sir with all do respect are wrong and here is why Protein skimming, also known as foam fractionation, is a physical process, not a chemical one. It involves the removal of organic compounds, including proteins, from water through the formation of foam. This process relies on the interaction between air bubbles and organic molecules in the water, leading to their separation. It's commonly used in aquariums and wastewater treatment to remove organic pollutants. And all the other references you were making about my screen name and assuming I was being smug, are simply irrelevant.

You were certainly being smug, it is relevant contextually. You proclaimed yourself an expert at my expense instead of simply and kindly entering the conversation with your thoughts on the matter.

In any case, if we are going to define fractionation is purely physical adsorption and call that type of adsorption "not chemical" (physisorption) and further say that no chemisorption occurs or new compounds are created, no ionic bonds are broken, etc. Then "physical" it is and we are now splitting hairs semantically.

So "not chemical" but "physical" bonding based on surface-activity, then you win, smug or not. Will you be at at wal-mart in the morning?

I do wonder if we agree on your take, how you suggest that the large and historical body of information out there calling it "chemical" be corrected?

 

[reeflection]

You were certainly being smug, it is relevant contextually. You proclaimed yourself an expert at my expense instead of simply and kindly entering the conversation with your thoughts on the matter.

In any case, if we are going to define fractionation is purely physical adsorption and call that type of adsorption "not chemical" (physisorption) and further say that no chemisorption occurs new compounds are created, no ionic bonds are broken, etc. Then "physical" it is and we are now splitting hairs semantically.

I do wonder if we agree on your take, how you suggest that the large and historical body of information out there calling it "chemical"

You were certainly being smug, it is relevant contextually. You proclaimed yourself an expert at my expense instead of simply and kindly entering the conversation with your thoughts on the matter.

In any case, if we are going to define fractionation is purely physical adsorption and call that type of adsorption "not chemical" (physisorption) and further say that no chemisorption occurs or new compounds are created, no ionic bonds are broken, etc. Then "physical" it is and we are now splitting hairs semantically.

I do wonder if we agree on your take, how you suggest that the large and historical body of information out there calling it "chemical" be corrected?

You were certainly being smug, it is relevant contextually. You proclaimed yourself an expert at my expense instead of simply and kindly entering the conversation with your thoughts on the matter.

In any case, if we are going to define fractionation is purely physical adsorption and call that type of adsorption "not chemical" (physisorption) and further say that no chemisorption occurs or new compounds are created, no ionic bonds are broken, etc. Then "physical" it is and we are now splitting hairs semantically.

I do wonder if we agree on your take, how you suggest that the large and historical body of information out there calling it "chemical" be corrected?

I never once stated I'm an expert by any means, nor do i claim to be, simply stated I've been in the hobby since 96 and have never heard that it is arguably as you stated "more of a chemical process" Nonetheless, I wasn't in any way shape or form personally attacking you, nor was that my intent. I also never assumed anything nor would I ever. One thing that has worked for me in this hobby is keeping it simple, never splitting hairs, and chasing numbers, if you know what I mean, again i was simply stating exactly what the process is happening, along with that, I regret engaging in this thread because accusing anyone of malice intent is definitely taking to far. Making reference to my screen name is so silly to assume anything from that lol.. What's wrong with a little humor?? Whysocereal haha

 

[BeanAnimal]

, never splitting hairs, and chasing numbers, if you know what I mean, again i was simply stating exactly what the process is happening,... What's wrong with a little humor??

But alas we are splitting hairs on what exactly is “chemical” when it comes to types of bonds

Humor is a good thing, a lot or a little. Have a nice evening.