[quote=“ronert, post:17, topic:770”]
Either way … imho … it’s all about the surface area that the live rock provides for the aerobic bacteria … whatever it’s name is. Density and volume are nice things to yak about, but the surface area is what counts for growing more bacteria.[/quote]
Volume and density are things that describe surface area.
Volume and mass determine density. Anyone disagree?
Surface area is pretty highly related with density. Anyone disagree?
Higher porosity means lower density. Anyone disagree?
Higher porosity means more surface area. Anyone disagree?
Lower density is more surface area. Anyone disagree?
More surface area is better filtration. Anyone disagree?
There are bits of correct info in all those posts but I am too much of a hurry to be able to pull them out.
Not all the benefits of rock are because it wicks water quickly but actually the fact some rocks wicks water slowly depending on density. If the rock had a quick flow through rate would both types of bacteria exist? The water will become less oxygenated at it slowly moves into the pores and capillarys naturally occurring in the rock.
Yea, I guess the question is what is the best density to have. How fast/slow should the water be ‘wicked’ into the rock? How much flow is necessary around the rock to move the fresh water away and draw to it the not so fresh? Is the answer a mixture?
I think desnity should be taken out of the equation altogether since its relative. What i said the first time, and whats been confirmed several more times is surface area is the primary factor and the only one that should be taken into consideration.
Surface area is the whole point behind bio balls and other bio media, very fascinating. Its funny how everyone refers to bioballs and other media as a nitrate factory when it does the exact same thing as live rock minus the biolgoical diversity and probably not as well. I think the key with bio-media is keeping the media clean and free of detritus.
[quote=“logans_daddy, post:24, topic:770”]
I think desnity should be taken out of the equation altogether since its relative. What i said the first time, and whats been confirmed several more times is surface area is the primary factor and the only one that should be taken into consideration.
Surface area is the whole point behind bio balls and other bio media, very fascinating. Its funny how everyone refers to bioballs and other media as a nitrate factory when it does the exact same thing as live rock minus the biolgoical diversity and probably not as well. I think the key with bio-media is keeping the media clean and free of detritus.[/quote]
Agreed on all points. Mass has no bearing as we’re concerned. The popular train of thought is that bio-balls differ from live rock in that they don’t contain the low flow areas that can house anaerobic bacteria. I think there is a slight difference between what people commonly refer to as surface area and porosity. Surface area is only a two dimensional measurement, whereas porosity is three dimensional. Therefore, surface area only applies to the outside of the rock, and porosity is throughout the rock. The difference comes into play when you consider a flow rate through the holes in the rock vs. a flow rate through the rock (or wicking rate).
PS- Ted, it’s been a while since I really looked at nitrosomanas vs. nitrobacter, but I think you are correct.
logans_daddy: Depending on the way the denitrator is designed the main point of it is to create an environment lacking in oxygen which water from the tank flows through.
One of the ways they work (a coil denitrator) is they use a very long tube which water flows down through very slowly. The oxygen rises and the water sinks. When the water reaches the bottom and enters the chamber(which may or may not contain media) it is absent of oxygen and the reactions which convert Nitrate into Nitrogen gas can occur.
ronert: I’m willing to bet a $5 coral, that none of us have a reef tank void of anerobic bacteria.
Ian “Yea, I guess the question is what is the best density to have.” I personally believe that the best rock for biological function is often not the best rock for appearances. I’ll explain with pictures soon.
Would it be possible to stop convo on this for about two weeks while I write up my opinions to this issue in a detailed article with sources for all of my data and definitions? lol Doubt it, but thought I’d ask lol. I could present my view at the meeting(after elections) and then once I’ve had a second to spit everything out we can debate it.
BTW, density does matter when it comes to the complete biological function of LR.
BTW, density does matter when it comes to the complete biological function of LR.
I dont think anyone thinks it doesnt matter, its just relative and very hard to accurately factor in.
One misconception i think a lot of people are making, including you jon with the last statement, is density as a value of the atomical structure of the rock versus density as a value of the microbiological effects of the macro structure of the rock. What makes live rock so great at what it does are all of the liitle nooks, crannies, and tunnels created by marine life over the course of many years. Its not about the density of the rock determined by its atomical structure or the natural pourous nature of the rock determined by its atomical structure. This is what makes density VERY relative and basically not important when considering live rock unless you know what kind of rock it is geolocgically speaking or you examine your rock under a microscope before purchasing it.
I also think a lot of us have been using the term in two differnt contexts. One meaning the ability for a rock to absorb water via its loose anatomical strucutre and the other meaning all of the aforementioned nooks and crannies created biologically. I for one believe that the first has very little impact on live rocks ability as a biofiltrator and that its almost 95% ther result of the latter. I agree with the way jocephus broke it down. Its entirely two different things.