Hi, just tagging along here
jimmyj7090 said:
...I was thinking they would = increased contact with surface area which would = increased nitrifying bacteria (or would it be killed by the O3?).
For the home aquarium, ozone addition should not be considered as means of improving nitrification. Any impactpositive or negative!, would be indirect.
Ozone (O
3)has a very short half life once introduced into water, and it is in that short half life that it does all its magic on stuff in your aquarium water.
The decay products of ozone are regular oxygen gas and the oxidized product of whatever it targeted.
jimmyj7090 said:
...I'm not saying what I'm thinking is right, just curious about what others opinions or understandings were. I'm trying to figure out fact from fiction like a lot of others since I never really considered O3 before...
Ozone is tricky, and although there were some tensions in the other thread, I'm not trying to dissuade people from using it. Quite the contrary. I'm just offering explainations on how it works, and due caution.
The problem is, in the game of telephone, people can become confused when they don't deal with things like ozone everyday in their line of work.
For example, using ozone to arbitrarily raise your ORP to a value seen on RC would be unwise. On the other hand, using ozone to experiment with water quality (namely clarity), while I believe there are side effects that need to be examined, is not unwise. And for that reason, I tag along on ozone threads.
jimmyj7090 said:
...(Did anyone see calfo's article, apparently written after a few drinks, scathing the trend of hobbiests jumping on ideas presented or stated by "experts"? I guess I'm more or less in on this one, irony....)
Yes, although I do put part of the blame on Calfo himself, after having read many of his writings.
There is a real monkey-see-monkey-do approach in this hobby. In the worst cases, there can be a connection between an "expert" giving advice and a manufacturer who benefits.
The BRS Member must realize that
none of these writings are remotely up to scientific standards (nor are they intended to be), and are merely opinion pieces.
Are all of these articles bunk? Of course not. There are more than enough authors who write with the best intentions and qualify their results appropriately. The problem comes when the author does not qualify his results, is writing out of their area of expertise, and the public takes their writing as orders to behave like a lemming.
In my opinion, there are more than enough experts here on the BRS with experience that goes miles and miles. I know because I have relied on many, many people (my gosh, Yaktop, Greg, Aquaman, Bec, Scott, and so on...!).
Just because someone over on RC (or elsewhere) says something doesn't make it so. I think you're doing the absolute right thing by discussing it here first,
Matt