bakki towers

[Mike Mazur]

all I am saying is that if it is indeed the media the differences should be measurable at the outlet versus inlet readings. clearly there is no other way. the water entering the three towers would be identical, the flow the same, the only difference will be the media. A clear winner would be backed by numbers. the science would have to wait but we would know if this media is hype, hope, hysteria or the best thing to happen in a long time. I am allowing all the medias to mature in their own time period and it is simple to have an average result over the time with spikes noted. Like I said if it is in the media this would show it that is all, I am not attacking any views here just trying to eliminate variables.

[shiromujigirl]

I've already got $700 invested in this experiment in tanks, pumps, pipes and racks with no gain in it for myself other than satisfaction of my curiosity. If someone would like to send me all the meters required in triplicate I would be glad to do it this way. ~

[Mike Mazur]

Of course I did not intend for yourself to do the test. The work you are doing is very much apreciated and the results will have value. I was speaking towards the suppliers of this material for they have the gains to be reaped if indeed the media is triumphant in the challenge.

[luke frisbee]

Mike,
From my old Psych class i remember that quote as:
"I'd rather have a free bottle in front of me than a prefrontal lobotomy."

While "frontal lobotomy" is consider correct (as is just the plain, "lobotomy"), it is a less precise term. As well as the sounds, "pre-" and "free".

[Mike Mazur]

that is true Luke! I just barely remember getting my B.S. in Horticulture from living my quote. most likely why I finished with only a minor in micro biology and not a double major!

[Roddy Conrad]

The test procedure Mike suggested a few posts above would have no validity from my perspective no matter what results came from it.

Ponds are outside things. The sunlight "should" make a difference to the entire process, especially the bakki shower process.

So any valid experiments need to be either done outside in the Sun, or in a greenhouse with plenty of sunlight coming into the pond from the roof and sides of the greenhouse(s).

Artificial conditions never match the real thing. So for a real result, the test must be real, in an outside pond setting, IMO.

[James P]

Mike S, I was following the flow of topic on this thread and I missed your post asking to clear up your confusion about ther terms 'closed system' and open system'. Sorry.
A closed system would be one that depends on the parameters of recirculated water for the survival of the inhabitants. This requires the harnessing of biological principals to reduce or slow down water deterioration and toxicity build up ,which is the normal consequence living inhabitants have on their environment. Because closed systems are not open ended in their potential to maintain fish life indefinitely they must be periodically 'readjusted' to a base line of non toxicity and 'rechanged' with those elements that have been exhausted.

An open ended system is one that may appear physically closed but actually depends to a large extent on a constant dilution fact to keep the consequences of a true closed system from happening. Generally speaking, these are easier managed systems as you are not depending on 'closed end' support apparatus. pH crash for instance would be an impossibilty in open systems. Because you are not depending on the biological filter to maintain a base line ,the burden of water quality falls equally or solely on the constant dilution factor provided by inflowing water. It is indeed possible in complete open ended systems not to have nitrification going on to any extent at all in a biofilter. Perhaps the most basic way to say this is that a biofilter in an open system is NOT in equilibrium with the population as the true nutrient source is diluted and there for the filter is supporting an 'illusionary' population.

The ultimate experiment that demonstrates open systems is the famous study done on trout held in tiny glass containers that were connected to a constant inflow of water and food. The fish grew like 'ships in a bottle' until there was very litte space left for them to even move. Cruel but it makes the point. If the water were changed every other day for these captives and stopped inbetween the experiment would have been over on day two- the subjects would be in fish heaven on the second day!
The degree of 'open-ness' of a system can be debated. What you are doing is having the semi-open nature of your systems adjusted to more or less "filter dependent/ open system supported" based on feed back readings of TDS.
JR

[craig.a]

HELLO ALL I HAVE BEEN USING BAKKI SHOWERS FROM MY BOTTOM DRAIN SINCE ABOUT APRIL OFLAST YEAR AND I PUT LESS FRESH WATER IN THEN I EVER USED TO BECAUSE IM NOT FLUSHING MY FILTERS ANY MORE.THE WATER IS BETTER THAN IT HAS EVER BEEN,IHAVE NOT SEEN BLANKET WEED ALL YEAR,I STOPPED USEING MY U.V ,STILL CRYSTAL CLEAR,I ALSO REMOVED AFOAM FRACTIONATOR STILL NO SURFACE FOAM,AS FOR GROWTH ,TOSIA GROWING FROM 20CM TO OVER 50CM AND 2 YEAR OLD GROWING 25 CM IN YEAR IN 5000G POND.I,VE TRIED A LOT OF THING'S IN THE PAST IN PURSUIT OF GOOD WATER BUT THE BAKKI SHOWER IS THE THE ONLY THING THAT AS DONE EXACTLY WHAT IT SAID TO DO.

REGARDS CRAIG

[JasonS]

Craig, I appreciate your post. Always nice to hear from somebody not selling these things but still using it. You are one of those customers that Mike S talked about, yes?

The effectiveness of an open system in any locale depends on the quality of the water going through it. Change the quality of the new water and the fish will improve or decline depending on that water. If the water in a closed system is actually improved beyond that of the 'mains' water, then the water changes and 'adjustments' need to walk the fine line between dilution of those factors the filtration can't improve and the those it can.

So, Craig, I'm wondering about the quality of your input water. Is it well/bore hole or city/mains? Have you looked at the source water for the reason why less water changes improved matters?

In addition did you try any other wet/dry filtration before the showers and this magical bakki media? The thing that SMG's experiment seems designed to discover: is it is media or is it the method?

Thanks in advance

[Mike Mazur]

is it the media or the method is exactly what the numbers would show by the numbers generated in my proposed but balked at method. any difference in numbers would only have one explanation.