×
Retirement and forum shutdown (17 Jan 2022)

Hi,

John Howell who has managed the forum for years is getting on and wishes to retire from the role of managing it.
Over the years, he has managed the forum through good days and bad days and he has always been fair.
He has managed to bring his passion for fish keeping to the forum and keep it going for so long.

I wish to thank John for his hard work in keeping the forum going.

With John wishing to "retire" from the role of managing the forum and the forum receiving very little traffic, I think we must agree that forum has come to a natural conclusion and it's time to put it to rest.

I am proposing that the forum be made read-only from March 2022 onwards and that no new users or content be created. The website is still registered for several more years, so the content will still be accessible but no new topics or replies will be allowed.

If there is interest from the ITFS or other fish keeping clubs, we may redirect traffic to them or to a Facebook group but will not actively manage it.

I'd like to thank everyone over the years who helped with forum, posted a reply, started a new topic, ask a question and helped a newbie in fish keeping. And thank you to the sponsors who helped us along the away. Hopefully it made the hobby stronger.

I'd especially like to thank John Howell and Valerie Rousseau for all of their contributions, without them the forum would have never been has successful.

Thank you
Darragh Sherwin

Water Chemistry.... confusing topics ?

More
28 May 2011 22:39 #1 by igmillichip (ian millichip)
Just wondering......

which parts of water chemistry do people find the most confusing OR the ones that seem to have the most conflicting information?

pH; alkalinity; hardness; ammonia/nitrites/nitrates etc; RedOx (ORP and all that); Conductivity (and TDS etc); Buffers; uses of carbon; general 'cycling'; test kits meanings; or Magnesium/Calcium balances (esp in marine aquaria)? or any other?

OR maybe these are considered all irrelevant and just scientific waffle?

I have reasons for my question. The main reason is to see which parts need a bit more focus upon and a bit more work needed to translate what is scientific waffle into meaning talk.

ian

Irish Tropical Fish Society (ITFS) Member.

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
29 May 2011 14:54 #2 by sheag35 (Seamus Gillespie)
ok for me its tds, never understood that blooming part, Ian if you can explain it in idiot proof english... no scientific waffle... i'd appreciate it

Fishkeeping the Only way to get wet and wild

currently 25 tanks, and breeding is the aim of everything i keep
location:Limerick

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
29 May 2011 18:22 #3 by igmillichip (ian millichip)

ok for me its tds, never understood that blooming part, Ian if you can explain it in idiot proof english... no scientific waffle... i'd appreciate it


noted. I'll do a thread on that, and also mention some common 'myths' as well. It will be linked with conductivity as well (because most TDS meters are conductivity meters....maybe all are).

Irish Tropical Fish Society (ITFS) Member.

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
29 May 2011 22:50 #4 by igmillichip (ian millichip)

ok for me its tds, never understood that blooming part, Ian if you can explain it in idiot proof english... no scientific waffle... i'd appreciate it


I've put up a thread.

Now, there are some complex and science bits in it.....but I'm happy to expand on bits that seem confusing....or on queries that I have left out.
(I didn't want to spend all evening typing).

I wasn't too sure which bits you don't get....so I thought I'd throw in a few testers to see if we're on the right tracks.

www.irishfishkeepers.com/index.php/fforu...ved-solids-tds#99362

ian

Irish Tropical Fish Society (ITFS) Member.

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
30 May 2011 18:08 - 30 May 2011 18:09 #5 by christyg (Chris Geraghty)
I wonder, does the average fishkeeper really need to get bogged down in the science of water properties outside of the basics, like ph, ammonia, nitrite and nitrate. Surely once these are understood, it should be sufficient unless you get into specialized setups ????
Last edit: 30 May 2011 18:09 by christyg (Chris Geraghty).

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
30 May 2011 19:50 #6 by igmillichip (ian millichip)

I wonder, does the average fishkeeper really need to get bogged down in the science of water properties outside of the basics, like ph, ammonia, nitrite and nitrate. Surely once these are understood, it should be sufficient unless you get into specialized setups ????


Good point.

I'm just an average fish-keepers, and that is the angle I take everything from.

That would be a great topic for discussion in a public debate.

ian

Irish Tropical Fish Society (ITFS) Member.

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
31 May 2011 01:29 #7 by sheag35 (Seamus Gillespie)

I wonder, does the average fishkeeper really need to get bogged down in the science of water properties outside of the basics, like ph, ammonia, nitrite and nitrate. Surely once these are understood, it should be sufficient unless you get into specialized setups ????


Fair point Christyg but i like to have the knowledge of all aspects of the hobby, for the average fishkeeper i think just a basic knowledge of ph,nitrites etc is all you need, but when trying to breed some tricky fish like my l066 i'd like to have a fully stocked armoury of things to try to get success

Fishkeeping the Only way to get wet and wild

currently 25 tanks, and breeding is the aim of everything i keep
location:Limerick

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
31 May 2011 20:07 #8 by Sofiztikated (Kenny Gibson)
For me, all of it!

Outside of pH, nitrates and nitrites, I get lost. And even at that, I'll be honest, I never really check levels. Once it's working, I tend to leave it alone. I know, it's not right, but as I said, it boggles me!

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
31 May 2011 20:15 #9 by christyg (Chris Geraghty)


Good point.

I'm just an average fish-keepers, and that is the angle I take everything from.

That would be a great topic for discussion in a public debate.

ian


Thats an understatement if I ever heard one :) . If you're just an average fishkeeper, theres no hope for the rest of us :crazy: :crazy: :crazy:

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
31 May 2011 20:36 #10 by igmillichip (ian millichip)


Good point.

I'm just an average fish-keepers, and that is the angle I take everything from.

That would be a great topic for discussion in a public debate.

ian


Thats an understatement if I ever heard one :) . If you're just an average fishkeeper, theres no hope for the rest of us :crazy: :crazy: :crazy:


There is a long history. :)
As a young kid I was interested in chemistry and life....but I didn't understand it at primary school.
But then I started keeping fish, and started to see talk about chemicals etc....and that got me even more interested.
Then at secondary I started to have bits and dabs explained that I'd heard about in fish-keeping....and linked the two.
So...my interest in fish-keeping drove my interest in chemistry even further.....but it was the effect of chemicals on life that really interested me.

So, yeah, I'm an average fishkeeper who has tried to link two long-standing interests together: and I'm still learning and trying to develop new ways of looking at things.
AND hoping that fellow fish-keepers can contribute to science......fish-keepers have a lot to offer.

@ Sofiztikated..... I would also go with the philosophy of 'once its working, leave it'. The science comes in in trying to help out with things that don't quite work.....even if 'doing what it says on the tin'.

ian

Irish Tropical Fish Society (ITFS) Member.

Please Log in to join the conversation.

Time to create page: 0.056 seconds
Powered by Kunena Forum