Backyard Aquaponics
A place to discuss aquaponics

Hey, fair points Stuart.. after re-reading some of the posts above I admit perhaps I misintepreted some points and after a particularly crappy day yesterday, after feeling ripped off by my mechanic, may have overreacted. Apologies if I ruffled a few feathers

I guess we all come here from very differents walks of life, with vastly different communication styles, but one thing in common.. the love of aquaponics eh

Actually most people will tell you that simplicity is the key to good design. This is so in almost everything, from programming to industrial design, through to food growing methods. So I'll keep pushing it...

I agree. Complicated solutions are never the right ones, unless you make money with it. Simple solutions are easy to understand and follow for others, will do the job and hardly fail. If it fails, it's easy to correct or repair. For me it's the one and only criteria I use to assess possible solutions for any problem. If it gives the "aha! Erlebniss" it is the right one.

KISS!

Jumping the fence now....

Simple is often better and a simple solution that is as good as a complicated solution is almost always better but for this to be true the simple solution must be as good (functionally) as the more complicated solution.

Ryan outlined a number of reasons why solids separation (rather than removal) can be a good idea. Such a system is more complicated and as Ryan outlined can be more productive in terms of quantity and quality. So arguably such a system would be better.

Having said that we are talking about advice for people with little to no AP experience. Once people have more experience they may decide to make their system more complicated or they may continue with a simple solution that has such an excellent proven track record.

oh geez.
i never said more complicate is always better, but simple isnt always better in every situation.

oh well, ill leave you guys to it.

So Yavimaya shall we call you the seagull?

There is an Amish saying "Simple is best", but as an engineer I know that is not true all the time. One example would be fuel injection and computer controls of cars, and variable valve timing. These days you can get a car that makes more power and gets better gas mileage at the same time, all because of the added engineering complexity.

I think of the different AP systems as a MiG versus an F-15. One is more complicated and more expensive and more capable and the other is sturdier and simpler and cheaper. Doesn't map one to one to this discussion but if I wanted dead simple operation, construction, and maintenance that might be the one to recommend to people just starting out.

+1

What does that mean by the way?

I've seen it one the forum for years so I understand what people mean but what is the literal translation?

no idea what you are talking about, but call me whatever you like.

I don't know what a seagull is either in this context... but I will take a guess that it implies something along the lines 'swooping in having a peck and disappearing again" ? is that right? Or has it got to do with seagulls crapping on everything? now I am confused

Sorry to disagree with you, Dave.

Steam engines were used in cars before the internal combustion engine got its way. Steam engines were energy efficient, at large not as polluting as IC engines, easy and simple to operate and maintain/repair. There are now steam engines developed that are, again, far more efficient and stronger than IC engines. The tinkering by engineers on IC engines to make them more efficient are, IMO, nothing more than attempts to fix and hide the basic problems of IC engines.

I know, lots of people will call it all the evolution and advancement of technique and point to it as a great achievement of our technical capabilities. I can simply not see it that way. Not every step forward is a good one.

+1 means "I agree" or similar. While I think it predates Google+, it's a Google+ term now.

Google+, for those not into it, is where people who couldn't stand Facebook went to have meaningful discussions without all the teen garbage, SPAM, hacks and other drivel . Regrettably as Facebook wanes and G+ waxes, they're invading but it's still vastly superior for higher signal:noise ratio.

the second of Tom's theories, was a joke name for a boss we had.

fly in crap on everybody and fly off.

pls don't take offence.

Sorry man, but im going to have to -1 all of that.
steam is not more efficient than petrol, there were many, many technolgies back then, petrol won for a reason.
steam is unreliable and is not easy to fix.
Carrying hundreds of litres of water around, then having to refill and then wait for pressure every 10 kilometres or so would suck.
old IC engines are a lot more simple than steam engines.

SB, ive been called a lot worse most of my life. I dont get offended easily.

+1 is yet another large company stealing someone elses idea and the masses giving them credit.
It has to do with forum reputation systems.

I reckon steam could possibly be more efficient when you look at the large picture. For an internal combustion engine you have to get the oil and refine it, and technically it's a finite resource, where as steam can run on wood which is highly renewable..

But then you can also run an IC engine on gassified (did I just make up a word) wood, so....