Gotta love how math works that way.
Now the interesting twist - I decide to lower my dosing AND switch to a bi-weekly water change. After 10 weeks I end up much closer to the 12ppm accumulation than the 34ppm accumulation.
So, is it better to dose less and let the accumulation build up over time? but only "freshen" the water every 2 weeks.
How about even less dosing and go with monthly water changes?
Well you really open up a can of worms there. Less dosing and more water changes sounds like PPS to me.
And maybe I'm wrong, but it seems I don't see too many tanks here that are successful high tech with that method.
And I certainly don't want to start up a water change war (they can be brutal!), but if I have learned one thing in decades of fish keeping, it's that water changes are the single best thing you can do to for the health of your fish. So if you have a decent amount of fish in your tank, to me water changes are well worth it.
Now a tank with very few or no fish, maybe there is a modified EI water change schedule that would work. I think @fablau
was doing this for awhile, or maybe still is? Would be curious to hear his thoughts??
, you have mentioned on more than one occasion changing something slowly (Macro level, or whatever). Given your observation on accumulation the changes you make could take a bit of time to truely be apparent. Now, in your case, you do 70% water changes. This "should" make your changes apparent a little quicker than those of us doing 50% water changes.
Oh my more fun with math. Yes, in week two I am pretty close to stable levels (week 5). Takes a little more time at 50%. Now that's not the reason I change 70%. It's mostly because of the Bows, although I've always thought both fish and plants love a good water change.
And why not extrapolate it even further. Let's say we are a bit lazy and only change 30%. Note how the accumulated levels increase? So the point is, the percentage of water changed really does affect accumulated values over time.