Analyzing a Bacterial Method for Dinoflagellates (and cyano?)

[Cruz_Arias]

Even Pentair, the authority in industrial aeration, at the moment, states the fact of increasing dissolved oxygen and driving off co2 in their literature for aeration devices. Not once, but TWICE in this brochure.

I'm sure it's published and peer reviewed by people smarter than me, outside of this hobby as well.

 

[Cruz_Arias]

Getting back to the OP, the regimen is simple.

1. Dissolve oxygen and degas carbon dioxide as efficiently as possible for the entire regimen.
2. Induce a bacterial bloom to out compete the dinoflagellates for food and space.
3. Remove excess bacteria from the water column.
4. Continue to oxygenate and degas carbon dioxide from lights off to lights on.



Trying to assume and decribe how biology, physics , and chemistry work out for this method does not make it less effective as a solution.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

Even Pentair, the authority in industrial aeration, at the moment, states the fact of increasing dissolved oxygen and driving off co2 in their literature for aeration devices. Not once, but TWICE in this brochure.

I'm sure it's published and peer reviewed by people smarter than me, outside of this hobby as well.

You have taken a nugget of scientific fact (that bubbling any gas with low CO2 reduces CO2 in the water), and misunderstood it with your own false interpretation that the O2 literally displaces CO2 because water can only hold so much gas.

I’ll only say it once more since other readers have heard the science behind the discussion. Gases do not compete with each other for solubility spots in water. A pure gas bubbles through the water will result in removal of all other gases (even water vapor) because some small amount of the dissolved gas like CO2 equilibrates with the bubble, causing some to enter the bubble and be carried away. If that pure gas being added held a normal amount of CO2 , then that would not happen.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

[QUOTE="Cruz_Arias, post: 6497932, member: 66961”]

Trying to assume and decribe how biology, physics , and chemistry work out for this method does not make it less effective as a solution.
[/QUOTE]

This is a science forum, not a how to get rid of dinos forum. Whether methods work or not, incorrect claims about the mechanism are critical, and the large number of such misleading claims by manufacturers in the past is a big reason for its existence.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

And let's say you are incorrect in assuming that your understanding of total dissolved gas and physics is flawed based on the fact that Henry's Law and Dalton's Gas laws are THEORIES based on ASSUMED constraints and ASSUMED IDEALS based on certain limitations.

Many new recent breakthroughs have debunked CLASSICAL understanding of chemistry and physics.

You can assume I am wrong if you like. I’m not.

 

[Cruz_Arias]

You can assume I am wrong if you like. I’m not.

You assume I am as well... I am not.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

The point being made is you cannot have over 100% gas saturation without degassing or displacing another gas in solution.

That's a fact.

No, it is a totally and utterly false assertion by you that is not even remotely accurate.

 

[Cruz_Arias]

[QUOTE="Cruz_Arias, post: 6497932, member: 66961”]

Trying to assume and decribe how biology, physics , and chemistry work out for this method does not make it less effective as a solution.

This is a science forum, not a how to get rid of dinos forum. Whether methods work or not, incorrect claims about the mechanism are critical, and the large number of such misleading claims by manufacturers in the past is a big reason for its existence.
[/QUOTE]
This is not a science forum... who are you kidding?

There is more to this world outside of Randy's World of Science.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

You assume I am as well... I am not.

You are unquestionably wrong. You have a flawed u defstanding of basic physical chemistry principles that you had demonstrated both here and in numerous other threads where I have challenged your assertions.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

This is a science forum, not a how to get rid of dinos forum. Whether methods work or not, incorrect claims about the mechanism are critical, and the large number of such misleading claims by manufacturers in the past is a big reason for its existence.

This is not a science forum... who are you kidding?

There is more to this world outside of Randy's World of Science.
[/QUOTE]

Certainly there is. But the chemistry of gases dissolving in water is well within my scientific expertise.

 

[Cruz_Arias]

Now stop derailing this thread with limited assumptions of your "understanding" as well.

Your strawman tactics will eventually find itself in a corner as obsolete.

 

[Cruz_Arias]

This is not a science forum... who are you kidding?

There is more to this world outside of Randy's World of Science.

Certainly there is. But the chemistry of gases dissolving in water is well within my scientific expertise.
[/QUOTE]
As it is mine. And I am recognized in my industries as one of the authorities in water management.

 

[Cruz_Arias]

Obviously, this forum is one of your only strongholds in society, Randy.

I will allow this thread to continue and bow out of this fruitless dialogue.

 

[Cruz_Arias]

Lastly, you CAN displace other gases in solution hypothesized using the Laplacian equations.

 

[Cruz_Arias]

The "law of physics" which I was referring to is the Pauli exclusion principle, which states that two identical fermions (particles with half-integer spin) cannot occupy the same quantum state simultaneously. This applies to normal matter, which is made out of only a few kinds of fermions tightly bonded together.
That includes gases in a given solution.

Gas has mass and gas has a volume, estimated by Avogadro's number and the IDEAL gas law.

In deference, Randy, please show us, that all other engineers and physicists are wrong, in our stating that displacement of gases in a solution is real.

We need facts, not opinions and "because I said so" arguments.

 

[Cruz_Arias]

I'm sorry, Randy, but you cannot isolate tidbits of a theory and fixate on only the items that fit your modeling without taking into consideration other aspects that interact on the same system.

 

[Cruz_Arias]

With this method, we're using outside air assuming 21% oxygen and 400ppm of CO2... the tank should reach normalized gas levels instead of elevated CO2 levels (600ppm to 1400ppm), as we see in homes and poorly ventilated buildings.

 

[Brew12]

3b - Tank Starter Nitrifying (denitrifying?) bacteria multiply rapidly as nutrients liberated by Waste-Away
Why does a tank take so long to cycle if nitrifiers are capable of explosive growth under these conditions?

I know I'm late to the party but this caught my eye, also. Under normal conditions every study I have seen says that nitrifying bacteria reproduce very slowly when compared to many other marine bacteria. The population doubles (at least in the more common strains) around once every 24 hours. Many other marine bacteria can double in population in under 20 minutes. At first glance it seems like there is little value to adding AOB's to the process.
But, I've also seen studies where growth rates of certain AOB's can rapidly accelerate when provided with the proper sludge conditions. Fortunately for us, a pH of 7.8-8.2 and a temperature of 77F (25C) seem ideal. High carbon and CO2 content also is beneficial.
I wouldn't rule out that part of the process using aeration, carbon dosing, sand stirring, and the waste away product work together to create the conditions needed for rapid reproduction of the AOB's. If this is what is occurring, it could make a big difference which bottled bacteria product is used as I doubt that they all contain the exact same strains.

 

[Brew12]

With this method, we're using outside air assuming 21% oxygen and 400ppm of CO2... the tank should reach normalized gas levels instead of elevated CO2 levels (600ppm to 1400ppm), as we see in homes and poorly ventilated buildings.

I'm far from an expert on this but I think I understand @Randy Holmes-Farley concern as to why this is an important concept for reef tanks. People have tried to raise pH by bubbling pure O2 in their system thinking it would displace CO2 and raise pH. It never has more than a negligible impact.
Adding more of one gas (O2) has almost no impact on the other gas (CO2) because it doesn't displace it. Some CO2 may get carried out with the O2 that bubbles through but that is it.

 

[Cruz_Arias]

I'm far from an expert on this but I think I understand @Randy Holmes-Farley concern as to why this is an important concept for reef tanks. People have tried to raise pH by bubbling pure O2 in their system thinking it would displace CO2 and raise pH. It never has more than a negligible impact.
Adding more of one gas (O2) has almost no impact on the other gas (CO2) because it doesn't displace it. Some CO2 may get carried out with the O2 that bubbles through but that is it.

I can see where normal bubbling has little impact, however with more surface area and longer dwell time in the water column, the better the gas exchange is in replacing the higher levels of co2 with a "less co2 ladened" air source.

Bubble size is very important, as is control of air to water density.

An analogy one of my mentors taught me was this: Just because you have all the ingredients to make a cake, doesn't mean that your cake will necessarily come out right if you don't mix the ingredients a certain way and bake at the suggested temperature.

Hope that helps, Brew.