Micro Scrubbing Bubbles.

[Cruz_Arias]

Most of the evidence you've posted are from commercial companies using equipment beyond the scope of the discussion here. You've also used a wide variety of terms regarding the bubbles in your posts. Micro, nano and Micro-Nano. It is my understanding you can't create nano bubbles without creating a majority of larger bubbles as well, including micro. So why not just remove "Nano" from all of your future posts until a point where you can properly address the questions raised here? Mainly the following.

The THEORY and SCIENCE is the same... Application and Purpose is the same...
Generationof the smaller sized bubbles (that shrink) (different)...

So, until you can measure all spectrums of light visible and invisible, there is no light?

 

[Cruz_Arias]

 

[Cruz_Arias]

I would like to put up a challenge to those that do NOT agree that cavitation of small microbubbles create nanobubbles of varying sizes...

And that shrinking microbubbles can in fact become nanobubbles depending on osmotic balance.

But hey, I'm just a COE Electrical and Instrumentation Engineer working for the largest chemical company and various other high profile companies in this country and others...

We automate, document, and test everything... LOL

 

[Thales]

Agreed...

The problem with the hobby is that things are not scrutinized as hard as the limewood airstone depending on "who is associated" with the method... (Favoritism)

This is not only unfair but also simply wrong.
On almost anything that I have put forward in the aquarium, I get scrutiny. Much of it major. Look at the reaction to the article on Triton testing. Look at the reaction to what I presented on Phosphate. Heck, even my initial cuttle article got grief. When you put stuff out there, people react to it and scrutinize it - that is the way it is supposed to work. Every contributor to the hobby I can think deals with people taking them to task for what they write. Some people get a trustable reputation and may get less scrutiny because of that, but all of those go out of their way to invite scrutiny.
Second, trying to describe the litany of claims you make as 'limewood airstone' is disengenous (again, using this word is not a personal attack.

I believe regardless of who introduced anything to the hobby it should always be scrutinized like this...

• How many food products are scrutinized this heavily? Does the general public know that thiamin is, how it's produced and how it's derived?
• How many hobbyists scrutinize what blend of potassium is used in the potassium supplements? Potassium Iodide? Potassium Gluconate? Potassium Bromide? Potassium Chloride?
• How many hobbyists understand the difference between the necessities of both aerobic and anaerobic bacteria and what their scientific names of the strains are in all bacteria products?
• How many hobbyists care what constitutes "Magnesium"... Magnesium Sulfate or Magnesium Chloride?

Those things are scrutinized all the time, though it could be more.

Over 35,000 views, 20 plus worldwide threads (local and international)

This is specious (again not a personal attack). First, this is not a big number in the scheme of things, and second, people reading something doesn't mean it is true.

and a lot supposition and guessing what would happen negatively... so far, no negatives... a few neutrals... but mostly positives...

Again, disingenuous (and again, not a personal attack). Very little saying negatives, most looking for you to support your claims - which you are not doing, instead preferring to toss out red herrings like the post I quoted.

 

[anit77]

How do these graphs showing the results for a highly specialized piece of equipment that we don't have access to legitimize any of your claims regarding a simple air difuser and water pump used in your process? I'm just failing to comprehend how this has anything to do with what we're discussing.

 

[Cruz_Arias]

Cruz, I can see you're passionate about this but I'm failing to see how you are properly responding to questions raised and in some cases completely ignoring them. You keep dancing around the issues without addressing them. Just like the Fine Bubble Technologies graph. There is no mention the the equipment used to create those bubbles and how it relates to what your advocating. Most of the evidence you've posted are from commercial companies using equipment beyond the scope of the discussion here. You've also used a wide variety of terms regarding the bubbles in your posts. Micro, nano and Micro-Nano. It is my understanding you can't create nano bubbles without creating a majority of larger bubbles as well, including micro. So why not just remove "Nano" from all of your future posts until a point where you can properly address the questions raised here? Mainly the following.

We don't have access to high dollar equipment that can create nano bubbles. How are we creating nano bubbles with a wood air diffuser and a return pump? Let's see some lab grade testing to quantify your claims. Once that is done respond to Thales questions in post 730.

We all want to see positive results but you can't keep responding with anecdotal evidence and references that are out of the scope reef aquariums and the equipment we don't have access to.

Anecdotal evidence are observations and

This is not only unfair but also simply wrong.
On almost anything that I have put forward in the aquarium, I get scrutiny. Much of it major. Look at the reaction to the article on Triton testing. Look at the reaction to what I presented on Phosphate. Heck, even my initial cuttle article got grief. When you put stuff out there, people react to it and scrutinize it - that is the way it is supposed to work. Every contributor to the hobby I can think deals with people taking them to task for what they write. Some people get a trustable reputation and may get less scrutiny because of that, but all of those go out of their way to invite scrutiny.
Second, trying to describe the litany of claims you make as 'limewood airstone' is disengenous (again, using this word is not a personal attack.

Those things are scrutinized all the time, though it could be more.



This is specious (again not a personal attack). First, this is not a big number in the scheme of things, and second, people reading something doesn't mean it is true.



Again, disingenuous (and again, not a personal attack). Very little saying negatives, most looking for you to support your claims - which you are not doing, instead preferring to toss out red herrings like the post I quoted.

Ok... I think I have this figured out...
You want us to quantify positive results from how many systems, under what conditions, and solve for what?

The identification was "hobbyists were not cleaning the DT as much especially in between and behind the rockwork"
The other Identification was "hobbyists were not aerating their system as well based on "small skimmer size" and lack of tubing going to an outdoor air source."

Visible results observed by third party participants are:
Coral slime lifts off coral. Coral looks cleaner and brighter in the morning and Polyp Extension (according to a hobbyist performing this)
Better water clarity
Higher ORP
Higher DO
Higher pH (result of driving off CO2)

Stable pH results in better calcification at a pH of 7.9 or better (typically up to 8.4) (yes we need a control and a testing method)

Better oxygenation also allow a system to maintain a higher bioload and biodiversity in a system. This has been proven in freshwater forums as well as saltwater fish only systems with increased aeration...

Addressing two known issues (Poor Ventilation and AERATION) and (DETRITUS REMOVAL from DT) solves a a lot of issues our friends in the hobby are seeing daily.

 

[Cruz_Arias]

How do these graphs showing the results for a highly specialized piece of equipment that we don't have access to legitimize any of your claims regarding a simple air difuser and water pump used in your process? I'm just failing to comprehend how this has anything to do with what we're discussing.

Randy and I discussed this I believe on page 25 or so...
Light scattering instrumentation such as Optek Turbidity sensors...
Or any other light scattering and averaging devices...

We utilize this in a number of industries from beer, waste water and other manufacturing industries all of which I do have access to here at work... but not for the hobby.

We see "particulates" you cannot see with the naked eye.

Each costs roughly $23,000 to 45,000 depending on material of construction, finish, or other process specific material compatability.

In any bubble shearing, generating mechanism, there is always a probability in generating a split or shearing of a small bubble. based on industrial mechanics (fluid dynamics) the probability of generation is high.

We have posted pictures of the smallest bubbles we could generate... the funny thing is... is that the bubbles are smaller than that of a typical skimmer!!

 

[Cruz_Arias]

How do these graphs showing the results for a highly specialized piece of equipment that we don't have access to legitimize any of your claims regarding a simple air difuser and water pump used in your process? I'm just failing to comprehend how this has anything to do with what we're discussing.

Oh yes... one more thing... I would like to see access to skimmer data sheets, total organic floatation, bubble size, generation, ORP levels and DO levels, angle of velocity for laminar water flow and angular velocity, with just a skimmer (no wavemaker or agitiation)...

Problem is... there is NO Data for our current skimmer designs... The only information we get is:
Max Water in (pump size) Max Air in (venturi), Approximate maximum % of water to air mixture, and recommended tank size...
That's not scientific at all...

I can do the same without and claims or statement of 3rd party OBSERVATIONS,
Max Airpump Volume: Tetra Pond 26075 Whisper 150 Air Pump

What Size is Right for Me?
Product Aquarium Size
Whisper Air Pump 10 Up to 10 Gallons
Whisper Air Pump 20 Up to 20 Gallons
Whisper Air Pump 40 Up to 40 Gallons
Whisper Air Pump 60 Up to 60 Gallons
Whisper Air Pump 100 Up to 100 Gallons
Whisper Air Pump 150 Up to 150 Gallons
Whisper Air Pump 300 Up to 300 Gallons


Whisper Pumps Produce a More Oxygenated Aquarium
Tetra's Whisper pumps will keep both you and your underwater friends happy. The pumps provide oxygen, which is good for your fish and tank, and also provide water movement. Combining these two benefits will lead to better water conditions overall. The underwater bubbles produced by the machine also add a mesmerizing touch enhancing the look of your aquarium. These pumps are the most powerful line that Tetra offers, ensuring that you are getting the best quality pump available.

For foods, same thing... there are no real instructions on how to feed except "rinse or don't rinse" "broadcast or spot feed"

If we are trending to become more scientific, I'm ok with that...

 

[Sabellafella]

Going threw this thread this stuff looks interesting but has there ben a long term study on something like this? Im talking about in the aquarium not in the ocean also over 7-10 plus years atleast with someones experience on it. Im sure atleast a halfhour of blasting corals with bubbles once day/week sounds great as corals shed mucus (just how we shed skin but conscience? Or im talking out loud and crazy). Im under the impression that oxygen (at a certain point) is the devil and exceeding a higher orp is acually really really bad so someone please enlighten me. 5-8 hours sounds way way to much, but i wouldnt be supprized if something like this turns out to be a solution to rid aefws and certain pest in the long run

 

[Sabellafella]

And were in the world is @Dtackett anyone heard from him? He was very active and fell off real quick around the time of all the bad storms going around so hopefully hes alrite

 

[Cruz_Arias]

Going threw this thread this stuff looks interesting but has there ben a long term study on something like this? Im talking about in the aquarium not in the ocean also over 7-10 plus years atleast with someones experience on it. Im sure atleast a halfhour of blasting corals with bubbles once day/week sounds great as corals shed mucus (just how we shed skin but conscience? Or im talking out loud and crazy). Im under the impression that oxygen (at a certain point) is the devil and exceeding a higher orp is acually really really bad so someone please enlighten me. 5-8 hours sounds way way to much, but i wouldnt be supprized if something like this turns out to be a solution to rid aefws and certain pest in the long run

No blasting, @Sabellafella just placing the airstone NEAR (not in, on, or under) the return pump intake... (About 2 to 3 inches away)

The return pump only sucks in the smallest suspended air bubbles from the limewood airstone .

 

[Cruz_Arias]

And were in the world is @Dtackett anyone heard from him? He was very active and fell off real quick around the time of all the bad storms going around so hopefully hes alrite

Haven't seen Dustin in a minute...

 

[Sabellafella]

No blasting, @Sabellafella just placing the airstone NEAR (not in, on, or under) the return pump intake...

The return pump only sucks in the smallest suspended air bubbles from the limewood airstone .

Matter of time before jebao comes out with 'not a knockoff' because i dont think anyoned manufactured special equipment yet lol

 

[watchguy123]

It would be wonderful if bubbling truly benefitted reef tanks. I hope it does.

The fascinating part of this thread is how committed so many people are to improving reefing.

Lots of anecdotal evidence that bubbling works. Anecdotal evidence is what most hobbyists exchange on forums like this. And the weight of anecdotal evidence can be compelling. But it is anectodotal nonetheless, and until scientific inquiry and testing is completed it is just that. Faith is a wonderful thing, though.

And boy, oh boy, you can you see deeply felt faith at display here. I must embarrassingly admit, it is entertaining to see the emotions involved when faith is questioned. But asking for scientific proof or asking for scientific rationale, everyone should be able to ask for that without challenge. And yah, this is a hobby so not too likely we'll get there. Maybe you can look at the sewer treatment science, but only some of it.

Bubbling research has clearly defined nano from micro bubbles. I kinda think (but don't know), that there is a lot of hope that we are somehow spitting out lots of nano bubbles, but I'm not convinced that all we are really seeing are micro bubbles and larger bubbles.

Keep up the faith.

 

[Greenstreet.1]

The problem that a lot of people are having is that some people are making this thing sounds like it's something that's tried and true I have even seen post where people are telling others it's the way to go. I for one will be following and doing some pretesting until I decide to do it or not but so far all this tells me is give more air to my skimmer and I should have the same results.

Just my take on it.

ONELOVE ALL DAY.

 

[Thales]

I don't see any other product thought or method being scrutinized this hard... Does anyone else think it's funny that they would like a full blown report for correct placement of an aeration device and the correct placement of the air pump...

This is just incorrect. Many claims and products are put to this scrutiny and more. You not seeing it doesn't mean it doesn't/isn't happening. You saying it isn't happening isn't actually giving any support to your claims.
More importantly, no one is asking you for a full blown report on anything. You keep saying stuff like this and it really hurts the discussion. In the other thread there was a pH graph and two more incredible simple expirements were floated to help figure stuff out - the suggestions were ignored. A lot of the stuff you are saying happens is super easy to do some informative testing to support, but for some reason instead of supporting your claims you keep saying why you shouldn't have to.

Because That's all it is... Mother Nature takes care of the rest when it comes to aeration, bioload, and water clarity...

That is an incredible oversimplification of an incredibly complicated set of processes.

 

[McMullen]

@Cruz_Arias, you seem to have knowledge and expertise on this and other subject matter. Based on some of your posts it also seems that you have access to equipment that would generate the necessary data to determine an answer to questions that are being asked by @Thales and others.

I, like everyone else would love for this "method," to be everything it's touted! A post referred to it as "pre-skimmer," makes since to my brain. However, there are many claims with only anecdotal evidence to support. Anecdotal evidence should absolutely be considered and is where many many ideas and inventions are born/discovered. But.......anecdotal evidence is also subject to bias and placebo and leads to logical fallacies.

Please post a response regarding how you plan to test or prove some of the claims made.......for the home reef. I think we're all rooting for you and want to believe!!

 

[Cruz_Arias]

Matter of time before jebao comes out with 'not a knockoff' because i dont think anyoned manufactured special equipment yet lol

Correct... a form of flattery is either arguments or copying... LOL

 

[Cruz_Arias]

@Cruz_Arias, you seem to have knowledge and expertise on this and other subject matter. Based on some of your posts it also seems that you have access to equipment that would generate the necessary data to determine an answer to questions that are being asked by @Thales and others.

I, like everyone else would love for this "method," to be everything it's touted! A post referred to it as "pre-skimmer," makes since to my brain. However, there are many claims with only anecdotal evidence to support. Anecdotal evidence should absolutely be considered and is where many many ideas and inventions are born/discovered. But.......anecdotal evidence is also subject to bias and placebo and leads to logical fallacies.

Please post a response regarding how you plan to test or prove some of the claims made.......for the home reef. I think we're all rooting for you and want to believe!!

I posted Observations based on customers and hobbyists that use the method sees.

I'm an Electrical Engineer that does Instrumentation, Power, Controls Automation (which includes process controls and waste water treatment)...

I AM NOT A MARINE BIOLOGIST but I am a Reef Hobbyist for better part of 20 years and an aquarist (fresh/planted 10 years longer)

Based on the experiments the Japanese are doing, yes, there are strong suppositions to what is happening... things are happening that are small and smaller to the point where the human eye is at fault...
The Optek Sensors are in 2 inch up to 36 inch lines here at work. I can't use them for hobby. This is a manufacturing facility making BULK BATCH CHEMICALS.

Would be nice to be able to use it for this issue.

Just balancing out the CO2 saturation in the water (driving the excess out) wouldn't that affect pH? Yes.
And the benefits of degassing CO2 and other gases such as H2S benefit the system? I think so.

I'm fielding this as "tribal knowledge, observation of benefits" for those who want scientific proof something to look into.

For the moment, yes, anecdotal. But still effective means of nutrient transport from the DT to the sump... and effective in aeration.

I'm giving this knowledge for free... Do what you want with it.
And Thanks for the support @McMullen.

 

[Cruz_Arias]

It would be wonderful if bubbling truly benefitted reef tanks. I hope it does.

The fascinating part of this thread is how committed so many people are to improving reefing.

Lots of anecdotal evidence that bubbling works. Anecdotal evidence is what most hobbyists exchange on forums like this. And the weight of anecdotal evidence can be compelling. But it is anectodotal nonetheless, and until scientific inquiry and testing is completed it is just that. Faith is a wonderful thing, though.

And boy, oh boy, you can you see deeply felt faith at display here. I must embarrassingly admit, it is entertaining to see the emotions involved when faith is questioned. But asking for scientific proof or asking for scientific rationale, everyone should be able to ask for that without challenge. And yah, this is a hobby so not too likely we'll get there. Maybe you can look at the sewer treatment science, but only some of it.

Bubbling research has clearly defined nano from micro bubbles. I kinda think (but don't know), that there is a lot of hope that we are somehow spitting out lots of nano bubbles, but I'm not convinced that all we are really seeing are micro bubbles and larger bubbles.

Keep up the faith.

For those that need to see that microbubbles shrink over time (gas dissolution) into a solution (saltwater in this case) into nanobubbles then ultimately collapse and dissolve into the solution entirely.
And Thank you, @watchguy123.

What is wrong with building on the testing of others and being able to correlate what we've been doing for the past 16 plus years consistently and passing on that knowledge (however rudimentary) to the next generation reefer as a TOOL to help them in the hobby?

If the science behind it piques ANYONE's interest, you can build off of these studies currently being done or have been done.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4181745/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3924455/
http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/nanobubble.html

http://advocate.gaalliance.org/testing-micro-nanobubble-generating-device-at-different-salinities/