Micro Scrubbing Bubbles.

[Squamosa]

apex and pH probe haven't tested and posted data

They have and they are continuing to do so, just not on any reefing forum, but in closed social media groups!

This is their choice and I respect that!

They are also some of the biggest skeptics we have, but they chose to try the method, document the data using the technology they have available and draw their own conclusions from that.

 

[Thales]

A lot of people reporting no results or detrimental results on the MARSH thread.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

We've shown ORP at 430 to 450 with no ozone and just effective aeration.

What were the ORP values on this system just before bubbling was initiated?

That is the data that is requested, not just the after results, which says nothing about the effect of bubbling.

 

[Cruz_Arias]

What were the ORP values on this system just before bubbling was initiated?

That is the data that is requested, not just the after results, which says nothing about the effect of bubbling.

ORP before was 340 to 360 with an oversized skimmer only... 360 at lights on.
Maximums are 90 points higher with the enhanced aeration.

 

[Cruz_Arias]

A lot of people reporting no results or detrimental results on the MARSH thread.

They were setting it up with the airline shoved into the return pump or the coarse blue airstone.
The setup was also not fresh air with the air pump located in the sump area AND on the Floor...

What they were doing was carbonation of their system but also, coarse bubbles and forcing the air into their system like a Jacuzzi.

Once again, QUANTIFY FAILURES by incorrect setup.

 

[Cruz_Arias]

I am not privy to any information and this is the only thread on bubbling that I participate in. This thread did link to another thread with same topic. I didn't read through because the pages I breezed through were more of the same.

Being skeptical is healthy provided one also has an open mind. My mind is open and I've already stated that I believe the "anecdotal," reports that many fellow reefers have reported here.

skep·ti·cal
ˈskeptək(ə)l/
adjective
adjective: sceptical; adjective: skeptical

1. 1.
   not easily convinced; having doubts or reservations.
   "the public were deeply skeptical about some of the proposals"
   synonyms: dubious, doubtful, taking something with a pinch of salt, doubting;More
   cynical, distrustful, mistrustful, suspicious, disbelieving, unconvinced, incredulous, scoffing;
   pessimistic, defeatist
   "she was wisely skeptical about his get-rich-quick scheme"
   antonyms: certain, convinced
2. 2.
   Philosophy
   relating to the theory that certain knowledge is impossible.
   
   
   Being skeptical does NOT allow an open mind. just an FYI.

 

[Liquidangel22]

I just want to be sure I am understanding correctly.

Are you attributing a drop in nitrate from 40 ppm to 5 ppm from a single 2 h bubbling event?

Oh no, sorry I didn't make that more clear. I also did a 5 gal water change where I cleaned out the ball chamber. I checked it literally as soon as I put the new water in and it was still reading 40. So I'm thinking that between the bubbling, the cleaning of the ball chamber, and a water change, it was like a power scrub.

This whole event was about 2 weeks ago, since then I've kept it up, but haven't done another water change yet. Checked them again last night and it was just slightly darker than the 0 color on the card. So somewhere between 0 and 5 now.

Like I said, I don't think it's a "miracle cure" and removes the need for routine maintenance. But it's really helping me keep everything stable and healthy between maint. which was a huge problem before. I also like that it's not just dumping a bunch of chemicals in, or changing out all the water and causing a cycle. It seems to be a much healthier way to naturally get parameters in line without shocking anything.

Ball chamber - is that a biofilter

Sincerely Lasse

Yes, the biocube has a chamber in the back for bioball media. Most people seem to remove them and replace with a media rack, but I still have mine.

 

[Cruz_Arias]

Now, as far as data, ORP was increased, great!! Let's keep this simple though. On a tank with a skimmer, does bubbling provide aeration benefit? What about a skimmerless tank? Presumably it would! Makes since the particles being removed would also increase skimmate. Now stating PAR is increased from this........seems like a stretch! See, this is where my skeptic side comes out. if your tank has so much debri in the water column that PAR is reduced and is reduced so much that coral growth is impaired there are other husbandry issues to be delt with. I could be wrong! Please share some before and after PAR pics, but only with hobby grade equipment!

With the regards to clarity of water, light penetration and water clarity go hand in hand.
As @Randy Holmes-Farley has stated many times, particulates in the water column reflect light back.

Particulates block light (collectively) significantly enough to reduce the average amount of PAR penetrating through the water column...

If you are able to remove the particulates effectively, more light penetrates through the water column, hence more PAR and more light energy availability.

PAR meters are based on light scattering absorption.

You keep mentioning good husbandry... please quantify that with numbers. my skeptical side is asking for numbers to quantify "good husbandry".

 

[Cruz_Arias]

Reminds me of Nualgi.

Nope.

This is just teaching people how to aerate efficiently with some other benefits.
Nothing is being sold here.

 

[Cruz_Arias]

EXPLAIN THESE AND YOU WILL ANSWER SOME OF MY QUESTIONS.

We have careers. Please be patient.

 

[Cruz_Arias]

I am complete agreement with everything you said! From a hobby standpoint anecdotal evidence is wonderful and appropriate! I believe when people observe positive change from bubbling that something has taken place to in fact cause this positive correlation. I also believe people who do not observe any change. We all know that no two tanks are exactly alike. Personally, what I don't understand is why someone with a reefkeeper or apex and pH probe haven't tested and posted data. This would be a hobby level experiment and could progress the conversation forward! I simply don't have the equipment, but I'm sure someone who has been reading this does!

Now, there are some claims that have been made that just don't seem to make since and would be quite difficult to test and prove, would take months of testing/growing just to acquire observational data, but that's not what most of us want to know.....for now......

I know I particularly do not post data points unless the test and observations were ALSO seen by a non-affiliated 3rd party.
Like you said, and I'm in total agreement, no two tanks are the same. This is the case for setting up the aeration system.

Do you know how many insisted to shove an airline directly into their return pump with no wooden airstone?
Do you know how many didn't understand that if you want finer bubbles to move the wooden airstone further AWAY from the return pump intake?
Do you know how many, even after constantly posting to "place the airpump in a fresh air location, such as a window sill" most of the ones that have not succeeded placed the air pump under the sump area? heck, I even sketched it UP... and they "still don't get it"

But I am not here to micro-manage, unlike some, I'm here to encourage and teach. Just like Randy has taught and assisted.

I want only to see others succeed in the hobby of keeping a reef tank.

 

[Thales]

They were setting it up with the airline shoved into the return pump or the coarse blue airstone.
The setup was also not fresh air with the air pump located in the sump area AND on the Floor...

What they were doing was carbonation of their system but also, coarse bubbles and forcing the air into their system like a Jacuzzi.

Once again, QUANTIFY FAILURES by incorrect setup.

Called it! Anyone with not positive results is doing it wrong. Of course doing it right is a moving target and has changed significantly in the last few weeks.

 

[Thales]

skep·ti·cal
ˈskeptək(ə)l/
adjective
adjective: sceptical; adjective: skeptical

1. 1.
   not easily convinced; having doubts or reservations.
   "the public were deeply skeptical about some of the proposals"
   synonyms: dubious, doubtful, taking something with a pinch of salt, doubting;More
   cynical, distrustful, mistrustful, suspicious, disbelieving, unconvinced, incredulous, scoffing;
   pessimistic, defeatist
   "she was wisely skeptical about his get-rich-quick scheme"
   antonyms: certain, convinced
2. 2.
   Philosophy
   relating to the theory that certain knowledge is impossible.
   
   
   Being skeptical does NOT allow an open mind. just an FYI.

Lol

 

[Cruz_Arias]

Called it! Anyone with not positive results is doing it wrong. Of course doing it right is a moving target and has changed significantly in the last few weeks.

Of course... if you dose anything wrong, you'll get bad results.

Too much Magnesium... bad results.
Too much CO2 instead of fresh air... Bad Results.

"Called it!" Many cannot follow directions. Those that can, succeed.
We follow Randy's water chemistry... if we deviate from the formulation, without understanding or knowledge, we will fail...

 

[Thales]

With the regards to clarity of water, light penetration and water clarity go hand in hand.
As @Randy Holmes-Farley has stated many times, particulates in the water column reflect light back.

Particulates block light (collectively) significantly enough to reduce the average amount of PAR penetrating through the water column...

If you are able to remove the particulates effectively, more light penetrates through the water column, hence more PAR and more light energy availability.

PAR meters are based on light scattering absorption.

You keep mentioning good husbandry... please quantify that with numbers. my skeptical side is asking for numbers to quantify "good husbandry".

Lol. Please provide pre and post par numbers.

 

[Thales]

Of course... if you dose anything wrong, you'll get bad results.

Too much Magnesium... bad results.
Too much CO2 instead of fresh air... Bad Results.

"Called it!" Many cannot follow directions. Those that can, succeed.
We follow Randy's water chemistry... if we deviate from the formulation, without understanding or knowledge, we will fail...

You keep changing the directions!

 

[Squamosa]

to see others succeed

What's very heartening is the amount of people who took the method on board and said, 'it's worked for me, but how can I improve on this, see how far it can take me'!

These everyday reefers, from many varied careers, then started the age old task of tinkering. This has now led to numerous designs of bubble generators, delivering consistently sized bubbles, being delivered by pumps at lower and lower wattages.
I know the generator we have made, has been put out there for people to copy, as long as they can access the video.

The next step has already begun to see if these generators can answer some questions we've asked ourselves!

 

[Thales]

I know I particularly do not post data points unless the test and observations were ALSO seen by a non-affiliated 3rd party.
Like you said, and I'm in total agreement, no two tanks are the same. This is the case for setting up the aeration system.

Do you know how many insisted to shove an airline directly into their return pump with no wooden airstone?
Do you know how many didn't understand that if you want finer bubbles to move the wooden airstone further AWAY from the return pump intake?
Do you know how many, even after constantly posting to "place the airpump in a fresh air location, such as a window sill" most of the ones that have not succeeded placed the air pump under the sump area? heck, I even sketched it UP... and they "still don't get it"

But I am not here to micro-manage, unlike some, I'm here to encourage and teach. Just like Randy has taught and assisted.

I want only to see others succeed in the hobby of keeping a reef tank.

Lol!

 

[Thales]

What's very heartening is the amount of people who took the method on board and said, 'it's worked for me, but how can I improve on this, see how far it can take me'!

These everyday reefers, from many varied careers, then started the age old task of tinkering. This has now led to numerous designs of bubble generators, delivering consistently sized bubbles, being delivered by pumps at lower and lower wattages.
I know the generator we have made, has been put out there for people to copy, as long as they can access the video.

The next step has already begun to see if these generators can answer some questions we've asked ourselves!

Yes! Everyone that reports good results is doing it right regardless of the changes they make to the directions while everyone reporting bad results is doing it wrong! It is perfect!

 

[Cruz_Arias]

Lol

LOL That's the definition of you... Correct?
At least I could do a REAL LIVE interview on bubbles and aeration without having to review or edit or scratch off questions to be asked of me ahead of time.

BTW... I liked you before I knew who you were... Thought the juggling was interesting.

You keep changing the directions!

I'm not... I'm showing relational evidence in not following directions.
Impatience in this hobby is also another commonality when attempting to prove something unsound.

Haphazard setups to prove something not "effective" is a self-fulfilling prophecy.