My speculation: Vibrant has some fluconazole in it...

[jcolliii]

I have read the word 'proved', far too many times in this thread being thrown around by people who say they have a science background. Just to be clear - these people are wrong. That is not how science works. I've seen nothing here that does not follow good methodology. Utilizing all available methods at ones' disposal to attempt to falsify a hypothesis (which I would think is currently: Vibrant contains polyquaternary ammonium). Thus far, none of the methods have been able to falsify that hypothesis. Read Popper for dog sake.

 

[MnFish1]

I have read the word 'proved', far too many times in this thread being thrown around by people who say they have a science background. Just to be clear - these people are wrong. That is not how science works. I've seen nothing here that does not follow good methodology. Utilizing all available methods at ones' disposal to attempt to falsify a hypothesis (which I would think is currently: Vibrant contains polyquaternary ammonium). Thus far, none of the methods have been able to falsify that hypothesis. Read Popper for dog sake.

Not quite sure where this is coming from - actually.

In reality, the original hypothesis was 'Vibrant contains fluconazole' (which was debunked). Then the hypothesis was' Vibrant doesn't contain bacteria/bacterial products' - which was partly supported - and partly debunked (it remains unclear). At about the same time - the hypothesis became 'Vibrant contains Quat' - (I'm on the fence about the percentage) - But what is clear to everyone - I think? - is that vibrant contains some QUAT or chemical that acts like QUAT based on the testing. I believe that everyone accepts that? - I've said it myself several times. So - which hypothesis are you wanting anyone to falsify?

What I think remain as open questions - what is the percentage of QUAT? Is it for sure QUAT - or a chemical that acts like QUAT? What is the exact role of bacteria or spores in the product?

 

[mojo8427]

I might also make this point. Its odd to me - that in some posts - like yours @LgTas there is often this 'hint of conspiracy - "It's also clear that some seem to have a lot of (vested?) interest in sowing doubt when....". Multiple people (including myself) - have stated we have no financial or other interest in UWC - and no personal or other interest in bashing @taricha.

Actually, the main person challenging @taricha stated something to the effect of a personal bias against taricha. Something from an old forum. Now, I'm not at all saying you or whoever has a vested interest in this company. However, just because someone on the internet says they don't, doesn't make it so. Just like UWC saying there isn't a quat, there is bacteria, there isn't bacteria but there is a quat... or something - doesn't make it true. Its the interwebs and there has been at least one lie told since Al Gore invented it.

 

[shwareefer]

Actually, the main person challenging @taricha stated something to the effect of a personal bias against taricha. Something from an old forum. Now, I'm not at all saying you or whoever has a vested interest in this company. However, just because someone on the internet says they don't, doesn't make it so. Just like UWC saying there isn't a quat, there is bacteria, there isn't bacteria but there is a quat... or something - doesn't make it true. Its the interwebs and there has been at least one lie told since Al Gore invented it.

Different play, same actors:

Does Prime actually "Detoxify" free ammonia, NH3?

This started when @Dan_P was looking at measuring NH3 with seneye and was curious about performance near zero NH3. I suggested trying Prime to artificially zero out the NH3 sensor, and the results were weird... so I checked with my seachem kit. Prime by Seachem is commonly used to treat tap...

www.reef2reef.com

Definitely makes you question agendas.

 

[mojo8427]

Different play, same actors:

Does Prime actually "Detoxify" free ammonia, NH3?

This started when @Dan_P was looking at measuring NH3 with seneye and was curious about performance near zero NH3. I suggested trying Prime to artificially zero out the NH3 sensor, and the results were weird... so I checked with my seachem kit. Prime by Seachem is commonly used to treat tap...

www.reef2reef.com

Definitely makes you question agendas.

Good grief! That's a bit of a pattern and does makes one wonder what happened so many years ago that upset him.

 

[jcolliii]

Wow.

 

[MnFish1]

Good grief! That's a bit of a pattern and does makes one wonder what happened so many years ago that upset him.

Actually - again - its hard to know exactly to whom you're talking about - But - Its true - I questioned @taricha about his Prime experiment - and my main comments were that both Seachem and Seneye said their equipment cannot/should not be used in this manner - and 2. That in order to say 'Prime does not detoxify ammonia', an in-vivo study os compared to using biochemical tests. It is currently in the works to do a prime in vivo test as I posted in the last thread. So - in any case - in that thread - I agreed 100% with Dan and Taricha that Seneye do not show reductions in ammonia using their free ammonia tests. In this thread, I agree that there is Quat in vibrant - its a question of 'how much'.

 

[taricha]

My priors and motivations are in this thread, starting on page 3. I knew nothing about what chemicals were in vibrant, only that it responded when I cultured it up, and it clearly kills a bunch of algae. My position moved with measurements and has been transparent in this thread the whole time.
People take contrarian positions for all sorts of reasons, some just like it - no payroll for anyone required. Contrarians can be useful to an extent, but if they don't have testable counter-hypotheses, or if they reject data as unbelievable because it isn't what they think it should be, then there isn't much to engage on.
Sometimes it's best as the quantum mechanics aphorism goes to not get bogged down in philosophy and "shut up and calculate" instead. See next post...

 

[taricha]

This is a companion test to the COD (Chemical Oxygen Demand) data in post 460 that showed Vibrant and AlgaeFix being indistinguishable on yet another measure, and that Vibrant is not a huge carbon source.

In this test I took aquarium water in 12 separate samples: 3 control, 3 got AlgaeFix, 3 Vibrant, and 3 got the 1% aspartic Acid and 0.5% Vinegar that vibrant says it has on the label. Because of the low amount of organic carbon, each had to be added at 10x the dose to see any O2 consumption. Below is their O2 consumption. (antibacterial activity in SW was undetectable even at 40x this product concentration, so it not relevant)
Control in Blue, AlgaeFix in yellow and Vibrant in Red: indistinguishable in bacterial digestion, and the Label Carbons are in green. (error bars of 0.2mg/L are reasonable for my O2 probe)

Takeaways:
1) The digestible organic material in Vibrant is consistent with containing the same amount of (biologically) digestible Carbon as AlgaeFix.
2) This amount is very small, and isn't clearly distinguishable from the control aquarium water, unsurprising for algaefix - the polyquat isn't expected to be broken down by bacteria very quickly.
3) Vibrant O2 consumption is inconsistent with the Carbon Sources it claims to have on the label. They would have obviously consumed more O2.

 

[taricha]

(One last data shot before I collect this stuff and put it together in a post in the chem forum.)
This is revisiting the method that I used to conclude that the size of the "quat" effect measured by the indicators is identical between AlgaeFix and Vibrant.

If it's in fact working the way I say, then it ought to work equally well with other products containing the same polyquat as algaefix, and if they have different concentrations, then it ought to be able to show that.
Here's the data for 5 different products:
1) AlgaeFix 4.5% polyquat - Blue - (that earlier tested as giving identical effect to Vibrant)
2) Vibrant FRESHWATER - Red
3) Algae Control by Tetra 5.4% polyquat - Yellow
4) Algae Clean Out by Fritz 5.4% polyquat - Green
5) Polyquat 60 by ProTeam 60% polyquat pool cleaner - Purple

The measurement seems to have worked as it should, clearly distinguishing the different levels of the known chemical . If anyone was curious, Vibrant Freshwater shows the same effect size as reef Vibrant and AlgaeFix. (AlgaeFix is also identical between FW, Pond, and Marine)

To see if it actually correctly estimated the relative amounts of the known polyquat, I re-scaled the concentrations of each product until the points matched as tightly as possible the algaefix response. thatcan be visualized below.

The 5.4% products scaled by 1.18x match the AlgaeFix (actual concentration: 1.20x as much)
The 60% product scaled by 13.8x matches the Algaefix (actual concentration: 13.3x as much)

The main takeaways here are
1) that the method can repeatably and quantifiably tell the difference between 4.5% and 5.4% polyquat, but it can't tell the difference between Vibrant (Fresh or Reef) and Algaefix (4.5% polyquat).
2) And all these products that have that known chemical on the label generate the same type of response from the chemical indicators as Vibrant does.

 

[Sshannon]

Well, I will be tossing my vibrant out now.

 

[Screwgunner]

All I know is vibrant dissolved green hair algea in 7 weeks . Then I was left with a bacteria on my rock i did not like at all . Antibiotics did not touch it. So , I am dosing I.O. bacteria to see if it will out compete this other bacteria. Fingers crossed .

 

[Dennis Cartier]

All I know is vibrant dissolved green hair algea in 7 weeks . Then I was left with a bacteria on my rock i did not like at all . Antibiotics did not touch it. So , I am dosing I.O. bacteria to see if it will out compete this other bacteria. Fingers crossed .

If the product you are using is BioSpira, I don't think it will help in that regard. You would want something that is not targeted at nitrifying bacteria. Something like Dr. Tim's Eco-Balance would be more appropriate or perhaps even Brightwell MB7.

Dennis

 

[Screwgunner]

I will order a bottle thank you for your advice.

 

[Screwgunner]

After the use of vibrant i got a lot of the pill sized spunges white ones in my sump ,overflows and in my tank under the rock work. That really seems odd to me.

 

[Dennis Cartier]

After the use of vibrant i got a lot of the pill sized spunges white ones in my sump ,overflows and in my tank under the rock work. That really seems odd to me.

That makes perfect sense. Sponges are filter feeders and the Vibrant will have removed a big chunk of the competition, opening it up for competing organisms, like sponges. Their appearance signals that your water column has a food source available to them, and over time, they will wane and recede as the food source decreases and other organisms out compete them.

Dennis

 

[Miami Reef]

If you put some vibrant under a microscope, there is no bacteria - you can see bacteria in real bacteria products (like the ones with shelf lives or that need to be kept cold). They claim that you have to put it into the tank and culture it while in other breaths saying that it cannot reproduce or culture in the tank and you have to constantly add it. Whatever they say, it walks, acts and talks like API AlgaeFix - I would start there for your active ingredient. I don't care if they ever tell anybody what is in it - that is their business. Nobody gets mad at Seachem for not saying what is in Fuel, or Acropower or whatever or any other magical potions... I hate that they lie about it.

There are a few bacteriologists on this board (like real pHd) that laugh at their claims too.

Guys! Jda knew all along! I remember the day he wrote this post in October 2021!!!

 

[outhouse]

Take away-----------if you like vibrant, buy algaefix and save some money