Micro bubbles scrubbing DT

KJAG

Rogue
View Badges
Joined
Sep 15, 2011
Messages
1,343
Reaction score
530
Location
Silver Strand Beach, Oxnard
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
They said "Proper Turnover is adequate"... my question is... please define adequate?

If CO2 in a house is running 2000ppm... and fresh air typically is 300ppm is there an issue?

Yes.
Waiting for the response to the rest of the question.
And where did anyone claim turnover “produces oxygen?” Massive difference between being exposed to oxygen and producing it.
 

Cruz_Arias

Well-Known Member
View Badges
Joined
Mar 30, 2016
Messages
789
Reaction score
433
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Skepticism without education and without experience is absolutely 100% nonsense...
Just because you can't see doesn't mean that there is no scientific data.. it's everywhere and it's been here since the 1970s regarding bubbling, aeration and the need for adequate gas exchange.

Your ignorance does not equate that there is no proof. :) It just means that you are not well read on the subject.



Not sure how one relates to the other ... but that's not how the scientific method works, or even an amateurish approximation of same. If you propose a theory or make a claim, you have to be able to back it up with credible data; otherwise skepticism is the most sensible position to take. If you 'believe' it works, that's wonderful; I choose to be skeptical because I can see no credible scientific basis for the claim.
 

ca1ore

10K Club member
View Badges
Joined
Oct 28, 2014
Messages
13,803
Reaction score
19,657
Location
Stamford, CT
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Airstones will certainly oxygenate water. They are simply not especially efficient as the bubbles rise quite rapidly leaving very little contact time between the air bubble and the water in the aquarium.

I'm not even sure that's true (point me to the basis for your claim) given the affinity of proteins to the air/water interface; however, even if it is true, my point is that in a properly circulated tank, oxygen saturation is reached and no amount of exorcized bubblers is going to make a difference. I measured O2 levels in my tank a few year sago with skimmer on and off, and no difference.
 

Cruz_Arias

Well-Known Member
View Badges
Joined
Mar 30, 2016
Messages
789
Reaction score
433
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Ahhh... sorry... the positioning of the wooden airstone and the 3.2psi pressure pump (Toms Aqualifter) that pushes the air through the pores produces bubbles finer than a needle wheel... CPR Aquatics and many other wooden airstone driven protein skimmer are actually more efficient than the needlewheel skimmers...

Many hobbyists have also included not only the bubble scrubbing with an additional air stone by the weir right before the return pump but also they have dropped an airstone before the intake of the skimmer pump intake as well...

If you'd like to see the other arguments they were on another thread posted 3 years ago... LOL


Waiting for the response to the rest of the question.
 

Cruz_Arias

Well-Known Member
View Badges
Joined
Mar 30, 2016
Messages
789
Reaction score
433
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
It was mentioned in other threads that "Proper agitation and turnover was enough to create adequate oxygenation to a system"

Not you.

But I'm assuming you thought I was quoting you?



Waiting for the response to the rest of the question.
And where did anyone claim turnover “produces oxygen?” Massive difference between being exposed to oxygen and producing it.
 

ca1ore

10K Club member
View Badges
Joined
Oct 28, 2014
Messages
13,803
Reaction score
19,657
Location
Stamford, CT
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Skepticism without education and without experience is absolutely 100% nonsense...
Just because you can't see doesn't mean that there is no scientific data.. it's everywhere and it's been here since the 1970s regarding bubbling, aeration and the need for adequate gas exchange.

Your ignorance does not equate that there is no proof. :) It just means that you are not well read on the subject.

Predictably, you are now resorting to personal insults .... the classic reaction of somebody that feels they are losing the argument. Point me to the scientific data that backs up this claim and I am happy to reconsider my position. Since it's 'everywhere, that should be easy LOL.

I figure this thread will go the same route as the other one ......
 
Last edited:

chipmunkofdoom2

Always Making Something
View Badges
Joined
Jun 6, 2017
Messages
2,417
Reaction score
4,497
Location
Baltimore, MD
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Skepticism without education and without experience is absolutely 100% nonsense...
Just because you can't see doesn't mean that there is no scientific data.. it's everywhere and it's been here since the 1970s regarding bubbling, aeration and the need for adequate gas exchange.

Your ignorance does not equate that there is no proof. :) It just means that you are not well read on the subject.

Nobody is arguing the physical properties of flotation separation, nor are they arguing about the relative concentrations of CO2 indoors and outdoors. The "skeptics" are saying there's no proof of tangible benefits to this method. There is compelling theory and purported benefits, yes, but where are the data? In the scientific community, claims need to be accompanied by repeatable methods and results to be taken seriously. Claiming that you're well-read on the subject and claiming others do not understand the "science" does not equate to scientific proof either. The burden of proof is not on others: you are making the claim, so you must prove that your claims are true. We need to see the methods you used to test these theories, your data or results set, and we need to be able to replicate your numbers with our own tests.

Additionally, we need to separate the issues we're discussing here. High CO2 levels in the home are one issue. The effect of an air stone promoting oxygenation is another. The effect of an air stone pulling outdoor fresh air and the effect on pH is another. The OP asked if introducing tiny bubbles into the tank cleans corals and promotes bacterial growth. Neither of these questions has been answered. There's just been a bunch of discussion about fluid dynamics, CO2 concentration in relation to pH and the physics behind materials processing.

The very specific claim made here is that using an air stone that pulls outside fresh air and creating lots of small bubbles in captive marine aquaria has real and measurable benefits. Please share the study (or studies) that you are using as the basis of your claim.
 

Cruz_Arias

Well-Known Member
View Badges
Joined
Mar 30, 2016
Messages
789
Reaction score
433
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Predictability? sheesh...
Insults, only if it's true, correct?

https://earth.stanford.edu/news/protecting-coral-reefs-bubbles
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2400.2004.00393.x/full
http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2005-06/eb/index.php (from my friend, Eric Borneman's file)
http://www.thereeftank.com/forums/f6/do-skimmers-produce-oxygen-127915.html (Borrowed from many years ago about the same argument)

Skimmers and agitation only bring in the surrounding air and dissolves it into the water... in order to increase O2 levels, you will need to bring air in with a lower CO2 concentration... hence fresh air from outside...

If you live outside with your tank, then you don't have to worry about bubbling... :)





Predictably, you are now resorting to personal insults .... the classic reaction of somebody that feels they are losing the argument. Point me to the scientific data that backs up this claim and I am happy to reconsider my position. Since it's 'everywhere, that should be easy LOL.
 

Cruz_Arias

Well-Known Member
View Badges
Joined
Mar 30, 2016
Messages
789
Reaction score
433
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
I would also like to see scientific data proving the observations and visible benefits are not valid...

Observation is part of the scientific methodology... if you'd like to afford a grant to have studies done, such as they had at Standford University, then sure, I'd love to make time. I do bill out at $150/hour.
 

KJAG

Rogue
View Badges
Joined
Sep 15, 2011
Messages
1,343
Reaction score
530
Location
Silver Strand Beach, Oxnard
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Ahhh... sorry... the positioning of the wooden airstone and the 3.2psi pressure pump (Toms Aqualifter) that pushes the air through the pores produces bubbles finer than a needle wheel... CPR Aquatics and many other wooden airstone driven protein skimmer are actually more efficient than the needlewheel skimmers...

Many hobbyists have also included not only the bubble scrubbing with an additional air stone by the weir right before the return pump but also they have dropped an airstone before the intake of the skimmer pump intake as well...

If you'd like to see the other arguments they were on another thread posted 3 years ago... LOL
Were going down the anecdotal rabbit hole now. Just to clarify, your argument is that although a protein skimmer (which produces a huge amount of microbubbles, small enough to foam fractionate and suspend protein) is not effective at oxygenation, and an airstone is, because the bubbles they produce are even "micro-er." Even if the bubbles from an airstone were smaller, there would need to be a solid argument as to how microbubbles produced by a quality needlewheel aren't providing the same effect.
Further, just because Im curious as to what the rebuttal will be, what is the significance of air stone placement in a system such as reef aquaria where we have rapid turnover? An airstone placed in a sump would work the same as in the display. Why would placement matter? Is there some sort of oxygen degrading phenomenon that takes place by the time the "oxygenated" air reaches the display? I dont consider "many hobbyists," trying something to be an acceptable reference to a viable source of scientific proof. Look at the metronidazole dino thread. Or purple up. Or the eco-aqualizer.
 

ca1ore

10K Club member
View Badges
Joined
Oct 28, 2014
Messages
13,803
Reaction score
19,657
Location
Stamford, CT
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
OK, let's take a different tact ......

As legendary aquarist David Saxby used to say (and I have to paraphrase because I heard him say it in person, twice) - 'ask to see somebody's tank before deciding how credible their advice is'. So, let's see your tank, before scrubbing bubbles and then after ...... I would be thrilled to be proven wrong.
 

Cruz_Arias

Well-Known Member
View Badges
Joined
Mar 30, 2016
Messages
789
Reaction score
433
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Definitely plausible... but to show before and after, I'd have to go back to 2001/2002... that's when it started...
Eric B. was a huge proponent and that's what is the premise for the Borneman Surge Device many years ago... and I believe that similar style of surge device is being used in the Long Island Aquarium, Long Beach Aquarium of the Pacific, Scripps and other public Aquaria...

BTW... I do personally know Dave Saxby... :) we could talk about how D-D is doing as well...

I'm sure you know of Elegant Corals... that's the proof.

I'm sure you've watched the other videos of Mike Palettas tank as well...



OK, let's take a different tact ......

As legendary aquarist David Saxby used to say (and I have to paraphrase because I heard him say it in person, twice) - 'ask to see somebody's tank before deciding how credible their advice is'. So, let's see your tank, before scrubbing bubbles and then after ...... I would be thrilled to be proven wrong.
 

KJAG

Rogue
View Badges
Joined
Sep 15, 2011
Messages
1,343
Reaction score
530
Location
Silver Strand Beach, Oxnard
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Definitely plausible... but to show before and after, I'd have to go back to 2001/2002... that's when it started...
Eric B. was a huge proponent and that's what is the premise for the Borneman Surge Device many years ago... and I believe that similar style of surge device is being used in the Long Island Aquarium, Long Beach Aquarium of the Pacific, Scripps and other public Aquaria...

BTW... I do personally know Dave Saxby... :)

I'm sure you know of Elegant Corals... that's the proof.

I'm sure you've watched the other videos of Mike Palettas tank as well...
No other way to say it: The first article you linked does not in any way show any sort of proof. It links a study done by a Stanford Oceanography team that was specific to an acidic environment, (of which we are not dealing with in our systems) which correlates to the bubbles' beneficial effects secondary to a rise in ph by eliminating C02. Which supports Randy's pH article, but does not correlate to your argument.
 

Cruz_Arias

Well-Known Member
View Badges
Joined
Mar 30, 2016
Messages
789
Reaction score
433
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
I linked this video before of one reefer that made very observable difference before and after bubbling...

 

Mastering the art of locking and unlocking water pathways: What type of valves do you have on your aquarium plumbing?

  • Ball valves.

    Votes: 37 54.4%
  • Gate valves.

    Votes: 37 54.4%
  • Check valves.

    Votes: 15 22.1%
  • None.

    Votes: 15 22.1%
  • Other.

    Votes: 6 8.8%

New Posts

Back
Top