Micro Scrubbing Bubbles.

[Cruz_Arias]

Stressors are not all negative... Stressor Stimuli can be a positive overall physiological improvement and well being.


Popular conflation of types[edit]
A very much overlooked side of stress is its positive adaptations.[3] Positive psychological stress can lead to motivation and challenge instead of anxiety. The effects of experiencing eustress, which is positive stress, versus distress, which is negative stress, are significant. While colloquially lumped together, the various types of stress should be treated as separate concepts. Distress causes a slowing of working pace while eustress can lead to motivational states such as flow.[4]

Variations[edit]
Selye proposed that there are four variations of stress.[5] On one axis, there is good stress (eustress) and bad stress (distress). On the other is overstress (hyperstress) and understress (hypostress). The goal is to balance these as much as possible. The ultimate goal would be to balance hyperstress and hypostress perfectly and have as much eustress as possible.[6] It is extremely useful for a productive lifestyle because it makes working enjoyable instead of a chore, as seen with distress.

Differentiation between eustress and distress[edit]
Eustress comes from the Greek root “eu” which means good as in euphoria.[7] Eustress is when a person perceives a stressor as positive.[8] Distress stems from the Latin root “dis” as in dissonance or disagreement.[7] Distress is a threat to the quality of life. It is when a demand vastly exceeds a person’s capabilities.[8]

 

[Cruz_Arias]

Sorry, that makes no sense to me.

The article says micro/nano bubbles have been shown to have a "negative effect" on corals. That negative effect was the "refusing reaction like mucin secretion".
Not sure why you want to walk back the conclusions of one of the scientists studying nano bubbles, but if we are going to take an honest look at the technology, we have to take all of the studies into account.

That's speculation as well and putting words in my mouth.

Their studies are correct... sometimes the "best response" for instance in drug overdose is to throw up...
Throwing up is considered by many as a "negative" response (expulsion) and sometimes (bad)

This is why the English language is so complicated when it comes to explaining scientific studies.

in Spanish: Un Reaccion Negativo - A Negative Response
In Spanish: Un Reaccion Malo - A Negative (Bad) Response

 

[Lasse]

Thank you Lasse for your honesty in not understanding how we can produce bubbles of a very small size.

Sincerely,

Cruz Arias

But answer the questions and explain how instead of posting links thats say nothing about the basic question. How can a wodden air stone and an aquarium pump create nano bubbles?

Sincerly Lasse

 

[reef_ranch]

That's speculation as well and putting words in my mouth.

Their studies are correct... sometimes the "best response" for instance in drug overdose is to throw up...
Throwing up is considered by many as a "negative" response (expulsion) and sometimes (bad)

This is why the English language is so complicated when it comes to explaining scientific studies.

in Spanish: Un Reaccion Negativo - A Negative Response
In Spanish: Un Reaccion Malo - A Negative (Bad) Response

That doesn't make sense either. (And not because I don't understand you or English or Spanish for that matter.)

You haven't yet addressed my point. Which is: The article says micro/nano bubbles have a negative effect on corals. I think we need to consider the whole article. You apparently don't give any credit to this part of the article, instead choosing to view this negative reaction as ambivalent. Perhaps, perhaps not. But we do now have some evidence that micro/nano bubbles (which we are likely not producing -- see Lasse's comments) may be bad for our corals.

 

[anit77]

anit77, I took a look at the article you link to. Interestingly, it states that the mucus secretion in corals to be a negative effect of micro/nano bubble use:

"Referring to the biological applications, two types of their effects on lives are used. One is a negative effect which can ether break the cell walls by the radicals or be observed in refusing reaction like “mucin secretion” as shown in Fig.7. Fig.7. Corals’ “mucin secretion” reaction against Micro/Nano-bubbles [see the Acknowledgements]"

This brings back to the question whether we want our corals to be producing mucus. The anecdotal evidence seems to suggest that the coral mucus generated by the size bubbles hobbyists are creating with airstones and pumps (which may have very few micro and nano bubbles) is not harming the corals. (There's no evidence that it helps them either). But we should consider whether based on this article, true nano bubbles will harm corals.

I didn't post anything about the effects from the article because I wanted to keep it to the nanobubbles and what we have access to as hobbyists.

 

[anit77]

I'm stuck on the title of this thread and the others like it. Funny. too. how the title doesn't have the word "nano" in it, possibly by the OP's choice or oversight. Nano came into play several pages in. I'm all for the topic of bubbling but if we're going to use very specific sizes then one would think that those claims would be backed up with something... anything! Right now everything regarding nano and possible smaller micro sizes is theory, assumption and hearsay. Some how we're supposed to take it on faith that it's happening. This isn't theology. advanced physics theory or proving if aliens exist. It's a simple question. Are we able to produce nanobubbles with aquarium products or not? How do we discuss the merits of this without answering that one question?

 

[McMullen]

@Cruz_Arias, your passion for this topic has blinded your ability to step back and rethink your conclusions. Too much bias. You are simply making large leaps with the articles and studies provided. It's healthy to question and hypothesize, but speaking as fact without evidence is different. I don't need scientific evidence to try or believe in a method or product.....all the time, but when you post real scientific bodies of work that don't support your thought process, but use them to prove your point......you gotta take a step back and regroup!

This is not a failure, it happens in research all the. You think one thing then realize something else.

 

[Greenstreet.1]

@anit77 & McMullen well said [emoji1490][emoji1490][emoji1490][emoji1490]

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

There are two opposing thoughts to this, Randy... very similar to particle or string theory...

This argument will and can go on for a very long time.

Gas dissolves (very fine bubbles) in water and can force out another. That is a scientific fact...

Degassing of CO2 can also migrate from the water to a larger bubble... that is also a scientific fact...

No, it is not a fact, it is a misunderstanding if you believe that to be true. Adding one gas to a bubble will not force other gases of a different chemical into the water. Even if it did, you are suggesting it pushes out more than its own volume.

For pH to rise, CO2 MUST leave the water, and if CO2 leaves the water, the bubble gets larger.

There is no alternate viewpoint. Adding gas to bubbles (with no other change) does not ever make them smaller, does it? No, it doesn't.

 

[Waterjockey]

Gas dissolves (very fine bubbles) in water and can force out another. That is a scientific fact...
.

That's actually not entirely true. They made a law about it. Henry's law.
"Gases will dissolve in liquids to an extent that is determined by the equilibrium between the undissolved gas and the gas that has dissolved in the liquid (called the solvent)". (Wikipedia.....partial pressures)

Cheers!

 

[Waterjockey]

Stressors are not all negative... Stressor Stimuli can be a positive overall physiological improvement and well being.


Popular conflation of types[edit]
A very much overlooked side of stress is its positive adaptations.[3] Positive psychological stress can lead to motivation and challenge instead of anxiety. The effects of experiencing eustress, which is positive stress, versus distress, which is negative stress, are significant. While colloquially lumped together, the various types of stress should be treated as separate concepts. Distress causes a slowing of working pace while eustress can lead to motivational states such as flow.[4]

Variations[edit]
Selye proposed that there are four variations of stress.[5] On one axis, there is good stress (eustress) and bad stress (distress). On the other is overstress (hyperstress) and understress (hypostress). The goal is to balance these as much as possible. The ultimate goal would be to balance hyperstress and hypostress perfectly and have as much eustress as possible.[6] It is extremely useful for a productive lifestyle because it makes working enjoyable instead of a chore, as seen with distress.

Differentiation between eustress and distress[edit]
Eustress comes from the Greek root “eu” which means good as in euphoria.[7] Eustress is when a person perceives a stressor as positive.[8] Distress stems from the Latin root “dis” as in dissonance or disagreement.[7] Distress is a threat to the quality of life. It is when a demand vastly exceeds a person’s capabilities.[8]

That's all fine and dandy, but you have yet to establish that the stressors induced by bubbling are in fact positive stressors, and not what the perponderance of the data suggests, that it may actually be a negative stressor.

Cheers

 

[Waterjockey]

@Lasse, I am linking further SCIENTIFIC studies being done concurrently or have been done in the recent past... I have posted up Apex pH graphs as well.

You're statements are speculation of skepticism, however, I'm ok with that.

You are familiar with the physical science behind bubbles, yes?

If you are, then you would understand that bubbles CAN dissolve into water... generating the atmospheric (low pressure) bubbles in the sump and getting the smallest size possible to start is a good basis for us...

As the very very small bubble travels through the return pipe (slightly under head pressure the return pump is pushing against) this creates an increase in dissolution of gas into the water column... meaning, the bubble starts to shrink... even to the unbelievable nano size... hence we call this the Micro-Nano Bubble method...

Starts off Micro... Shrinks down to Nano... at least a few of them...

Also if you are familiar with freshwater planted tanks, you would be able to understand the very very similar principle on how we dissolve CO2 into water.

In our application it is adding atmospheric back in and driving CO2 out.

I haven't seen any evidence thus far that wood air diffusers produce an appreciable amount of "micro" bubbles, let alone "nano" bubbles. There seems to be an inordinate amount of insistance that micro or nano bubbles are somehow better at doing the things you claim, rather than just plain old boring "fine" bubbles. Have any measurable comparisons been done between plain vanilla fine bubbles produced by a wood diffuser vs the believed production of micro or even nano sized bubbles? Very fine bubbles (not in the micro or nano size) will also tend to stay in the water much longer and be knocked about by currents than say, coarse bubbles produced by a typical "stone" diffuser.

Cheers!

 

[Waterjockey]

Ok... to any stimuli there is a "rejection response (-) or a acception response (+)" this is not SUBJECTIVE.

A rejection response is one in which the stimuli causes an ejection response or a removal response or a "moving away from" response. This is called behavorial quantification. Negative in this connotation is not the speculative "Good or Bad"

An Acceptance response is one in which the stimuli cause an engulfing (eating) or motion toward a stimuli... Positive in this connotation is not connotatively Good in this case...


Very similarly look at power and voltage with electrical devices.

You have a positive terminal and a negative terminal... Positive and negative determine path of flow "to or from" not "good or bad".

To further that analogy, too much or not enough voltage can both have lethal effects depending on the application

Cheers!

 

[Waterjockey]

That's speculation as well and putting words in my mouth.

Their studies are correct... sometimes the "best response" for instance in drug overdose is to throw up...
Throwing up is considered by many as a "negative" response (expulsion) and sometimes (bad)

This is why the English language is so complicated when it comes to explaining scientific studies.

in Spanish: Un Reaccion Negativo - A Negative Response
In Spanish: Un Reaccion Malo - A Negative (Bad) Response

That, I am afraid, is very wrong. A "negative response" indicates an undesirable response...regardless of what the response is. In your example, if vomiting is indicated as a desirable response to a poisoning to use your example, the vomiting would be logged as a positive response by a professional. If vomiting is not a desirable response (such as ingesting many petro-chemicals and possible aspiration of the chemical), to a professional the vomiting would be recorded as a negative desirable response.....regardless of how "most people" (ie non professionals) might view it. If it is a "professional" study, a negative response (i.e. undesirable) is indicated...it is just that....undesirable, regardless of how you wish to try to spin it with wordsmithing.

Everything I have read regarding coral sliming indicates this is most likely an undesirable response. To use your nose mucus analogy, yes, the mucus is there to trap possible harmful or irritating particles. This does not mean blowing cement dust up your nose so you to sneeze and blow your nose for 2 to 4 hours a night is a good thing.

Cheers!

 

[Cruz_Arias]

That, I am afraid, is very wrong. A "negative response" indicates an undesirable response...regardless of what the response is. In your example, if vomiting is indicated as a desirable response to a poisoning to use your example, the vomiting would be logged as a positive response by a professional. If vomiting is not a desirable response (such as ingesting many petro-chemicals and possible aspiration of the chemical), to a professional the vomiting would be recorded as a negative desirable response.....regardless of how "most people" (ie non professionals) might view it. If it is a "professional" study, a negative response (i.e. undesirable) is indicated...it is just that....undesirable, regardless of how you wish to try to spin it with wordsmithing.

Everything I have read regarding coral sliming indicates this is most likely an undesirable response. To use your nose mucus analogy, yes, the mucus is there to trap possible harmful or irritating particles. This does not mean blowing cement dust up your nose so you to sneeze and blow your nose for 2 to 4 hours a night is a good thing.

Cheers!

You sound very sure of this is there any justification that this is true or is this observation and speculation based on other's experience?

 

[Cruz_Arias]

@Lasse

This is a pictorial flow diagram of what happens in the process:

 

[Cruz_Arias]

To further that analogy, too much or not enough voltage can both have lethal effects depending on the application

Cheers!

Obviously you know a lot about electricity more so than an Electrical Engineer with over two decades of practical experience.
Nice to know who not to call.

 

[Cruz_Arias]

I haven't seen any evidence thus far that wood air diffusers produce an appreciable amount of "micro" bubbles, let alone "nano" bubbles. There seems to be an inordinate amount of insistance that micro or nano bubbles are somehow better at doing the things you claim, rather than just plain old boring "fine" bubbles. Have any measurable comparisons been done between plain vanilla fine bubbles produced by a wood diffuser vs the believed production of micro or even nano sized bubbles? Very fine bubbles (not in the micro or nano size) will also tend to stay in the water much longer and be knocked about by currents than say, coarse bubbles produced by a typical "stone" diffuser.

Cheers!

Ah yes... You don't believe, so therefore your opinion and belief are fact... LOL funny.

 

[Cruz_Arias]

That's actually not entirely true. They made a law about it. Henry's law.
"Gases will dissolve in liquids to an extent that is determined by the equilibrium between the undissolved gas and the gas that has dissolved in the liquid (called the solvent)". (Wikipedia.....partial pressures)

Cheers!

Henry's law ONLY applies to the IDEAL GAS LAWs (aka vacuum and no air resistance)... in this case, MBs and NBs are not Ideal.

 

[Cruz_Arias]

That's all fine and dandy, but you have yet to establish that the stressors induced by bubbling are in fact positive stressors, and not what the perponderance of the data suggests, that it may actually be a negative stressor.

Cheers

And there in lies the problem of being an innovator, inventor, or a leader. There is NOTHING or very little to "follow" and regurgitate.