Micro Scrubbing Bubbles.

[Thales]

Such as?

I am not going to type them out yet again, so here is your own literature with claims that are difficult to tell from jokes

Honestly your lack of deference and unprofessional attitude is extremely boorish.

It is amazing that whenever you seem to feel your back is against the wall you claim I am unprofessional, boorish or personally attacking you. It is even more amazing given the number of ad hominem pot shots you have taken and continue to take at me.

You state broad claims of running this method for a day but you had no photos, no pictures, and no measured values...
Please quantify your failure.

Please note that in the above 'literature' you say that there "very obvious improvements can be seen after just one 24 hour treatment". What broad claims have I made? Pictures - how do you know what pictures I have? I posted measured values in the other thread....and have more. And holy moly, you asking me to quantify my failure is amazing on two levels. 1) you have claimed tooth and nail that quantified values aren't necessary and that your observations are just fine. Stunning that you would somehow want numbers after all that. You only want quantification when someone disagrees with you, while anyone that agrees with you is right. If I said I got results that you liked, you would be saying 'see, it works!' and not asking for quantification. 2) calling not getting the results that you want to happen as failure is stacking the deck in your favor as you still have provided no evidence that your 'method' does any of the things you claim. There is no failure, just results.

 

[Thales]

This is exactly what I had asked the person that PMed me telling me that I'm expecting too much of bubbling lol. I asked if his message would have been different (or not sent at all) if I had posted that my detritus pile had just disappeared, and they said the following:


Which is kind of funny considering their post earlier in this thread that says the following:

Yes. Par for the course with this stuff. We saw it with ATS not quite as hardcore as this, but pretty close...and I still haven't seen any numbers, besides my own, for the claims of ATS. I ran one for six months, negligible Nitrate reduction 70-50, and no reduction of phosphate. I was told I was running it incorrectly, when it was set up exactly the way I was told to set it up (they would provide nothing in writing).

 

[Cruz_Arias]

Yes. Par for the course with this stuff. We saw it with ATS not quite as hardcore as this, but pretty close...and I still haven't seen any numbers, besides my own, for the claims of ATS. I ran one for six months, negligible Nitrate reduction 70-50, and no reduction of phosphate. I was told I was running it incorrectly, when it was set up exactly the way I was told to set it up (they would provide nothing in writing).

And that's why were are testing and documenting... The proof is that it's working on the majority of the tank systems running the bubbling method... now we're seeing enough repeatable success (outside of OUR own systems) to be worth investigating and getting hard numbers for the "average" hobbyist.

 

[Thales]

OK... to dispel a few false myths some people are spreading.

Myth: Scrubbing Bubbles gets rid of Dinoflagellates

Aeration ALONE WILL NOT get rid of Dinoflagellates or Severe Circumstance of Cyano Bacteria.

You still need to siphon out as much visible dinoflagellates as possible... and then apply this methodology immediately after.
This is called bacterial out competition of the dinoflagellates and out crowding... without having to do a black out and stress out your corals and reef inhabitants.

This is NOT MAGIC... this is Darwinism in Biology. if you cannot beat them one on one. beat them in numbers. Hence, inducing a controlled bacterial bloom while aerating the system keeps the oxygen levels high to sustain the aerobic and heterotrophic bacteria population to be larger than that of the dinoflagellate population.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?f...type=3&theater

It seems that you helped start those myths. You posted, in several places:

 

[Cruz_Arias]

I am not going to type them out yet again, so here is your own literature with claims that are difficult to tell from jokes

It is amazing that whenever you seem to feel your back is against the wall you claim I am unprofessional, boorish or personally attacking you. It is even more amazing given the number of ad hominem pot shots you have taken and continue to take at me.



There is no failure, just results.

I'm not up against a wall... you're claiming to be a scientist... yet I have science degrees and you're claiming I do not know science...

I'm thinking that that is a pretty egregious assumption on your part thinking you know more than other scientists that are also looking into the benefits of bubbles.
Hell, there's even the science of bubbles.

We (company) are doing tests the scientific method by defining the scope.

 

[dwebb1031]

I am not going to type them out yet again, so here is your own literature with claims that are difficult to tell from jokes

It is amazing that whenever you seem to feel your back is against the wall you claim I am unprofessional, boorish or personally attacking you. It is even more amazing given the number of ad hominem pot shots you have taken and continue to take at me.



Please note that in the above 'literature' you say that there "very obvious improvements can be seen after just one 24 hour treatment". What broad claims have I made? Pictures - how do you know what pictures I have? I posted measured values in the other thread....and have more. And holy moly, you asking me to quantify my failure is amazing on two levels. 1) you have claimed tooth and nail that quantified values aren't necessary and that your observations are just fine. Stunning that you would somehow want numbers after all that. You only want quantification when someone disagrees with you, while anyone that agrees with you is right. If I said I got results that you liked, you would be saying 'see, it works!' and not asking for quantification. 2) calling not getting the results that you want to happen as failure is stacking the deck in your favor as you still have provided no evidence that your 'method' does any of the things you claim. There is no failure, just results.

Yes you need proof of failure. While claims that no true "scientific process" proof is available, there have been plenty of post from people who have used this for months if not years with success. Not one person on this forum has been more adverse to this concept than you. So you claim that you tried it, and it didn't work. Anyone who has read this forum (not just exerts) could easily assume that you only say this to try and support your argument. Since I've read of no one else that has had misfortune using this technique I'd be interested to know your exact process and see photos of your results. This would further the "scientific process" by helping us to understand what you may have done differently to produce adverse (contrary to desired) effects. Please help us to further the science by sharing your results properly.

 

[Cruz_Arias]

It seems that you helped start those myths. You posted, in several places:

Yeah... they're not myths.

You claim they are. But like you said, anecdotal until we can quantify
You discrediting it as a myth outright shows your ineptitude in grasping a concept.

Since you skim through articles, I'd suggest you just read in depth the Introduction thoroughly.

http://publicationslist.org/data/me...ronmental Chemical Engineering - MN Chong.pdf

 

[CoralNerd]

You guys still talking about bubbles?

Let's do this name another name for bubbles. I'll start, SUDS.[emoji481] [emoji482]

Dang you guys are bearing my topic.

 

[Cruz_Arias]

Dang you guys are bearing my topic.

Sorry... Sudsing your DT... my bad... LOL :)

See... but then they'll claim that I claimed that it was injection of CO2 into the tank... Yeah... we won't call it Nano... and we can't call it suds...
Sorry bro.

 

[Thales]

Yeah... they're not myths.

You claim they are. But like you said, anecdotal until we can quantify
You discrediting it as a myth outright shows your ineptitude in grasping a concept.

Dude! I never said anything about myths - that is from your very own post! From post 968 - that you posted, not me:

OK... to dispel a few false myths some people are spreading.

Myth: Scrubbing Bubbles gets rid of Dinoflagellates

Aeration ALONE WILL NOT get rid of Dinoflagellates or Severe Circumstance of Cyano Bacteria.

Exactly the opposite of what you claimed previously.

 

[McMullen]

For those singling out @Thales, I think if you start from post one and read through you will find him question and asking for data. I don't know him, but he is coming from a research/science background and only asked for data. He has stated over and over that he would like to see some of the claims proven! Some on this sight are getting borderline personal with attacks for no reason! The back and forth from he and @Cruz_Arias has been wonderful because Cruze is collecting data. Cruze seems to have a ton knowledge commercially, but learning how to apply it for us.

This hobby needs more skeptics! Anyone making a claim should have at least rudamentary data to support! There is another thread where I just learned KZ coral snow is simply calcium carbonate in a fancy bottle for 12-15x the price it should be! And another product is simply copper!!! Yet know one is upset??!!! That really irks me!!!! Where are you people at on that!!!

 

[Thales]

I'm not up against a wall... you're claiming to be a scientist... yet I have science degrees and you're claiming I do not know science...

I'm thinking that that is a pretty egregious assumption on your part thinking you know more than other scientists that are also looking into the benefits of bubbles.

I will give you 1000 dollars if you can show me where I claimed to be a scientist, where I claimed you don't know science and where I said I think I know more than other scientists looking into the benefits of bubbles. Not you inferring things, but where I said those things.

 

[Cruz_Arias]

If you had ANY rigorous scientific training you'd understand that you need "Proof of Concept and Proof of Repeatability" first and foremost before starting to data collect.
Otherwise the data is just an isolated incident...

Being that others have been doing this for the last few years with me in OTHER COUNTRIES just based on the CONCEPT and the LAYOUT. I would say that it is repeatable regardless where you are in the world.

And being able to explain and TEACH the repeatability is something that is foreign to your limited level of understanding in the scientific realm...

I was told by my professional colleagues... Those who cannot "science" scream the loudest for it.

 

[Cruz_Arias]

I will give you 1000 dollars if you can show me where I claimed to be a scientist, where I claimed you don't know science and where I said I think I know more than other scientists looking into the benefits of bubbles. Not you inferring things, but where I said those things.

Issue is people think you are and you're carrying on as if you are.

Dispel that myth first, then we can talk about SUDz (@CoralNerd)

 

[CoralNerd]

100 pages here, wow. It's bubbles guys. If you don't want to use the method then move on and let others come to their own conclusion. Haters you made your point move on...but yes I know you won't.

 

[Lasse]

Hence, inducing a controlled bacterial bloom while aerating the system keeps the oxygen levels high to sustain the aerobic and heterotrophic bacteria population to be larger

Do you really mean that oxygen levels are a limiting factor for aerobic heterotrophic bacteria growth in a normal reef aquarium? Especially if you have a bloom of dinoflagellates ?

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Cruz_Arias]

Do you really mean that oxygen levels are a limiting factor for aerobic heterotrophic bacteria growth in a normal reef aquarium? Especially if you have a bloom of dinoflagellates ?

Sincerely Lasse

@Lasse
From what I have seen in the past (just my experience, Lasse) the dinoflagellates we have encountered were tolerant to more lower o2 levels and seemed to pop up at the demise of cyanobacteria after a dose regimen of Chemiclean (which also is a proprietary ingredient that they will not publish)
I have used Chemiclean in the past with aeration (I've always have used the limewood airstone), and we still do to some degree on some of the more stubborn, or behind rockwork, etc.

It seems at though by sheer number (dinoflagellate film) do suffocate the beneficial bacteria. Dinoflagellates seem to also be toxic as well to corals and even snails and other invertebrates that try to ingest them or travel across the film of dinos...

So... all we did is siphon out as much visible dinoflagellates we could, then induce a bacterial bloom with sludge eating bacteria and nitrifying and denitrifying bacteria by means of a carbon dosing methodology.
All the while, the aeration (with really fine bubbles) were able to dispel the excess CO2 produced by the dense bacterial population and maintain a healthy army of bacteria that smother and outcompete the dinoflagellates for nutrients and colonizing space.

Hopefully that helps explain the remediation portion of the aeration method that was "claimed"...


Sincerely, Cruz

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Folks reading this thread should keep in mind that the list of hypothetical benefits and mechanisms is fairly long, but the people reporting benefits here have really only shown that bubbles seem to bind some detritus and help remove it from the water column (maybe elsewhere) and that polyp extension is increased.

I may have missed other demonstrated effects, but the claim of "demonstrated" success doesn't really extend to many of the other claims, such as growth rates. It may be true, but it hasn't been demonstrated here that I have seen.

So be a bit cautious in saying it works or doesn't work as that depends on what one hopes to accomplish, and bears very strongly on whether this is the best method to accomplish that particular goal.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

I'm going to warn folks again that no personal attacks are allowed.

 

[Greenstreet.1]

NOT HERE TO ARGUE IM HERE TO LEARN.

Ok with that said I don't have Fb so I don't get to see have the things you guys see I have just been following this and the other thread here on r2r I have a few questions concerning this

Can someone explain these three parts for me ? I did not understand the answers that where given.

1.So how do I know it's working
2.How effective is it in treating common aquarium problems.

And the last one I would like to understand how it does what the answer say it does : 3. How do we make it even better than it already is.

Thank you for your time.


ONELOVE ALLDAY.