Red Sea NO3:POX4X Real Time Review.

Randy Holmes-Farley

Reef Chemist
View Badges
Joined
Sep 5, 2014
Messages
66,542
Reaction score
62,838
Location
Arlington, Massachusetts, United States
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Not sure why you're bringing sugar into it, but I'm sure it has everything to do with the conversation.

To the nmr data, which I already mentioned, I stumbled across a manufacturer's manual for an NMR, that included a comparison between 300, 500, and 800 mhz. The 800 revealed a peak which was not observable with the 500 or 300. Someone even said I was trash talking the guy who did the test because I bring this up. (again, avoidance to the subject at hand) And that again is another plus to the direction that the diy nopox recipe is not at all based on a full set of data. If 500 MHz satisfies a person's requirement to FULLY identify a solution, again that's either a 'hopeful' solution, or a 'limitation' of tools. I consider it to be like comparing a 1000x vs a 2000x magnification under a microscope. Take off the blinders... lol. We surely don't know it all but you guys don't even want to contemplate the possibility you could be wrong. I almost want to go through old posts and see how many of you call vitamin c dosing an uncessary practice, because with the new data found via genome sequencing, you would be absolutely, completely wrong. But would you accept it and explore things, or just say 'it's all relative'. (relative to whether or not you're part of the discussion! lol)

So, for all things being equal (using the same sample and comparing the same resonances), S/N is proportional to (Bo new/Bo old)^3/2. So let's say you're going from a 500 MHz NMR to an 800 MHz NMR, your gain in S/N would be (800/500)^1.5=2.02. In other words, going from 500 MHz to 800 MHz doubles your sensitivity.
https://www.researchgate.net/post/H...rence_between_spin_states_resonance_frequency

As we have discussed endlessly, you are simply misunderstanding the issues of interpreting NMR.

Absolutely, two peaks may fall very close together, and a stronger magnet will allow them to be separated. But a peak is not a compound. Perhaps you misunderstand that. It is a part of a fingerprint of many peaks with a given position and intensity for even a simple compound such as ethanol. You would need multiple overlapping peaks of the exact size to have an entire chemical hide behind the peaks of another. That is just not going to happen in such a simple spectrum with clear splitting patterns and well defined peaks.

A stronger magnet is VERY useful when you have lots of peaks close together. It is not particularly useful for the simple spectrum shown for NOPOX. That is why chemical researchers routinely use the much less expensive lower field magnets for everything except very complex issues.
 

Rybren

Valuable Member
View Badges
Joined
Jun 13, 2011
Messages
1,492
Reaction score
1,895
Location
Ottawa, ON
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
I'm really not sure what point you are trying to make with those articles (and yes, I read them both in their entirety). We all know that the addition of carbon sources such as ethanol, methanol, and acetic acid will help the denitrification process. I don't believe that anyone here disputes that. So why post it?

It is interesting to note a couple of things:

The first article states that one of the reasons for trying an alternative to methanol is "because of the safety concerns associated with methanol". Unfortunately, they don't mention what those safety concerns are. Because they are treating waste water which is devoid of life forms that we are concerned with in a reef tank, the study has, IMHO, little bearing as to the applicability of safely using methanol for NOx reduction in our aquariums. Methanol may have no significant impact or it may be devastating, unfortunately the article doesn't help us out. Again, what's your point?

The second article clearly states that "ethanol was found to be the best carbon source for denitrification." Again, where were you trying to go with the articles?
 

Randy Holmes-Farley

Reef Chemist
View Badges
Joined
Sep 5, 2014
Messages
66,542
Reaction score
62,838
Location
Arlington, Massachusetts, United States
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
So probability clearly dictates that there is more to explore, than not. I would like to explore this, but I get flamed for attempting to expand our understanding?

FWIW, you get corrected when you post incorrect information. You've not been flamed for suggesting ideas.

I too would love to know what effects there may be from the isopropanol and methanol in NOPOX.

If you know of anything useful, please tell us. I have not found anything. Telling us to find it ourselves is not helpful, and combined with my lack of finding any, makes me believe is no such information readily available.

So it is a hypothesis of yours, and we'd lofve to hear the rationale besides your assumption that Red Sea adds it intentionally and that they have data supporting its inclusion.
 

Kungpaoshizi

Valuable Member
View Badges
Joined
Jan 22, 2014
Messages
1,309
Reaction score
513
Location
Earf
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Sounds like you have some unsettled lady issues. Explains a lot.

You keep going round and round, but have yet to show any scientific evidence that NoPox is better than other forms of carbon dosing. Until then, all this argument is just futile.

Lady issues? I think not. :) I found people who use philosophy to their push their agendas are usually ill-equipped to make decisions for themselves. Who needs accountability if you can just blame someone else for their shortcoming, right?

I believe some would point to the anecdotal evidence laid out in the forum. Even in this thread the evidence points to that. Not my problem you're not paying attention to it.
 

Waterjockey

Well-Known Member
View Badges
Joined
Mar 30, 2016
Messages
646
Reaction score
561
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
In a 75 gallon I was using 1.5 ml per day. That was also feeding hourly with Reef Energy, and 8 times a day a mixure of dried copepods/rotifiers, nutricell, and B1/B2 pellets. So at 300 gallons, that would be, 6ml of nopox a day. Remember that was the dose I had to REDUCE to after the bacterial colonies were established. So with a 1 liter bottle at 32$ from amazon that's, 166 days of dosing.
100 ml a day, 1 gallon(3785 ml) of vinegar that costs 10$, that's 37 days a gallon, or 4.4 gallons to equal one bottle of nopox, or 44$ to get to 166 days?
Now to add the cost of vodka.... And now to increase the numbers, from a 180 to the 300 gallons the nopox calculation is dosing.
44$ multiplied by 1.6 equals 70$ in vinegar to equate to a 300g, compared to a 32$ bottle of nopox.

:)
Sorry, not picking on ya, just using a real-world example to show that nopox is cheaper.

$32?!!?
I must be doing the math wrong then.
10$ for a gallon was pretty cheap on amazon

*edit
Yup, that's the cheapest, with free shipping
Unless you argue the 2 pack of gallons for 4.44$ is cheaper? Not even mentioning the 20$ shipping LOL (but that doesn't count towards the price of vinegar does it :p )

Peace out lol.. I see this thread has made a comeback, but still nothing new since post 297
In a 75 gallon I was using 1.5 ml per day. That was also feeding hourly with Reef Energy, and 8 times a day a mixure of dried copepods/rotifiers, nutricell, and B1/B2 pellets. So at 300 gallons, that would be, 6ml of nopox a day. Remember that was the dose I had to REDUCE to after the bacterial colonies were established. So with a 1 liter bottle at 32$ from amazon that's, 166 days of dosing.
100 ml a day, 1 gallon(3785 ml) of vinegar that costs 10$, that's 37 days a gallon, or 4.4 gallons to equal one bottle of nopox, or 44$ to get to 166 days?
Now to add the cost of vodka.... And now to increase the numbers, from a 180 to the 300 gallons the nopox calculation is dosing.
44$ multiplied by 1.6 equals 70$ in vinegar to equate to a 300g, compared to a 32$ bottle of nopox.

:)
Sorry, not picking on ya, just using a real-world example to show that nopox is cheaper.

32?!?? Ok...., for me, that works out to about $40.00 Canadian, *before shipping*. I just picked up 2 gallons of vinegar while grocery shopping at $1.99 a gallon. I.e. for $40 I could buy *20* gallons of vinegar...and no shipping costs. If the goal is to reduce nitrates/phosphates by dosing some formula, on a cost basis, vinegar wins many, many times over, and is significantly more convenient to purchase...it's sold in every grocery store and most convenience stores.

I've read all of the posts in this thread so far, and, to someone like me who has never seen any other discussion you have had, it comes across as if you have some vested interest in NO3:pO4-X. Do you sell it on Amazon yourself? Do you have some other interest in the product other than as a happy customer?

Cheers!
 

Randy Holmes-Farley

Reef Chemist
View Badges
Joined
Sep 5, 2014
Messages
66,542
Reaction score
62,838
Location
Arlington, Massachusetts, United States
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
To your curiosity, the reason I speak out against this "DIY Nopox is the same as Nopox" crap is because Randy Holmes Farley originally made fun of me in another thread for tooting my horn that I had a good experience. He continued to mock me and poke fun, which got old quite fast. So I put together all sorts of points to which it proved loosely that Nopox was indeed worthwhile, worked quite well, and I was not the only person on Earth, who had a good experience. (he still replies in threads, I see him quoting me, but I can't block him, so I just don't read his drivel, he's probably still making fun of me lol)

I did not make fun of you or anyone else at R2R. If you believe I did, please post what I said.

I never denied you had a good experience (I have no way of knowing) and I certainly believe NOPOX works and have said so many times.
 

Randy Holmes-Farley

Reef Chemist
View Badges
Joined
Sep 5, 2014
Messages
66,542
Reaction score
62,838
Location
Arlington, Massachusetts, United States
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Starting to think I might just do some research in private since people here just want to argue, say they can't find data, ignore the data in this very thread, poke at my personal life like they even know anything about me, talk more crap through condescending statements... I have found more interesting data about interactions of methanol and isopropyl but I think some of you should buck up and take some time to learn before you propose it's "not your responsibility to find the data". (that's called being lazy or you're just not smart enough) If any of you would like to message me in private and talk smack, please do, but I suspect you won't.

This took a whole 30 seconds to find. Hmm, perhaps we should look into it? Naaaaah, we have everything figured out, that's why nobody has algae issues or problems keeping corals. Bio-diversity isn't necessary anyways, it's better to only count on several strains of bacteria for the nitrification/denitrification process, that's more natural! Nature doesn't have vast amounts of microbials, it only depends on what, like 10 species of bacteria. :|

The goal of this study was to identify bacterial populations that assimilated methanol in a denitrifying sequencing batch reactor (SBR), using stable isotope probing (SIP) of 13C labeled DNA and quantitatively track changes in these populations upon changing the electron donor from methanol to ethanol in the SBR feed. Based on SIP derived 13C 16S rRNA gene clone libraries, dominant SBR methylotrophic bacteria were related to Methyloversatilis spp. and Hyphomicrobium spp. These methylotrophic populations were quantified via newly developed real-time PCR assays. Upon switching the electron donor from methanol to ethanol, Hyphomicrobium spp. concentrations decreased significantly in accordance with their obligately methylotrophic nutritional mode. In contrast, Methyloversatilis spp. concentrations were relatively unchanged, in accordance with their ability to assimilate both methanol and ethanol. Direct assimilation of ethanol by Methyloversatilis spp. but not Hyphomicrobium spp. was also confirmed via SIP. The reduction in methylotrophic bacterial concentration upon switching to ethanol was paralleled by a significant decrease in the methanol supported denitrification biokinetics of the SBR on nitrate. In sum, the results of this study demonstrate that the metabolic capabilities (methanol assimilation and metabolism) and substrate specificity (obligately or facultatively methylotrophic) of two distinct methylotrophic bacterial populations contributed to their survival or washout in denitrifying bioreactors. Biotechnol. Bioeng. 2009;102: 1527–1536. © 2008 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

I see nothing special there. What do you see that suggests methanol does something importantly different in a reef than ethanol or acetate?
Yes, that shows certain bacteria metabolize methanol. Of course they do. It's been used in reef tank denitrators for many years.
 

Kungpaoshizi

Valuable Member
View Badges
Joined
Jan 22, 2014
Messages
1,309
Reaction score
513
Location
Earf
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Nevermind guys, last post was deleted because of one word.

You all win, a diy recipe that contains only a couple of the many ingredients is exactly the same.

Goodbye.
 

Waterjockey

Well-Known Member
View Badges
Joined
Mar 30, 2016
Messages
646
Reaction score
561
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Nevermind guys, last post was deleted because of one word.

You all win, a diy recipe that contains only a couple of the many ingredients is exactly the same.

Goodbye.

Nobody said it was *exactly* the same, and nobody said nopox didn't work for you as claimed. Some people just like to make thier own stuff, on a more cost efficient basis, that works just as well for them. I like to cook, so I will use a food analogy for the way I saw this thread go. Someone says in a forum where there are lots of home cooks and a few chefs, "You gotta try kfc, it's the best dang chicken there is...and only $32 / bucket!". Some of the chefs said, "yeah, glad you like kfc, but I prefer to make my own fried chicken. It tastes good as well, and only costs $5 /bucket to make". "No! It's not the exact same recipe as kfc, it's got a special blend of spices that can't be duplicated, and it tastes marvelous! It's worth the extra money"..... "Well, ok, glad you like it, but my own recipe tastes just fine. Besides, I *like* to cook, so I think I'll just stick to making fried chicken at home, and I also like to know *exactly* what I am feeding my family. When I make it myself, I know exactly what ingredients are in it, and turns out, my recipe is very similar to kfc". ..."No! Kfc is *much* better! You don't get it, you can't make fried chicken *exactly* the same as kfc at home"...."well, I really don't care if my homemade chicken is exactly the same as kfc. Tastes just fine"...."forget it...you win...your diy chicken is exactly the same as kfc....goodbye".

Seems kinda dramatic and a little over the top when you swap kfc for nopox doesn't it? While I am glad you like the stuff and it works well for you, don't go away mad when some hands on reefers prefer to make thier own diy stuff that works just fine for them, and saves them some cash in the process. For me, much of the attraction to this hobby is exactly that. Building my own systems, mixing my own dosing stuff, tinkering and learning how to balance all the dynamics. I enjoy finding other sources of stuff (for example, pickling lime for kalk), in part, to avoid paying crazy prices for the marketed commercial stuff, and in part, to simply enjoy making it. Back to foood.....Yes, I can buy a loaf of bread pretty cheap at the store....but I prefer to bake my own when I have the chance. You can't be hating on people for prefering thier diy.

Just my .02

Cheers!
 

Kungpaoshizi

Valuable Member
View Badges
Joined
Jan 22, 2014
Messages
1,309
Reaction score
513
Location
Earf
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
I completely understand diy, and am right there with ya.
But you have to understand how I have been trolled about nopox, and it's gotten old. So I have taken multiple attempts to SHOW it operates differently. But through it all, Randy, and several others, keep pretending like the points I bring up don't matter. Like they know every little thing about the ocean. I guess there's all types of people here, and <insert words here> are here too. The simple FACT remains that depending upon the compound, there can be cascading effects that touch upon bacteria, fungus, and probably things I'm not even thinking about. I'm not a genius about the ocean, but I have found more than several research papers that suggest methanol has it's place in the ocean for doing unique things. This would explain why I've had such a success with nopox compared to other stuff in the past I have tried. I'm interested in the differences not what people have to say about the diy nopox recipe in trying to justity how awesome it is to them. After all, I say again, this is a nopox thread. Don't like it, make your own.

The fact that they refuse to look into the interactions of methanol, methylotrophs, methanotrophs, fungus, isopropyl, and the interactions between those things and the ocean, shows their denial in the entire subject. I don't have to prove anything, a lot of the interactions have already has been documented, therefore, according to their terms, THEY are the ones who need to prove that diy nopox does all the same things as nopox, it's NOT a given, they of course never proved that in the first place, but now all of a sudden they want ME to prove what? Stuff that already happens? Even Randy finally admits it about 'oh ya, methanol has been used in denitrators for years'. :| And that has no relevance in the subject of denitrification and how nopox could be possibly different?? And to look into those differences would only benefit the community. Instead people want to make it a urination contest.
 
Last edited:

Randy Holmes-Farley

Reef Chemist
View Badges
Joined
Sep 5, 2014
Messages
66,542
Reaction score
62,838
Location
Arlington, Massachusetts, United States
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
I completely understand diy, and am right there with ya.
But you have to understand how I have been trolled about nopox, and it's gotten old. So I have taken multiple attempts to SHOW it operates differently. But through it all, Randy, and several others, keep pretending like the points I bring up don't matter. Like they know every little thing about the ocean. I guess there's all types of people here, and <insert words here> are here too. The simple FACT remains that depending upon the compound, there can be cascading effects that touch upon bacteria, fungus, and probably things I'm not even thinking about. I'm not a genius about the ocean, but I have found more than several research papers that suggest methanol has it's place in the ocean for doing unique things. This would explain why I've had such a success with nopox compared to other stuff in the past I have tried. I'm interested in the differences not what people have to say about the diy nopox recipe in trying to justity how awesome it is to them. After all, I say again, this is a nopox thread. Don't like it, make your own.

The fact that they refuse to look into the interactions of methanol, methylotrophs, methanotrophs, fungus, isopropyl, and the interactions between those things and the ocean, shows their denial in the entire subject. I don't have to prove anything, a lot of the interactions have already has been documented, therefore, according to their terms, THEY are the ones who need to prove that diy nopox does all the same things as nopox, it's NOT a given, they of course never proved that in the first place, but now all of a sudden they want ME to prove what? Stuff that already happens? Even Randy finally admits it about 'oh ya, methanol has been used in denitrators for years'. :| And that has no relevance in the subject of denitrification and how nopox could be possibly different?? And to look into those differences would only benefit the community. Instead people want to make it a urination contest.

To make it clear to us, what evidence do you think implies it works better than a mix of acetic acid and ethanol?

I am not ignoring any possibilities or discounting anything, athough real world experience in reef tanks gives us a lot of what we want to know: these methods all work.

If I saw any reason to think isopropanol and methanol were important for anything except cost reduction of NOPOX manufacturing, I'd be all over it. I've seen none and I've not seen you post any, except your personal experience, which, as one of thousands of users, does not trump the experience of the masses. :)

Finally admits? You have an unusual way of stating that I have stated for decades that methanol is used in denitrators. Weird. :(

FWIW, some of what you are posting is not relevant and you seem to not accept it as debunked when I point it out. There have been many, manyy needed corrections to you postys, but here are a few relating to the above:

A methanotroph is a user of methane, producing methanol, not using methanol. Not sure what that has to do with adding methanol.
Many fungi grow well on acetate or ethanol. I'm not discounting them at all.
Many bacteria, fungi and other organisms thrive on the organic s we add. The question is why the exact nature of them matters.
 

Nikolay Katynskiy

New Member
View Badges
Joined
May 27, 2019
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Nopox smells like acetone nail polish remover, ,it's ton just ethanol, methanol, and vinegar,
I honestly think in has isopropyl alcohol, which has a super strong smell, also acetone can me made out of it. All of this stuff has lots of different carbons .
If you smell nopox it smells like a solvent paint thinner.
 

Nikolay Katynskiy

New Member
View Badges
Joined
May 27, 2019
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Nopox smells like acetone nail polish remover, ,it's ton just ethanol, methanol, and vinegar,
I honestly think in has isopropyl alcohol, which has a super strong smell, also acetone can me made out of it. All of this stuff has lots of different carbons .
If you smell nopox it smells like a solvent paint thinner.
 
U

User1

Guest
View Badges
I've used NoPox a couple times now and it does lower Nitrates. A little phosphate too. I couldn't tell anyone if it works better than the DIY piece or dosing something solo like vinegar. For me to answer that I would need to stop dosing one, then dose the other for equal amounts of time, then stop that one and dose the other. Then I could probably answer. But even that answer is only going to be unique to my system.

If I had to guess though my gut tells me that the DIY recipe would probably do the same thing as would vinegar. I went with NoPox because, well, it was what I knew based on reading various threads and things. Read instructions, cut dose in 1/3, slowing dosed manually, tested twice a week, saw results. So it worked. Had I used something else I'm thinking it would have also.

What I do know that if this is something I'm going to continue to do, dose, then I'll need to go either to straight vinegar or the DIY recipe. NoPox is expensive and like already noted in the thread if there is nothing else that it is bringing to the table then I need to reef smarter and save some money. Two in college means I need to do smarter things in the hobby.
 

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

  • Ball valves.

    Votes: 33 52.4%
  • Gate valves.

    Votes: 35 55.6%
  • Check valves.

    Votes: 13 20.6%
  • None.

    Votes: 14 22.2%
  • Other.

    Votes: 5 7.9%
Back
Top