Micro Scrubbing Bubbles.

[Crixus]

Can you clarify what you mean by accelerated?
Did you have detritus issues before bubbling?

I didn't really have a detritus issue per say, but when I took a turkey baster and blasted the rocks, it would come off. Now when do it, nothing, not a hint of detritus comes off. As far as accelerated coral growth. I had a frag of acro I bought about a year ago. I was cleaning the tank one day and accidenatly chopped off the most of it. All I was left was a flat "nub". When I started bubbling, I blasted this frag directly. I know have multiple new growth and encrusting.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

I didn't really have a detritus issue per say, but when I took a turkey baster and blasted the rocks, it would come off. Now when do it, nothing, not a hint of detritus comes off. As far as accelerated coral growth. I had a frag of acro I bought about a year ago. I was cleaning the tank one day and accidenatly chopped off the most of it. All I was left was a flat "nub". When I started bubbling, I blasted this frag directly. I know have multiple new growth and encrusting.

Great. Thanks.

 

[DanConnor]

Has anyone tried running their nano bubbles through an ECO-aqualizer? It seems like enhancing the bubbles with a charge would have to be synergistic.

 

[druckle]

I have just finished reviewing every post in this thread. I see primarily boorish, infantile argument which appears to be ego driven and some anecdotal reports of the observed effects of bubbling on various folks aquariums. I'm all for acquiring scientific data because that's my life's work; however, most every change in aquarium husbandry methods has occurred well before supporting scientific data were acquired. Much of the positive change seem to have come from adapting methods originally used in waste water treatment. I believe skimmers became "must have equipment" based on this type of evolution and only after a long period of use in the aquarium, some "scientific" data on the degree of waste removal in the aquarium began to be created. My understanding at this point is that skimmers are not the be all, end all, solution to our problems but a lot of folks, including myself, have concluded that they do have positive effects and I'm glad that folks tried them before scientific data supporting their effectiveness was available.

I am unaware of any single method in reef keeping which stands out as the miracle of good practice. I doubt if there will be one anytime soon. Bubbling seems to be continuing the tradition of exploring a water treatment method aimed at other problems for it's potential effects on the reef keeping hobby. I see nothing wrong with this.

It doesn't bother me that folks are trying a new method which might be "oversold" at this point. Positive or negative, the results of lots of folks exploring will teach us something. I hope many do try bubbling since it will either cause a positive change in our hobby or it will help speed the search for something else for us to insult each other about.

For me I'm curious enough to give bubbling a try and since the trial entails little cost, why not?

 

[hybridazn]

Let's keep this thread a civil discussion, please refrain from any personal attacks or insults and trying to derail.

 

[Thales]

I have just finished reviewing every post in this thread. I see primarily boorish, infantile argument which appears to be ego driven and some anecdotal reports of the observed effects of bubbling on various folks aquariums. I'm all for acquiring scientific data because that's my life's work; however, most every change in aquarium husbandry methods has occurred well before supporting scientific data were acquired. Much of the positive change seem to have come from adapting methods originally used in waste water treatment. I believe skimmers became "must have equipment" based on this type of evolution and only after a long period of use in the aquarium, some "scientific" data on the degree of waste removal in the aquarium began to be created. My understanding at this point is that skimmers are not the be all, end all, solution to our problems but a lot of folks, including myself, have concluded that they do have positive effects and I'm glad that folks tried them before scientific data supporting their effectiveness was available.

I am unaware of any single method in reef keeping which stands out as the miracle of good practice. I doubt if there will be one anytime soon. Bubbling seems to be continuing the tradition of exploring a water treatment method aimed at other problems for it's potential effects on the reef keeping hobby. I see nothing wrong with this.

It doesn't bother me that folks are trying a new method which might be "oversold" at this point. Positive or negative, the results of lots of folks exploring will teach us something. I hope many do try bubbling since it will either cause a positive change in our hobby or it will help speed the search for something else for us to insult each other about.

For me I'm curious enough to give bubbling a try and since the trial entails little cost, why not?

For the record, I believe that any of us 'skeptics' (as if that is a dirty word) have said almost the exact same things. This thread went off the rails (and discussion in other places became even more charged) when some asked for, or suggested, that, more than anecdote would be really helpful to determine if bubbling really did the things it was being claimed to do. Those that have been asking for such things have said over and over again that we hope that the idea actually pans out, and doesn't fizzle away the way so many other things in the hobby have when more than anecdote comes into play. In the discussions on this topic I have been involved in, I have seen no one say that people shouldn't bubble or that people shouldn't experiment, quite the opposite really. What concerns me, and why I bring it up yet again, is the idea that questioning and asking for something as simple as what is the pH after bubbling and what was it before bubbling, is converted to 'how dare you tell me I am wrong and that I shouldn't try this and I can't afford to make super scientific data and we have the data but we aren't going to share it with you'. No one has ever asked for robust data, just simple data.
So here we are, 45 pages later, and people are still wanting the basic information about what the pH was before bubbling, what it rose to after bubbling, what the pH stability was before bubbling, and what the pH stability was after bubbling. I hope we see this kind of info soon.

 

[Cruz_Arias]

Has anyone tried running their nano bubbles through an ECO-aqualizer? It seems like enhancing the bubbles with a charge would have to be synergistic.

The magnetic power is not strong enough... however, aeration floatation separation has been in practice with the utilization of electromagnets producing a Gaussian field that is able to extract heavy metals.

http://www.mastermagnets.com/product/electro-magnetic-filters/

 

[Cruz_Arias]

Apex Readings.

Once pH was settled, to ambient conditions. At the end, re-introducing the aeration method.

We continue to see the stability with only 2 hours a night. This is what I would like to see as the "equilibrium" point of CO2 expulsion.

This zoom in detail of the pH still shows a slight depression in pH... skimmer was off at 6:00pm... Aeration was turned on at 10pm

This last graph shows the continued rise during peak photosynthesis along with light aeration bringing the pH up to the buffering capacity... roughly pH 8.2

 

[Squamosa]

Apex Readings.

Mate, you're confusing me

What are the Apex readings showing, the pH drop overnight and subsequent rise as you go on into the early morning?

Were you bubbling at those times?

Please give the members a good explanation

 

[Cruz_Arias]

I am unable to try the tank bubble-scrub method and compare before and after numbers yet as I have too many changes going on right now to get a "baseline" to compare only the changes (if any) from bubble scrubs....it will likely be some months before I can start that....however, I did try an experiment where I put a wood airstone at my return pump inlet and dialed up the air to just short of the pump losing all suction (absolute maximum amount of air-entrainment via that method) and then documented the quantity of small bubbles in the tank. I then took the same wood airstone and put it in a corner of the tank just off the bottom. I put a very small powerhead above that, so the powerhead circulated the bubbles around the tank, starting near the bottom. As the airstone was just below the discharge of the powerhead I could dial the air flow right up to the maximum air pump output if I so desired. The amount of bubbles I was able to virtually saturate the tank with was significantly increased many - fold. If the gist of the idea is to turn your display tank into a big skimmer for a few hours each night, it would seem it would be far more effective to put the airstone in the tank and circulate it with a powerhead or similar, than at the return pump inlet. On a side note, I run a simple T5 lighting system about 5 inches about the tank surface. The couple of nights I ran the bubbles through my return pump, my lights were encrusted with a fine salt coating from the "mist" or "smoke" that danced arount the water surface, and it was a pain in the *** to clean the lights everyday. By releasing the air near the bottom of the tank and blowing the bubbles around starting much further down in the water column the amount of salt encrusting my lights was significantly less that when the bubbles exited through my spray bar (just below the surface). If/when I get to try it after I get my tank settled out, I will use the display tank airstone method. There is no way I am going to scrub my light hood every day

Cheers!

That was the issue we were having with the two new test systems... one would fluctuate while the other was stable... extremely similar setups but still something different... :/

 

[Cruz_Arias]

Mate, you're confusing me

What are the Apex readings showing, the pH drop overnight and subsequent rise as you go on into the early morning?

Were you bubbling at those times?

Please give the members a good explanation

Sorry... Let me explain...
This was the 24 hour period (once pH was settled) prior to bubbling...
We turned on the bubbling at the end showing a quick climb in pH (what I am assuming) is CO2 degassing and re-oxygenation of the system.

 

[Thales]

Cool. It would be great if you ran the same test by just bubbling into the sump rather than they method you have been using. It would be great to see if what you do is significantly different than just bubbling in the sump.

 

[Squamosa]

Sorry... Let me explain...
This was the 24 hour period (once pH was settled) prior to bubbling...
We turned on the bubbling at the end showing a quick climb in pH (what I am assuming) is CO2 degassing and re-oxygenation of the system.

Thanks for the explanation

 

[Cruz_Arias]

Would be nice to do a lot of things... just keeping it simple at first and adhering to the "method of delivery" for consistency's sake.

 

[jedimasterben]

Would be nice to do a lot of things... just keeping it simple at first and adhering to the "method of delivery" for consistency's sake.

What Rich is getting at is that you show the results from the same way you're recommending that others will get the optimum results from, which is to very simply place any air pump with a limewood airstone next to the return pump. Was your data collected using this same method or by some other means?

 

[Cruz_Arias]

What Rich is getting at is that you show the results from the same way you're recommending that others will get the optimum results from, which is to very simply place any air pump with a limewood airstone next to the return pump. Was your data collected using this same method or by some other means?

Same method... like this...

But, yes, there's more than one way to skin a cat... nothing in this world, or this hobby, is absolute.

 

[Cruz_Arias]

Here's a published paper about turbulence in saltwater and it's affect on IRI of light and relationally to (PAR) as well... Just thought this would be useful for those testing PAR while the pumps are on, versus when they are not... (Ocean Optics Study and Explanation, 1994)

Many people turn off their pumps while measuring PAR. This is not an accurate reading if attempting to determine ACTUAL PAR/PUR received by the coral normally with flow on.

http://opl.ucsb.edu/tommy/pubs/59_light.pdf

 

[Cruz_Arias]

Questions about floatation application in seawater/saltwater can be seen published in the following attempting to adapt DAF to saltwater.
When floatation was achieved (such as in skimmers) all other basic relational benefits of floatation follows... such as film separation, separation floatation, and overall water clarification.

Please see the following:
Treatment of industrial wastewater, Brine
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_wastewater_treatment

http://www.waterworld.com/articles/.../editorial-features/clarifying-treatment.html

 

[Thales]

What Rich is getting at is that you show the results from the same way you're recommending that others will get the optimum results from, which is to very simply place any air pump with a limewood airstone next to the return pump. Was your data collected using this same method or by some other means?

I suspect you would get a similar pH bump by just bubbling air into the sump without a limewood airstone, away from the return pump because we have seen that in the past. It would be cool to do this in the same system the results were posted about because it seems clear that that tank has CO2 to blow off.

 

[TheHarold]

Bubbling for a while now... Once a day for half an hour. No adverse reactions apparent.

Not saying if its helpful or not, but it isn't hurting anything. Except maybe the bacteria in my sand, all the bubbles in the sand have gone.