My 5 Gallon Nano

[Anonymous]

Hello there,

Here are answers to your response,

Small Flows is the Magazine. It is a government publication. Thus, it is a good publication that concerns all the different ways to handle waste water treatment.

Going south is a Marine Corps term. Not a Navy term. We had different terms in the Corps than the Navy. In the 70's Snake did not refer to a Woman Marine. There was another term which was used which was a degrading term no longer used. I ought to know. None of the fish are sick bay commandos. People for years have found that to be true when using the compound.

Please start with the first page of this thread and you will see test results concerning our product from outside labs. You will notice everything you requested in your missive, has already been answer there.

All of our species are listed with the ATCC and are listed as class 1 organisms. If you know class 1 (there are four classes) then you will see they are harmless. They are the defining authority, not you nor I. Most any bacteria can cause illness because it has the ability to mutate. That is the reason I always check with the ATCC which ones are class 1 and do not use a class 2, 3 or 4. (Class four would be Ebolia, HIV, TB, etc) Very nasty organisms. In some wholesalers water and thus retailers water you will find such organisms Mycobacterium marinum This use to be a very uncommon organism, but I know of two cases whereby it was picked up by surfers in the local waters, and another case from a fish tank when the person had an open cut on their hand. It is contained in both fresh and salt water. But then again, because of the slow growing organism, which if left untreated is life threating, does not stop us from the aquarium hobby.

But just because you know the names, the mixture and other things contribute to the 24 hour cycle. They are listed in my patent for all to see, there by giving me patent protection. Our patents are listed on our web page of http://www.HDLtd.com so it does not take a mental giant to link them up with the patent office, does it.

Only took 11 years to come up with this compound. They are listed in my patents.

And Viz, since you have not tested the product, how can you make such an assumption on how it works? Shows you are turning a blind eye to new science.

So, now to the point at hand, does or does not my compound work? IF it does not work, then it is snake oil, but if it does work, (look at the preceding pages of this thread to see the test data and different shops who have used it) then what do you have to say regarding test data.

Respectfully submitted,

Snake

there's no such thing as 'new science'


there is such a thing as new data, new ideas, etc.



the science (which is method, experimentation, testing, etc) remains exactly the same



all i need to say about 'your new method' is in the link i posted

 

[Anonymous]

:lol:

Go Vitz Go



By the way, nice to see you buddy!

knuck

 

[Anonymous]

Snake,
Can you tell me which issue of Small Flows your article is in?

Perhaps its just a clerical error but there doesnt seem to be ANY bibliographical records for your name in their database.

 

[Anonymous]

 

[Anonymous]

Snake,
Can you tell me which issue of Small Flows your article is in?

Perhaps its just a clerical error but there doesnt seem to be ANY bibliographical records for your name in their database.

Not positive but I think he said it was going to be in one....

 

[Anonymous]

Is there an "oil" section?

 

[Anonymous]

Snake,
Can you tell me which issue of Small Flows your article is in?

Perhaps its just a clerical error but there doesnt seem to be ANY bibliographical records for your name in their database.

Not positive but I think he said it was going to be in one....

ah yes, going back I see youre right. Funny, I didnt know the GAO was a world wide publisher though...sure they print report/circular copies to whomever registers and requests, but Small Flows is not a publication you can get at Barnes and Noble...

 

[FragMaster]

Here's the proof snake.
http://www.devildogs.cc/unofficial/s.shtml

I never said they were Naval terms though. We worked side by side with you guys snake ( you hitched rides with us ect ect...). Only makes sense I would have picked up on the lingo'.

*That link leads to a site that contains words and phrases that may offend some readers.*
:wink:

 

[wade1]

Back on topic, although quite belated, I see a number of issues that are unresolved:

1- Visual proof of this system in use over time. As has been mentioned often here, if we can see it, we have an easier time swallowing it. That said, pictures are really meaningless as they can come from anywhere, but we're a fairly trusting bunch when it comes to images.

2- Hard scientific data. The posted "findings" are single test, no error, no deviation and unreplicated. Worthless as it stands. We also don't know anything regarding the sampling, the experimental setup or any pertinent details at all.

I have another issue that I haven't seen raised. Bacteria, when artificially installed at non-native levels, will balance back to native levels (food restriction, competition, genetic mixing, etc) in a fairly short period of time. Do you have to re-innoculate your tank cultures often?

I'm in the same boat as many others here at the moment. I'm a scientist (read skeptic) and without the burden of proof its all media relations.

 

[Anonymous]

I have another issue that I haven't seen raised. Bacteria, when artificially installed at non-native levels, will balance back to native levels (food restriction, competition, genetic mixing, etc) in a fairly short period of time. Do you have to re-innoculate your tank cultures often?

I was waiting to ask that until we saw some pictures.

 

[brandon4291]

And I still need my rectification! It was missed because it was on p 6...see below. Wade, is this about right?>

Posted: Wed Mar 08, 2006 12:13 pm Post subject: --

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I only wanted to insert one clarification point I've noticed... BOD is an abbreviation for biological oxygen demand, and in my concept of the term it relates to the overall oxygen budgets required to maintain life-sustaining metabolic activities of those organisms deemed aerobic or 'facultatively' aerobic during that metabolic phase if the shoe fits... Adding any aerobic bacteria to the system will increase the BOD technically, but you only get a rise in nitrate production if you supply them with proteinic foodstuffs that are eventually deaminated to liberate ammonia in its oxidized forms...the nitrogen cycle as we currently view it. I agree with your bed-cleaning regimen and it's measurable effect on nitrate rebounds, but I say that's more of a function of protein removal (and the common water change phenomenon) than it is an address of oxygen requirements for the organisms that degrade the proteins.

I'm not one to be closed-minded to new science, but as I am trying to contemplate your steps and methods this definition of the origin of nitrate keeps throwing me for a loop, that's all.

**I asked this question because of one of snake's quotes that I can't find as I look back through these 7 pages, it's where he said "BOD is the cause of nitrates"

additional points: Why would an otherwise aerobic organism want to expend the energy required to cleave the NO3 molecule for it's oxygen, when it can just get it from the surrounding solution? If pint-sized energy budgets weren't a major biological/evolutionary regulator, we wouldn't have blind cave tetras... I'd think if the ready bacteria were able to use gaseous oxygen, and evolved in the presence of it, they'd choose (or develop/evolve) the least expensive way to get by.

Just my two cents, I could be way off...I'm only nit picking a little because I'd expect new science to attack these issues from a new angle, but I'd bet firmly the current concepts of basic evolutionary and nitrogen-reducing models aren't going anywhere any time soon. So much industry has been built on these tried and true tenets

brandon429

 

[Anonymous]

if one increases the 'BOD', wouldn't one ALSO have to increase the available O2?

 

[RichardS]

I strongly feel that your fish will become sick bay commandos with this system in a small tank.

I strongly feel you have no basis to make that statement since you have zero experience with this system.

The link you posted is bogus. Shows no photos of anything you are sugesting what so ever as usual. Only talks about Ph rock once and said they didnt use it..

No it isn't bogus! I know because it's my thread. If you actually read through the post you will see that I will be setting up an sps system using the ph rock in the very near future. I think for testing purposes it is best to reduce the number of variables so that setup is only using TBPC & RN. Plus the ph rock is just an added bonus to me if it works, controlling nitrate, phosphate and overall water quality is what I am more interested in. If you want proof of long term results, well you'll just have to follow along. I don't know how to speed up time.

I am glad there are people such as your self out there that are willing to take the time to perform such experiments to help further the hobby.
With such radical sugestions though you are going to have to do better than the explinations you have given us so far.
We want real proof. Not lessons on how the cycle process works.
We already know this.
Give a direct and clear explination of how YOUR product works.
Stop giving us partial scientific data with missing variables, and swaying off the description of your product half way through it every time. If you dont you are going to get the same results on every board you visit.

He has already given an explanation of how it works, now the question is DOES it work. If you are asking for such absolute details that you or anyone else can become his competitor then that is not a valid request IMO.

I understand that it is hard to put aside everything you know and just accept that there may be another way. Took Snake almost four years to get me to try his system. I am always skeptical of products of any type.So far it has performed as advertised.

If you are not impervious to new ideas, you can just follow along the link snake provided and see what happens.

Here are some web definitions for BOD...
"The quantity of largely organic, materials present in a water sample as measured by a specific test. Although BOD is not a specific compound, it is defined as a conventional pollutant under the federal Clean Water Act."

"A measure of the amount of oxygen consumed in the biological processes that break down organic matter in water. BOD is used as an indirect measure of the concentration of biologically degradable material present in organic wastes. It usually reflects the amount of oxygen consumed in five days by biological processes breaking down organic waste."

"A measure of the organic material that can be readily oxidized through microbial decomposition, consuming oxygen dissolved in water. BOD is often used to assess the effects of a discharge, especially sewage."

I just call it poop :wink: .

 

[Anonymous]

I strongly feel that your fish will become sick bay commandos with this system in a small tank.

I strongly feel you have no basis to make that statement since you have zero experience with this system.

The link you posted is bogus. Shows no photos of anything you are sugesting what so ever as usual. Only talks about Ph rock once and said they didnt use it..

No it isn't bogus! I know because it's my thread. If you actually read through the post you will see that I will be setting up an sps system using the ph rock in the very near future. I think for testing purposes it is best to reduce the number of variables so that setup is only using TBPC & RN. Plus the ph rock is just an added bonus to me if it works, controlling nitrate, phosphate and overall water quality is what I am more interested in. If you want proof of long term results, well you'll just have to follow along. I don't know how to speed up time.

I am glad there are people such as your self out there that are willing to take the time to perform such experiments to help further the hobby.
With such radical sugestions though you are going to have to do better than the explinations you have given us so far.
We want real proof. Not lessons on how the cycle process works.
We already know this.
Give a direct and clear explination of how YOUR product works.
Stop giving us partial scientific data with missing variables, and swaying off the description of your product half way through it every time. If you dont you are going to get the same results on every board you visit.

He has already given an explanation of how it works, now the question is DOES it work. If you are asking for such absolute details that you or anyone else can become his competitor then that is not a valid request IMO.

I understand that it is hard to put aside everything you know and just accept that there may be another way. Took Snake almost four years to get me to try his system. I am always skeptical of products of any type.So far it has performed as advertised.

If you are not impervious to new ideas, you can just follow along the link snake provided and see what happens.

Here are some web definitions for BOD...
"The quantity of largely organic, materials present in a water sample as measured by a specific test. Although BOD is not a specific compound, it is defined as a conventional pollutant under the federal Clean Water Act."

"A measure of the amount of oxygen consumed in the biological processes that break down organic matter in water. BOD is used as an indirect measure of the concentration of biologically degradable material present in organic wastes. It usually reflects the amount of oxygen consumed in five days by biological processes breaking down organic waste."

"A measure of the organic material that can be readily oxidized through microbial decomposition, consuming oxygen dissolved in water. BOD is often used to assess the effects of a discharge, especially sewage."

I just call it poop :wink: .

i think everyone's trying to say that they will accept anything...with good hard scientific proof that it actually works

without that-this is nothing but another eco-aqualyzer

 

[RichardS]

I disagree.

Define hard scientific proof. Asking for a government funded scientific study on products used in this hobby just doesn't seem realistic to me. I have never seen such definitive studies of dsb's, liverock, etc. used IN a closed system. Just theories on how it should work with the caveat that every tank is different.

Ecoaqualizer, zeovit, etc. do not provide ANY absolute statements in regards to what results those products wil yield. Just things like clearer water, happier corals etc.

Snake on the other hand is giving an extremely inexpensive and simple test AND is stating exactly what measurable results you will get BEFORE hand. Like I said, so far it has worked exactly has he defined beforehand. Therefore, I don't think it can be put into the category of ecoaqualizers or the multitude of wonder products out there.

 

[Anonymous]

Yada yada.. so far, it's snake oil. Show pics, and dates, and hard core test results. And hiding in a closet certainly doesn't help. If ya got something true, gosh darnet, show it. :roll:

 

[FragMaster]

Anyone else get the fealing someone here is using an alias or alter Ego?

 

[wade1]

I have never seen such definitive studies of dsb's

Look up Dr Rob Toonen's enclosed system studies for denitrification in small systems based on sand bed type. Well rounded experiment with sufficient numbers to make a claim. He published in Coral Reef (scientific journal) and I beleive a shorter version in Advanced Aquarist.

And in answer to the above: BOD is exactly as defined. It is the demand generated by the living systems for oxygen... how much gets consumed. Consumption of oxygen will not occur in the presence of the reduction of NO3 to N2! The process is reductive, and the point to it is energy utilization, just as some bacteria use sulfur for the same purpose. Most anaerobic organisms are killed quickly by oxygen, hence cyanobacteria have special segments of their strands that are full protected against oxygen toxicity for the conversion of gaseous N2 into usable N. So unless they've modified the bacteria, I just don't believe that it is possible to have a bacteria that can do both in the same aerobic zone. At least not for long.

 

[RichardS]

I would say the Dr. Toonen's studies in fact make my point. He showed that there is considerable variability even between identical tanks. Snake's method claims identical, repeatable results so it shouldn't be very hard to test his claims.

As you can see from the link, thus far the system has performed as advertised. And further testing in a reef environment is planned. My testing may not be exactly scientific but I'm a hobbyist & a store owner so I'm not going to pretend to play a scientist on the internet. The end results are more important to me than the "how" of the system.

As to BOD, snake is refering to detritus. Arguing the definition seems pointless to me.

Fragmaster - You got me! It's all a great conspiracy to get people to spend less time and money on their aquariums, and less money at my store :roll: . Now if you go click on the link provided by snake you can see who I am, what store I own, where it is located. Or you can look it up in the LFS directory on this site. Also, before you come back and say I'm just trying to sell the stuff...the L in LFS stands for local. Looking at your other posts on this site, I see you do enjoy trolling. So I won't respond to your taunts or conspiracy theories any further.

 

[FragMaster]

8O 8O