My 5 Gallon Nano
- Thread starter skylab1
- Start date
It is statements like this that make me not respect this method. Regardless of how effective it may be I would never advocate putting several fish into a small space. Futhermore, it makes any company who advocates this seem like they are just trying to make a quick buck from the inexperienced newcomers to the hobby, without a care for the longterm well-being of the animals.Snake USMC":3kn0busw said:
skylab1":3kn0busw" data-source="" class="bbCodeBlock bbCodeBlock--expandable bbCodeBlock--quote js-expandWatch">skylab1":3kn0busw said:
Well, you're right. There is no possible way for me to prove to you that your fish are happy or unhappy. But my humble experience as a marine biologist, scuba diver, and general lover of the oceans has taught me that marine animals, just like terrestrial animals, deserve respect. I believe that if we choose to remove these animals from their natural homes for our amusement then we should recreate as natural an environment as possible for them to live in, relatively speaking. If you don't feel this way, it saddens me, but you are perfectly free to have your own opinion.
Yes, you are right, but normally there is one fish per container, not 4 of different species. Also, how long do those fish remain there? A couple days? A week max? I doubt they would survive in that situation long term, which is what we are addressing. Also, in this situation the container holding a fish may be small, but the water volume in the system is enormous. In the system in this post there are only 5 gallons of water. Regardless of the physical space issue for the inhabitants, there is the pollution/contamination issue of such a small water volume. I realize this proposed system would take care of the normal waste and byproducts, as well as keeping essential elements in check. But what about introduction of disease, parasites, copper, or any other chemical pollutant? Even a small pollutant can wipe such a small tank in an instant, and in any normal situation you may be losing one or two fish...in this system you are doubling the potential loss. In reef keeping more does not always equal better.Snake USMC":3kn0busw said:
Now, I am not trying to attack anyone or disrespect anyone. I realize that you are only a representative of the company, trying to clarify things to us. But I think you need to realize that people on these forums tend to have logical, scientific minds. At least I do. And simply giving examples of a method working to us seems like a magic trick. There is very little explanation or scientific evidence behind the process. I realize you are limited in what you can divulge, which probably makes this whole arguement futile. But you need to realize that people will be skeptical until they can see that A+B=C, and not A + magical process = C. I must say I am very interested in the proposed aerobic denitrifying bacteria, however I would like a better explanation as to the whole process, including the pH rock, so I can feel safe in knowing that 5 years down the road my corals won't all crash due to a buildup of some unknown factor. I realize that at this point I will never get this explanation. Anyway, I thank you for your time and your decision to share this with us, but personally it doesn't appeal to me. Even if I was to try it and I found it to work, I would find a bare tank with a bubble filter pretty ugly
. That's just me though.
do you mean the stages? i.e. ammonia -> nitrite -> nitrate?Snake USMC":143hz3ql said:
or do you mean the participants? the bacteria-species that are processing each stage? hovanec's recent studies say differently in that respect for FW. he claims it's nitrospira and not nitrobacter that's responsible for the nitrite processing stage.
i don't mean to nitpick, i'm just not clear what you meant and wondered if that small difference even makes a difference.
sure, if you like i'll shoot you an email. but honestly, i have no specialization in it. i'm only the sub-contractor and what i do is able to be done by 5~6 other companies in my state alone. my clients are the ones with the specialty, i just learn what they do to better understand/service them.Snake USMC":143hz3ql said:
but i'll shoot you my contact info anyways. btw, it'll look strange as i do oem and proprietary business and my proprietary business is how i identify myself. kinda like "why does GE do financing? aren't they an electric parts company?" but without all the billyuns of dollars, unfortunately for me.
Meloco14":39zst06t said:
Disease, parasites are preventable, copper the TBPC takes care that. Chemical pullutant will wipe out a tank no matte the size, it does take a lot to do big damage. The most commom chemical pulluant in a home is bleach, it doesn't take a lot of bleach to kill a tank full of fish small or large. Let me give you my personnal experience.
Last year I help a guy setup 100 gallon custom reef tank, the guy has the money by doesn't want to spend it for a full filtration system. So we ended up use 4 Rena XP type canister filter pack with tri-base carbon. It took about a week to cycle the tank vs. 24 hours, we didn't lose any fish during this time. The stocking was very slow just like a regular setup, the guy was happy with his tank. 3 month later on one Friday eventing, he decide to clean his BBQ grill for his sons birthday party the next day. He cleaned the grill with bleach bare hand, after that he went to clean the reef tank bare hand. Next morning he called me at 7am woke me up tell me all of his fish are DEAD! I went to his house, yep all the fish are forever sleep. So I started to question him what he did the night before, that's when I found out he clean the grill with bleach. I ask him to smell his hand, man you can still smell the bleach on his hand. The corals and two start fish sruvived the poison, not the fish. Meloco14, you are a marine biologist if you were facing this problem how would you have done to clean this mess up? Anyone else are also welcome to reply. Before I tell you what I did to save his tank I would like very much to hear how other poeople will do in this situation.
Meloco,
There are a few things you should take into account.
1. Look at the string you are writing on. It deals with Nano type tanks. This is not a large tank thread, so therefore, this thread should and is dedicated to very small tanks and how to keep fish alive. My system also works the same on large tanks with the same effect.
2. As stated before, my system works the same on large systems, no difference. The water quality is the same in both the 5 gallon bucket or a 400 gallon tank. Hard to believe but it works out that way because it is new science or new discovery that is patented. That is why I could patent it because it is new. It is based on Math not guesswork as “ maybe you SHOULD, or maybe you MIGHT try this or that...”
3. The tropical fish industry did a study a while back. They found that 80+ of the people who enter the hobby quit within six months. The foremost reason they quite the hobby was because it was too hard, too time consuming, and their fish mostly or all died. Now comes a system that allows more people to stay in the hobby without killing fish. Or the fish loss had been reduced drastically. I believe this is what you are aiming for in your missive. Fish death, who wants it and who needs it!
4. Long term usage of our products as one Medical Doctor has attested, since he has been using it for the past five years, he has had only one fish die in that time period, and that was probably because of old age was his remark. He has a 12 year old Red Sea tang that is just as lively as it was when he bought it.
5. As a scuba diver, and lover of the ocean, THAT is what put me on the track to clean the mess up. This invention was not for the aquarium trade when it was invented but to clean up waste water treatment plants such as the Hyperion in Los Angeles who today put into the San Monica Bay (Bay Watch) 50 mg/L of ammonium at the rate of 650 million gallons a day. Still want to talk about the love of the ocean?
I did a study in school one time and after I dove, (I am a civilian and Military Diver who has dove in every tropical ocean in the world) with a new wet suit on as I climbed into the boat, my wet suit fell apart because of the toxic material near (remember I said NEAR not ON or BY) the discharge of the plant. Granted, they have since slowly progressed to a better system but still the values I mentioned are present day.
6. To put into ANY aquarium fish, or inverts in a system that requires a great deal of time, effort and money, whereby one can show a new person how easy it is and how fast it is with the new system, that is if one loves the ocean, would be tantamount to allowing the fish to suffer because the parameters in the old system can cause it to crash any time, well, I do not think of that as love by any means.
7. If you truly respect your animals either land or aquatic, then you would want the very best for them and not be bound by old way of thinking, but would ensure the highest survival rate possibly known in that industry. Again not to do so, would be the same as not caring and not respecting your animals.
8. In a holding facility which I am well acquainted for at least 40 years , there are fish in cubes that are no larger than my fist. Some of these fish do not survive because of the cramped closed quarters. I have notice organisms in these cubes sometime as long as a month, so your statement of only a week is bogus at the most. Also their flow rate has much to be desired. Usually the water comes in only from one end and travels the total length of the system before it is exited. That means the O2 level has dropped by the time it gets at the end.
9. Illness will come in with the fish, but many places have found with excellent water quality, the fish can heal itself. This has been shown to be the case many times. This bacteria is bioresistant to Copper and 8 other heavy metals up to 100 mg/L But also in larger tanks this same thing happens, I have witnessed it throughout the years. One case in point, a man totally killed his entire fish stock at his holding facility with too much copper. He wiped out about 18,000.00 US Dollars with of live stock by using too much.
10. In the old system, less is all you can have and still lose many fish. Plus you must buy a grundle of equipment that many people cannot afford when they see the price tag. And this equipment is a “Must Have” otherwise your fish will die. My fish I have had for 7 years, skylab1 was incorrect when he said 4 years. Have not lost any in that time. More than I can say about the “normal” system people are employing.
11. No, I am the inventor of the compound. I understand people are skeptics what they cannot see so THAT is the reason I ask Len to set up a 5 gallon bucket and post the values so everyone CAN see. He has refused to do so.
12. The 5 gallon bucket is intended to show a different method. Frankly I know my system will not appeal to everyone, (it does appeal to the environmental faction who clean up the mess we make) but I do not worry about that nor cry on my pillow. I have been worked over by processionals.
All in all, it does come to this.
Do you wish to go the same route that has a large overall death loss, or a better route that has a less death loss. If you respect the fish, as you have stated, then what is holding you up?
I do not mean the participants concerning the nitrogen cycle, but the manner it is conducted, that is, except in this case, it is more like a Nitrogen L than a cycle.
Glad this is a NANO REEF Thread.
Respectfully submitted,
Snake
There are a few things you should take into account.
1. Look at the string you are writing on. It deals with Nano type tanks. This is not a large tank thread, so therefore, this thread should and is dedicated to very small tanks and how to keep fish alive. My system also works the same on large tanks with the same effect.
2. As stated before, my system works the same on large systems, no difference. The water quality is the same in both the 5 gallon bucket or a 400 gallon tank. Hard to believe but it works out that way because it is new science or new discovery that is patented. That is why I could patent it because it is new. It is based on Math not guesswork as “ maybe you SHOULD, or maybe you MIGHT try this or that...”
3. The tropical fish industry did a study a while back. They found that 80+ of the people who enter the hobby quit within six months. The foremost reason they quite the hobby was because it was too hard, too time consuming, and their fish mostly or all died. Now comes a system that allows more people to stay in the hobby without killing fish. Or the fish loss had been reduced drastically. I believe this is what you are aiming for in your missive. Fish death, who wants it and who needs it!
4. Long term usage of our products as one Medical Doctor has attested, since he has been using it for the past five years, he has had only one fish die in that time period, and that was probably because of old age was his remark. He has a 12 year old Red Sea tang that is just as lively as it was when he bought it.
5. As a scuba diver, and lover of the ocean, THAT is what put me on the track to clean the mess up. This invention was not for the aquarium trade when it was invented but to clean up waste water treatment plants such as the Hyperion in Los Angeles who today put into the San Monica Bay (Bay Watch) 50 mg/L of ammonium at the rate of 650 million gallons a day. Still want to talk about the love of the ocean?
I did a study in school one time and after I dove, (I am a civilian and Military Diver who has dove in every tropical ocean in the world) with a new wet suit on as I climbed into the boat, my wet suit fell apart because of the toxic material near (remember I said NEAR not ON or BY) the discharge of the plant. Granted, they have since slowly progressed to a better system but still the values I mentioned are present day.
6. To put into ANY aquarium fish, or inverts in a system that requires a great deal of time, effort and money, whereby one can show a new person how easy it is and how fast it is with the new system, that is if one loves the ocean, would be tantamount to allowing the fish to suffer because the parameters in the old system can cause it to crash any time, well, I do not think of that as love by any means.
7. If you truly respect your animals either land or aquatic, then you would want the very best for them and not be bound by old way of thinking, but would ensure the highest survival rate possibly known in that industry. Again not to do so, would be the same as not caring and not respecting your animals.
8. In a holding facility which I am well acquainted for at least 40 years , there are fish in cubes that are no larger than my fist. Some of these fish do not survive because of the cramped closed quarters. I have notice organisms in these cubes sometime as long as a month, so your statement of only a week is bogus at the most. Also their flow rate has much to be desired. Usually the water comes in only from one end and travels the total length of the system before it is exited. That means the O2 level has dropped by the time it gets at the end.
9. Illness will come in with the fish, but many places have found with excellent water quality, the fish can heal itself. This has been shown to be the case many times. This bacteria is bioresistant to Copper and 8 other heavy metals up to 100 mg/L But also in larger tanks this same thing happens, I have witnessed it throughout the years. One case in point, a man totally killed his entire fish stock at his holding facility with too much copper. He wiped out about 18,000.00 US Dollars with of live stock by using too much.
10. In the old system, less is all you can have and still lose many fish. Plus you must buy a grundle of equipment that many people cannot afford when they see the price tag. And this equipment is a “Must Have” otherwise your fish will die. My fish I have had for 7 years, skylab1 was incorrect when he said 4 years. Have not lost any in that time. More than I can say about the “normal” system people are employing.
11. No, I am the inventor of the compound. I understand people are skeptics what they cannot see so THAT is the reason I ask Len to set up a 5 gallon bucket and post the values so everyone CAN see. He has refused to do so.
12. The 5 gallon bucket is intended to show a different method. Frankly I know my system will not appeal to everyone, (it does appeal to the environmental faction who clean up the mess we make) but I do not worry about that nor cry on my pillow. I have been worked over by processionals.
All in all, it does come to this.
Do you wish to go the same route that has a large overall death loss, or a better route that has a less death loss. If you respect the fish, as you have stated, then what is holding you up?
I do not mean the participants concerning the nitrogen cycle, but the manner it is conducted, that is, except in this case, it is more like a Nitrogen L than a cycle.
Glad this is a NANO REEF Thread.
Respectfully submitted,
Snake
If you know Bill @ Aquatic Life, please have him post some photos. Him telling me on the phone that his tanks are "wonderful" has absolutely no utility to me. A few photos of successful tanks utilizing your methodology will speak volumes.
I will not try your product for various ones. First is ethics, although I can suspend some of my reservations in the name of science. I already know a sure-fire way to keep fish alive: patience and diligence. But for the sake of knowledge, I would be willing to experiment if not for the following two reasons: Second, it forces me to buy a product I do not believe in (which you consequently profit from). Lastly, the "experiment" you suggested provides little useful data. I will need at least two tanks (ideally many more), one control and one "new science," operated over the course of several months to yield any meaningful data. Send me samples of your product, the equipment required to perform a meaningful data, and a storage area where i can conduct this experiment, and I will supply the labor free of charge. Otherwise, I leave the burden of proof where it rightfully belongs: on you.
I've glossed over A LOT of the things you've posted in order to stick to what I consider the more salient issue, which is: demonstrate to us the superiority of your method, especially since you are unwilling to discuss the details. Otherwise, you are simply asking people to trust you because you - the maker/distributor of said product - says buy it.
I will not try your product for various ones. First is ethics, although I can suspend some of my reservations in the name of science. I already know a sure-fire way to keep fish alive: patience and diligence. But for the sake of knowledge, I would be willing to experiment if not for the following two reasons: Second, it forces me to buy a product I do not believe in (which you consequently profit from). Lastly, the "experiment" you suggested provides little useful data. I will need at least two tanks (ideally many more), one control and one "new science," operated over the course of several months to yield any meaningful data. Send me samples of your product, the equipment required to perform a meaningful data, and a storage area where i can conduct this experiment, and I will supply the labor free of charge. Otherwise, I leave the burden of proof where it rightfully belongs: on you.
I've glossed over A LOT of the things you've posted in order to stick to what I consider the more salient issue, which is: demonstrate to us the superiority of your method, especially since you are unwilling to discuss the details. Otherwise, you are simply asking people to trust you because you - the maker/distributor of said product - says buy it.
ok im no mad docotor or a marine biologyst but here are some things i have seen from this thread which to me make no sense. maybe im being a idiot.....
ok first claim that makes no sens:
you say it removes surface oil but for anyone who has used a air pump in a small tank will note it removes all surface scum.
second claim:
you say its a total anerobic cycle. so firstly how does small cranuals of carbon provide a anerobic zone? also why do you say to use air pumps and powerfilters that are all high oxygen zones to house aneroibic zones??
third claim:
that using this method allows much more fish:
im sure you could keep 4 younge fish in a bare bottom tank with a normal filter with normal bacteria. what do you think fry grow out tanks and hospital tanks are.
fourth claim:
2 gobies and 2 clowns in a 5 gallon tank for 7 years:
if that was true healthy clown fish and gobies would be too large after 7 years. they would hardly be able to move....
fith claim:
people have used your method for 8 years so it must work:
surly if it worked that well for 8 years it would be used in every aquarium.
thats all for now pls exsplain or tell me if im a idiot
ok first claim that makes no sens:
you say it removes surface oil but for anyone who has used a air pump in a small tank will note it removes all surface scum.
second claim:
you say its a total anerobic cycle. so firstly how does small cranuals of carbon provide a anerobic zone? also why do you say to use air pumps and powerfilters that are all high oxygen zones to house aneroibic zones??
third claim:
that using this method allows much more fish:
im sure you could keep 4 younge fish in a bare bottom tank with a normal filter with normal bacteria. what do you think fry grow out tanks and hospital tanks are.
fourth claim:
2 gobies and 2 clowns in a 5 gallon tank for 7 years:
if that was true healthy clown fish and gobies would be too large after 7 years. they would hardly be able to move....
fith claim:
people have used your method for 8 years so it must work:
surly if it worked that well for 8 years it would be used in every aquarium.
thats all for now pls exsplain
or tell me if im a idiot oh, ok. i thought it was just a generic open letter to all. btw "RC" are my first and middle initials, "sheng" is my last name. :wink:skylab1":b1cllj65 said:
but now that i've had some sleep that letter did present a question: RN bacteria handles all three major nitrogenous waste-products? is it one bacteria or a multiple/blend? again, i understand confidential stuff. you can just reply "confidential, myob" :lol:
one other thing that bothered me in the thread, the comment that bacteria doesn't just pop out of thin air. well, it kinda does. these nitrogen-processing bacteria are ubiquitous, in the soil, surface, air, etc.
that's why a tank eventually develops a bio-filter even if you only add ammonia chloride to jumpstart it. again, i'm nit-picking but it's more of a clarification for the casual/noob readers and not the participants so please don't take offense.
invert,
they're claiming a completely aerobic cycle, not anaerobic.
but there are some areas of anaerobic in the sample tank where they claim nil. a nit-pick point, again.
just thinking about the niche areas, i likened it to the deep pores concept of LR. i.e. there's deep recesses or low-flow areas that develop anaerobic states.
Dear Len,
It is Bob at Aquatic Life. I do know him, he is the manager of the store. If you want him to post any photos, then it is up to you to call him (I gave you the number) and request him to post the photos. Tell him you have been in conversation with Snake and he will understand. Also a photo is just a photo,
Please show me anywhere in Ethics where not using my product falls under? Ethics is a word that has been used to supplement Morals. Where is it morality wrong to use this method, rather than your opinion.
If you reread my posts, which is still on this thread, you will see I offered to SEND you FREE my material, not have you buy it. You would have to furnish the bucket large optimum air pump, box filter heater and water. My offer still stands. At no time did I request you to BUY my products. I am glad of your post to put things in writing. It is there for all to see.
Now if you know a local fish shop, please ask them to furnish you with some of their old equipment for this experiment. Tell them you will return it afterwards when you have completed the test.
I too know a sure way of keeping more fish alive, it is through 11 years of experiments and finding a better way of reducing morality rate. The old ways people cling on to for comfort, but that does not mean they are the best ways.
Did you review the second test by CalBret Labs? You do not see those type of values in your systems.
As I mentioned before, I did not ask you to trust me, I asked you to test the products from me.
*************************************************************************************************
Invert’s questions
1. No, air pumps do not remove surface scum. If that were the case, in the environmental field, we would simply use blowers etc to remove scum that has formed on the surface and be done with that. A reduction must take place chemically and or biologically. Air alone, unless you are employing air stripping and that requires a machine not air bubbles, will not remove oils from the surface of water.
2. Your question shows you have not grasped the concept of an AEROBIC reduction of Nitrates rather than an Anaerobic reduction of nitrates. If you review the test data from OE which is posted on this form, you will notice the massive drops of NO3 in a very short period of time. This cannot occur in an anaerobic environment. Even in waste water treatment plants this does not happen. To reduce NO3 from a value of 6,237 mg/L and in seven days only 1.10 mg/L remains, then you must ask yourself, how was this accomplished. The answer in this case is AEROBIC reduction rather than anaerobic reduction. This is the New Science I have been speaking about. You must keep the TBPC clean so no dead spots occur to make the system either anoxic or anaerobic.
3. The fish are seven years old. Not fry. Also this system totally cycles in 24 hours from ammonia to Nitrogen gas. This is done aerobically. There are no massive water changes just 20 percent (1 gallon) every two weeks, which would not reduce the nitrogen and P values that great if there were any detected.
4. No, not true regarding the clowns being to large to move. These are perc and watchman. They grow, but have not reached that point whereby they are too large for the tank. What is noticed is even with this filtration system, the fish are healthy, have never been sick, eat like hogs (I feed many foods including oily mysis and there is no oil on the top of the water)
5. No that is another one of your assumptions. When you assume you make an ass u me. All of your questions were valid, but your assumptions are wrong. If I were to post this data on reef central, they would block me off in a heart beat or even if I mention it they have done the same. Why?
As Captain Kirk of the USS Enterprise said “people hate change” With this system no skimmer is needed, and none of the other materials to maintain a regular tank are required. Thus this system butts heads with these manufactures. Tropical Fish Magazine conducted a test for 10 months at a local fish shop. They had two 5 gallon aquariums set up, and one 20 gallon aquarium with a canister filter with the TBPC. They lost no fish during that time even when one of the hoses in the 20 gallon became twisted and did not allow flow over night, (they found later it was sabotage by a worker ) when they came in the following morning and found the values elevated and the tank cloudy, they discovered the problem at that time. Simply untwisting the hose did the trick and within 4 hours all values were zero and the tank was clean again.
When they were starting to publish their data, many of the clients who buy ads some how (the clerk in the store) in the magazine put up such a fuss TFH had to cut the article to only three pages instead of the seven which contained all the data pertaining to the tests. One of the vendors called the magazine and gloated to the editor who saw the test while it was working, said, “there is no scientific data to support this “invention”“ He shut up when the editor stated, the vendors quashed the remainder of the date because they are afraid of the results.
I received a email today from a farm in Africa who raises fish. They have 100 L a second flow rate and a very heavy fish load with an elevating N factor. They inquired if the RN without the TBPC would work for their problem. I told them yes. These people raise millions of dollars worth of fish a year.
For everyone who is reading only the last few pages, I have posted test data from two outside sources concerning my Right Now! Bacteria. One is a Nitrate test and the other one is a concurrent test concerning the daily reduction of Ammonia, Nitrite and Nitrate. They are there for you to view. The people who conducted the test are listed. I had to have these tests conducted and certified by an outside source to ensure this invention is totally replicable. It was also for supporting data which had to be submitted to the US Patent Office in order to secure my patents. The Examiner (PhD) grilled me on the phone and also in writing concerning this Totally Aerobic 24 Hour Cycle System. At times, I felt I was on the stand in a court room.
Please reread my very first post when I introduced myself.
Also to date, no one has even attempted to remark about the two tesst data I posted, even though, it was test data from an outside source they requested. Now that they have it, what is their response?
Respectfully submitted,
Snake
aka to some as a "Snake in the Grass"
It is Bob at Aquatic Life. I do know him, he is the manager of the store. If you want him to post any photos, then it is up to you to call him (I gave you the number) and request him to post the photos. Tell him you have been in conversation with Snake and he will understand. Also a photo is just a photo,
Please show me anywhere in Ethics where not using my product falls under? Ethics is a word that has been used to supplement Morals. Where is it morality wrong to use this method, rather than your opinion.
If you reread my posts, which is still on this thread, you will see I offered to SEND you FREE my material, not have you buy it. You would have to furnish the bucket large optimum air pump, box filter heater and water. My offer still stands. At no time did I request you to BUY my products. I am glad of your post to put things in writing. It is there for all to see.
Now if you know a local fish shop, please ask them to furnish you with some of their old equipment for this experiment. Tell them you will return it afterwards when you have completed the test.
I too know a sure way of keeping more fish alive, it is through 11 years of experiments and finding a better way of reducing morality rate. The old ways people cling on to for comfort, but that does not mean they are the best ways.
Did you review the second test by CalBret Labs? You do not see those type of values in your systems.
As I mentioned before, I did not ask you to trust me, I asked you to test the products from me.
*************************************************************************************************
Invert’s questions
1. No, air pumps do not remove surface scum. If that were the case, in the environmental field, we would simply use blowers etc to remove scum that has formed on the surface and be done with that. A reduction must take place chemically and or biologically. Air alone, unless you are employing air stripping and that requires a machine not air bubbles, will not remove oils from the surface of water.
2. Your question shows you have not grasped the concept of an AEROBIC reduction of Nitrates rather than an Anaerobic reduction of nitrates. If you review the test data from OE which is posted on this form, you will notice the massive drops of NO3 in a very short period of time. This cannot occur in an anaerobic environment. Even in waste water treatment plants this does not happen. To reduce NO3 from a value of 6,237 mg/L and in seven days only 1.10 mg/L remains, then you must ask yourself, how was this accomplished. The answer in this case is AEROBIC reduction rather than anaerobic reduction. This is the New Science I have been speaking about. You must keep the TBPC clean so no dead spots occur to make the system either anoxic or anaerobic.
3. The fish are seven years old. Not fry. Also this system totally cycles in 24 hours from ammonia to Nitrogen gas. This is done aerobically. There are no massive water changes just 20 percent (1 gallon) every two weeks, which would not reduce the nitrogen and P values that great if there were any detected.
4. No, not true regarding the clowns being to large to move. These are perc and watchman. They grow, but have not reached that point whereby they are too large for the tank. What is noticed is even with this filtration system, the fish are healthy, have never been sick, eat like hogs (I feed many foods including oily mysis and there is no oil on the top of the water)
5. No that is another one of your assumptions. When you assume you make an ass u me. All of your questions were valid, but your assumptions are wrong. If I were to post this data on reef central, they would block me off in a heart beat or even if I mention it they have done the same. Why?
As Captain Kirk of the USS Enterprise said “people hate change” With this system no skimmer is needed, and none of the other materials to maintain a regular tank are required. Thus this system butts heads with these manufactures. Tropical Fish Magazine conducted a test for 10 months at a local fish shop. They had two 5 gallon aquariums set up, and one 20 gallon aquarium with a canister filter with the TBPC. They lost no fish during that time even when one of the hoses in the 20 gallon became twisted and did not allow flow over night, (they found later it was sabotage by a worker ) when they came in the following morning and found the values elevated and the tank cloudy, they discovered the problem at that time. Simply untwisting the hose did the trick and within 4 hours all values were zero and the tank was clean again.
When they were starting to publish their data, many of the clients who buy ads some how (the clerk in the store) in the magazine put up such a fuss TFH had to cut the article to only three pages instead of the seven which contained all the data pertaining to the tests. One of the vendors called the magazine and gloated to the editor who saw the test while it was working, said, “there is no scientific data to support this “invention”“ He shut up when the editor stated, the vendors quashed the remainder of the date because they are afraid of the results.
I received a email today from a farm in Africa who raises fish. They have 100 L a second flow rate and a very heavy fish load with an elevating N factor. They inquired if the RN without the TBPC would work for their problem. I told them yes. These people raise millions of dollars worth of fish a year.
For everyone who is reading only the last few pages, I have posted test data from two outside sources concerning my Right Now! Bacteria. One is a Nitrate test and the other one is a concurrent test concerning the daily reduction of Ammonia, Nitrite and Nitrate. They are there for you to view. The people who conducted the test are listed. I had to have these tests conducted and certified by an outside source to ensure this invention is totally replicable. It was also for supporting data which had to be submitted to the US Patent Office in order to secure my patents. The Examiner (PhD) grilled me on the phone and also in writing concerning this Totally Aerobic 24 Hour Cycle System. At times, I felt I was on the stand in a court room.
Please reread my very first post when I introduced myself.
Also to date, no one has even attempted to remark about the two tesst data I posted, even though, it was test data from an outside source they requested. Now that they have it, what is their response?
Respectfully submitted,
Snake
aka to some as a "Snake in the Grass"
I don't have time to fully address everything mentioned in your last post Snake, but let me say that I believe your intentions are wonderful. I have believed this since skylab started this post. If you read my previous posts I have said how interested I am in a totally aerobic system and think it (if true) could have a major affect on this hobby. So I apologize if my last post felt like a personal attack on you, but this is not true. I think it is great that you are trying to reduce the number of deaths in this hobby, which as we all know is way too excessive. However, your method happens to be the direct opposite of our methods. On this board we try to teach patience as the first key to successful reefkeeping. I believe that our experience has shown that this IS a successful method of keeping reef tanks, contrary to what you believe. I also believe that the majority of carefully planned and cared for reef tanks are NOT liable to crash at any minute (ignoring certain acts that would crash ANY tank, even one using your method). There are a number of members of this forum that have had their tanks well over 5-7 years. So again, let me stress that the arguements here are largely differences in opinion. And I enjoy this open discussion, but I fear that as with most matters of opinion, we will not get anywhere until someone can provide fact. As far as your attacks against me as claiming to be a lover of the ocean, let me say this hardly has anything to do with the topic at hand. The reason I brought it up in my last post was simply to give you an idea of why I didn't agree with having 4 fish in a confined space. It has no pertinance to the biological issues at hand. And while you think I am a hypocrit for keeping animals in the so called "old system" I have to disagree. I think my system is very natural and safe for my animals. And as background, I only have 1 fish in 2 tanks (I in no means preach that this is necessary, this is personal choice). The rest of my stock are mostly aquacultured or captive raised corals and frags. I do my best to buy ethically and responsibly, and while it is impossible to have 0% effect on the natural reefs I try to do my best. So spare me the ocean lover guilt associated with killing marine animals. Let me end by saying again that I believe your intentions are good; we drastically need fewer deaths in this industry. However I do not see your method as being a great solution. Again, this is just my humble opinion, and I wish you luck with your endeavors.
One question from a business point of view, I am not trying to be arguementative here, but have you discussed your methods with any commercial aquariums? I would think that they would jump at a system like this, as it would save so much money on filtration equipment. It could also be a huge boost to your company. And obviously, if commercial aquariums test and accept this method you will have a much easier time convincing stubborn hobbyists such as ourselves. Just a thought.
On a side note, I completely agree with you as a scuba diver. The amount
of pollution in certain waters (especially around LA) is deplorable. I thank you for your efforts in this clean up. I also respect you and thank you for your military service. While I myself am a civilian I have close friends who have been and currently are in Iraq, and unfortunately have also lost a friend during the assault on Fallujah. However, this is way off topic and we don't need to go there.
One question from a business point of view, I am not trying to be arguementative here, but have you discussed your methods with any commercial aquariums? I would think that they would jump at a system like this, as it would save so much money on filtration equipment. It could also be a huge boost to your company. And obviously, if commercial aquariums test and accept this method you will have a much easier time convincing stubborn hobbyists such as ourselves. Just a thought.
On a side note, I completely agree with you as a scuba diver. The amount
of pollution in certain waters (especially around LA) is deplorable. I thank you for your efforts in this clean up. I also respect you and thank you for your military service. While I myself am a civilian I have close friends who have been and currently are in Iraq, and unfortunately have also lost a friend during the assault on Fallujah. However, this is way off topic and we don't need to go there.
I have another question. Does using your system have any effect on the "old system" biological filtration? Basically I would like to know if your system works in a tank that has live rock and live sand. Do the different strains of bacteria outcompete eachother? What about the use of supplimental chemical filtration, such as carbon every once in a while, or a phosphate absorbing medium? Are there any conflicts here? I realize the tank in the OP was designed to show the simplicity of the system, but personally I like the look of live rock and sand. I like to be able to run carbon and phosban from time to time. I also use a refugium. Are there any potential conflicts with the pH rock or your right now bacteria? Also skylab mentioned that in larger tanks the return from the sump is elevated above the water line. What about in larger tanks that have no sump? Will I have to have aerators in my tank? TIA
ok so basicly its a bacteria that consumes all 3 parts of the cycle aerobicly.
one wonder that springs to mind is if this a safe method why does this type of bacteria exsist on live rock.
but i guess you wont do into details about the this "new science" but it would be intresting to know where you found this wonder bacteria and what its natural purpose is. or is it even from a natural source.
but at the end of the day all i can see it doing is the same job as a standard aquarium with live rock, but allowing a larger fish population in your aquarium.
one wonder that springs to mind is if this a safe method why does this type of bacteria exsist on live rock.
but i guess you wont do into details about the this "new science" but it would be intresting to know where you found this wonder bacteria and what its natural purpose is. or is it even from a natural source.
but at the end of the day all i can see it doing is the same job as a standard aquarium with live rock, but allowing a larger fish population in your aquarium.
Dear Meloco
No, if I believed it was a personal attack on me, my
letter would have been much different.
Since Len does not wish to validate my claims and you
seem interested, I withdraw from Len my offer and now
offer it to you concerning my products. If you accept,
(please review the post I sent Len) I shall offer you
the same as I did him, and if you chose to accept,
then I shall send you the product. You can contact me either by phone 562 428 9973 or email Snake@HDLtd.com
One fish wholesaler is using our system for his
hatchery for a much longer period than some of the
people on the board tanks. I already mentioned this to
Len, and also Aquatic Life who built their entire fish
system around my specs. If a fish store can do it then
a hobbyist can without any problem.
Concerning Public Aquariums, my International Sales
Manager has contacted some and he is selling them our
products. On another point, today the United States Government National
Environmental Services Center has informed me they
will print an article concerning my Aerobic
Denitrification system in their magazine. This
magazine is published world wide so that should assist
us in our market share.
Your desire to keep the amount of fish in your
aquarium is your choice, and no one will nor should
they force you to change. You are dealing with the
science you and I both were taught in school and
because of that you are following correctly the
pattern of this science.
In regards to an "old" system, my bacteria will out
compete with the normal bacteria found in the old
system. They will become much more efficient in the
manner they process waste. Concerning live rock, as
you know, most of the wholesalers bring rock in by the
container load. This means it is dead when you receive
it, after a month or so in the dry state. Some do air
ship but it is also dry and many of the organisms are
dead upon arrival. Normally to "cure" or to reduce the
putrid dead tissue that is, takes between 4 to 6 weeks
before you can introduce it into a tank without
killing the other organisms. With our system, you are
able to cure totally live rock within 3 to 5 days,
depending how much death is on that rock. IF you have
a piece of
true live rock that contains no death, there are no
ill effects on any of the organisms growing on the
rock.
The same goes for corals. The values,
mention in the book I am co-authoring) will be
explained in greater detail than the normal
explanation in most books. A reef tank and a fish only
tank, with this system are identical. There is no
variance, except to feed the corals along with the
fish.
If you use our TBPC carbon in the correct amounts and
within the correct parameters, there will be no need
for the use of phosban or even some of our products
which reduce phosphates. The Right Now ! Bacteria
reduce phosphates while reducing nitrates, nitrites,
and all forms of ammonia.
In this system, it is totally your choice to have a
sump or not a sump. You do not need it. If you desired
to go first class you would use the canister filters,
and has the water flow back into the aquarium on top
of the water, where the gas exchange occurs. Very
simple and coincides with what we learned in physics.
Because the purpose of the refuge, is to remove
nitrogen and phosphates from your water, and since the
Right Now also accomplishes the same thing, you will
find growing plants in this system is very difficult,
because as you remember in biology, when two organisms
inhabit the same ecological space, only one shall
survive and be the predominate organism in that
ecological ecosystem. Thus, the bacteria will out
perform the plant life you have there. Do not confuse
the lower forms of plant life found in symbiosis with
your corals etc, the reason they (the algae) survives
is because it is directly at the source of pollution
(cellar respiration) within that cell.
As mentioned before, this is truly a sump less system.
A sump can be employed but that is an extra piece of
equipment that is not needed. The flow across the tanks'
surface will elevate the amount of DO in a salt water
or fresh water tank to the needed requirements for
both the fish and inverts and the bacteria.
I have another tank that I have coral sand in for
appearances and some of the wrasse's love to bury
themselves in that sand. I do like the appearance, but
when I perform a water change, I always vacuums the
entire sand bed to relieve it of BOD.
Yes, the bacteria does in fact reduce all parts of
nitrogen aerobically. This bacteria exists in the wild
and inhabits anything it comes across. At the end of
the day, you will not have to watch your balance
concerning nitrogen, phosphate, pH, Ca, ALK. The bacteria will also reduce sludge in your aquarium and reduce it down to the lowest value.
In other
words, you can now enjoy your tank rather than be a
slave to it.
I hope I have answer your questions, and if you so do
wish to perform this test in a 5 gallon bucket, please
post on the board, email me or call me M - F 0930 - 1700 PST.
Respectfully submitted,
El Snake O ah swimming in his el tanks O (This by the
way is written in perfect spanglish)
No, if I believed it was a personal attack on me, my
letter would have been much different.
Since Len does not wish to validate my claims and you
seem interested, I withdraw from Len my offer and now
offer it to you concerning my products. If you accept,
(please review the post I sent Len) I shall offer you
the same as I did him, and if you chose to accept,
then I shall send you the product. You can contact me either by phone 562 428 9973 or email Snake@HDLtd.com
One fish wholesaler is using our system for his
hatchery for a much longer period than some of the
people on the board tanks. I already mentioned this to
Len, and also Aquatic Life who built their entire fish
system around my specs. If a fish store can do it then
a hobbyist can without any problem.
Concerning Public Aquariums, my International Sales
Manager has contacted some and he is selling them our
products. On another point, today the United States Government National
Environmental Services Center has informed me they
will print an article concerning my Aerobic
Denitrification system in their magazine. This
magazine is published world wide so that should assist
us in our market share.
Your desire to keep the amount of fish in your
aquarium is your choice, and no one will nor should
they force you to change. You are dealing with the
science you and I both were taught in school and
because of that you are following correctly the
pattern of this science.
In regards to an "old" system, my bacteria will out
compete with the normal bacteria found in the old
system. They will become much more efficient in the
manner they process waste. Concerning live rock, as
you know, most of the wholesalers bring rock in by the
container load. This means it is dead when you receive
it, after a month or so in the dry state. Some do air
ship but it is also dry and many of the organisms are
dead upon arrival. Normally to "cure" or to reduce the
putrid dead tissue that is, takes between 4 to 6 weeks
before you can introduce it into a tank without
killing the other organisms. With our system, you are
able to cure totally live rock within 3 to 5 days,
depending how much death is on that rock. IF you have
a piece of
true live rock that contains no death, there are no
ill effects on any of the organisms growing on the
rock.
The same goes for corals. The values,
mention in the book I am co-authoring) will be
explained in greater detail than the normal
explanation in most books. A reef tank and a fish only
tank, with this system are identical. There is no
variance, except to feed the corals along with the
fish.
If you use our TBPC carbon in the correct amounts and
within the correct parameters, there will be no need
for the use of phosban or even some of our products
which reduce phosphates. The Right Now ! Bacteria
reduce phosphates while reducing nitrates, nitrites,
and all forms of ammonia.
In this system, it is totally your choice to have a
sump or not a sump. You do not need it. If you desired
to go first class you would use the canister filters,
and has the water flow back into the aquarium on top
of the water, where the gas exchange occurs. Very
simple and coincides with what we learned in physics.
Because the purpose of the refuge, is to remove
nitrogen and phosphates from your water, and since the
Right Now also accomplishes the same thing, you will
find growing plants in this system is very difficult,
because as you remember in biology, when two organisms
inhabit the same ecological space, only one shall
survive and be the predominate organism in that
ecological ecosystem. Thus, the bacteria will out
perform the plant life you have there. Do not confuse
the lower forms of plant life found in symbiosis with
your corals etc, the reason they (the algae) survives
is because it is directly at the source of pollution
(cellar respiration) within that cell.
As mentioned before, this is truly a sump less system.
A sump can be employed but that is an extra piece of
equipment that is not needed. The flow across the tanks'
surface will elevate the amount of DO in a salt water
or fresh water tank to the needed requirements for
both the fish and inverts and the bacteria.
I have another tank that I have coral sand in for
appearances and some of the wrasse's love to bury
themselves in that sand. I do like the appearance, but
when I perform a water change, I always vacuums the
entire sand bed to relieve it of BOD.
Yes, the bacteria does in fact reduce all parts of
nitrogen aerobically. This bacteria exists in the wild
and inhabits anything it comes across. At the end of
the day, you will not have to watch your balance
concerning nitrogen, phosphate, pH, Ca, ALK. The bacteria will also reduce sludge in your aquarium and reduce it down to the lowest value.
In other
words, you can now enjoy your tank rather than be a
slave to it.
I hope I have answer your questions, and if you so do
wish to perform this test in a 5 gallon bucket, please
post on the board, email me or call me M - F 0930 - 1700 PST.
Respectfully submitted,
El Snake O ah swimming in his el tanks O (This by the
way is written in perfect spanglish)
Snake,
1. Skimming this thread and looking at the pics, it looks like you can't really have much or any sand in an aquarium using your system, due to worries about "dead spots" or anerobic zones? Or if you do, you have to be very religious about cleaning it up and/or make sure there's plenty of water movement/flow?
2. So it looks like this particular strain of bacteria requires carbon to complete the cycle from NO3 to N2? So in other words, you can't just dump a bottle of your bacteria into a tank and expect it to cycle properly, correct?
3. A 50 gallon aquarium would require 8.5 pounds of carbon (using your .167 times the # of gallons formula) as a minimum in order for the cycle to complete properly? That's a LOT of carbon!
4. So if the above is all correct, and this "super" carbon takes out basically everything (including good trace elements) in the water, you have something called "Trace Element Blox" which you provide as well to put back the trace elements. How often would you need to use these on a 50 gallon aquarium? Water changes wouldn't be enough to put the trace elements back?
P.S. this is an interesting thread by the way.
1. Skimming this thread and looking at the pics, it looks like you can't really have much or any sand in an aquarium using your system, due to worries about "dead spots" or anerobic zones? Or if you do, you have to be very religious about cleaning it up and/or make sure there's plenty of water movement/flow?
2. So it looks like this particular strain of bacteria requires carbon to complete the cycle from NO3 to N2? So in other words, you can't just dump a bottle of your bacteria into a tank and expect it to cycle properly, correct?
3. A 50 gallon aquarium would require 8.5 pounds of carbon (using your .167 times the # of gallons formula) as a minimum in order for the cycle to complete properly? That's a LOT of carbon!
4. So if the above is all correct, and this "super" carbon takes out basically everything (including good trace elements) in the water, you have something called "Trace Element Blox" which you provide as well to put back the trace elements. How often would you need to use these on a 50 gallon aquarium? Water changes wouldn't be enough to put the trace elements back?
P.S. this is an interesting thread by the way.
I am jumping in at this late stage of the game to ask a couple of questions also.
How much does all of this cost, is it a one time outlay for the carbon and bacteria or is this something that must be renewed constantly?
Cause I am going on 2 years now with the only additives to my tank being water, salt, and bionic when I was dosing it, I quit a year ago.
So, if you are going to replace my live rock, sand, sump and all with some carbon and a bunch of bacteria I would at least like to hear that its only a one time outlay of money.
Know what I mean?
How much does all of this cost, is it a one time outlay for the carbon and bacteria or is this something that must be renewed constantly?
Cause I am going on 2 years now with the only additives to my tank being water, salt, and bionic when I was dosing it, I quit a year ago.
So, if you are going to replace my live rock, sand, sump and all with some carbon and a bunch of bacteria I would at least like to hear that its only a one time outlay of money.
Know what I mean?
knucklehead":216cjfc1 said:
The cost depend on the size of your tank, the bigger the tank the more carbon and pH rock will required.
This filtration method doesn't replace your live rock or live sand, you can still have both in the tank. The sump is optional, if you already have a sump you can keep using it. The carbon will last 5 years if you keep it clean, the bacteria only needed at the beginning, unless you some how kill off your entire biological bed most like you won't need to added anymore.
I have tank with both live rock and sand, other tank with only live rock no sand; and some with just live sand no LR. It makes no difference, most of filtration is done by the bacteria in the filter; LR and LS will have the bacteria too but not as much as in side the canister filter.
The cost is set by the retailer you have to find one and ask them.
I'm still trying to see what makes this method so much easier. If it's valid, then yes, it's faster to cycle than traditional methods. Then again, I cycle my tanks in 7-14 days by using a slightly non-standard method as well. Before adding livestock, I add ammonia directly to the tank, to about 20ppm, and keep the level there for about 3-4 days. Gives the nitrosomona bacteria lots of food to get them started with, without stressing any animals out. After that, the normal nitrification follows. The nitrobactors suddenly have a ton of nitrite to consume. Do a big water change a week or two later, to get rid of any nitrate build up, and it's safe to throw in livestock without shocking the system.
So besides for this almost impossible sounding cycle time (how fast of a metabolism must these bacteria have to eat all the ammonia, nitrites, nitrates, phosphates, etc, etc as you claim, in only a few hours?), how does this make my life easier? I don't have to do water changes? Don't have to worry about overfeeding, or cyano/algal/diatom blooms? Don't need my nice filter any more? How about snails, urchins, other "clean up" animals. Not only will we not need them, they'll likely starve to death? I still have to add my calcium and trace elements on schedule for my corals - er, wait no, because the bacteria eats all that, I have to add *your* special trace elements to keep my corals happy, supposedly.
I majored in biology for a while in college too. From what I remember, most bacteria are pretty specialized. They eat one thing. That's why in the natural environmnet we have Nitrosomonas/Nitrobacters of different types to break down things at different stages. The chemical reactions needed to break down ammonina and nitrites are very low energy return, therefore these bacteria have a very slow metabolism and reproductive rate. I.E., they get back so little energy from the process (most of it having gone to fixing CO2 for their carbon needs), that they don't have a lot left for reproduction and etc. That's why it takes 30 days to cycle a big tank, most of that time is waiting for the little critters to make babies.
So then, your bacteria are not using the NH3/NO2/3 CO2 fixing to get their carbon, otherwise they'd have a slow metab as well. Hence why you're going on about needing the airstone/gas exchange area so badly, and why the special carbon is needed in mass quantities. Am I close?
What I don't get still, is how this bacteria can consume such a wide variety of compounds, AND bio matter? This isn't a single strain, is it? Probably a mix of several completely different bacterium. And why do they not eat the "trace blox", but they will eat the trace additive I use now?
I'm still dubious of the fact that RN's would essentially kill off the natural nitro- and denitrifying bacteria populations. Most of us try to go for a little ecosystem as close to natural as possible. Makes me wonder what kind of effects on species diversity this could cause.
So besides for this almost impossible sounding cycle time (how fast of a metabolism must these bacteria have to eat all the ammonia, nitrites, nitrates, phosphates, etc, etc as you claim, in only a few hours?), how does this make my life easier? I don't have to do water changes? Don't have to worry about overfeeding, or cyano/algal/diatom blooms? Don't need my nice filter any more? How about snails, urchins, other "clean up" animals. Not only will we not need them, they'll likely starve to death? I still have to add my calcium and trace elements on schedule for my corals - er, wait no, because the bacteria eats all that, I have to add *your* special trace elements to keep my corals happy, supposedly.
I majored in biology for a while in college too. From what I remember, most bacteria are pretty specialized. They eat one thing. That's why in the natural environmnet we have Nitrosomonas/Nitrobacters of different types to break down things at different stages. The chemical reactions needed to break down ammonina and nitrites are very low energy return, therefore these bacteria have a very slow metabolism and reproductive rate. I.E., they get back so little energy from the process (most of it having gone to fixing CO2 for their carbon needs), that they don't have a lot left for reproduction and etc. That's why it takes 30 days to cycle a big tank, most of that time is waiting for the little critters to make babies.
So then, your bacteria are not using the NH3/NO2/3 CO2 fixing to get their carbon, otherwise they'd have a slow metab as well. Hence why you're going on about needing the airstone/gas exchange area so badly, and why the special carbon is needed in mass quantities. Am I close?
What I don't get still, is how this bacteria can consume such a wide variety of compounds, AND bio matter? This isn't a single strain, is it? Probably a mix of several completely different bacterium. And why do they not eat the "trace blox", but they will eat the trace additive I use now?
I'm still dubious of the fact that RN's would essentially kill off the natural nitro- and denitrifying bacteria populations. Most of us try to go for a little ecosystem as close to natural as possible. Makes me wonder what kind of effects on species diversity this could cause.
Sponsor Reefs
We're a FREE website, and we exist because of hobbyists like YOU who help us run this community.
Click here to sponsor $10:
