boylesdowntothis

i may not know enough about plant physiology but a question does beg for attention here. will the alcohols and sugars in beer affect a delicate plant in any adverse manner? also, what about residue? part of the elegant beauty [and genius] of reverse respiration is it accomplishes all this without any residue. i do recall someone here using diet pepsi so i’d ask the same about that.

oh no, please don't tell me that. i still use my beloved wagner aluminum dutch oven from 1950! makes ahell of a ragu though! 🍴🙏 😂

@Pepere, ph? temps throughout the process? did you test for exothermal environs? any gas escapes? if so, did you verify them? any order on entrance imperatives? you do realize you cannot use a sulfur based reduction at 8ppm with any amine no? i would not waste your time nor your api kit until you're properly instructed on how to testa reduction. @dasaltemelosguy do you wish to explain these failures or should i?

While I do understand the skepticism, and I truly do, I was a patent reviewer before I went purely into peer work at JPL. And I fully agree, what Holmes pulled off did indeed sully the entirety of the patent process, at least in reputation if not in actuality. For example, Holmes literally flooded the USPTO with some 600,000 applications! To put that in perspective, it is the equivalent of ALL the patents the office receives in a year! This indeed was part of her strategy to force fraudulent claims through taxing the system. However, if you examine most of her patents, what was awarded was wholly different than what we see here with Fritz and Tetra’s patents. For the most part, the USPTO awarded protection to her concepts, NOT her inventions. Nearly all of her 700+ patents are in reality, no more than copyrights. Making her little more than a science fiction writer with copyrights! Whereas at least in this case, Tetra and Fritz’s patents provided complete equations of tested reactions observed in their labs. Again, I am not making any assertions as to the veracity of their results, but insofar as equations are concerned, Fritz and Tetra are correct. Energetically, ionically and mathematically balanced. So I do respect and sympathize with your reservations, especially as none have provided an actual test result for public consumption, I feel it would be unfair to diminish the volumes of great works that have been rightly awarded patents because of one infamous and prolific fraudster. PS: I would be remiss if I did not mention the antigravity device. Yes, it's promotion was indeed ridiculous and absurd. However it was not patented as such. What it was awarded was a patent as a balanced field device which created opposing energetic fields that applied equal but opposite forces, simulating antigravity. It's absurdity as you pointed out was the ridiculous quantities of energy to operate. Equivalent to converting the mass of the entire planet of Jupiter by fusion!

i thought i'd add my take on just the chemistry and not on the fish or the practice we're discussing. the chemical in prime, fritz, tetra and cloram-x DO reduce ammonia and nitrite substantially and nitrate but barely so. this action was awarded patents and reviewed by chemists for that purpose. in fact, one reviewer i studied under, weirdly enough, his name was hopkins from john hopkins u- but no relation though! i believe it was charted in @dasaltemelosguy article on prime here on the forum. das also cites an issue i share. Seachem states this protection reverses after two days. this is impossible as das states. it forms a stable salt from ammonia and nitrite and there is no available energy to reverse this reaction unless the ph was raised to almost ten. if you look at the fritz charts from their patent in das's article, you'll see it is very effective in reducing ammonia and nitrite and slightly effective in reducing nitrates. yes, i also saw that reefer chemistry discussion you mention but they are speculating and frankly, they're discussing the wrong chemicals. i'd use the patent data highlighted in das's charts as it was peer reviewed.

perhaps "instantaneous" was a poorly chosen term on my part!🤣

In many ways, I agree with everyone here. I cannot make claims on the physiological or experiential effects and outcomes so I will add my opinion from the standpoint of a chemist. I have seen these adamant declarations that dechlorinators claiming detoxification abilities do not work in some of the most adamant and sensationalist terms but to date, but I’ve not seen any from any sources with authority (and don’t get me started on aqscience.org). Forgive me but as an active, working chemist for JPL Pasadena, I have read much of the amateur chemistry posted on forums and most of it is an exercise in futility. When the equations I’ve seen that are in fact balanced or correct, at least of those I’ve seen, and I’m sure I’ve missed many, are of speculated chemicals so they are unsure if these are indeed the chemicals they seek to criticize! I should say that many of the big aquatic’s houses seem to prefer plop and drop. Yes, I realize that may be a lesser of evils. Choose your poison, ph shock or ammonia shock. But there’s very sound science behind their choice. This is not news to most of you but I’ll briefly revisit it for continuity. As some have already stated, when a fish in a bag arrives in the mail, you’ll notice that ph is usually quite low. This is the co2 buildup creating carbonic acid, dropping the ph. In my experience, a bagged fish through a mail order facility will exhibit a ph of about 6-7. It will also have very high ammonium. This unfortunate but inevitable happening is accompanied by an innate protection in that ammonia barely exists in a ph of 6-7. At 6, it’s virtually all ammonium. When you open the bag, the co2 begins to escape per henry's law, the ph rises and the bag full of ammonium suddenly converts to ammonia and the damage begins. Forgive me but I’ve borrowed this chart from @dasaltemelosguy pdf downloads: I’ve seen no definitive experiments measuring the effectiveness of prime and others detoxifying ammonia and nitrite in the aquarium world that is. However, in professional settings, fisheries, hatcheries, laboratories, oceanography institutions, and universities, there are volumes of competent work has been done and ALL use chemicals related to prime exactly for this purpose. The coop article below provides a series of charts indicating the degree of detoxification of each toxin that have been provided in the patents that these companies have been awarded. Some of the most relevant have been compiled here on the coop forum in this brilliant article by @dasaltemelosguy A Brief History of Prime - General Discussion - C.A.R.E. (aquariumcoop.com) I think it’s beautifully written, powerfully informative and concisely complied in summary form. It’s a compelling argument in that many amateurs decry these chemicals as frauds, yet some of the most prestigious institutions in the world embrace them and have done so for decades. It also cites patent after patent where they’ve provided public access of these proofs. I believe in credit where credit is due, @Guppysnail and @Odd Duck did some editing and/or have added content for the article as well. I won’t go into the specifics here but the short version would be to say that prime (and others) for example, convert ammonia and nitrite to a chemical that is inert which binds ammonia and nitrite into a stable compound, aminomethanesulfonate or similar, unless the ph suddenly rose to between 9-10. This inert nitrogen/hydrogen complex created is still usable for the bacteria so cycling continues. The amount of ammonia and nitrite these detox chemicals do in fact detox varies. Ammonia is reduced the most, followed by nitrite, and then even nitrate is nulled but to a far lesser extent. Once again, the amounts of detoxification may be seen in the charts provided in the @dasaltemelosguy article. A Brief History of Prime - General Discussion - C.A.R.E. (aquariumcoop.com) Further, @modified lung made an important point that ClorAm-X was awarded a patent where they provided the entire chemical chain of how this is accomplished. As @modified lung adeptly points out in the thread above, it was a “game-changer” for transporting fish and is in wide use even today. I would strongly recommend reading @modified lung and @dasaltemelosguy suggestion of the ClorAm-X patent as they provide ample mathematical proofs. Henrys law would suggest to me, again from a chemistry perspective, that the ammonium to ammonia conversion upon opening the bag is near instantaneous. This may make it a more dangerous option than the ph but I am no expert in the physiology. I would certainly defer to experts like @Biotope Biologist. I only raise the point that from the position of a chemist, these detoxifiers do in fact reduce ammonia to far less toxic states. That being. they will detoxify limited amounts for limited time periods. Perhaps detoxifying the bag immediately would then allow for a slower, ph adjustment? Not for me to say. I feel that @Biotope Biologist suggests, slow, careful and properly done drip acclimation is best. But if such a setup cannot be done, it’s plop and drop. See below how these popular pros all agree on plop and drop as the best of the worst options. How The Pros Acclimate Fish! Tank Talk Presented b If anyone would like to see the equations as to how and why detoxifiers like prime reduce ammonia and nitrite, feel free to dm me. I am an infrequent visitor here so please allow some time for a response. Better still, at @modified lung suggestion, download the ClorAm-X patent as it's comprehensive and detailed. Joe

better. much. i can see how the light interference led you to that conclusion now. it wasn't that clear in your first draft. incorporating the tpe can lead you to no other conclusion. although i can now see that aluminum lattice may be even more active than magnesium ----- but does algae have any aluminum or enough to care i wonder. i also wonder if einstein knew his work would help kill algae 😆🤣 😂

Diabetes! 🤣

im rather new here having only joined in late august so ive been more of a spectator than a contributor. i joined because a representative from petco told me about a nitrate reduction post here that caused them to change corporate policy and i naturally found that intriguing. that was alternative nitrate reduction by @dasaltemelosguy although the new chronology about seachem prime may be a game changer as @Guppysnail has said perhaps its the scientist in me distorting my perception or my lack of experience here but i feel reverse respiration is in its own category. what @Guppysnail, @Odd Duck, @OnlyGenusCaps and @dasaltemelosguy created there truly needs to be published where the entire aquatic community can learn about it. but i learn from here almost daily. a beginner trying to avoid beginners mistake so many of you have helped me do just that. my fish and i thank you. ps still trying to convince them to create a peer review version of rr for me to submit to jpl physics! (hint🙏) jpl joe

perhaps a fish net or media bag?

whoa, this is incredible sound. i've never heard anything this detailed before. the echo goes on forever. the bass is scary though! thanks!

@Guppysnail...........cha, cha, cha!😆

@Odd Duck, thank you for the brilliant response. i've come to expect no less from any of the fab four of the forum. i understand you or some of you have authored a piece on supplemental oxygen when treating sick fish but i have not been able to locate it --- if you or @Guppysnail, @OnlyGenusCaps or @dasaltemelosguy might be able to point me in that direction? perhaps i'm simply still laughing too hard at the image of a turtle wearing a vibrator to think clearly, cheers!

Interesting. Thanks for sharing y’all. @Odd Duck could you venture a guess on the efficacy of your experience with vibration therapy on animals? I found an article on acoustic enrichment in reefs systems. Loudspeakers directly in the water. The results were quite incredible. Greater populations, health, growth, diversity and more. In reefs with damsels, they found 54hz to be the best. Pretty close to your findings. The charts I copied below say it all. This is the most interesting aquarium forum. Joe.

You’re more than welcome. I’m sure I’ve missed some things coming so late to the party. And I’ve seen many superb threads here already. I arrived on what looks like page thirteen ? so I may have missed answers or changes you’re all aware of. This one struck a chord for me as it’s analytical breadth is just profound. Especially the way you resolve multiple disciplines to a single core definition or conclusion. As much as I enjoyed it, it may be the immense complexity of the analysis that make it difficult for mainstream digestion. What a place this is. I can’t wait to dig around here more. Thanks to y’all.

I’m new to this forum so I owe y'all a short explanation. I’m a chemist at JPL Pasadena although my work over the past few years has been to review works of colleagues before submission of their works for publication. Done many a review of papers similar to this one but for largely for scientific journals. Most are written on the popular science level as this is written but I commonly review works submitted for peer-level review as well. @Guppysnail, @Odd Duck, @OnlyGenusCaps, @dasaltemelosguy, this article took me aback. I’ve never seen anything like this on a public forum. Bizarre, disparate, seemingly irrelevant assertions are made with even more bizarre analysis and proofs. I could not help myself as old habits die hard, reading it end-to-end twice, and downloading all of your kindly supplied materials and even reworking many of your calculations. As I said, old habits die hard. Your seemingly weird and 'out-there’ assertions often seem on the surface to be too abstract, to the point of irrelevance. Yet it all works. Time and again I felt I found mistakes only to eventually see where you were taking it. It’s an astoundingly intuitive work. Normally I would not speak in absolutes or similar eye catching terms but I’ll be blunt here for the sake of brevity. This is a monumental work. People, if I were doing a review of this work, I’d reference three moments in your discourse where I see genius level intuition in play. Something I’ve rarely encountered and even less frequently would feel compelled to suggest such: Using CO2 saturated water to asphyxiate the bugs while not harming the plants, and even potential growth stimulation, in lieu of poisons. Reversing the classic ph shifting process from alkaline > acid to acid > alkaline to dissolve algae cell cytoplasm instead of precipitating it, hence the white evaporate from the brown solution post-treatment. Discovery of photonic interference in the process predicting the darkness requirement and therefore increasing the probability it would exclusively take magnesium energy from the algae instead of the light energy, explaining it’s algicidal nature and the precipitate once evaporated. The asphyxiation concept speaks for itself. It’s the crux of the experiment and the literal solution to a chronic aquarist problem plaguing aquarists since I can remember. We can finally stop using poison. Reversing the ph shift to dissolve as opposed to precipitating the dissolved algae cytoplasm is so out of the box. I would have thought reversing it would have disabled the reaction. You predicted it simply changes if it dissolves or precipitates it, so long as no light is present. Bloody brilliant. Perhaps it is my background but of all, I’m most dumbfounded by the photonic interference discovery. I saw that early in this thread, a few folks took issue with this but they clearly misunderstood it. As I understand it, you could not directly test what was in the solution after treatment so you reduced it to probability of what is most likely occurring with nuclear particle spin. I reran those calculations and it can only be magnesium and the only source could be the algae! Again, bloody brilliant. I should wrap this up before I overstay my welcome but I may have never seen a document with this much inventive, esoteric, seemingly unrelated, disparate and downright weird data all pulled together into a cohesive whole with viable proofs for every concept. Equally impressive, that something of this magnitude was done by a team of only four people. I repeat myself. This is a monumental work. A potentially historic work with the potential to transform the hobby. Why would we ever use POISON to clean plants or kill algae again? My only criticism is this should be published here and where all of the hobby can benefit from it. In my opinion, Aquarium CO-OP has a literal discovery on it’s hands with this that has the potential to create an historic shift in this hobby. That is a very, very rare occurrence. I have seen quality works published on other aquarium forums but the voices of ignorance inevitably shout them down. So kudos to Aquarium CO-OP for creating such an environment where something this esoteric can thrive. I see a welcoming acceptance of new ideas with a refreshing sense of community here. Along with an active aversion to rudeness. Again, kudos to @Streetwise and the mods who maintain this level of civility and quality and for publishing works that are as genuinely new and controversial as this. Bloody brilliant you four. Bloody brilliant work indeed. Congrats y’all. Joe Sent from Mail for Windows

@Guppysnail this is a monumental work. quite incredible to see something like this on a public forum. this should be published formally. a zero toxicity pesticide and algicide will inevitably change this hobby at a historic level. i have more to say about your remarkable experiment but i'll start with "bravo"!

My goodness. I must have my notifications set wrongly as I missed all of these new lovely responses. I apologize to all of you. I’m new and still trying to get an understanding of all of the features and nuances of this forum. @Guppysnail, thank you for the link to the article on nitrates I was searching for. It’s an amazing work, not something you expect to see on a forum. Kudos to the authors and this forum for hosting work of that quality. @Odd Duck, thank you for noticing my username. I guess a chemist just can’t help himself sometimes. I even have Boyles Law printed on tea-shirts! I’ll definitely check out the article you recommended as well on ‘respiration’. I’m still in the perusal stage but I’m seeing some amazing posts here. Thank y’all again for the warm welcome!

Thank y’all for the warm welcome. I already see a vibe here that is totally different from most forums. @Jawjagrrl, l I hope I don’t catch mts but it looks very contagious around here! @PerceptivePesce, in all honestly, you probably know more about aquarium chemistry than I do. I've only restarted the hobby months ago and for now, have one tank. I see a steep learning curve in my future here. I coordinate and facilitate scientific teams at JPL. When I was younger I was more active in the sciences than the operations. Now I direct and correlate other scientists works more than actual analysis. Thank y’all for the warm welcome and the link @Guppysnail. That nitrate article you sent me to is amazing! To find something of that depth in a forum is very unexpected. If I saw this in a scientific publication yes, but it’s quite unusual for a forum. May I ask, is this sort of thing typical here? If it is, I’m in heaven! But I’m very happy to be here and really appreciate the warm welcome.

@Guppysnail that's it! Thank you. I didn't know it had a video too. It's quite well known around here as it's difficult to find a tank in a store without lucky bamboo growing out of it. I was told by a manager at Petco they adopted bamboo as their nitrate reducer, also from your article. Thanks a million!

Thank you. I already feel welcome here. This response is so nice. Also thank you for this video link. The article I'm searching for is supposed to be a long, scientific article on how specific plants use nitrates and how light color affects nitrate use? The article I'm looking for I do not believe is a video as I'm told it's a long, detailed research project. I'm sorry if I'm wasting everyone's time as I thought it was posted at aquarium coop but I may be mistaken. Still very happy to be here. Thank's y'all!

Hello y'all, I'm new to this forum. I've been hearing rumors that this is a place where people are constructive and nice to each other. I've been searching for such a group. I've witnessed many a forum with 'attack dogs' waiting to pounce. From what I'm told, this place will be a welcome relief from that nonsense. I am a quantum chemist for JPL in beautiful Pasadena CA. I specialize in nuclear chemistry, and I've had freshwater aquariums of various sizes and numbers for 40 years. I follow aquarium coop and others with YouTube channels regularly. What brought my attention to Aquarium CO-OP was actually another rumor. A salesman at Petsmart showed me that they now add Lucky Bamboo to every hang on back filter because of an article the company saw somewhere in this forum. Would anyone be able to direct me to that article and/or if it's still posted here? Thank you and I'm really looking forward to learning from y'all.