Jump to content
Watch our video on the rules of this forum.

dasaltemelosguy

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    380

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

  • Feedback

    0%

 Content Type 

Everything posted by dasaltemelosguy

  1. dasaltemelosguy
    Hi @tetra, I have never seen any aggressive behavior out of the dojos, not towards each other, nor even with fish small enough for them to swallow whole. In fact, my baby GBRs that I got from @Guppysnail are perhaps 1/2" long yet seem to gravitate towards the relatively enormous dojos more than any other fish or other tank areas. I bought mine at about 2"-3" and they are now about 6" or so. Mine are about 2 years old at present. But I've also not experienced any mating behavior out of them either. I probably don't have enough experience to advise you on that topic but maybe others here do.
  2. dasaltemelosguy
    I have 6 dojo's, 3 each in 2 tanks. A 120G that has dojos with severums and a 75G which is really a menagerie. They are mixed with SA cichlids of a similarly docile nature, and I keep the tanks at 77*. I realize it's not ideal, but I've had them for over two years in these tanks without a single issue. They do like to sleep together so you may want at least 2 of them. They can alarm you in they take on the strangest positions that for most other fish, would suggest illness or even death. For example, it's not uncommon to find them in the morning literally upside down on the gravel or hanging from a filter or heater as if trapped or appearing dead. I have on several occasions gotten a net to 'remove the body' and they just get up and swim away! They seem to have no fear. They let you hold them, even raise them out of the water. Noisy eaters and dangerously good jumpers. Very inquisitive and very active. Personality-wise, they are one of the most delightful fish I have. Here's a 2-minute video of my dojos in the above mentioned 120 and 75: Mostly Dojo's
  3. dasaltemelosguy
    I'm sure you guys are correct. Dracaena compacta seems to be it: Dracaena compacta Not that I'll ever remember! I once spent months measuring the nitrate uptake of Dracaena sanderiana and I still had to look it up to write this! The only Latin I never seem to forget is:
  4. dasaltemelosguy
    @xXInkedPhoenixX, I have little to add but these statements above by @anewbie echo exactly what I experience with my 120 at 24" x 24" x 48". I'm short and there's no access behind my 120 such that, to reach to the rear bottom center, it is 34 INCHES from the front at the nearest access. So that part of the tank rarely gets as much attention, and I get really wet...although I blame Pythagoras for that one! 🤣 But with some areas nearly 3 feet away, for me at least, it makes lots of things more difficult. My tanks are relatively low to the ground and the physical drop to the drainage is only 2' such that siphoning has relatively weak flow. I use my Python to fill but it's of little value for me beyond that. I added the Python end piece to this fuel siphon which really upped the flow and makes priming completely effortless. And this can reach anywhere in the tank from any angle. In my case, I have very large fish and they make very large poops which only this siphon can literally suck up the limited height differential. 48" Siphon w-Pump (Fuel) I've sworn (a lot) that I'm getting rid of the 120 for all these reasons a dozen or more times but it's low iron and sooooo clear so... (I once picked up a 36G bow front that was custom made with (I'm not kidding) Zeiss optical glass. I've yet to set it up but it's so startlingly clear, it almost vanishes. I just can't decide what to do with it, so I've never set it up! 🤪) But I have benefitted from the buffering a large tank offers when I screw something up as every change, good or bad, takes longer to manifest so it's nice to have more time to rectify my mistakes! I realize this is obliquely relevant to this discussion...at best, but I thought I'd echo the frustrations with any tank over 18" high so it's just my 2 cents...OK, more like 1.5 cents! 🙄
  5. dasaltemelosguy
    Thank you, that's very kind of you to say. And right. Dojo's. Maybe not the prettiest fish but definitely the most fun one! They have no fear. They nibble on your fingers and let you hold them in your hand. I can even raise them out of the water and then they calmly swim away when I let them down. Like little seals! Noisy though. They sound like an old typewriter when they eat and if you scare them, they squeal like a mouse. Vacuuming is challenging with them. They're always following it and I've had them swim into it to grab something delicious! A weird but delightful fish. Here's a few more: Severums and Dojos; Curmudgeons; Tank Boss;
  6. dasaltemelosguy
    Anyone ever try this emergent? They were labeled as "Lotus Bamboo". I just planted these and an Umbrella Palm that I bought from a pond supply house. Really pretty, I hope they live! 😲
  7. dasaltemelosguy
    Nothing special. Just some pictures taken in the dark and at sunrise. Red Severums; Parrot Fish; Sunrise over Severums; Flash Waking up Silver Dollars; This guy stands out amongst my EBA's. He practically glows in the dark; For some reason, @Guppysnail's gorgeous baby RAMs love to hang with the relatively enormous Dojo's;
  8. dasaltemelosguy
    Hi @boylesdowntothis, yes, I see the errors as well. I can explain how to modify the experiment, so you won't need to. Thank you though. Unfortunately, I am working and will need a couple of days before I can type it out but yes, I'm truly sorry but the tests are invalid as performed. I will describe the procedure for testing a sulfurous reduction of an amine if you wish to repeat it. I think the goal here is to know if ammonia reduction occurs and to quantify it. So, the proper testing methodology is needed so you can feel confident that your results are reliable. @boylesdowntothis, I feel it's the results that are for fish keepers, not the chemistry. That's for guys like you! Of course, the results must be valid as forwarding incorrect results to fish keepers helps no one. BTW, I feel privileged that people want to repeat my tests and see for themselves. Thank you all for that. PS: If you do not want to wait for my instructions, the Scripp's Institute of Oceanography has a paper describing this step x step in their Research papers. Better still most any wastewater facility uses almost the same ingredients to not pollute ammonia downstream. Those are great starts to understanding how this is accomplished. Thank you again for trying the experiment. @Guppysnail, I can answer your questions as well, but I need a few days. thanks all
  9. dasaltemelosguy
    I think you're correct about all of the above, including the speculative part. For a variety of reasons, I can't see the addition of Prime in a shipping bag as comprehensive. It may help but it's limited. And it certainly can't replace water changes!😫 As you said, it's really about tank management, cycling, ammonia/nitrite spikes etc. but it's certainly not a replacement for proper care. I was thinking along the same lines. It's not "reversion" but rather, "exhaustion". The half-life of the sulfur compounds in Prime is 12-18 hours. So, by Hour-48, it has only 6% efficacy left. I think their use of "reversion" is a poor choice of words as it implies a sudden flood of ammonia back into the water on the 2nd day! I think like you, what really occurs is just waning protection. I have several university studies on shipping fish here as references for @Guppysnail , @Odd Duck's and my newest experiment on actively respirating shipping bags. One in particular examines a 48-hour shipment where the total ammonia rose to 14! Obviously, that's 100% ammonium or there would be no fish left! That also means the bag's pH must be below 7. * To return to your limited use observation, 100% agreement. It is the very same limitation/s that may make the proposed experiment invalid unfortunately. At certain ammonia levels, Prime et al's NH4 reductions will compete with O2 but at some PPM's, it will shift almost entirely to O2, leaving the ammonia products intact despite a reduction taking place (of O2 vs NH4). In addition, other imbalances, mostly thermodynamic unfortunately may prevent the proposed experiment from providing usable results as well because there's a huge ionic imbalance when the ammonia's charge is higher than the sulfur's attraction. If the PPM/SO2 ratio is too high, I fear it'll just suck the O2 out of the water and ignore the ammonia. If such a test is performed, one must first need to verify an exothermic reaction* is underway before proceeding. Simultaneously the O2 levels will have to be continuously monitored such that any oxygen reductions may be factored into the ammonia reductions so one can separate the two numerically. Special attention to the *thermodynamics must be adhered to or unfortunately, the results will be distorted. The latter being paramount...and incredibly annoying! It can be done, however. There are ways to circumvent these inherent errors by changing the order of water treatments and especially the temperatures as the timeline progresses while continuously monitoring O2 levels but it's complicated and adds several steps and stages to avoid corrupting the ammonia data with oxygen data. But even if it yields some usable results, partial protection is still protection so it's a good test, nonetheless. * This is a fun one. It's widely known that ClorAm-X is commonly used commercially for aquatic ammonia management. I have a friend who used to import marine fishes for Dolphin International and they consider ClorAm-X a life saver, literally. It's an old treatment and used widely in wastewater management. I even saw a study where they bubbled sulfur dioxide gas through wastewater to protect fish upstream in 1929!🤣 But I cringed when I read this next one. At an international koi show in Johannesburg, some users LITERALLY replaced water changes with ClorAm-X! That's unfathomable to me but apparently, they rely on it. Most use it as an additive, not a replacement though (whew). But here is the magazine article: Koi Show Water Management (koinet.net)
  10. dasaltemelosguy
    Hi, these are really good questions. Thanks for raising this is as it's an important point. For simplicity in the article, I abbreviated the chemistry and generalized the compounds into families. There are two families of detoxifiers. I’ll use acronyms here, but one used by Fritz and Tetra is known as “SFS” and the other in use is known as “SFB”. I don’t recall who but @Guppysnail may know, but someone well known stated that Prime and Fritz are “one molecule apart”. That molecule is hydrogen and it’s the difference between SFS and SFB. Fritz as mentioned uses SFS, not SFB. The “B” in SFB means hydrogen and Seachem refers to their ingredients as “Hydrosulfites” so it’s not unreasonable to assume Seachem is using SFB which IS one molecule away from SFS as @Guppysnail stated. Their reductive reactions are very similar. I believe SFB produces more water but otherwise they are very similar and create the same byproduct; an ammonia salt known as AMS. The “A” in AMS stands for “amino”, indicating it’s an ammonia compound. While AMS is non-toxic and mildly stable up to a pH of about 10, (at which point it begins to break down), it is still not very stable so it can be broken down by a variety of environmental changes such as temperature, pH, and bacteria. This instability classifies it as a “weak bond” so it is accessible to beneficial bacteria as food. The “amino” portion is directly consumed by the BB readily. In fact, it’s 92% as efficient as ammonia itself. All four of these laboratories have documented beneficial bacteria consuming AMS. Some are water samples; others are soil samples, but all have concluded BB eats AMS. So yes, you’re right, cycling will continue. Isolation and characterization of two new methanesulfonic acid-degrading bacterial isolates from a Portuguese soil sample - PubMed (nih.gov) Effects of pH and Oxygen and Ammonium Concentrations on the Community Structure of Nitrifying Bacteria from Wastewater - PMC (nih.gov) Bacterial Branched-Chain Amino Acid Biosynthesis: Structures, Mechanisms, and Drugability - PMC (nih.gov) Isolation and characterization of two new methanesulfonic acid-degrading bacterial isolates from a Portuguese soil sample - PubMed (nih.gov)
  11. dasaltemelosguy
    Hi everyone, we've decided to combine the two articles, "Proving Prime" and "A Brief History of Prime". As the former is the sequel to the latter, we think this is clearer and more comprehensive in this way. Here are links to that article and the video directly: "A Brief History of Prime"
  12. dasaltemelosguy
    Yes, you're right. Club Soda is just slightly higher in pH, around 3.5 vs 3. It's still plenty low for RR though. Club Soda with citrus flavoring drops the pH to 2.5. I've used it a lot because as people are seeing, it's easier to find than seltzer sometimes. I've been compiling a chart of popular carbonated waters available in North America because "seltzer" as a term has been hijacked for some sparkling waters where they're simply not carbonated enough. If it says, "sparkling water' or 'sparkling mineral water', it's probably not carbonated enough. I used Perrier once and didn't work at all. I agree with you in that the relatively minute amounts of additives are most likely negligible. It's probably a safe bet to use club soda if in doubt about a given seltzer as club soda is consistent and always carbonated enough.
  13. dasaltemelosguy
    I'm arriving a little late, but I thought I'd mention this in case not. Since RR kills algae by a dramatic shift in the pH, you could also use any common alkaline water as the second bath. One of these would increase the degree of the pH shift that seltzer to water had by about 100X. Although @Guppysnail has more experience and she finds a second RR session will probably do it. In any event, any of the below would work as Bath-2:
  14. dasaltemelosguy
    @sambswll, to @Guppysnail's point, I once measures oxygen suppression of various aquarium meds I had around. It may be of help. Good luck.
  15. dasaltemelosguy
    I guess it depends on the definition of "instantaneous"! 🤣 This is a very rough estimate but at normal atmospheric pressures and temperatures, it's easier to determine the CO2 loss by the pH as the latter will rise as CO2 escapes. With this as a metric, and with pH being a log, it would drop an entire point (10-fold) in about the first 50 minutes. So, it may not be immediate, but I think this alone could be fatal to many fishes. Add the simultaneous ammonium to ammonia conversion and it sounds risky. Yep. All true. It gets somewhat complicated when it's near normal pressures as solubility and temperature then become dominant factors. O2 enjoying better solubility than CO2, and both are better when water is cold. So, it kind of becomes apples and oranges without a Pascal pressure factor. Total agreement too. But personally, I've had more luck with plop & drop!🤞
  16. dasaltemelosguy
    She's probably right. Seltzer vibrates:
  17. dasaltemelosguy
    Wow really?! That was an inspiration! I'm glad I didn't get my oscilloscope all wet for nothing!🤣
  18. dasaltemelosguy
    "I am going to see if RR has one more fabulous trick up its sleeve….can it vibrate the last bits of stubborn rock wool out of crypt roots 😲" Maybe! Might also be a good candidate for a brief dipping of the roots in your jewelry cleaner or the perhaps the waterproof speaker. Hope it works!
  19. dasaltemelosguy
    Hi @Knew tooth is, if you use a jewelry cleaner to clear the air stone, it almost certainly will restore it to like-new performance but it's very fast. To know when to remove it, pump air through the stone while in the jewelry cleaner. As soon as it bubbles normally, remove it immediately. If left too long, the cleaner will dissolve the air stone!
  20. dasaltemelosguy
    I love looking into that world too. Now I wish I bought a better scope! You may have seen these, but if not, these guys were part of an infested plant collection we were 'brewing' to test Reverse Respiration long ago. Each video is 1 minute in length:
  21. dasaltemelosguy
    You guys are right about this. Hyper-CO2 treatments are used to eradicate zebra mussels from marimo's when they don't wish to destroy the marimo. In 2021, the USGS released a study where they found the CO2 treatment with only 75% of the pressure of seltzer reached a 100% kill-off in 48 hours. At 90% of the pressure of seltzer, 100% kill-off was under 24 hours. So, it's safe to assume seltzer would reach 100% kill-off in less than a day. The USGS found the CO2 treatment to have higher kill efficacy than even bleach. This is probably due to the pressure, not unlike what we saw with MTS's. The red circle is where they saw 100% kill-off at just 75% of the pressure of seltzer. the red, vertical line is seltzer's pressure, which is considerably higher. Oddly, despite being algae, marimos are one of the few algae that tolerate RR. I had to treat a marimo with RR four times to see any damage.
  22. dasaltemelosguy
    Hi @Theplatymaster, in the full experiment, you may dig deep into the proofs and theories of how each of your questions are addressed by RR as each of these questions are answered there, in perhaps too much detail! But there is photographic, video and microscopic evidence provided in there for every assertion unless it's marked as hypothetical or theoretical. But I'll summarize for you below: Right. Part of RR being performed in darkness is to prevent plants from creating O2 which in theory, could inhibit it as a pesticide. In further testing it seems unlikely any O2 can escape a plant in that the pressure of the CO2 solution is so great, it may not ever truly see any O2 escape even in the light. But as RR in darkness improves it's algicidal effects and ensures 0% O2 present, it will improve the odds of success for both processes. Algae as @Guppysnail said, has no vascular/'circulatory' system. Water and nutrients flow directly into the cells vs via a root system in rooted plants-which takes time. This amongst other things makes the metabolism of many algae about 50X faster than that of rooted plants. In essence, as @Odd Duck first observed, RR denatures the contents of the algae cells in 5-12 hours but the same damage for plants would take over 4 days. It's time and light make this work. Somone earlier in the thread asked this so I copied that answer below: Good luck.
  23. dasaltemelosguy
    Hi @lmhicks101, this may not be relevant, but this happened to me once: Aquarium Granuloma Mine didn't erupt in open sores as above. Most of the time it felt like a sunburn on my hands and seemed to greatly intensify during WC's. It can happen if you have small cuts exposed or in my case, an aggressive fish that bites if it breaks the skin. But if it totally goes away after a few hours, it's probably not granuloma.
  24. dasaltemelosguy
    Hi @Theplatymaster, @Odd Duck is spot on in every point. Except for the fact that she had much more influence on the development of RR than she knows! Initially we saw a treated hornwort explode with growth for several weeks after which it normalized. Both @Odd Duck and @Guppysnail have more experience with any growth stimulation from RR than I have. What I can tell you is it seems that flavored seltzers are/can be a little more acidic, like pH=2.75 vs pH=3 (in regular seltzer) so aside from rinsing the flavoring off, it should be fine. I did many plants in lime flavored seltzer when the store had no plain in stock.
  25. dasaltemelosguy
    Thanks a lot. Speaking of failures, you may remember this. You reminded me of an old experiment we once conducted in an attempt to recharge an exhausted Purigen packet without using bleach by using electrolysis. It proved untenable in that it required an enormous amount of power. In fact, it pulled so much power, I literally had to pull my car up to the vessel and use jumper cables to the electrodes! After 30 minutes it nearly dissolved the copper electrodes and it had just begun recharging the Purigen. It would have been more efficient if it had filtration membranes between the electrodes not unlike dialysis but somehow running my car for two days and replacing electrodes every hour didn’t seem worth a $9 pack of Purigen! 🤑 @Guppysnail sent me the Purigen. In fact, she’s sent me used Purigen, dead algae and live leeches. I think she’s trying to tell me something??? 😉 !🤣😆😂!
×
×
  • Create New...