dasaltemelosguy

A BIG THANK YOU to @Guppysnail and @Odd Duck for this concept, for the editing of this article and for reviewing it for accuracy and errors! A Brief History of Prime® An abbreviated history of dechlorinators and detoxifiers and their evolution Discussions on whether dechlorination and detoxification chemicals like Seachem Prime® actually work, be they anecdotal or chemical equations, are not hard to find. As the ingredients are largely kept secret, most discussions are laden with speculative chemistry which usually results in more speculation, often contentious speculation. Rather than just adding to the mountains of speculation on what might be in Prime® or other commercial products, I thought it may prove more revealing to present examples of similar works that have been performed, tested, and documented by many world-class institutions over the course of nearly a century. To that end, I’ve collected a small sampling of actual test results on the detoxification of water for aquatics, performed by a variety of authoritative entities from around the world into a chronology, and I’ve compiled them here. Please find below a brief, partial review of the chemicals and techniques that have been used by laboratories and universities, as well as several of the pivotal patents awarded for well-known dechlorinator/detoxifiers, including the use of specific types of UV lighting. This information may shine some light on what dechlorinators can and cannot do, and perhaps, through their history, we may see how they evolved into the products we currently use. Prime Suspects Virtually all dechlorination chemicals that claim to neutralize ammonia are sulfur based. If the dechlorinator claims the additional detoxification of nitrites and nitrates, formaldehyde is also likely present. You can easily smell the sulfur and the formaldehyde in many of them. “Contains Complexed Hydrosulfite Salts” On the Seachem Prime® bottle, you’ll find only the above statement and little else about what it contains. The most likely suspect in that vague description is Sodium Dithionite, a chemical designed in 1904 by BASF. This same chemical is also known as Sodium Hydrosulfite and Sodium Bisulfite. It is largely used as a ‘reducing agent’ which simply means it ‘reduces’ a target chemical(s) from a stable form (resisting change) to an unstable one that degrades into something that is easily dissolved, dissipated (like a gas), precipitated, or converted to something innocuous. To that end, Sodium Dithionite and several related variant chemicals are logical suspects to be in Prime®. As described in a 1991 study; “Selecting a Dechlorinating Chemical for a Wastewater Treatment Plant in Georgia, 1991”, they cite that Sodium Dithionate in water will often decay into one or more of the chemicals or variants thereof listed below: Note: Reprinted from Selecting a Dechlorinating Chemical for a Wastewater Treatment Plant in Georgia, 1991, Dipak Bagchi and Roy Thomas Kelley, Jr., Georgia Water Resources Conference and the Institute of Natural Resources at The University of Georgia As mentioned above, the first chemical listed is of particular interest, sulfur dioxide. This gas is a natural product of the decay of Sodium Dithionite as well as several other chemicals used for dechlorination. You can easily smell the sulfur dioxide when you open the Prime® bottle. In water, it creates sulfurous acids and as you’ll see below in Prime Time, sulfur dioxide and ‘sulfurous acids’ have been used effectively to remove chlorine, ammonia, nitrite and nitrate from wastewater--and later for aquatics-- for decades. Prime Beefs It is not uncommon to read arguments suggesting that chemicals like Prime® do NOT detoxify ammonia and nitrites. I have read multiple exclamations that ‘this is only true for chlorine and not ammonia, nitrite nor nitrate,’ assertions that it ‘totally removes the oxygen from the water,’ even that detoxification of ammonia and nitrite is ‘an outright fraudulent claim by the manufacturers.’ In fact, in most dialogues I’ve read, there seems to be an incentive to disprove the manufacturers’ claims rather than explain them. However, you’ll see below, these chemicals were first employed to detoxify ammonia and nitrite, almost a century ago, even before chlorination was in widespread use. Prime Time This science is far from new. Long before dechlorination in aquatics was a concern, compounds related to modern dechlorinators were first used for detoxifying ammonia, NOT chlorine. In 1932, a study was performed by the Bowne Hall of Chemistry at Syracuse University on converting toxic ammonia to far less toxic ammonium through the use of hydrogen sulfide (H2S): A Phase Study of the System Ammonia-Hydrogen Sulfide, Leopold Scheflan and C.R. McCrosky, American Chemical Society, 1932 This study focuses largely on how certain plant life forms use ammonia, nitrite, and nitrate, with and without the use of a sulfurous additive. This study and its precursors from several 1929 studies are considered to be the pioneering events that birthed the modern dechlorination and detoxification chemicals in use today. But this was just the beginning. By 1935, these techniques were already being modified for use as protection for a variety of aquatic life forms from toxic ammonia levels by the conversion of ammonia to ammonium salts. Performed by the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, La Jolla, California, this 1935 study may be the first published instance of using sulfur-based chemicals to detoxify ammonia, nitrite and nitrate to protect (microbial) various aquatic life forms: Note: Reprinted from The Assimilation of Ammonium Nitrogen by Nitzchia Closterium and Other Marine Phytoplankton A substantial leap in the cognizance of how these reactions occur (from the standpoint of chemistry) took place in 1949. Although it was well known that free ammonia could be neutralized and converted to ammonium salts with sulfur-based acids, this was first described in the study below, performed by the U. S. Department of Commerce, National Bureau of Standards, “Acidic Dissociation Constant of Ammonium Ion at 0* to 50* C, and the Base Strength of Ammonia.” Although this study is quantified in units of the energy generated during the reduction of ammonia and nitrites (so the table axes are in temperatures and mols), as opposed to being dedicated to how this affects aquatic life forms, it clearly documents to great success the reduction (detoxification) of chlorine, ammonia, and nitrites with sulfurous acids. In addition, the 1949 study below is possibly the first published instance where a discussion on nitrates and reducing nitrates appears (as well as perhaps being the first detailing of the ammonia/ammonium equilibrium relationship): Acidic Dissociation Constant of Ammonium Ion at 0, by Roger G . Bates and Gladys D. Pinching, U. S. Department of Commerce National Bureau of Standards Research Paper RP 1982, Volume 42, May 1949 At first, ammonia was largely the culprit they sought to reduce. Much later, as The Nitrogen Cycle was becoming more widely understood, more works were performed to examine removal or negation of other toxins, primarily with respect to nitrites, as their toxicity towards aquatic life was not well quantified yet. What was found is that the very mechanisms that detoxify chlorine and chloramine will also detoxify ammonia, nitrates and nitrites, just not in the same time frame. Prime Examples While The Nitrogen Cycle has been understood in varying degrees for decades, the pivotal document that brought it to the fore in modern aquaria was published in 1986 and was known as “Anammox”. Anammox (“anaerobic ammonia-oxidizing bacteria that are able to oxidize ammonia and reduce nitrite to produce N2 gas”) is an acronym for the first observation of ammonia- and nitrite-reducing bacteria, and is well described here: Frontiers | Biogeography of anaerobic ammonia-oxidizing (anammox) bacteria An excerpt from the above study focusing on the history of The Nitrogen Cycle can be read here: A chronology of human understanding of the nitrogen cycle† | Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences This excerpt highlights the 1986 work as the pivotal shift in awareness of The Nitrogen Cycle from the scientific community to the global aquatics’ community. The study contains a fantastic timeline chart, ‘A Timeline of Human Awareness of The Nitrogen Cycle,’ which is reproduced at the end of this article. * Skipping a decade or two, we find another excerpt from papers published in 1997 and 2009 that focus entirely on detoxifying nitrites, again with sulfur-based compounds. An oceanic research article on the conversion of nitrites to nitrogen gas with sulfur-based acids was hidden away in an optical physics publication; Rapid Communications in Mass Spectrometry in 2009: Removal of nitrite with sulfamic acid for nitrate N and O isotope analysis with the denitrifier method - 2009 - Rapid Communications in Mass Spectrometry This article employed data from what are now historically pivotal nitrite reduction tests that were first published in Deep Sea Research—Oceanographic Research Papers in 1997. In this work, they found the addition of sulfurous acids and sulfur dioxide gas (a gas often released when some of the bisulfite salts mentioned above react with these chemicals and water) could convert nitrites to harmless salts and simple nitrogen gas. Additionally, in a recent edition of the 1955 publication “Methods in Enzymology”, we find detailed references to nitrite and nitrate reduction using sodium dithionate in studies performed in 1971 and 1976 respectively: Methods in Enzymology (1955): Methods in Enzymology Nitrite reduction using Sodium Dithionate (1971): Nitrite reductase - ScienceDirect Nitrate reduction using Sodium Dithionate (1976): Minimization of a sodium dithionite-derived interference in nitrate reductase-methyl viologen reactions (Above from the Department of Chemistry, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia, Analytical Chemistry Division, and the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee) Prime Cuts ARG: AquaScience Research Group (Amquel®, ChlorAm-X®😞 “Method and product for removal of chloramines, chlorine and ammonia from aquaculture water-1987” It was a variant of the BASF’s original Sodium Dithionate with added formaldehyde known as Sodium Formaldehyde Hydrosulfite or “SFB” that would ultimately prove to be the game changer for aquatics use. Although you’ll see numerous arguments as to what chemicals are used and what they can actually do, there is little argument over what singular paper contributed the most to the art of dechlorination and detoxification for modern aquaria. A phenomenal work done by renowned chemist John Farrell Kuhns, “Method and product for removal of chloramines, chlorine and ammonia from aquaculture water” was published in 1987 and was the first quantified analysis of how “Complexed Hydrosulfite Salts,” specifically a formaldehyde variant of these--SFB--reduced chlorine, chloramine, and ammonia and was even tested with live, aquatic animals. He was awarded US and European patents for this work and his formula ultimately became the products Amquel® and ChlorAm-X® amongst others. Here is a link to the original European patent: Method and product for removal of chloramines, chlorine and ammonia from aquaculture water - European Patent Office - EP 0203741 B1 (storage.googleapis.com) Despite the mass of data dating from 1929, and despite all of the prior research, these techniques would not reach the general aquatic community until the 1987 Kuhns work. Therefore, it would be difficult to argue against the historical significance of the Kuhns patent. It not only demonstrated that water could be detoxified to safe levels for aquatic life, but it also quantified the results and even the time required for specific toxin reduction. As such, this singular document paved the way for virtually every dechlorinator and ammonia detoxifier made since. A Tetra Cardinal Tetra Werke: “Agent for the elimination of active chlorine compounds from water”-1988 The Kuhns patent was quickly followed by another dechlorinator patent for Tetra in 1988, invented by Ritter Gunter. Tetra’s patent also used a related variant of Sodium Dithionate with formaldehyde, sodium hydroxymethylsulfonate, and was focused on chlorine, chloramine but especially ammonia. Tetra published the most formulae of all the dechlorination patents as well as extensive results from tests on the effects of zeolites on ammonia: US Patent for Agent for the elimination of active chlorine compounds from water (Patent # 4,786,434 ) Chlor/Amine Tetra’s findings were historically pivotal in that they described and rectified the chloramine problem of ammonia being released from chloramine when removing the chlorine portion. Many of us may remember using Sodium Thiosulfate to remove chlorine years ago. When chloramine became the dominant chemical to negate, Sodium Thiosulfate fell short because in negating the chlorine portion of chloramine, it released the ammonia in chloramine, creating a secondary issue. Tetra’s patent delves deeply into this original problem and details the addition of formaldehyde and zeolites to negate ammonia. Tetra demonstrated that they could reach a 95%-100% reduction of ammonia by adding formaldehyde and zeolites to Sodium Dithionite. The Tetra patent is in some ways the most interesting in that it supplies the most documentation and supporting formulae of all the dechlorination/detoxification patents. Yet Kuhns himself doubted these chemicals would have a meaningful effect on nitrites and nitrates. It would take another variant and almost two decades for that to be realized. On the Fritz… “Process for Treating Water”, Fritz Industries, Inc. 2004 It was a third invention by Tiffani Furlough and Kevin Senkevech that saw a US patent awarded to Fritz Industries in 2004, where the addition of formaldehydes to Sodium Dithionate (and other chemicals) created a variant known as Sodium Formaldehydesulfoxylate or “SFS.” In this patent it was demonstrated that SFS not only reduced chlorine, chloramine and ammonia, but also nitrites and nitrates significantly in just minutes. With these findings, the ability to chemically reduce chlorine, chloramine, ammonia, nitrite and nitrate was not only demonstrated, but it was also quantified (see some charts from their findings below). US Patent for Process for treating water Patent (Patent # 7,097,773 issued August 29, 2006) Less Nitrates, Less Headaches Although it was referring to water purification for agriculture rather than aquatics, even the pharmaceutical giant Bayer AG got into the action with a 2004 patent awarded where they actually achieved 100% removal of nitrates using sulfur dioxide gas: Process for the Reduction of Concentration of Nitrates and/or Nitrogen-Containing Compounds by Means of SO2 Prime Numbers From the 2006 Fritz Aquatics US Patent (0-10 minutes-performed at a pH of 8.1): Below, the nitrates were removed from the graph shown above for improved resolution: Note 1: The concentration of pollutants in the test sample was determined by methods described in Hach Water Analysis Handbook, 2nd Edition, 1992. Free and total chlorine, P.761; Ammonia, Salicylate Method, P. 781; Nitrite, Diazotization Method, P784; Nitrate, Cadmium Reduction Method (High Range), P. 783. From the 1987 Amquel US Patent (with varying pH values indicated): In the first graph, the chlorine degrades very quickly to 0% in under an hour. However, on the second graph for chloramine, notice when the initial chlorine is removed, the resultant ammonia actually RISES temporarily (from the chloramine being split apart into chlorine and ammonia). This is because the time for ammonia reduction is longer than chlorine. But ultimately, they both drop precipitously (Note: The pH significantly affects the reduction): As explained in Prime Cuts below, a dechlorinator-only product is probably just Sodium Dithionite alone. However, a dechlorinator that detoxifies ammonia, nitrite and nitrate is most likely a combination of Sodium Dithionite and Formaldehyde. Prima Facie Although far from exhaustive, what follows are some informal tests which strongly suggest that Seachem Prime® seems to contain Sodium Dithionite and Formaldehyde. As mentioned above, Sodium Dithionite was originally developed in 1904 as an agent for dyeing and rust removal as it proved to be quite effective in removing stains and preparing fabrics and paper for dyeing. As such, it ‘reduces’ the iron in rust (ferric) to a water-soluble iron (ferrous) that dissolves.[1] Left: 40mg of Rust Powder (Fe2O3) in 25ml of Water (pH=8), Right: 40mg of Rust Powder has nearly dissolved in 25ml of Prime® (T=5 min.) A Standard Chemistry Flame Color Test Indicates that Prime® Tests Positive for Sodium Compounds Prime® Tests Positive for Formaldehyde (T=30m) Prime® Tests Positive for Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) (T=15s) The earliest dechlorinators (circa 1930) contained Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S) or infused this gas into water. Sodium Dithionite decays into SO2, however H2S smells very similar to Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) such that we needed to verify that Prime® did NOT contain H2S: Prime® Tests NEGATIVE for Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S) (T=15s) What a Difference a Day Makes An important feature of Prime® that many of us have relied upon is the ability to detoxify ammonia, nitrite and nitrate for approximately 24-48 hours. This time frame is approximate and is subject to the concentration and the pH of the water. A little clarity on what’s taking place is in order at this point. The sulfur/formaldehyde-based chemicals used in most dechlorinators/detoxifiers do not convert ammonia to ammonium but instead, they actually “bind” elements from Sodium Dithionite (and formaldehyde) to ammonia, nitrite and nitrate and convert them into non-toxic, stable salts rendering them harmless. To illustrate this using ammonia as an example, in the ClorAm-X® data sheet, they demonstrated how free ammonia combines with the sulfur/formaldehyde-based chemicals used to form a non-toxic salt, aminomethanesulfonate or AMS: AquaScience Research Group, Inc (hikariusa.com) In fact, AMS is not only non-toxic; it is a known food source for specific aerobic bacteria, and it has actually been used to treat neurological disorders in schooling (zebra) fish: Aminomethanesulfonic acid illuminates the boundary between full and partial agonists of the pentameric glycine receptor 1. Department of Neuroscience, Physiology and Pharmacology, Division of Biosciences, University College London, United Kingdom; 2. Vollum Institute, Oregon Health and Science University, United States; 3. Laboratory of Soft Matter Physics, Institute of Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, China; 4. Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Oregon Health & Science University, United States And a supporting quote from “KoiNet, Koi Show Water Management (South Africa)" on AMS: “…(the) end of the molecule reacts with ammonia to form aminomethanesulfonate (AMS), a non-toxic, stable water-soluble substance, which can be acted upon by the nitrifying bacteria in biological filtration if needed. On the other hand, the sulfonate-side of the molecule declorinates the water of any hypochlorite, the so called “chlorine”. And a further trick in its box: it will detoxify all three species of chloramine by the combined action of both ends of the molecule. How versatile can you be if both hands are useful?” Although not identical in species, the use of AMS as a food source for ‘good’ bacteria is well known: Isolation and characterization of two new methanesulfonic acid-degrading bacterial isolates from a Portuguese soil sample While secondary to detoxification, it is a no less remarkable engineering feat, that AMS is usable to the nitrifying bacteria (particularly the ‘nitrite eaters’) so cycling continues. Seachem implies there’s an expiration of its detoxification via 'reversion back to ammonia' after the 24–48-hour period has expired; however literal reversion of AMS to ammonia is almost impossible. The free ammonia is now part of a stable compound that will not even begin to release the ammonia without a great rise in pH (>9.3) or without additional chemical or electronic energy (such as electrolysis) being applied. From the Department of Biochemistry and Nutrition, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC-1953 In fact, in some instances such as with nitrite and nitrate reversion is now literally impossible as portions of the negated nitrite and nitrate were dissociated and released as N2 gas (see "Anammox" study above). In reality the “reversion” is most likely a summation referring to new ammonia, nitrate and nitrite being created unabated, representing new toxin buildup over the 24–48-hour period. However, over time the detoxification chemicals, Sodium Dithionite and Formaldehyde themselves do break down into sulfur dioxide and formaldehyde and other gasses which eventually dissipate. To that end, perhaps the best metric of how long the protection lasts might be the actual decay times of sulfur dioxide and formaldehyde in free air: Left: Atmospheric decay distances and times for sulphur and nitrogen oxides estimated from air and precipitation monitoring in eastern Canada-1989---Right: Formaldehyde Vapor Characteristics in Varied Decontamination Environments-2021 Above values are in half-lives. In both instances, we see an over 50% loss in sulfur dioxide and formaldehyde within the first 14-16 hours with 24-40 hours being essentially the point at which most has dissipated. These decay times would suggest that Prime® needs be dosed daily for adequate protection. There’s Nothing New, especially Under the Sun Ultraviolet light is often employed for the use of deliberate decomposition of chemicals. UV light is classified into three categories, UVA, UVB, and UVC, with UVC being the shortest wavelength of UV light and is highly destructive to microorganisms. It is UVC light that is employed in aquarium UV sterilizers. UVC is also destructive to many chemicals, and as such, is often employed to effect chemical-free breakdown of chlorine and chloramine, but especially for chloramine. As shown in the graph below, UVC can also completely break down chlorine and all three forms of chloramine in just hours. The circles represent the knee of the curves when chlorine has been exhausted and when chloramine destruction dominates in the graph: The above graph is from Bad Gas - General Discussion - C.A.R.E. (aquariumcoop.com) Removal of chlorine products, however, is not always desirable. The ability of UVC light from the sun to destroy chlorine and chloramine is a serious concern in water treatment facilities. Without some form of protection, using a swimming pool as an example, chlorine and chloramine can be nearly stripped of all disinfection properties by the sun’s UVC output within a day. As a result, there are three types of chloramines (mono-, di- and tri-chloramines) employed, as each decay at different rates and under different ‘colors’ of UV sunlight as the day progresses. This, and chemical additives (like cyanuric acid), are just some attempts to protect chlorine and chloramine from breakdown under UV light. But--what has been postulated and speculated about in the world of aquatics--is how UVC affects ammonia, if at all. It is true that UV light also disassociates ammonia, yet it’s been noted that a typical UVC light for aquarium disinfection fails to reduce ammonia levels. This is because UVC light is very inefficient for removing ammonia, such that chemical methods have proven more popular. However, as mentioned above, UV light literally comes in several ‘colors.’ The type of UV light that DOES destroy ammonia, however, is not UVC, but UVA. UVA is the longest wavelength UV light and is most well known as the common “blacklight.” UVA affords almost no disinfection properties but can remove ammonia, even directly out of the air. Blacklights and Ammonia A 2020 study was performed jointly by the Department of Animal Biosystems Sciences, Chungnam National University (Korea), the Department of Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering, Iowa State University and the Department of Chemistry, Iowa State University with the goal to reduce ammonia gas in swine farms and poultry barns. They found that ammonia may be partially reduced by the use of blacklight or UVA. However, it’s inefficient and requires a great deal of power as well as being highly affected by relative humidity (RH) and ambient light. As such, results were far from exhaustive, as even their best efforts resulted in less than 19% reduction of ammonia and as low as under 3% reduction. This is an excerpt from that study, summarizing their findings: “5. Conclusion The results of the study provide evidence that photocatalysis with TiO2 coating and UV-A light can reduce gas concentrations of NH3. The particular % reduction depends on the presence of photocatalyst, RH, light type (intensity), treatment time, and dust accumulation on the photocatalyst surface. In the case of NH3, the % reduction varied from 2.6– 18.7% and was affected by RH and light intensity. The % reduction of NH3 was the highest at 12% RH and increased with treatment time and light intensity. The results warrant scaling up to pilot-scale where the technology could be evaluated with economic analyses. It is necessary to investigate the practical applicability to the real system through large scale studies.” From Effects of UV-A Light Treatment on Ammonia in Lab-Scale Prime Rates Yet, we’ve only scratched the surface here for evidence. There are literally hundreds of experiments and studies from around the world that suggest the chemicals SFB and SFS and related compounds, probably in use in Prime®, do in fact detoxify ammonia, nitrite, nitrate, chlorine and chloramine, and have done so for decades, with the reduction of ammonia dating from 1929, the reduction of nitrite dating back to 1935 and the reduction of nitrate in 1949. In fact, the only common detriment repeatedly cited in using these chemicals is the depletion of oxygen along with the reduction of the toxins, as this is concurrent with reduction of the toxins. There is a fundamental difference, however. The oxygen is quickly replaced with simple aeration, whereas chlorine, chloramine, nitrite, and nitrate are predictably reduced until the water volume has been changed in some manner. The graph below displays oxygen depletion from a variety of popular aquarium medications and Prime®. This was measured in a 29-gallon tank that had one small air stone for O2 replenishment. Notice how quickly the oxygen is restored by simple aeration. A normal dose of Prime® reduces O2 by about 0.5 PPM yet returns to full oxygen saturation in only 15 minutes (or a full 4 hours with Prime®’s 5X Emergency Dose): From LOW O2 - Diseases - C.A.R.E. (aquariumcoop.com) Primarily… My input here has been little more here than converting the tedious data tables from the patents into more readable graphs. In the beginning of this article and in the “Prime Beefs” section, I mentioned that it takes little effort to find detractors making absolute assertions that the manufacturers are making fraudulent claims. I’ve read that “the test procedures (Hach et al) were flawed”, that “the formulae are wrong”, “the manufacturers are frauds”, even that “the patent examiners were corrupt!”. That was, in part, why I decided to present the documented work of others, rather than add my speculation or enter into speculative discussions. As seen above, many such works have been performed by highly authoritative sources. The detoxification of chlorine, chloramine, ammonia, nitrite and nitrate in varying degrees has been known science for nearly a century. I’ve cited a mere handful from a plethora of findings indicating documented, quantified, successful outcomes from universities, laboratories, and studies around the world as well as US and European patents, in the hope that their powerful evidence for these claims sheds some light on what the end user may feel confident about. -------------------- Part-2 Proving Prime (The Movie) Go Directly to Video: Proving Prime (15-minute video) A fragment of Euclid’s original manuscript proving that Prime Numbers exist. Circa 300 B.C. In the first article, “A Brief History of Prime”, we cited 6 laboratories, 10 universities, 5 awarded patents and 11 aquatic institutions that have published results for using chemicals similar to those in Seachem Prime and other dechlorinators to not only remove chlorine and chloramine, but also to reduce ammonia and nitrites. The amount of 3rd party evidence for these chemicals’ efficacy is simply overwhelming. Despite the volumes of citations in the article, we barely scratched the surface of citing reputable institutions from around the world who have published reports or studies on using these chemicals for ammoniacal detoxification. As they tested it and we did not, nor could we confirm the ingredients, we added little commentary and simply allowed their reputations to speak for themselves. In fact, our sole contribution was to perform a few informal tests for some reinforcement of conclusions on what proposed chemicals may likely be present in Prime. But we asserted nothing about the efficacy it has on reducing ammonia or nitrite as there were too many unknowns. We left that to the cited institutions. PRIME-L Screams There’s few topics in aquatic social media that sparks more vitriol than if dechlorinators and detoxifiers actually remove ammonia. I’ve seen volumes of highly speculative equations, deep corporate mistrust, patent fraud accusations and even assertions of ineptitude or corruption on the part of the chemists who reviewed the patents for Amquel, Tetra, Fritz and others. I have also seen dozens of amateurish, equative 'proofs' to the contrary as well as some poorly executed, ill-performed amateur tests. A balanced equation may be mathematically correct, but this is no indicator that this reaction is not taking place. Nor is a failed test improperly executed. Choosing to ignore literally millions of facilities using this technology for ammonia detoxification for over a century is nothing more than typical, conspiracy theory. Conspiracy theories are borne from attention seeking, uneducated speculation and pollute virtually all walks but serve no one and simply add to the volumes of misinformation. The vitriol against these known chemical reactions taking place in fisheries, laboratories, universities and hundreds of thousands of government facilities for over a century is little more than that. But once again, the above-mentioned fisheries, laboratories, universities and government facilities DID document their results. So, in our not wanting to add to the speculation, we elected to present the verified works of others and simply illustrate the vast history behind how we got here. Not Ready for Prime Time “The Not Ready for Prime Time Players” The original SNL cast in 1975. As we perused the forums to try to understand why people doubted this virtue with such intensity, perhaps this most common recurrent theme appeared: “Testing for ammonia before and after adding Prime indicates no difference”. Considering the above quote and after seeing the chart below, we then realized that the problem is TIME: In the J. Kuhns patent awarded jointly to the inventor and Amquel in 1987, there was a data table from which this interesting chart was created, displaying their findings on how Amquel in this case, affected chloramine. Taking some semantic license for simplicity, chloramine may be somewhat inaccurately yet approximately described as half chlorine and half ammonia. In the chart above, Kuhns showed that Amquel reduced the chlorine portion of chloramine far more quickly than the ammonia portion. In fact, 20X more time was required for the latter. Notice that when Amquel breaks down chloramine into chlorine and ammonia, the chlorine is reduced in about 3 minutes whereas the ammonia portion required over an hour to be reduced. The literal values of time here are unimportant as they are subject to the amounts used, the PPM of ammonia being reduced, the pH and the temperatures. What is of value is relative time. As mentioned above, the ammonia portion of chloramine required 20X the amount of time as chlorine portion did for reduction. What follows is a prelude to a series of tests that were performed to demonstrate Prime removing ammonia and documented on video. This is then followed by a series of tests to verify that the predicted byproducts created when Prime reduced ammonia are present and tests for potential errors in the test themselves, also documented on video. The complete reduction of the ammonia by Prime required 7-hours of footage to be shot. It includes explanatory slides to guide you through the metamorphosis and to highlight changes and errata. It was recorded in real time but was greatly accelerated to view the reaction in its entirety in only 15 minutes. As ammonia and ammonium have vastly different effects on our fish, the first directive here was we needed to isolate the ammonia from the ammonium. Then we could see how Prime affects each individually in both degree and time. This was achieved by creating three solutions of varying pH levels. Three solutions were prepared, one at a pH of 6, another at the default pH of 8 (the natural pH of the water at this facility, used as a Control) and a third at a pH of 11. Prime was administered to two of the three vials below. The vial at a pH of 8 (center) had none, the vials at a pH of 6 (right) and 11 (left) were treated with Prime’s “Emergency Dose” (ED) of 5X the normal dose per 1PPM of desired reduction. All three vials tested positive for 2PPM of ammonia. Prime 5X (ED) removed 100% of the ammonia in about 3 HOURS: For the reason detailed below however, Prime required 7 HOURS to remove the ammonium: The difference in reduction time is that ammonium is less chemically active than ammonia and therefore requires more energy or time to reach the same level of reduction. For either ammonia or ammonium to be reduced, it has to be converted to a more inert compound. As Prime et al are sulfur-based reducing agents, the ammonia and ammonium compounds should create sulfates. In this case, the created sulfates are related to the Ammonium Sulfate family. The vials treated with Prime now test positive for SULFATES: During the three-hour reduction, we observed gas escaping, only from the Prime treated vials: For the sake of simplicity, I’ll take a bit more semantic license here. The reductive reaction taking place here results in the production of various gasses. Nitrogen, Oxygen, Hydrogen and Sulfur Dioxide should be liberated in this process (it can take the form of nitrogen, hydrogen and oxygen compounds in gaseous forms as well but again for simplicity, I’ll be referring to these as their parent elements and compound: N, O, H and SO2). It is not unexpected that ammonia or ammonium, being nitrogen/hydrogen compounds would eventually break down into either nitrogen or hydrogen gasses or gaseous compounds composed of nitrogen and hydrogen. Oxygen may be liberated as well, either directly or in the form of water. In “A Brief History of Prime”, we tested Prime for sulfites. The reason being, Seachem’s only reference to their ingredients was “Complexed Hydrosulfite Salts”. We wanted to verify the presence of sulfites (along with sodium and formaldehyde) as these results very strongly suggested the same or similar chemicals were in use as we saw in the Amquel, Fritz and Tetra patents. Wine makers need to test for sulfites during fermentation. However, the same test for sulfites will also detect sulfur dioxide gas (SO2). The gas escaping the vials above tell an important story. If the escaping gas contains sulfur dioxide (SO2), it strongly suggests that a sulfate is decomposing. To that end, by far the most the telling gas if present, would be sulfur dioxide as this directly indicates that Prime has reduced the ammonium sulfate salts it previously tested positive for, into escaping sulfur dioxide (SO2) gasses. The Prime treated vials now test positive for SO2 gas: Our next test for errors in the results was to verify that Prime did not reduce the tests dyes themselves, therefore giving us a false ammonia reduction reading. Here we reapplied the dyes to the ammonia vial to see if ANY ammonia is still present. The results remained negative. No ammonia was present in the Prime reduced ammonia vial: In an effort to be comprehensive, the now ammonia-free vial with freshly added test dyes was verified to be an active, viable ammonia test by simply adding fresh ammonia. It almost immediately tested positive for ammonia: T.A.N. Lines Our final verification test was to simply test Prime’s reduction of the TOTAL ammonia and ammonium as is most commonly done in aquatic ammonia test kits. This is known as Total Ammonia Nitrogen or T.A.N. This was performed to compare and illustrate if the pH adjusted water samples had any influence on the test results. Below are identical vials with 4PPM of ammonia added. The left vial has been treated with Prime 5X (ED)/1PPM. The pH of both was 8. No alteration of any kind to the water was done. The only difference here is the process was performed at +4*F higher than the others. This is because an ammoniacal reduction time changes at a rate of about 20%/*F. In this case, this reduced the reduction time of the ammonium portion from 7 hours to 3 hours. By Hour-3, the T.A.N. was reduced to zero: A Prime Video PROVING PRIME - THE VIDEO Above is live footage of the entire process of Seachem Prime eliminating all ammonia products from the water in real time. You’ll see ammonia and ammonium separately reduced and reduced together as T.A.N. (Total Ammonia Nitrogen), the latter being typical of what most water tests can present. In addition, after the main tests, you’ll see verification footage as we confirm that Prime did not affect the test chemicals themselves but only the ammonia products. A few of the charts in this article also appear in the video for consistency so there’s some redundancy. A total of 7 HOURS of footage has been edited and accelerated so you may watch the experiment in its entirety in just 15 minutes. *** It seems worth noting that not all the manufacturers’ data was in concert with our findings. As it seems relevant, despite being of dubious importance, we added the following after this piece was written… Just for Scale Seachem claims that that the normal dose of Prime will detoxify 1PPM of ammonia, nitrite and nitrate. It seems to be approximately linear such that the Emergency Dose (5X) applied to a 4PPM of ammonia sample if quadrupled, eventually tested at 0PPM of ammonia. While we only tested for ammonia, the equations describing the reaction extrapolate to nitrite and nitrate at a similar rate. Said another way, it reduces ammonia, nitrite and nitrate as claimed at a rate of the Standard Dose; 1X per 1PPM. As toxic levels of ammonia and nitrite begin at about 1PPM reaching up to very dangerous levels such as 4 or 5 PPM, the Prime ED dose or 5X Dose/PPM of reduction is highly significant. However, those same calculations describe the same amount of reduction of nitrate. The value of this is a matter of scale. For example, a concerning amount of nitrate may measure 80PPM. Therefore, while a 5PPM reduction of ammonia and nitrite are effectively 100%, a 5PPM reduction of an 80PPM nitrate environment is a mere 6% improvement. In other words, although it is true it reduces nitrates, it’s relatively insignificant. Doesn’t Add Up We found that with our testing and after reviewing the equations in the published patents, the manufacturers claims are not too distant from the real-world reality we measured. The one glaring exception is the claim by Seachem that the detoxification treatment “reverts” in 48 hours. Perhaps I’m missing something. To revisit a previous slide for a moment: We observed gas leaking from the treated ammonia vials. Again, the equations suggest (as well as our samples testing positive for SO2) this gas is predominantly SO2 (sulfur dioxide) but it could also be any, or any combination of nitrogen, hydrogen, oxygen or gaseous compounds of those elements. In fact, reversion should be impossible even if the gasses did not escape. The reduction process takes a high energy compound like NH3 and reduces it to a lower energy compound like NH4. To ‘revert, it would require addition energy to be applied. I once tested this in an unsuccessful experiment with high power electrolysis. It was documented here in a somewhat whimsical article: Well, That Didn't Work... But it’s much simpler than this. If these reactions cause ammonia, nitrates and nitrites to release gasses, they are GONE. The chemicals required to revert back to higher energy ammonia in this case have literally broken down and are no longer in the solution. Reversion should be impossible. This was and remains the only glaring conflict in our findings with the manufacturer's claims. While it has little to no bearing on our use of it as intended, we thought we’d highlight the only conflicting data we found with Seachem’s claims in order to be comprehensive. *** I need to thank @Odd Duck for acting as my editor and chief. Her vast knowledge and expertise helped me to find and correct errors as well as editing the document and the video to make it more informative and lucid, and for correcting the video errors. Thank you to @Guppysnail for also reviewing the document and the video for viability. Her input literally initiated the project. And my apologies to @Biotope Biologist for stealing his Amazon Prime joke! Lastly, I’m tagging @boylesdowntothis, our JPL chemist friend for any input he might have on the “reversion” claims made by Seachem. Perhaps he can see if I’m missing something! 🤪 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "GoPro or Go Home" - Debunking Conspiracy Theories As of 2022, according to the FDA, the CDC, the EPA and CISA; In the United States alone, 1,100,000 farms use Sodium Bisulfite to detoxify ammonia before it can enter into water tables. Also in the US, about 200,000 wastewater treatment facilities treat their water with Sodium Bisulfite to detoxify ammonia before it enters into runoffs that could contaminate oceans, rivers, lakes and streams. If the Kitty litter that you use advertises that it "controls ammonia odor", chances are it uses Sodium Bisulfite to accomplish this. This science is far from new. Since its introduction by BASF in 1904, Sodium Bisulfite and its related compounds have been used to detoxify ammonia to protect livestock and aquatic wildlife. Farms, wastewater plants, fish hatcheries, trout raceways, aquatic trade shows and more use this chemical or its chemical family for ammonia detoxification. You can read some of this data through many of the links in the previous section. *** Addenda [1] Sodium Dithionate reduces stable iron to an unstable form. The unstable form is water soluble. It is also bioavailable for plants. This suggests a dose of Prime® will temporarily convert all of the iron in the water volume to bioavailable iron. From a Hach Industries US Patent: Stain and rust removing composition. US3183191A United States Inventor Clifford C Hach Current Assignee Hach Co "…the reaction the sodium hydrosulfite is effective to reduce the insoluble rust (ferric iron oxide) to a lower iron oxide which then reacts with the bisulfite and is changed to the more soluble form of ferrous sulfite. The metabisulfites are similar in action to the bisulfites and have been regarded as the hydrate of bisulfites, and the reaction given above would be the same when a metabisulfite is employed." Download PDF Here: Stain and rust removing composition - Hach Chemical Co, 1965 --------------------- *A chronology of human understanding of the nitrogen cycle† James N. Galloway Allison M. Leach Albert Bleeker and Jan Willem Erisman, Published: 05 July 2013https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2013.0120 opyright © 2022 The Royal Society Table 1. Major events in the history of nitrogen. year event refs 10 000–8000 BC domestication of plants and animals began [1,2] 1563 Bernard Palissy advocated for the use of fertilizers [3] 1675 John Evelyn noted that rainwater contained ‘celestial nitre’ [4] 1699 John Woodward proved that what is dissolved in water is essential for plant growth [5] 1772 Daniel Rutherford discovered nitrogen; he receives credit because he published first [6] 1772 Carl Scheele, Henry Cavendish, Joseph Priestley, and others concurrently and independently discovered nitrogen [7] 1774 Joseph Priestley discovered nitrous oxide and ammonia [8] 1785 C. L. Berthollet determined that ammonia is made up of nitrogen and hydrogen [9] 1785 Henry Cavendish discovered HNO3 [10] 1787 William Austin was one of the first to try to synthesize ammonia [11] 1790 Jean Antoine Claude Chaptal officially named nitrogen [7] 1823 Johann Wolfgang Döbereiner produced ammonia using a platinum catalyst [12] 1824 Joseph Fourier was one of the first to describe the greenhouse effect [13] 1836 Jean-Baptiste Boussingault identified nitrogen as a nutrient for plants [7] 1838 Jean-Baptiste Boussingault determined legumes could fix their own nitrogen, but he did not know how [7] 1840 Justus von Liebig advocated the addition of certain nutrients to the soil for plant growth, making him the founder of the artificial fertilizer industry [14] 1843 John Bennet Lawes and Joseph Henry Gilbert confirmed that nitrogen helps plants grow and that nitrogen comes from sources other than precipitation [7] 1845 M. Ducros determined that hail contained nitric acid, and called it ‘pluie acide’ or acid rain [15] 1852 Robert Angus Smith connected the presence of acid rain with human activities [16] 1856 Jules Reiset recognized that decaying matter releases nitrogen, providing the basis for the nitrogen cycle [17] 1877 Theophile Schloesing and Achille Müntz discover the process of nitrification [18,19] 1880 Herman Hellriegel and Hermann Wilfarth discovered the process of biological nitrogen fixation [20] 1886 Ulysse Gayon and Gabriel Dupetit discovered the process of denitrification [17,18] 1896 the greenhouse effect was more fully quantified by Svante Arrhenius [21] 1909 Fritz Haber synthesized ammonia from nitrogen and hydrogen gas [7,22,23] 1913 Carl Bosch performed Haber's ammonia synthesis on an industrial scale [7] 1947 it was reported that many lakes in the US and Europe were undergoing eutrophication [24] 1950s through the mid-1950s, N additions to coastal ecosystems were incorrectly considered a benefit to productivity [25] 1950s concern about coastal eutrophication was first noted in Moriches Bay, New York [26,27] 1953 Haagen-Smit et al. were some of the first to document ground-level ozone formation and the role of NOx in its formation [28] 1960s there existed 9 reported 'dead zones' in coastal areas [29] 1968 Svante Oden was the first to link NOx emissions from one country (the UK) to freshwater acidification in another country (Sweden) [30] 1970s on a global scale, the rate of Nr creation by the Haber–Bosch process surpassed natural N fixation [31] 1970 Paul Crutzen quantified the role of nitrogen oxides in ozone depletion [32] 1972 Sweden made a presentation to the UN Conference on the Human Environment, which started efforts to better understand acidification [30] 1972 Likens et al. demonstrated that nitric acid formed from fossil fuel combustion leads to acid rain [15,33] 1985 the greenhouse effect was further quantified by Ramanathan et al., including the contributions of N2O [34,35] 1985 stratospheric ozone depletion was discovered by scientists from the British Antarctic Survey [36] 1986 anammox (anaerobic ammonium oxidation) was first observed in a Dutch wastewater treatment facility [37] 1989 John Aber et al. demonstrated that excess N deposition to forests not only causes damage to the forest, but it can also make forests a net source of N [38] 2003 the concept of the nitrogen cascade was proposed [31] 2009 Ravishankara et al. discovered that N2O emissions are currently the most important ozone-depleting substance [39] 2011 there are 540 reported dead zones on a global basis [29] The European Nitrogen Assessment provides the first integrated and comprehensive look at N use in Europe ******************************************************************************************************** “Contains Complexed Hydrosulfite Salts” “Contains Complexed Bisulfite Salts” “Contains Complexed Dithionite Salts” The term “complexed” in chemistry means little more here than the Dithionite component of the chemical is attached to a metal. In this case, that metal is Sodium. As mentioned above, Sodium Dithionite was designed by BASF to remove rust stains (iron oxide) from paper. This common rust remover has both Sodium Dithionite and Sodium Metabisulfite The product above is just one of many that employ Sodium Dithionite and/or Sodium Metabisulfite. Sodium Metabisulfite being a slight variant when Sodium Dithionite is dissolved in water, yet both will exist simultaneously in water (aqueous). Both also reduce iron. However, this ability is not exclusive to iron. The ability to dissolve (reduce) rust suggests that Sodium Dithionite should also reduce other metals in the water so long as they are less reactive than Sodium…and almost all metals are. In fact, the EPA lists the following heavy metals as reduced to “non-toxic or less toxic compounds” in wastewater by Sodium Dithionite where concentrations of heavy metals can be at highly toxic levels. Being a far milder case, it would not be an unreasonable extrapolation to conclude the same would be reduced in the aquarium environment: Table 1. Elements and Potential In Situ Precipitates Element Primary Oxidation States in the Environment Potential In Situ Precipitates 1 Antimony +3, +5 Sulfide Arsenic +3, +5 Typically requires co-precipitation 2 Barium +2 Sulfate Boron +3 Typically requires co-precipitation Cadmium +2 Carbonate, phosphate, sulfide Chromium +3, +6 Hydroxide Copper +1, +2 Hydroxide, phosphate, sulfide Iron +2, +3 Hydroxide, carbonate, sulfide Lead +2 Carbonate, phosphate, sulfide Manganese +2, +3, +4 Oxide, carbonate, sulfide Mercury 0, +1, +2 Sulfide Molybdenum +4, +5, +6 Sulfide Nickel +2 Hydroxide, sulfide Plutonium +4, +6 Oxide, phosphate Selenium -2, 0, +4, +6 Elemental, mixed iron-Se Thallium +1, +3 Hydroxide, carbonate, sulfide Uranium +4, +6 Oxide, phosphate Vanadium +3, +4, +5 Typically requires co-precipitation Zinc +2 Hydroxide, carbonate, sulfide (Hopefully the formatting is OK!) [40]

Kurt Cobain was a brilliant and prolific song writer and I think that's often overlooked given how incredibly loud Nirvana was which turned off many people (not me!). Still, you can hear the Lennon-McCartney influences in this track (amongst others): Beth Hart & Joe Bonamassa IMO are magic together. Joe Bonamassa discovered this during this demo of a Humble Pie cover, Black Coffee. He repeatedly shakes his head in disbelief at her electrifying vocals. After this demo, they made 3 albums and a Blu-ray together:

I think you can really hear the similarity to 1970's Keith Richards style in this recording. In fact, this track might easily have been on Sticky fingers or Exile on Main Street...if Janis Joplin was the singer that is. The incredible Dana Fuchs Band:

These two girls from Georgia are great, great, great, great, great cousins of Edgar Allen Poe. Playing some serious, Chicago Blues:

My favorite aria from my favorite opera. My preferred version is the 1972 La Boheme with Pavarotti-Freni-Von Karajan but as far as I know, no videos of that one exists. But this 1986 one need not apologize...although I should for the annoying hard coded subtitles! Still, it's glorious and the audience goes nuts on his high C!

@Odd Duck, @OnlyGenusCaps, @Guppysnail, Reverse Respiration is one year old today!

The Princeton Record Exchange Long ago, I was friends with three string players and a pianist from the Cleveland Symphony Orchestra, sometime in the 1990s. At that time, the premier record store in the United States was known as the Princeton Record Exchange in Princeton NJ, quite literally across the street from the university. I lived about 20 minutes from Princeton back then and my musician friends were from the Cleveland area. However, they were well aware of Princeton Record Exchange, and as such, we had an annual tradition of meeting at Princeton Record Exchange to spend a day…and often a fortune, on used records, many of which were long out of print. Princeton Record Exchange sold only used records, yet the store was massive. It had many rooms for many categories. Using a ‘supermarket’ as a metric, it was probably ‘three supermarkets’ in size in multiple rooms with LPs stacked literally from floor to ceiling. One could spend days searching for treasures: On one such occasion, my musician friends drove non-stop from Cleveland, OH to Princeton, NJ in an old, gutted van with a large, gaping hole in the floor that formed from years of rusting away. I remember being in that van and getting wet when the hole in the floor would erupt like a geyser whenever they ran over puddles! 🤣! The last time they visited Princeton Records, they bought so many LPs, they left only standing room in the van. Along with the four musicians was the driver’s Bichon Frise “Nipp,” named after the famous RCA Records dog “Nipper” listening to “His Masters Voice,” featured on every RCA record label. RCA’s Nipper listening to “His Masters Voice” on a Victrola All available space in the van from floor to roof was filled with LPs such that three of them had to stand for the entire ride back to Cleveland while the driver held Nipp on his lap. Given the van’s condition---it was dangerously overstocked, it had no seats, and the driver had to keep Nipp on his lap---they chose slow, back roads for the ride home to hopefully avoid being pulled over. At one point, the driver noticed Nipp was not on his lap anymore. The driver looked up and to his horror, he saw Nipp in the rear-view mirror! Nipp fell through the hole in the floor and was running down the road after the van! Fortunately, no harm was done and everyone including Nipp eventually made it back to Cleveland along with hundreds of treasures. And we found many rarities and treasures every time we went there. This is about one such treasure that anyone may download. If you’re not old enough to remember this, long before digital audio, in the halcyon days of high-fidelity LPs, there was a form of recording known as Direct-to-Disc or D2D. D2D was the purest form of the LP record. D2D records bypassed most of the recording chain, and as such, it bypassed most of the generational degradation suffered by conventional LPs. D2Ds often enjoyed absolutely stunning fidelity, in some instances, rivalling the sound quality of the original master. Normally the LP recording path went as follows; Normal record production: Microphone > Tape Recorder > Mastering/Editing > Mixer > LP Cutting Lathe > LP or six generations. Direct-to-Disc (D2D) record production: Microphone > LP Cutting Lathe > LP, only three generations. Each generation lost some fidelity such that the typical LP was inevitably degraded for five generations before becoming an LP you would ultimately buy. But with D2D, the music went directly to the cutting lathe, often creating extremely high-fidelity LPs with unrivaled purity and dynamics. D2D’s had a ‘cost’ though. There was no editing, no mixing, no pauses of any kind. The entire album had to be recorded in ONE take! Mistakes and magic alike went directly to the LP. D2D records were an ideal vehicle for large, showcase, demonstration discs or for program material that was simply too dynamic for regular records to reproduce (one infamous example was a Telarc recording of Tchaikovsky’s 1812 with real, antique cannons firing and recorded directly to the LP---many turntables or styli could not track the violent grooves on the record, created by the cannon shots). But that dynamic capability made D2D an ideal vehicle for “The King of Instruments” as the great pipe organs were commonly called. Pipe organs are often gigantic instruments with literally thousands of pipes. They can exhibit unparalleled dynamics and frequency range, far greater than any other instrument, so they were naturally a darling for audiophiles. The stress on the performer during D2D recording was often apparent though. The performances were often sterile and dry, as the artist strenuously labored to not make any mistakes since there could be no opportunity to pause, stop, or correct them. As such, D2D records were infamous for great sound but sterile performances, organists E. Power Biggs and Virgil Fox D2D albums being two such examples. Perfect but boring. But there were exceptions. One such exception was “The Power and The Glory” on M&K Realtime Records. The organist, the late Lloyd Holzgraf is on fire here and liberally employs massive, almost sadistically powerful bass notes. But sonically, these D2Ds were so superbly done, they were as close as an audiophile could get to the original event. “The Power and The Glory” was released in 1978 by what was then a small, high-end audio record company in Germany and was recorded as a two-part, D2D LP set of what was then ‘the world’s largest pipe organ’ at the First Congregational Church of Los Angeles. A colossal instrument with more than 27,000 pipes, four of which were 32 FEET tall! The latter pipes produced bass of thunderous volume. In fact, the frequency of some of the bass notes were so low (16Hz), they were below the threshold of human hearing such that you could ‘feel’ the bass but not actually hear it. Having been in that church, I remember the massive air pressure of these 32-feet pipes. That, along with the immensity of the church, the enormity of 27,000+ more pipes singing along, and bass so powerful it modulated your speaking voice, it’s a majestic experience. In music, as with any art form, there’s almost never an agreement on the best performance. And no doubt that would certainly be the case here. But in audiophile circles, the emphasis was on sound quality, and in that respect, there was no argument. “The Power and The Glory, Volumes 1 & 2” on D2D were and to this day are widely considered the highest fidelity pipe organ recordings ever made. The problem with D2Ds was that once the cutting lathe began to wear out, that was it. No more copies could be made without a totally new performance! There was no tape to make a new lathe, no storage of any kind, once it wore out, it was gone forever. To that end, only about 1000 LPs could be made before the lathe was useless. More than 20 years after these LPs went out of production, I was lucky enough to find used copies of these D2Ds at the Princeton Record Exchange. The copyright on these LPs expired in 1995. They were never released on CD nor any other digital media as they would have had to be digitized from the no-longer-existent lathe. And frankly, giant pipe organ recordings were not big enough sellers to be worth their time in trying to restore these. Still, many people have recorded these records and have redistributed them, as you can find dozens of copies of these very records in videos all over YouTube, particularly around Christmastime. You’ll hear all the pops and clicks of these records being played on people’s turntables into YouTube videos. These used copies have some wear and minor noise. But minor pops and clicks from LPs are inevitable of course and not really much of a distraction. But what is highly distracting is that the fidelity of a YouTube video is really quite poor. It is highly compressed, and frequency limited such that the sonic purity and thunderous power of stellar recordings like these is all but lost. But a High-Definition Audio transfer was created from these LPs to a downloadable audio file. These original D2D LPs have been digitized in an extremely high-resolution digital audio format (Hi-Res PCM), using some of the highest fidelity audio electronics made. Although digitization adds a generation, it’s very low loss and is the closest one can get to hearing the magic of these recordings without these original LPs and a HiFi system capable of playing them properly. These digital copies were created in an unrestricted format known as PCM. It is highly compatible and should play on virtually any device. There is no frequency limit, no processing, no equalization, no editing, and no compression. So, there are minor pops, clicks and even vacuum tube hiss inherent to LPs and tubed electronics, as nothing is filtered out in order to preserve the originals pristine fidelity. One thing to note: This gigantic pipe organ has simply enormous bass energy. Much of it will be too low in frequency to be heard on many HiFi systems, so it will be simply ignored by the playback device. But this is powerful bass, absolutely dwarfing even the loudest Rock or timpani drum. So, I would caution that should you play these recordings, start with the volume low and gradually raise it so you can hear any mechanical noises should you overload the speakers you’re using. This won’t be a problem on a computer, laptop, phone or tablet speakers, as they can’t respond to the deepest bass notes, and as such, they will ignore it. But if you play these on a big home theater or a HiFi system with a subwoofer, please be careful. I have seen this bass energy literally blow woofers out of their boxes! What you will hear on most any device is the stunning detail, definition and clarity. A liquid, airy flood of reverberant sound echoing off of the massive church’s walls, floors and ceilings. The reverberant echo of the massive space is so great, it sounds more like a canyon than a church. The shimmering sound and sheer power of these recordings is simply unreal. The primary reason the sound and video quality in YouTube videos are restricted is to reduce online streaming buffering and to reduce the size of the digital file storage on their servers. But here, as there is no compression or frequency limitations, this file is quite a large download. 4.45 GB. The record company is long gone as is the late organist. For that matter, so too is D2D! But if you’d like a copy, anyone is welcome to download a copy from here: The Power and The Glory Volumes 1 & 2 As it’s a large file, the download may take some time---depending on your Internet speed---probably between 10 minutes and an hour. This link will expire on January 24th. I hope you like it. For any fellow HiFi nerds out there, this was the equipment used to digitize these remarkable recordings. Enjoy! Analog Portion: Turntable: Pink Triangle (BBC) with 2” Thick Acrylic Platter, Belt Driven (the 2” thick platter is made entirely of the same vinyl as the records themselves) Tonearm: Helius (BBC) Carbon Fiber Conical Tube with Silver Litz/Teflon Wire Cartridge: Accuphase-2 Low Output Moving Coil Preamplifier: Melos Audio GK1+1 Vacuum Tube Phono Preamplifier, Class A, Triode, Zero Feedback, Passive RIAA Cabling: Neuman Microphone, Discovery Paravicini, FMS-6 Zero Core Architecture, Laufer Teknik ‘Liquid Cables’-3000+ strand Litz cable Amplification: Melos Audio ST400 Vacuum Tube Triode Amplifiers, Crown 3500 Bass Amplifiers, Melos Audio Vacuum Tube SET75 Single Ended Triode Treble Amplifiers Loudspeakers: The Notes 8’ x 200 Driver Omnidirectional Line Arrays by Laufer Teknik Record Cleaner: Nitty Gritty 1.0 Wet-Vac Record Cleaning System (each LP cleaned immediately prior to digitization) Digital Portion: The Memory Player Digital Audio Playback System (patented) with the Lynx Studio E44 Analog-to-Digital Converter The Recording (the digital file in the download): Format/Resolution: 32 Bit/192kHz PCM (WAV), Jitter Reduction: I.D.E.A.S. Jitter Reduction Software Suite (patented). Frequency Response: 4Hz-96,000Hz. Dynamic Range: 129dB Size: 4.45GB

Hi, @Odd Duck, sorry for the delayed response. I may have missed something coming in so late but is this about adding Easy Carbon to seltzer or peroxide to seltzer to work on hardscape? -If it's about peroxide, peroxide forms what is known as a piranha reaction with acids. With a more stable acid like sulfuric acid, adding peroxide gets very caustic, even explosive if not diluted enough but the right combination makes for a strong cleaner and would also become even more toxic. -With seltzer, I'd have to run the numbers but in theory, adding peroxide to seltzer would most likely cause it to lose CO2. It's such a weak acid (carbonic), I think the peroxide would just make the seltzer go flat and revert to plain water. I'm not sure but seltzer may do the same to peroxide but in that case, releasing the excess O2. Combining them may just turn them both back into water. I'm guessing here but as the peroxide O2/water bond is much stronger than the seltzer's CO2/water bond, so most likely the seltzer will just bubble away. The best way to increase seltzer's potency is to seal the container. -If this is about saturating wood, it's governed by the equilibrium moisture content or EMC. Roughly (very) speaking, wood needs 5X the atmospheric pressure to saturate to 100%. Seltzer opened is about 300% but sealed, it's about 1700% so wood will easily reach 100% saturation if sealed. -If this is about adding Easy Carbon to seltzer, EC's two primary ingredients, glutaraldehyde and citric acid, have a very low pH, about 4. The CO2 EC normally generates can't add to seltzer as seltzer's CO2 level is so high because it's pressurized so adding more would require higher pressure. You won't be able to increase the CO2 level in seltzer without pressurization. Thanks so much for that plant data. That's the data we're most lacking. It would be fantastic if we eventually gather enough info to build a database on plant types and best times for RR-ing/types. Thanks too for the SodaStream info. That's probably worth quantifying as so many people use them. Very interesting to know if it can actually be too strong! Mine has no strength settings; you just pump more. I must have the cheap one! If I've missed something (like your point!) let me know!

Wow. Mine aren't even close. Mine are buried because of the Severums but they tend to be thick, short, orange roots. That's amazing. I've never seen one like it.

@Odd Duck, thanks for that info! I'm still unclear on timing so your tests with 18 hours will help a lot in understanding this better. This may not be relevant, but I thought I'd mention it just in case: My 1st RR treatment was with a sealed container for 12 hours. The plants liquified! But if preserving plant life is not in the equation, sealed soaking really pumps up the intensity of RR. Like 1700% or so. Also, if saturation of wood is important, wood saturation will reach about 30% normally but if sealed, it reaches 100%. The 2nd thing is the 2nd bath. Using alkaline water with a pH of 9-10 increases the pH shift 100X. Most alkaline waters in the supermarket have a pH of 9.5 but I've seen 8.8-10 too. When I was treating Marimo's, they resisted RR entirely. It took 4 consecutive RR treatments to kill one. However, 1 treatment with the 2nd bath being alkaline water killed the Marimo. Lastly about SodaStream's. I've noticed on mine; it requires 7 pumps to get to the pH level of bottled seltzer or club soda. On my model, SodaStream recommends 3 pumps. But 3 pumps are barely enough to effect RR. I haven't been following this thread so none of this may be relevant! But I thought I'd mention it just in case. Holy cow, can you believe we're on Page 16!!!🤪

I believe the name “severum” is Latin for well, “sever - ‘em", as that’s exactly what happens to any plants I’ve put in their tank! On Thanksgiving, I hid a common plumber’s endoscope inside of a head of Romaine lettuce and lowered it into a tank full of Red & Gold Severums. Four minutes of mayhem ensued! ROMAINIACS (4 min)

I believe the name “severum” is Latin for well, “sever - ‘em", as that’s exactly what happens to any plants I’ve put in their tank! On Thanksgiving, I hid a common plumber’s endoscope inside of a head of Romaine lettuce and lowered it into a tank full of Red & Gold Severums. Four minutes of mayhem ensued! ROMAINIACS (4 min)

Sometimes browsers truncate the address so it can't be resolved. See if this works. It's the full address: https://content.invisioncic.com/b300999/monthly_2022_11/PXL_20221124_031949046_exported_1669334260702.gif.64d66b856ee5413a9f4229558cc48398.gif

@Andy's Fish Den, that’s a very interesting idea. I can’t say for certain but there’s a couple of anecdotal observations of my failures that suggest it probably isn’t strong enough to do what you need though. The amount of CO2 in the water is directly related to the pH. Or better said, the pH drops as the CO2 increases. Seltzer has so much CO2, it manifests a pH of only 3. I once tried using Perrier instead of seltzer because the store had no seltzer or club soda at that time. Perrier has enough CO2 to have a pH of 6. I was quite surprised when this failed to kill anything. Snails walked along the sides and in and out of the water as they pleased. Seltzer having a pH of only 3 indirectly indicates it has far more CO2 than Perrier and I now know Perrier didn’t work. So, the amount of CO2 you can put in the water may be indirectly ‘measured’ by testing the pH. Oxygen is more soluble in water than CO2 so in all probability, you can only reach CO2 levels strong enough to effect Reverse Respiration if it is pressurized. So unfortunately, without pressurization, the oxygen will not leave the water. Also, in one of @Irene's fantastic plant treatment videos, she used alum which creates about as much CO2 in water as is possible without it being pressurized. Yet the MTS survived it. And that was 2 or 3 days (I forget) in alum. One possibility is the snail's operculum seals so well; it protected them. The other being despite the large amount of CO2 in alum water, without pressure, the O2 remains. But every test done with RR killed the MTS. This would suggest it’s due to it being pressurized and it simply ‘forces’ it’s way past that protection. That and the amount of CO2 is massive given a pH of only 3. Pressurization also forces all of the O2 and N2 out of the water. Another possible explanation for the MTS kills might be the penetration of difficult areas is very likely given seltzer’s vibrational nature. At the end of the RR article there’s a short piece on this. It behaves as a mild, giant ‘jewelry cleaner’ in effect. With all of this factored in, you’d probably have the most success with filling the tank with seltzer. It's anecdotal, but probable. Thanks for adding to the think tank. Keep us posted!

DEFINITELY "C". That's exactly them. I get them often. I did keep 1 clutch for a few weeks, but they didn't hatch. Subsequent ones I checked for content, but they were pretty new so maybe I didn't give it enough time. But I have so many gorgeous magentas now, I'll let the dojos decide what to do with the pink eggs!

I see those bright pink eggs just above the water line all the time. I have 5 Mystery Snails, at least I think they're Mystery Snails (🤣?!), and those clutches appear almost on a weekly basis. I asked some friends (you!) about them as the color is not what I expected to see. I've also yet to see them hatch so I put them under the microscope and every time, the eggs are empty. With other snail eggs, I can always see an embryo moving around the insides, but these are inevitably vacant, so I stopped trying to save them. My Dojo's literally jump out of the water to eat them and often scatter them where the others munch on them. I've never seen an adverse reaction and apparently, they're delicious!

I'm a little late as I had misplaced the videos linked below but @Guppysnail is correct in that Reverse Respiration will asphyxiate most anything that relies on oxygen such as insect larvae. We actually tested this on two types of insect larva and recorded two short videos of RR being applied to them. The first one is a larva where the seltzer is applied at 12 seconds in. The second video is better, but the seltzer is applied to that larva at 1:06 seconds in. In both instances, the larva expires in less than 30 seconds. Once it 'goes flat' it leaves no residue. Seltzer Applied to Insect Larve at 12s Seltzer Applied to Insect Larve at 1:06s Marimo algae is quite resistant to RR's algicidal effects and requires 4+ treatments before it sees any damage. It is not uncommon for sellers to recommend soaking marimos in seltzer to accelerate their growth: Using Club Soda (CO2) to Help Boost Marimo Photosynthesis I hope this helps, good luck with the bugs.

Very creative! I think the only way to increase the CO2 is through pressure though. Water would not dissolve nearly the amount of CO2 in seltzer under normal atmospheric pressure as it can when 'forced' to by pressured carbonation. But chemistry can seem schizophrenic at times. In this case, CO2 in water makes Carbonic Acid. Adding baking soda as @Guppysnail mentioned raises the pH so it's no longer carbonic acid but in fact becomes Sodium Hydroxide or Lye! The other common trait of all pressurized solutions being something called nucleation. Basically, this means if you give it a point at which it can release pressure, in this case releasing the CO2 from the water, it does so mostly at that point. This is why seltzer stays relatively carbonated until you disturb it or insert something like a straw into it and that object then gets covered in CO2 bubbles. The straw then becomes the 'nucleus' of the CO2 exiting the water. As an old Breaking Bad fan, I could always relate to Walter White's statement that; "Chemistry is magic". Of course, he was making crystal meth! 🤣

That's a really interesting thought. If I were to venture a guess and it is a guess, seltzer is carbonated at 300%+ of the atmospheric CO2 pressure so I imagine a booster would be eclipsed by this if added to the mix. One indicator might be the pH. There's enough CO2 in seltzer to drop the pH to only 3 so I imagine it what a booster could add would be relatively small comparatively. I've personally tried and witnessed that milder carbonated beverages like Perrier simply did not work at all for Reverse Respiration. Perrier, I believe had a pH of about 6 which is a direct indicator of far less carbonation. I don't have the data on hand, but I have seen that the CO2 saturation potential with a SodaStream and the like can exceed this and drop the Ph as low as 2.5. Since CO2 in water results in a mild acid, carbonic in this case, it's an indirect indicator of how much CO2 is in the solution.

Please accept this as without question to be the least authoritative opinion on GBR's here (seriously), but I've had 3 GBR's for about almost 2 years in this tank. 2 males and 1 female oddly enough. I've seen occasionally, very minor head banging but little to no chasing and no aggression at all. Acclimation was easy for me as the LFS that all of these guys came from, is literally down the street, and we share the same water so in my case, it's always been plop & drop. It's always been at 80*F with quite hard water and has a huge filtration turnover of 1100GPH for this 75-gallon tank. The pH has always been 8 and due to 4 large potho's plants plus twenty, 6-foot+ stalks of lucky bamboo, I have yet to be able to get a nitrate reading. I realize there's so much wrong with this setup as it represents several conflicting climates and continents but what I can say is the health, growth, constant spawning and fry in this tank seem to emphasize (at least to me) the value of a stress-free environment as there's simply no sense of fear or anxiety in this tank. Eggs and fry are almost continuous but there's a lot of competition and so far, they've always beaten me to it (there's 7 plecos, 6 from my dear friend @Guppysnail in here so who knows what happens nocturnally!). I realize this isn't of much help but here's recent a 1-minute video of my GBR's and this international gang: GBR's et al. (1 minute) Good luck but you'll definitely want to ask @Fish Folk or others over me!

Thank you for thinking of me but I really don't know enough. @OnlyGenusCaps is a plant physiologist and would know much more than I. I know more about cleaning them than growing them!

Thanks so much. I really want to dig deeper into what I saw insofar as general stress relief as well. I was taken by surprise, but it was clearly visible they became more relaxed when the tone was inserted. I'm sure work has been done on that somewhere. I just didn't know about it!

I'm so glad to read your dojos are OK. I love dojos. I love their playful gregariousness. I find it to be a bit of a challenge to regulate their food given they'll eat anything and... any quantity of anything! But mine do seem to have a tendency towards constipation. Periodically if they look bloated, I soak their food in Epsom salts and Garlic Guard which has always resolved the issue by the following day. The only time I had severe to fatal constipation issues with my dojos was when I first bought them and had them in QT. It was severe enough that I used sound vibration to clear their blockages with some success. I documented the whole debacle and process. It's somewhat relevant to what you just went through but fortunately, not too relevant! Good Vibrations

Good Vibrations A Potential Electronic Alternative for Treating Swim Bladder Disorder from Constipation My experience in aquatics is relatively inexpert. Most people here are far more advanced and have much more experience than I do with fishkeeping. I preface this report with that statement in order to illustrate why the experiment below is nonconclusive. It has far too few samples and controls for a scientifically sound test. Nonetheless, the results I saw, coupled with the often-urgent need for a resolution of this issue, may make it worthwhile for people to try this technique if and when they are faced with this common, often fatal dilemma. A brief history may help illustrate how this came to be. I have experienced two severe disease outbreaks with new mail-ordered fish. Before these two incidents, the worst pathogen I faced was mild ich. I had placed an order for some juvenile fishes, 12 silver dollars, 4 dojo loaches, and 10 electric blue acaras. I intended to grow out the silver dollars as dither fish for my very large and now infamously aggressive oscar: Just Oscar (1m 46s) When they arrived, 5 silver dollars were DOA and the remaining 7 were white, as if painted. The EBAs were alive but similarly ‘painted white,’ and the dojos had what appeared to be severe fin rot. I began more traditional treatments, but it only got worse, and new deaths were almost a daily occurrence. I contacted this always supportive forum once again for help, and @Colu, as usual, was beyond helpful and sympathetic. I had never seen an outbreak of any kind this aggressive and fast. Overnight changes were devastating. Giant, red ulcerated sores would appear in just hours, and the fish looked to be suffering greatly. The white columnaris morphed into these open, red sores. He suspected this was some sort of flesh-eating bacterial infection and recommended I immediately switch to much more powerful antibiotics. He proved correct in recommending I abandon the ‘mild’ drugs I was using and immediately go to a much more powerful combination of metronidazole, kanamycin and nitrofurazone, as it appeared to him to be severe columnaris and/or worse. In just 3 days it ceased progressing. The sores began to heal, and the white patches began to fade. However, another problem began, one that is not uncommon to most of us. Although the sores were healing, the fish stopped eating entirely. They began to bloat, and many were developing what appeared to be a swim bladder disorder due to constipation. This was particularly acute with my dojo loaches. No matter how they fought it, they would float to the top with swollen bellies and could not eat. Some tried but spit out whatever they attempted to eat. As they could not eat, it prevented medicated food or high fiber foods from being an option, so I had to treat the whole tank. I have in the past had great success with minor bloating, constipation and the resulting swim bladder instability by treating the tank with 1tbps/10 gallons of Epsom salts with not one negative reaction and nearly 100% success. But I had never done so on scaleless fish. This was not tolerated well by the dojos. The Epsom salt dosage above made them frantic to get out of the water, so I reduced it immediately at @Colu 's recommendation. About ½ that dosage they seemed to tolerate. They hid behind filter outputs, but they didn’t appear greatly distressed. But I also didn’t know if it was strong enough to help with them passing any intestinal blockages that they seemed to have built up after two weeks on strong antibiotics. Unfortunately, it was not. They continued to suffer severe buoyancy problems and refused food. And a stronger dose of Epsom salts was now out of the question. Sonotherapy I had thought about some sort of physical massage. But to be honest, I was scared to attempt it as I simply do not know enough about their physiology. I may hurt them, I’ll certainly stress them, and frankly, they’d been through hell already, so the stress factor was prominent in this equation. @Odd Duck is a veterinarian who helped review this document before I posted it and offered the following addition to help illustrate the potential of an electronic massage or Sonotherapy when she has encountered severe constipation in some animals: ” We sometimes strap, ahem, “vibration devices”, to tortoises and other reptiles that have sand impactions or constipation to loosen the fecal material. I think your sound waves may have loosened the fecal material and allowed it to pass. Especially in combination with the Epsom salt. The Epsom salt draws fluid into the GI tract when dosed in people. Fish swallow water, therefore, the salts may have softened the fecal material. It can also be absorbed through the skin and certainly through the gills. Magnesium is also important in muscle function so the Epsom salt may also benefit in that regard. I suspect it was a whole combination of things, but sound waves can certainly have significant effect on tissues and a variety of materials." Being mindful that this had gone on far too long and trying to weigh how much more I would subject these poor creatures to, I decided on an electronic massage with sound waves, or Sonotherapy. It seemed innocuous, and at worst, would do nothing---and it is extremely simple to employ. At this stage in the epidemic, one silver dollar and 4 dojo loaches were afflicted. I should note that the silver dollar may not have had the same affliction---he spun in circles, out of control of his movements. He did not float as typical swim bladder often manifests, nor was he upside down, but rather, he spun in uncontrollable circles; it almost appeared neurological. I put a tank divider in and sandwiched him in a gap between it and the tank wall so he could remain upright which seemed to give him some peace. The 4 dojos, however, were ballooned and unable to control buoyancy: but for all of them, no eating, no pooping---just ever-increasing ballooning. What I used was a common, inexpensive Bluetooth loudspeaker designed for showers and swimming pools. These little devices are about the size of a tennis ball, cost around $12, and will play under water. Once charged, you simply drop it in the water and play the appropriate noise. Portable Bluetooth Shower Speaker, Portable Wireless Speaker IPX8 Waterproof The Brown Noise After that dark prelude, I should lighten things up a bit before proceeding. For my fellow South Park fans, an old episode called “The Brown Noise” tells the story of Eric Cartman’s (the world’s most sociopathic 4th grader) discovery that if the right note was played on a flute, anyone who hears it would crap their pants. Cartman then proceeds to stalk unsuspecting adults to play The Brown Noise in the most public and embarrassing situations to wreak havoc…and well, wreaking in general! The Brown Noise - South Park (45s) Returning to these afflicted fishes, I dropped the Bluetooth waterproof loudspeaker above into the tank and played a specific frequency (set to Repeat) I found on YouTube: 40Hz Audio Test Tone Unfortunately, from here on is entirely speculation, so please accept this as nothing but that. I cannot tell you with any authority that this worked, but I can tell you what I observed. Overnight, 4 of the 5 afflicted fish were essentially emptied. Fecal matter was everywhere and the bloating on the silver dollar and 3 of the 4 dojos was gone. One dojo did not improve, he looked terrible and had been through so much already, so I euthanized him. The silver dollar lost all bloating and pooped volumes, but he still spun uncontrollably. Again, my knowledge of their physiology is too limited to assert anything, but it just appeared neurological rather than swim bladder. I felt he’d been through enough and I put him down also. However, the other 3 dojo loaches fully recovered and are in this display tank to this day: Dojos with Severums (60s) Now considering these fish were in Epsom salt, albeit a half-strength dose, it certainly may be a factor here. However, none of these 5 fish released any fecal matter until the Sonotherapy was applied. Once again, I’m well out of my ken here when speaking of physiology, but I did do some digging on what might have occurred. There seems to be two potential mechanisms in play here---one being peristalsis and the other resonance. Peristalsis is the natural rhythm of digestion---the frequency that the muscles pulse to move matter along the digestive track. This occurs at specific frequencies, or pulses, per second. Sonotherapy is not an uncommon treatment for constipation in humans and animals. It is largely based upon simulating the natural peristalsis frequency and therefore adding to its innate power to move fecal matter along the track. In August 2022, a nanotechnology-based pill that vibrates at human peristalsis frequencies was released, and initial tests have yielded an impressive 60% improvement in relieving human constipation. FDA grants marketing authorization for Vibrant®, a new first-in-class, drug-free treatment for adults with chronic idiopathic constipation - Vibrant (vibrantgastro.com) As one would expect, the vibration frequency of peristalsis varies species to species and is affected by the physical size of the animal, amongst many other factors. To that end, and this is a major generalization, but for example, a human intestinal peristalsis frequency is typically under 1 cycle per second or 1Hz, whereas a dog (a beagle in this study) and mice exhibited much higher peristalsis frequencies: Efficacy and safety of vibrating capsule for functional constipation (VICONS): A randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial (thelancet.com) Safety and Efficacy of a New Smartphone-controlled Vibrating Capsule on Defecation in Beagles | Scientific Reports (nature.com) TIP imaging system (mice). | Nature Communications In my limited research on this subject, I came across one study performed on fish: in this case, trout. Trout exhibited substantially higher peristalsis frequencies on the order of 8Hz or so, some 800%+ higher (faster) than humans. Enteric reflexes and nitric oxide in the fish intestine - PubMed (nih.gov) To return to the dojo’s dilemma, I placed the speaker in the water and played an 8Hz tone into the water in order to emulate the above stated peristalsis frequency. This effectively vibrates the water at 8 times per second or 8Hz. But I noticed no reaction whatsoever. It manifested as essentially a small wavemaker. I tried this for half a day but decided upon another route because frankly, I’m far more familiar with physics than physiology---resonance. As I did not know if stimulating a fish’s peristalsis would work or not, and as I know next to nothing about their physiology, I treated the intestinal blockage not as a physical ailment but a mechanical blockage. Clear as a Bell Please bear with me here as I’ll try to be succinct. Everything in the universe vibrates at its natural frequency known as its resonance. When you strike an object, the tone of the sound you hear is its resonance---the energy you’ve imparted by striking the object is converted into a form of energy that most easily transmits through that object. The most obvious example of resonance is striking a bell. The energy you’ve imparted when striking the bell is converted to the bell’s natural resonant frequency and vibrates as that frequency, or, what you hear. Wind chimes are also a great example, as the low frequency of the blowing wind is converted to the high pitch of the chimes. To that end, I proceeded to look into any data on the resonance of impacted fecal matter in animals. And I was frankly shocked at how much research has been done on this! As this dialogue has already gone on far longer than I had planned, I’ll just highlight what I found on fish. Impacted fecal matter, being tighter and harder than normal, resonates at a much higher frequency than healthy matter. Said another way, it’s stiffer and harder. Therein lies the problem. Rather than trying to stimulate the fish’s natural peristalsis frequency, I tried using a much higher frequency to essentially ‘vibrate’ the impacted matter until it broke up and passed more easily, not unlike what is described in this paper: Efficient Array Design for Sonotherapy - PMC (nih.gov) In our case, that frequency is determined by a combination of the sound’s properties in water and the tank size. In this case, a 29-gallon QT tank was used. As I didn’t know what the optimal vibration frequency would be, I tried a sweep frequency first, which is a tone that varies from slow to fast vibration frequencies and back, cyclically. However, in a 29-gallon tank, dipping my hand in the water I could easily feel that the greatest vibration in the water was at around 40Hz so I elected to use that, as I could feel with my hand that 40Hz imparted the most energy into the water. We now exit the world of physics and reenter the unknown (at least it’s unknown to me). I played the above YouTube video of a 40Hz tone. Almost any tone imaginable is available for free on YouTube as “audio test tones.” So, it’s easy to try different tones and feel the water to see which one vibrates your tank the greatest amount. In resonance, for the most part, the larger the object (tank), the lower the vibration frequency should be. For example, the 29-gallon optimized at 40Hz, but a 10 gallon would optimize at a higher frequency and a 55 gallon, lower etc. Almost ANY frequency is available on YouTube so it’s easy to find the vibration frequency best for your tank. I slowly raised the speaker’s volume and watched carefully, ready to shut it down immediately. What I was watching for was panic or distress, but the opposite occurred. The fish clearly exhibited less stress. They hid less and seemed calmer, tried to swim and appeared more comfortable. As all looked well, I let it run overnight. As previously mentioned, the following morning fecal matter was everywhere. The bloating was gone in 4 of the 5 afflicted fishes; and for some unknown (to me) reason, they actually seemed to gain some comfort from the sound. I could be anthropomorphizing, but what I can say with certainty here is it clearly relaxed them. I cannot tell you if Sonotherapy stimulated their peristalsis, if it relaxed them into releasing fecal matter, or if it broke up impacted fecal matter; nor can I say how much of this was due to the low dose of Epsom salts alone, although in this instance, the latter had no visibly apparent effect until the Sonotherapy was applied. What I can assert is that it did no harm and there’s ample precedent to suggest it may have worked. Something or some combination of these things worked, and the total cost was about $12. Much of the above might be incorrect or incomplete. I don’t know enough, nor did I perform enough tests to assert otherwise. After this debacle, I hope to never find out, frankly. However, should you find yourself in the unenviable position of dealing with severe swim bladder from constipation, for me at least, this largely seems to have worked. However, I do hope to learn more about what I witnessed in the sense of relaxation. Again, it could be my own projection, but I was expecting panic and instead I saw a general sense of calm come over the inhabitants. That alone could make this inexpensive and easy to implement Sonotherapy worthwhile if indeed it was the case. Thanks so much to @Guppysnail, @Torrey, @Odd Duck and @OnlyGenusCaps for reviewing this document for errors.

The little I know about this suggests red light favors hormones and blue light favors chlorophyll production. So red light tends to make plant hormones like auxins grow faster and longer and blue seems to increase chloroplast counts. Growth of rice plants under red light with or without supplemental blue light What that means for results, I have no idea! Ask me anything deeper than that and I'll sound like Ralph Cramden: Homina, Homina, Homina!!!???