Is this product Hype or Truth?

[brandon4291]

Randy, Im dying to know your take on this, it seems very technical and interesting.

Brandon M.

http://www.ecoaqualizer.com/articles.asp

 

[randy holmes-farley]

It is utter nonsense. There is a discussion of it here:

http://reefcentral.com/forums/showthrea ... did=175135

 

[brandon4291]

Nope, on second thought this is better edited for semantics! yeah the freedom to rearrange wording here at RDO cannot be understated especially for compulsive editors such as myself.

Its nice to be able to come here and get a definitive answer, they had me convinced after I read the article and did some googling of the issue. Thanks!

 

[randy holmes-farley]

Thanks, I think.

 

[delbeek]

Randy: I think you can ask all the questions you want from the inventor of this device ... he is a presenter at IMAC ... seems some new additions have been made to the speaker list ... most of them with commercial interests ... interesting ....

http://www.theimac.org/sgamble.htm

Aloha!
JCD

 

[brandon4291]

After reading your link Randy a few times, I am gathering that Aqualizer is claiming to alter nitrogenous compounds through magnetic cleaving and you are stating that you have heard of this chemical alteration through the use of far-red light but not through magnetics? Im about to understand the abstract with a few more clarifications. Habib is giving him a friendly jab by saying if standard magnetics could break bonding attractions that easily then teletransportation is in the near future?!?

The picture of the device looked electrically passive to me, no plug ports or outlets. In the description given on the website, I don't remember reading a mention of voltage consumption but then again maybe I wasnt paying good attention. Molecular chemistry is certainly not my forte, but it seems if magnetic attraction was enough to completely subvert the natural oxidation/reduction-fixation (complete N cycle) requirements of our current technique then this product should have spread like wildfire, we would be under a current magnetic revolution. Alternatively I think the refugium revolution is underway because a simple and effective mechanical/chemical/charge+- altering device to deal with nitrogenous waste has not been made yet--nothing currently beats a photosynthetic bed for handling that rascal nitrogen and its cohorts.

Brandon M.

 

[Anonymous]

You really can't beat nature, now can you?

You "rugged indoorsman", you. I've seen a similar device offered for sale in SciAm and Archaeology mags, and I feel exactly the same way (it's purported to solve ALL my hard water problems), if it were so great, it would have spread like wildfire. Then again, lots of bunk products spread rapidly (thinking of some beauty products right now), just because what the makers really understand is marketing, more than anything.

 

[brandon4291]

Heeh.


There very well may be some kind of kinetic breakthrough on our horizon, a way to alter these compound structures with natural or harnessed energies. Didnt know if this was the one, and I figured this would be the first place to check. Hey, if it impresses these guys its worth a further investigation eh?
Brandon

 

[Apophis924]

Interesting article people. I am always careful of any technology that promises a new break thru and anything that touts reduces the need for water changes. I am surprised at you Brandon with your level of expertise in the nano field i wondered why youy even gave this product a second look, I consider you light years ahead of these companies that are out to just make money rather than to further the field of reef keeping. These companies tend to mix science fact with incorrect conclusions. akin to " well bleach kills germs so if you drink bleach you will not catch a cold" :lol:

It is good that we have intelligent and honest people in this forum that can keep us aware of such deceptive advertising
thanks people.

 

[brandon4291]

Heh Im full of suprises... 8) but after reading so many mixed reviews I felt it should be decided here, in our forum, the chemist's court.

This level of chemistry is definately not my forte...and I was suprised that so many people and organizations would endorse and make write-ups on this device and its associated mechanics while being totally wrong. Apparently many an article-writer endorses this device (some with very high aquarium cloudt) and I wonder if they actually tested the device before backing it or if they are paid heavily (and at that why do all the popular get-togethers endorse the Aqualizer if this has not been properly researched?) Anyway, I needed Randy to decode the banter so I popped in here for quick technical assistance--works every time.

There is a whole lot of people talking about the new wave of magnetic field-induced compound reduction, maybe its just too new like using LEDs as a sole radation source for reef inverts... give her 5 years for the technology to evolve and we'll be in a whole new ballpark in 2008.

B429

 

[randy holmes-farley]

The picture of the device looked electrically passive to me, no plug ports or outlets.

My understanding of the far infrared emitting ceramics (mostly published in Japanese patents :roll: ) is that they are passive emitters. No electrical input necessary.

Remember, anything at room temperature emits infrared. That's the basis of seeing in the dark with infrared goggles or cameras. I would expect that these emit in a special part of the infrared (the far infrared) based on the descriptions, but wouldn't be surprised if everthing did.

I think you can ask all the questions you want from the inventor of this device ... he is a presenter at IMAC ...

Thanks. I saw that but unfortunately won't be going to IMAC this year.

 

[brandon4291]

Randy, Ive been thinking the last few days about what we've talked about and what you mentioned about IR output. So, IIRC this product was also using ceramic elements along with magnetism to supposedly separate the NO3 bonds... couldnt remember if it was one or the other or both.

If it were both, Im interested by the IR emissions from inanimate objects. Living organisms that metabolize and emit heat are the obvious IR emitters, but where does the IR output come from in nonliving materials? Brownian molecular motion is all I can guess(???) and, it seems like the useful IR output from these nonliving materials would be miniscule at best. It does not seem likely this would be strong enough to break the bonding of the NO3 compound (unless the material is enhanced in some way?)

Thanks

B429

 

[Anonymous]

Infrared in the form of heat, mate. Think FLIR cam, eh? Cops and robbers, chases with helicopters and all that.

 

[brandon4291]

Yeah those videos are cool to watch, especially when the fleeing criminal thinks he can hide in a ditch in the bushes just because its 2am and completely dark. Wham! The copter sees him from 1000 feet up and he stands out like a hunkered-down sore thumb. Sheesh, didnt anyone watch First Blood circa 1982?!?! Yes, I was in second grade at the time but I'll never forget the ingenuity of SLy Stallone. All you have to do is conceal yourself in a mud wall and if its thick enough the heat should go undetected...if there is a reed handy then you have all you need for a makeshift breathing apparatus

But, I am referring to the IR output of nonmetabolic materials, things we wouldnt usually consider thermic. If plastics and metals would have a detectable IR wavelength, wheres the source of origination? The only thing that comes to my tainted mind is some kind of kinetic motion of the molecules, and this gives off minor amounts of heat through minute friction..... eh?

 

[Anonymous]

Exactly, which would be (in my mind at least) why cars that have been running, or pavement immediately under a moving vehicle, also glow.

 

[brandon4291]

And these guys are claiming exactly what I wonder, that they are using magnetics to break nitrate compounds or IR emissions from passive ceramic elements>or both?

I wonder if they may be on to something, but not quite there yet. maybe with further development. I was most shocked at the kind of endorsement it carried though. For example, I think the way Dr. Shimek endorses DT's phytoplankton is worded very professionally. I thought this product was marketed extremely well, and is also beneficial in many settings. Dt's doesnt seem to hide behind false endorsements, they have a great product. Kudos to their sterility Q&A I might add, reliable.

He didnt use bold statements that were totally wrong, but mentions the direct benefit to most filter feeders such as sabellids and clams and this is repeatable with regular use in our tanks. For the endorser of Aqualizer, Ive been reading his articles for years and I was shocked he would write so technically about something which is completely wrong.

B

 

[randy holmes-farley]

Everything emits IR unles it is very very cold. The warmer something is, the more it emits. That's why the cameras pick up warmer objects against a colder background, but you can still see everything if you turn up the detection.