Has anyone tried or heard of Eco Aqualizer??

[Anonymous]

I want to publicily say I AM SORRY I CALLED YOU OR REFERED TO YOU AS A TROLL.I was actually trying to be a little funny,but I guess it did'nt work,that's why I had the little green face smiling.To be honest I do believe I mistook you for someone else I guess,it was my silly attempt at humor.
David
_________________
Honda CT70 Trail

 

[Anonymous]

Dave,

I thought it was funny.

The problem with communication in writing, especially in charged discussions which apparently this one is, is that it is easy for people to read emotions into what is written, even if the writer did not intend such.

It has come to my attention that some think I have been harsh in this thread, and in my first post or so, I can understand it. However, in the rest of this thread, I have been doing my darnest to remove any charge to my writing.

If there is any real science behind the ECO I would be delighted to read it, and if it turns out that the thing actually does something useful, I would be happy to use it. At the same time, if I continue to think that the product does not do what the manufacturers say it does, I will continue to express my opinion on the subject.

Lets all remember that when we disagree with each other it does not mean we think less of each other, we simply disagree.

 

[Anonymous]

i think most people reading this thread will get the impression that this thing is bogus. at least if this is the way it ends.

it got real quiet in here when the empty sales pitch fell short of convincing.

i too would love this thing to be a genuinely rewarding product but it isn't appearing as such right now, to my eyes anyway. i certainly won't be gambling my money on it.

let's hear from you Lifer, or else i think you did more damage than good here.

 

[Lifer]

Guys and gals. Please remember that I can not answer your questions right away. I am trying to balance my time between many different things. Righty, I apologize for not addressing you directly. It was not my intention. I don't get on forums near as much as you do and am probably lacking in the forum ettiquette department. I prefer to speak face to face with people. When people read typed messages to each other, body language and inflection is missing so I think people interject their own assumptions about what they think someone meant or how it was said. Anyways, I am still addressing Righty. I do appreciate your input because I believe that you are a fellow hobbyist. You are very interested in reef tanks just like I am. Righty, regarding your point about having an opinion on something before trying it I feel is a little watered down. I say this because committing murder or pouring bleach in your tank are both actions that have a known and widely accepted consequence. North (+) magnetic flux together with far infrared photons and their affect on DOC's is not a subject with well known consequences. You are entitled to your opinion however I guarantee that you have not studied the subject even one iota as much as us here at ECO. I am not saying that we are all knowing, world reknowned scientists or that we are the world authorities on these phenomenon. However, yes, we have had years to look at this stuff and kick it around. I have no doubt that you spent some time checking it out, but multiply that time by a thousand and you will get the time that we have spent on it. Let's see....not answering questions....I do not own this company. I am sales manager and give aquarium related advice. I can not spill out information to you as I please. It is all subject to the wishes of the owner. Also, I have told you that I am not able to get on this forum as often as you might. To do that would neglect my job and possibly get me fired. I am not prepared to do that for the sake of a discussion. I do feel it is very important to address any question sent our way. Your question is about testing. What do you want to know. Conductivity? Oxidation Reduction Potential? pH? Visual/annecdotal effects? I can tell you about the testing that I have done. I am not allowed to divulge anything other then that at this point. Why? Patent infringment. It is a very real concern. I am sure when our Patent Pending stage is over, more info will be shared. I am about to do some of my own testing here in a bit on two identically set up 29 gallon tanks. I will share this info with you guys as soon as I am able. We are also constantly getting some more testing equipment here and there. Apogee quantum meter to test PAR (400-700 nm). This is the kind of stuff I am able to share with you guys....Righty, not to beat a dead horse but you ask "why would I try something if I am already convinced that it is BS?" I feel that it is something you know very little about and to convince yourself that it does not work without trying it to me seems close-minded. We do have a 6 month return policy and would be more then happy to return your money if you found it useless or even not helpful. In the end, it is your choice and I have no desicion but to respect what you as a hobbyist choose to do.....Seamaiden, you ask about Nuremburg. I have known about Interzoo for years and have always dreamed of going. I don't know if it is in our schedule to go but I doubt it this early in the game. There is still much work to be done. As soon as we could go I would love to. I also want to add, I am not the "science" mouthpiece of ECO. Sam would fit that call. I am hoping to get him on here to help answer questions. Well....please let me know if I have forgotten something.

 

[Lifer]

Podman, PLEASE. I have let you guys know that I can not constantly be on top of this thread. I think I am doing a damn fine job so far of responding. Actually my boss thinks I am spending a bit too much time but he sees the need. Please have respect for the fact that I am trying to help run a business, not just sitting around in my underwear typing on the computer :lol:

 

[Anonymous]

Podman, PLEASE. I have let you guys know that I can not constantly be on top of this thread. I think I am doing a damn fine job so far of responding. Actually my boss thinks I am spending a bit too much time but he sees the need. Please have respect for the fact that I am trying to help run a business, not just sitting around in my underwear typing on the computer :lol:

well, what can i say... i am getting kinda cold waiting here in the underoos.

 

[Len]

Then put on some pants. If not for yourself, for the rest of us who can't bare the mental image .....

 

[Anonymous]

:lol: need i remind you :lol:

 

[Anonymous]

sorry, back on topic

 

[Len]

Well, I think the credibilty of this thread has been shot to hell

My apologies, dear members, for the abuse Podman has put us through. Let's move on :arrow:

 

[Anonymous]

Lifer,
Would you be willing to let one of us try this as a demo so to speak? I have 3 different tanks in different stages of their life.
David
_________________
Slingshot paintball

 

[JeremyR]

I'm the most cynical of the bunch.. convince me and you can convince them all. I have ORP gear.. I would be more than happy to put one on my reef system and give you a daily ORP readout.

 

[Anonymous]

Lifer,

Please, help us out and break your posts in to paragraphs. :mrgreen:

The only testing that matters is the testing that shows the effects of the device. In a large sense, it doesn't matter how it works, it matters if you can show the effect of its working. Showing us some studies that show actual differences between water before and after using the device, and we will have something to talk about. And, testomonials claiming 'my take looks clearer' don't count for obvious reasons. Personally, I don't believe any such study exists.
Until you can show me some kind of data, you are just telling me that we should trust you guys becasue you have been studing it for a long time. This is an argument from authority, and is suspect, akin to saying 'you just don't understand, trust me, it works'. This is a classic sales pitch of the con artist.
Another is 'buy it and if you are unhappy, we will refund your money'. You guys want people to buy the product. Asking me to buy it and try it because I am not convinced that it works only benifits you. If you really stand behind the product, you take the risk. Send me one. If I think it works after six months I will pay you for it, if not I send it back. Will you put your money where your mouth is?

 

[Lifer]

Sorry about the paragraph thing. I understand. I am not expecting any of you guys to buy the ECO off of pure confidence. Carl did the tests that he felt he needed to bring this product to market. Nelson Herwig and I witnessed one of the tests in the zoo lab. Forgive the ensueing story because it will be quite hard to explain in words.

Imagine two acrylic tubes about 4" in diameter and 3' tall standing parallel to each other about 1' apart. These two tubes are connected near the top and the bottom by smaller acrylic tubes with a diameter of about 3/4". The left tube has a limewood airstone in it and a collection cup at the top, essentially a protein skimmer. The tube on the right is blacked out and has a small halogen light in a reflector mounted on top. This tube is connected with the "skimmer" on the left by the small tubes near top and bottom and the water is made to circulate between them using a small pump. Now imagine another set of tubes identical to this set-up but with an ECO-Aqualizer connecting the two tubes.

If you are still following me, a lux meter was placed under the bottom end of each of the blacked out tubes on the right. Saltwater was mixed with dark skimmate in a seperate container and then equal amounts were added to each set-up. LUX meters were synchronized with each other by rheostats on the lights. Next, the water pumps and air pumps were turned on to recirculate the water between the tubes and through the skimmers. Basically he had a light penetration test here. One set of tubes was circulated through an ECO and the other was a control.

Within twenty minutes, the one circulating through the ECO had double the LUX reading. Nelson and I tweaked it many ways. Skimmers on, skimmers off etc. but still it happened the same way every time. Then I compared a few parameters between the water in each chamber with a YSI model 800 handheld conductivity/dissolved oxygen meter. This was not a toy. Well....$1300 toy. The water that had been run through the ECO had a lower conductivity reading then the other and a bit more dissolved Oxygen.

Explanation for the lower conductivity? Conductivity is just that. The ability of the water to carry an electrical charge. Now saltwater is quite conductive because of all the dissolved minerals etc. but urine and metabolic wastes are also conductive. As the water that ran through the ECO exhibited greater removal of skimmate in the same alotted time, it stands to reason that the reduced conductivity was due to the removal of more metabolic wastes then the water that was not. The increased DO? I am not sure but I am sure Sam and Nelson have a better idea why.

A pH reading was taken with a Hach system. I can't remember the model but I used it everyday to take the daily readings for the 4,000 gallon reef system I took care of there. The pH was a few points higher in the ECO one after circulation for a little after an hour. Why? Sam has told me of a balancing between Hydrogen ions (+) which make the pH fall and Hydroxide (OH-) which makes the pH rise that is brought about by the negative forces emanting from North end polarity. Of course I know the relationship between these two pH factors (power of Hydrogen) but am still as of yet clear about how this could be brought about. I will ask Sam to clarify.

We wanted to bring this contraption to IMAC with us (and probably should have) but understand that while it was very functional, it was also not very proffesional looking. Plus we had no case for it and we were sure it would get smashed on the way to Chicago. If you have seen how they handle luggage in Midway you know what I mean. We were afraid that if we based our IMAC trip on this contraption and it got smashed.....what do we do now?

I am currently about to make a sturdier and more simple model using ten gallon tanks. Well, if you followed all that that was one test that I was privy to. A lot of testing was and is done by Sam Gamble. I will see if I am able to post some of that info or perhaps display it on our website. However, keep in mind guys, this is not my decision but I believe I can make a case for it.

Well....I have more to add but I am tired and want to go to sleep. I am not going anywhere if you guys are not either. I will stick with this until you all have considered all the info I can share fair. I don't know if any of you will agree with us or see it for what it is, but I promise to stick with this thread until you are satisfied with my due diligence....or you tell me to take a hike :lol: .

I will be very busy tomorrow and I don't know how much if at all I will be able to write but as I said, "I ain't goin nowhere"

Goodnight

 

[Anonymous]

Waves and wave action are generally generated by wind, earth movement in two forms--plate tectonics (tsunamis) and what I only know as the borealis effect (the spinning of the earth, this is what gives us our major oceanic currents and trade winds...the ones that help generate most wave action), and only very slightly by the moon's gravity (the two low and high tides all coastal regions have each day). We do have the aurora borealis which is, for all practical purposes, entirely generated by magnetism, but this is atmospheric, and a completely different kettle of wax.

Need to correct something here. That would be - Coriolis Effect - not Borealis.

I won't comment on the Eco-aqualizer other than my total and extreme astonishment that it's not connected in any way to Marc Weiss. The marketing is the same - it's a very simple formula. Take 1 High School Chemistry Textbook. Input all words from book into a random sentence generator - include your product as the sentence subjects. Repeat.

 

[Anonymous]

ohh well I can't resist - so I will comment :mrgreen:

Within twenty minutes, the one circulating through the ECO had double the LUX reading. ...content removed for brevity...As the water that ran through the ECO exhibited greater removal of skimmate in the same alotted time, it stands to reason that the reduced conductivity was due to the removal of more metabolic wastes then the water that was not.

from the company website (FAQ section)...

Does ECO-Aqualizer need to be cleaned internally like UV sterilizers?
No, it's maintenance-free. Their are no moving parts, no light bulbs to replace, and no cleaning involved. ECO-Aqualizer's specific magnetic polarity kills algae growth and impedes bacterial slime from forming on the internal walls of the ECO-Aqualizer.

So ahh it removed skimmate? Where does it go? This product as claimed needs no cleaning, no maintenance and is sealed for a 20 year lifespan according to the website. ZAP! GONE! This thing doesn't have to obey the 1st Law of Thermodynamics? THATs some product!

Does it turn water into a liquid crystal too? wait wrong snake oil

 

[Anonymous]

MickAv8r, defending for Lifter, I would like to mentioned that the skimmate is removed by the first tube, which he said is "essentially a protein skimmer" if you read his post again.

I feel that Lifter is doing all of us goods by sharing his info and knowledge. His comments is definitely more useful than some of the "technospeaks" that the webpage had, but don't really make much sense to people educated in the subject matter.

However, I would like to see the explaination for the following statement:

Then I compared a few parameters between the water in each chamber with a YSI model 800 handheld conductivity/dissolved oxygen meter. This was not a toy. Well....$1300 toy. The water that had been run through the ECO had a lower conductivity reading then the other and a bit more dissolved Oxygen.

Explanation for the lower conductivity? Conductivity is just that. The ability of the water to carry an electrical charge. Now saltwater is quite conductive because of all the dissolved minerals etc. but urine and metabolic wastes are also conductive. As the water that ran through the ECO exhibited greater removal of skimmate in the same alotted time, it stands to reason that the reduced conductivity was due to the removal of more metabolic wastes then the water that was not. The increased DO? I am not sure but I am sure Sam and Nelson have a better idea why.

I have a feeling someone may have give you a hand-waiving to get you off his/her back by offering you an explaination. I said this because I "occusionally" give a weak argument/explaination to a non-technical manager, and he just agree and leave me alone.

Well, I make certain assumption on the amount of ion in the water because appearantly the skimmer works. So with that in mind, it is fair to say that the amount of ion in the solution will overwhelm the conductivity meter even if large amount of organic waste are present. When the organic waste is removed by the device, I doubt that it will make much significant change in the conductivity. So if the number is handy, what is the before and after reading of the conductivity meter?

The explaination on the change of pH with the magnet is also need to be clarified. I hope Sam will be able to give you a better one if you press him on it.

 

[Anonymous]

Waves and wave action are generally generated by wind, earth movement in two forms--plate tectonics (tsunamis) and what I only know as the borealis effect (the spinning of the earth, this is what gives us our major oceanic currents and trade winds...the ones that help generate most wave action), and only very slightly by the moon's gravity (the two low and high tides all coastal regions have each day). We do have the aurora borealis which is, for all practical purposes, entirely generated by magnetism, but this is atmospheric, and a completely different kettle of wax.

Need to correct something here. That would be - Coriolis Effect - not Borealis.

(Believe it or not..) THANK YOU, Mick! (I had a feeling I'd gotten it wrong.)

 

[Anonymous]

MickAv8r, defending for Lifter, I would like to mentioned that the skimmate is removed by the first tube, which he said is "essentially a protein skimmer" if you read his post again.

Oops - misread the original test - it was late last night (err this morning) when I posted that.

however I just read it again -

Within twenty minutes, the one circulating through the ECO had double the LUX reading. Nelson and I tweaked it many ways. Skimmers on, skimmers off etc. but still it happened the same way every time.

Skimmers on/skimmers off? So it worked the same way with the skimmer off??? (reread my earlier post about the 1st law again)

Airstone skimmers - many of us here have experience with airstone skimmers - you noticed a difference in 20 minutes? Using an airstone skimmer? Did you put the Eco on the other model? Or swap the air pumps and stones???

 

[Anonymous]

I just spent some time searching the web and came up with nothing.

Can anyone find me a scientific study on far-infrared radiation and it's "health" benefits. Google came up with nothing, even searched past issues of JAMA. I don't want to read advertising (30+ pages of Google - nothing but ads) I want to see a real study conducted by a real university - Not the Chinese Holistic Medicine University, not some ad cloaked by saying it was a study from the trainer of the womens basketball team at podunk U. Funny I came up with zilch. Can you find something?