Nanobbules and strawman arguments - Page 2 - Reefs.com

Home  / Forums  / Global Forums  / Skeptical Reefkeeping  /  Nanobbules and strawman arguments
Closed Thread
lnevo's Avatar
lnevo is offline
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,192
04-02-2016, 06:03 PM
  #11  
To add a disclaimer, I am not in any way a scientist or marine biologist like you Rich. If you are skeptical about this method surely you have the facilities and ability to perform a proper study. In the meantime it will be interesting to see what Stamford produces. Until then I can only provide my own observations which I'd be happy to discuss.
__________________
 
Thales's Avatar
Thales is offline
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 241
04-02-2016, 08:42 PM
  #12  
Quote:
Originally Posted by lnevo View Post
It's a textual forum and hard to read emotion. You yourself said you think people seem to hate you. I've been part and have seen many of these debates and they get heated. The topic is not how angry, resentful, hateful there is because most likely people are just passionate about their opinions. This is all subjective data, so rather than tear it down, try it out or don't.
What is amazing me is how quickly this happens. I love the passion, but the reaction to anyone not saying 'Great' is odd to me. I don't think I have actually been tearing this stuff down at all, rather looking for ways to support it.

Quote:
"You said "When people point out this is what snake oil salesmen say."
Absolutely, but that isn't saying it is snake oil.

Quote:
As far as surge devices, they can add a lot of aeration and mimic some of the natural aeration that occurs outside our glass boxes. I didn't say many or every, just that it exists.
Maybe - but again, creating nanobubbles isn't the point of the surges, and most of the surges are creating gas exchange by breaking the surface tension, not by adding bubbles, so it is hard for me to feel like using them as an example of nanobubbles isn't misleading.

Quote:
The rest of your responses dealt with emotion and feelings. If you'd like to talk about this as a potential new method or practice then please pose questions or stimulate debate which so far you have not done.
Yeah, this forum isn't necessarily for the discussion of methods, rather stuff that is meta to the hobby. The discussion I am interested in in this thread is about the emotion and feelings and reasoning people use in this hobby.

Thanks for chiming in!
 
Thales's Avatar
Thales is offline
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 241
04-02-2016, 08:45 PM
  #13  
Quote:
Originally Posted by lnevo View Post
To add a disclaimer, I am not in any way a scientist or marine biologist like you Rich. If you are skeptical about this method surely you have the facilities and ability to perform a proper study. In the meantime it will be interesting to see what Stamford produces. Until then I can only provide my own observations which I'd be happy to discuss.
Thanks! I am very interested in the hobby/industry supporting its own claims rather than making the claims and hoping that someone else will support them. It is up to the people making claims to support them because there are simply to many claims for other people to deal with. And I am not at all claiming that anyone needs to be a scientist to be able to meaningfully contribute to hobby knowledge, or that we need proper studies....just better evidence which everyone is capable of creating. I have an article coming out that talks about this, which may be why it is so on my mind.
 
Thales's Avatar
Thales is offline
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 241
04-02-2016, 08:50 PM
  #14  
Quote:
Originally Posted by greg 45 View Post
Why is it that every time something new comes out it the same issue. Try it for your self if it work two thumbs up. If not you gave the college try .
New stuff needs to be looked at carefully because there is so much of it and so much of ends up being bunk. There are way more things we have abandoned because they don't pan out than things we have embraced. I find the try it yourself idea to be unfulfilling as it is often what people say when they have no support, and then when you do try it yourself and say it didn't work like it was supposed to, you get told you did it wrong - this happened to me recently with ATS. I did exactly what I was told to do with it, and it didn't do much at all...but somehow it was my fault for not doing it right. There are also too many things to try, and gathering evidence that isn't simple anecdote is pretty easy.

Quote:
Thales makes you think and every one is scared to do that . Not sorry Thales LOL that's my opinion and sticking to it.
LOL. I am trying to make people not scared to think!

Thanks for participating in this discussion!
 
lnevo's Avatar
lnevo is offline
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,192
04-02-2016, 11:54 PM
  #15  
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thales View Post
Thanks! I am very interested in the hobby/industry supporting its own claims rather than making the claims and hoping that someone else will support them. It is up to the people making claims to support them because there are simply to many claims for other people to deal with. And I am not at all claiming that anyone needs to be a scientist to be able to meaningfully contribute to hobby knowledge, or that we need proper studies....just better evidence which everyone is capable of creating. I have an article coming out that talks about this, which may be why it is so on my mind.


Ok, so I have a claim, but it's far from concrete or objective enough. Without the ability to perform a proper study or evidence that wouldn't be seen as anecdotal?

I ran nano-bubbles for about 2 months. Within a week of starting it, mats of cyano on the sand bed started breaking up and within a few weeks it was gone and not coming back. This was after months of siphoning and trying to clean it. I did run 2 doses of chemiclean and it still would come back after receding initially (but never eradicated). About a month or 2 of the final cleanup I took the air pump off as I was adding other equipment and didn't need it. I also ran an airline to my skimmer and changed my return pump which now gets a lot more flow. I have a significant amount of bubbling now in my drain chamber since that change. I have not had a recurrence since. It's maybe 6 months ago at this point.

I think by inviting more people to try this for themselves can help us collect more data points to help substantiate those claims. Enough people have seen positive results that it shouldn't be dismissed outright.

The bit that gets people heated is the immediate dismissal of first person observation and the outright refusal to accept that it may be something that can help in certain situations. Think the dress picture how much emotion that triggered. Imagine asking someone for evidence that it look blue and black to them.
__________________
 
Thales's Avatar
Thales is offline
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 241
04-02-2016, 11:58 PM
  #16  
What I don't understand is where the idea that I, and others in the conversations I have been involved in, are dismissing first person observations or refusing to accept that it may help in certain situations. I have seen no one, including me, dismiss this outright. All the suggestions we have made are the next step in supporting those observations.

Last edited by Thales; 04-03-2016 at 12:01 AM.
 
Thales's Avatar
Thales is offline
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 241
04-03-2016, 12:21 AM
  #17  
Perhaps part of the misunderstanding may be that EC makes some hard to support claims while saying they have been doing this 2001 and have lots of data, which they never seem to be able to share - they say they have data but seem to get upset when asked for it. That does make me squint because it allows them to play both sides of the fence by gaining credibility by saying they have the data, while never having that data scrutinized.
The easy to support anecdote, like your experience is great and doesn't include extraordinary claims. Anecdote is important, but does have its limits.

Thanks!
 
lnevo's Avatar
lnevo is offline
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,192
04-03-2016, 12:39 AM
  #18  
So is all of this because of EC not providing the data? You mentioned they had plans to file some type of patent? So maybe they have business reasons, does that make it invalid?

I've seen many of these debates and plenty of people dismissing and making claims that it's snake oil, bs, whatever you want to call it. Maybe not yourself, but there are plenty. I'm of the camp that at this point, the more people that participate and contribute the data the quicker we'll see if this is something positive or not which is why the answer of try it and report back, in the same was as open source.
__________________
 
Thales's Avatar
Thales is offline
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 241
04-03-2016, 01:03 AM
  #19  
I got involved because a lot of forums and groups I belong to got spammed by EC posting about nanobubbles and some of the claims were extraordinary. Almost from the get go, any question was met with aggression and it seems impossible to get an answer to a direct question. I asked about the data their posts said was published in 2015 and the won't even address the question, the make it seem like they never said they published data. If they published something great, I'd love to see it. If they didn't, just say so. When asked about a product they say there is no product, but then they started talking about patents and that they were working on one. I am very confused and working hard to give charitable interpretations of what the say.
I am of the camp that enough people are using it now that it makes sense to do a little more work to get more evidence to support the claims - not robust scientific stuff, but simple stuff that anyone could do.
 
Thales's Avatar
Thales is offline
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 241
04-03-2016, 01:10 AM
  #20  
And then of course, this kind of thing is one of my hobbies. I am fascinated by it.
 

Closed Thread
Thread Tools
Display Modes