A new way to cycle a tank?

[1fishkeeper]

I just got done reading this and watching the videos on the website and I have a question or two. Do you think this would really work? Is there anyone that has done this before? Let me know what you think about it if this is just some BS or it might be the real deal. A plus would be if someone that really knew chemistry really well because all that he talked about didnt make sence to me at all. Here is the website take a look. http://www.majesticreefs.com/Majesticreefs.com/Welcome.html

 

[MGDMIRAGE]

Sounds like a bad infomercial. Even their text explanation page has numerous typos... It doesn't instill the highest confidence.

 

[tat2z_21]

If you compare your tank to a Crash derby then that is probably what you will end up with. I do not want a crash derby any where near my tank. The whole thing about this hobby is discipline and ( $$$$ ) well there is also that never ending need for something new. But if you just take your time, and plan things out I have found it is always better in the long run.

 

[morgan]

when u read it, its confusing and a bit of a ramble i mean this method might work but its when i started reading the speil about calcium which is quiet intresting saying that sea water is between 400-450 which is not true our local ocean water is like 375ppm ca and 100ppm Kh, then he gose on to state that u can keep your ca at 575-650 no problem. im sorry but this isnt good for corals started off good but really came down with no hard evidence and there example tank that they set up they didnt put enough "ph rock" in the tank and he lost like 11 fish and they set it up for him what kind of places is this

 

[Scooterman]

I moved this thread to Boomer's forum, figured If he'd look at it maybe we can get a better picture of what is going on here.

 

[Chichas01]

"My first live rock tank using the Haitt system was a 40 gallon tank, with about 300 lb. of dead live rock."

I'd like to know how you get 300lbs of rock in a 40 gallon tank.:lol::lol::lol:

 

[tat2z_21]

Simple you fill the 40 gallon up with lead.

 

[Darthv247]

i saw that video months ago. some of it makes sense and if you could get those oxygen levels in your tank it would be worthwhile regardless of what nonsense he says about calcium etc.

one thing i really wanted to know if he was right that a nozzle accross the surface of the water would inject oxygen into the water and if a nozzle pointed from underneath the water would inject Co2.

 

[1fishkeeper]

I just happen to run across it and I didnt think that it sounded right. I always do my tanks the slow way I can wait its to much money to hurry it up just to flush it down the crapper. But I posted it just to see if anyone else happen to see this and if anyone happen to try it. Im not one to go for a quick fix or a fast start but there are some people out there that will do it. I just think its my job to help inform people on the right way to do things and the wrong way. I always thought the long wait for it to do it its self was the best that is why I asked one here to get more that one persons input on it. But Im glad that others have said things on this because a few things that some of you said I missed while looking at it. Its always to get a second or third or couple houndred extra eyes to look over something.

 

[Saltyfish]

The more I read on it seems like he says you can only do this with the products he sells.


Whatever I will just wait like the rest of the people in the world.

 

[Boomer]

Comments ? Ok a couple

That guy is a nut case on many grounds.

1. His 8.5 ppm O2, that is just so funny. At saturation in seawater @ 25C, 35ppt, 1 atm it is 6.4 = 100% and he is claiming 133 % saturation :lol: He says check it with an O2 meter. Who here has ~$400 - $2,000 for a O2 meter. Where is his data to back him up. There is none as it is nosnese for the most part. And where the hell does this 2 ppm O2 come from is what I want to know. Nitrifying Bacteria use O2 they do not create O2 :lol:

2. His claimed "the scientific community uses ppm for gas and mg/ l for solids is also sot funny. In the Scientific community either ppm or mg/ l is used for solids and ml /l is most often used for gas :lol: For a gas you can use either mg /l ppm or ml/l. And in the real scientific community they use none of those but things like meq / l or mol/ l

3. He is so clueless on GAC it is not even worthy of a comment. Anybody should know that with smaller pore openings in GAC and using it in a tank, with med - large molecules, the smaller pores plug up fast. We do not want GAC of any kind to go biological or plug up fast. We are trying to remove contaminates not create a Nitrate cycle factory. And you do not want GAC competing as a surface. What happens if you take it out of the system. You cannot leave it in there for ever. There will be a drastic shift in the tanks ability to take on the bioload the carbon was doing. You have just removed must of you bio-filter and poof high Ammonia. So, you put in new Tri-basic GAC. Is it going to fix that tank in time where there will be no dead animals from the rising Ammonia ?

4. one thing i really wanted to know if he was right that a nozzle accross the surface of the water would inject oxygen into the water and if a nozzle pointed from underneath the water would inject Co2.

This is even funnier. The braking of the surface by any means drives in O2 and drives out CO2, unless the room has high CO2 in which case either will drive in more CO2. Saying that if you drive off more CO2 there is more room for O2 is just utter nonsense to say the least. If you have a nozzle on top of the water making the water break at the surface or one below the water making the water break at the surface, you will drive in O2 and drive out CO2.

If it is a nozzle is flowing air across the surface only, there is a increase in velocity of the air going across the water, vs no nozzle and less velocity. When velocity increases there is a drop in pressure, which means the partial pressure or the O2 is less not more That means there would be less, if anything, of O2 going in, not more. And if the tank O2 was in equilibrium with the air the tank would loose O2 not gain it, as flow is from high-pressure to low pressure and not the other way around :lol:

Now if you have a nozzle that is under the water the same thing happens but. The high vel water or air has less pressure than the surrounding water but that outside air usually has more O2 in it and that air is mixing in with water producing a air/water stream creating turbulence, increasing O2. In that stream the air bubbles are going to produce a slight pressure increase from the bubbles, which drive in a tad more O2. As those bubble rise to the surface they will brake driving off CO2. And as those bubbles rise O2 will diffuse out of the bubble into the water a tad and CO2 will diffuse into the bubble tad. And he is absolutely clueless how much O2 a skimmer drives in or how much CO2 it drives off. A properly driven skimmer can drive the O2 to saturation.

You can cycle a tank in zero seconds by adding LR where the cycle is already complete.

"My first live rock tank using the Haitt system was a 40 gallon tank, with about 300 lb. of dead live rock."



You need to think outside the box You fill the tank with water and put in 300 lbs of LR. @ 2 lbs of LR / gal that is 80 lbs. 300 / 80 = 375 % more rock than recomended. So, LR towering above the tank and no place for fish to swim, or coral to grow does count. It is probably a copepod tank. Did you ever think of that, did you, of course not Again you need to think outside the box.......errr Tank. And don't give me any crap about the LR will not be wet, as I have a spray nozzle rainnig down on it

 

[1fishkeeper]

Well I think that answers that thanks Boomer. I guess like I said before Im just stuck on the old wait it out way. I never would have done this method but I was just wanting what everyone thought about it.

 

[Kurt_Nelson]

The thing I don't get with any of these "instant" methods, is why? What does it save you? The only thing they ever really come up with is that "... it's boring to look at a bare tank for 6 weeks." That's it? That's the only reason? Some of them say that their method gets you "better" bacteria, but it seems like they always come back to, "but you can add fish tomorrow and not have to look at a barren tank."

Personally... I think if you don't have the patience to look at a bare tank for 6 weeks (and hone your skills of testing for ammonia, nitrites, and nitrates!), then you're not going to do well in this hobby and should probably throw in the towel before you even start. I am NOT a naturally patient person. But between having two kids and this tank, I'm getting better. And I can guarantee you that if I tried to do everything overnight that I've done over 3 years with my tank, I would've been out of this hobby long ago.

New things are OK, but you just always have to ask yourself what it is you're saving yourself from. In this case, it's just a small amount of time you're saving over the life of a tank. Even if the science DID make sense, it still really doesn't make sense!

 

[Saltyfish]

Comments ? Ok a couple

That guy is a nut case on many grounds.

I like nut cases it makes me look sane!

 

[returnofsid]

Umm, not it doesn't James!!! It makes you look like "part of a crowd!!" J/K...maybe....lol.

 

[Saltyfish]

hey dont confuse me with yourself, that makes you a nut job! LOL

 

[tcduongxx]

I just got done reading this and watching the videos on the website and I have a question or two. Do you think this would really work? Is there anyone that has done this before? Let me know what you think about it if this is just some BS or it might be the real deal. A plus would be if someone that really knew chemistry really well because all that he talked about didnt make sence to me at all. Here is the website take a look. http://www.majesticreefs.com/Majesticreefs.com/Welcome.html

I saw the same vid and on the web site. I did not like the idea of setting up my fish tank over night. A the time I was setting up my 215gal. I used just 300lb of dry rock and 80lb of gravel not live rock. I mix the RO water with salt and let it cycle. Just like my other tank, I cycle it for six weeks and then I put a 5lb of live rock from my other tank and let it cycle for another 3 weeks. I add a damsel add it is did well. I measusre the N, and Phospate and it seem to be high. The thank need to cycle further. I measue a couple of weeks latter and the N and P was down to a non detectable level. I also checked PH/ALK/Cal every thing looks good. I started adding about 4 more fishes and thing start to go south in about 1 week. PH down, Phospate and N went up. Some of the fish die. I thought to my self since this set up is now a F up tank, it would not hurt to do an experiment. I have some money saved from this setup because I puchase mostly dry rock instead of live rock. I got some of the tri-base and I got smart and buy the same rock from the land scaping company it is way cheaper. These rock use to be popular with some of the land scaping, but it tend to kill plant that does not like the high alk. I took my sledge and break the gravel into small one. I also made my own container out of large 6 inch wide PVC tubes. I installed it as instructed and ran it. My water start to clear over night, I think that is the work of the carbon. All the fish did die but not the original damsel I got before the other. I test the water and every thing is great. I am still running the experiment and it is now crossing the into the 7 month using the stuff. I have about 10 fishes of all size, 4 large anamones that extend to the max, a small Leather that was looking bad at the dealer and now is double in size. One hard coral that grew about at lease half an inch per month. All other corals also grew and split.

I am still not convice that all this stuff work. I contribute this stuff working do to good quality carbon. I think the carbon going to fiz out soon and the water quality will crash. If it does not in about 7 more months, I will have to say that this stuff work.

Note: They were saying keep the return water on the surface to reduce the CO2 from going back into the water. Well I did not do that. I just keep it just below the surface and used the power head to make lot of water movement on the surface without make too much splash. I also have the skimmer running. Everything is working great until a week ago. I measure the PH and Alk and it is low. I had some Alk powder and mixed it and dump it in. The Alk and PH did not go up and was low for a few days. I look and found my skimmer was not working. The air line was plug by salt. I clear it out and the ALK and PH rise backup. I guess CO2 is being produce in the water as they said.

I do water 10% water change every three months. I should do more as they recommend, but I want to see how well this stuff work.

I will write back if this stuff fail in about 7 months. If it still works I will write to you when I can:evil::badgrin::idea:

Total cost of pluming, pump, and matterial for the experiment $800

 

[Chichas01]

oh man.
:bang head on wall:

 

[JoshF]

I didn't watch the videos, but I decided to read the articles for kicks.

I have no idea what the products that this guys sells contain, which automatically make me avoid it like the plague. No "mystery" ingredients get to go in my tanks.

However, it's striking how this looks an awful lot like some of the bacterial driven Ultra Low Nutrient Systems (ULNS) like ZeoVit, Prodibio and others. I wonder if the "pH rocks" are some form of zeolith that bind acids, thus raising the pH. Sounds inherently unstable, but who knows. Change the flow rate, and you change the pH.

Also, I've never seen the use of activated carbon as a carbon source for bacteria like this guys proposing. Enough carbon in the early stages of tank development could reduce ammonia spikes. As mentioned, GAC in sufficient quantities pulls out organics quite nicely. It won't do it for very long, but that month or so in a new tank might buffer the fish. It doesn't give you a great cycle, and it's hard on the fish, but it could work.

The scientific explanations are absolutely horrible, no doubt. I certainly wouldn't risk it myself, unless there had been hordes of people trying it. Of course, the same could be said for the other ULNS systems out there.

I remember reading some of the early vodka dosing threads on various forums, and I think I read about Zeo about the same time I stumbled across the Hiatt site. The difference is that there are LOTS of tanks using the Zeo system and others with quite a bit of science behind it, but initially it looked a little snake-oily as well.

Who knows? Maybe this system actually does work in a sloppy sort of way. Stranger things have happened. However, based on the explanations on the site it doesn't instill much confidence!

Cheers, Josh

 

[tcduongxx]

I didn't watch the videos, but I decided to read the articles for kicks.

I have no idea what the products that this guys sells contain, which automatically make me avoid it like the plague. No "mystery" ingredients get to go in my tanks.

However, it's striking how this looks an awful lot like some of the bacterial driven Ultra Low Nutrient Systems (ULNS) like ZeoVit, Prodibio and others. I wonder if the "pH rocks" are some form of zeolith that bind acids, thus raising the pH. Sounds inherently unstable, but who knows. Change the flow rate, and you change the pH.

Also, I've never seen the use of activated carbon as a carbon source for bacteria like this guys proposing. Enough carbon in the early stages of tank development could reduce ammonia spikes. As mentioned, GAC in sufficient quantities pulls out organics quite nicely. It won't do it for very long, but that month or so in a new tank might buffer the fish. It doesn't give you a great cycle, and it's hard on the fish, but it could work.

The scientific explanations are absolutely horrible, no doubt. I certainly wouldn't risk it myself, unless there had been hordes of people trying it. Of course, the same could be said for the other ULNS systems out there.

I remember reading some of the early vodka dosing threads on various forums, and I think I read about Zeo about the same time I stumbled across the Hiatt site. The difference is that there are LOTS of tanks using the Zeo system and others with quite a bit of science behind it, but initially it looked a little snake-oily as well.

Who knows? Maybe this system actually does work in a sloppy sort of way. Stranger things have happened. However, based on the explanations on the site it doesn't instill much confidence!

Cheers, Josh

Hello Josh, My though exactly about the carbon. I know that many people leave the carbon in the sump for a long time even when the usefull period of the carbon is gone. They use it as a bio bed. I did it with my other tanks. What I found is that simply putting it in the sump is not effective bio bed. I think it is more effective in the canister system where you give the bio bed the max exposure to the water and pressure. I like to think the tank with canister bio bed is like what happen in our gut where different number of bacterias compete for food. A few year back, I used a canister filter with Kent carbon and my tank looked great pass the period of the carbon effective period. I was too lazy to remove the canister from the tank. 18 months latter, I removed the canister and my tank did not look the same. I had to make more water change than before to keep down the nutrient in the water. I try loading the canister with carbon again a few months later and It did not work as well as before. I willing to put my bet on flow rate through the bio bed, because I put more carbon in the canister than before and the flow was slower.

Bacteria of all kinds are every where and they are all competing to be the top dog and you need to give the bateria that do the most good the best invironment for it to be the top dog.

I know that those guy are selling stuff. I know their stuff are just like every one else selling it in the market. What I like is the method of bio bed in canister. Activated carcon are sold by many company. we need to find the one that are low in Phospate, the bacteria is free they are very where. The soft white marble gravel is cheap at the land scape yard.

My expriment with their stuff cost me only $200 buying their carbon, small sample of rock, and a bottle of bacteria. The rest of the cost are my construction of canister filter, plumbing, and purchasing High efficient Pump. The canisters are large and will not fit in most people cabinet. You need a back room to hid all this stuff.

Everything is working great now. What I can not figure out is the amount of gray dust comming from the system. I see lot off it when I do water change. It is not the same stuff from other convential tank when I do gravel cleaning.

I will conclude this experiment in about 7 months. If it still work, I will let it run as is. I like to see some one else try this experiment with Kent Carbon and with their bacteria and then Kent Carbon without their bacteria. If they all work then I would have my answer that the method is the key and not the material.

I leave the 24 hours cycling of a tank to some one else. No need to rush when it come to setting up the tank right. I am only interest in long term water quality management

I heading to the Philippine tomorrow for a needed vacation with lot of scuba diving with my friends.

If you have question, I will write you back in a couple of weeks.