Eco-Aqualizer - No Arguements Please :)

[jman785]

I'm hear to talk about the bio-ceramic far-infrared, technology, that's supposed to be in the Eco-Aqualizer. A lot of research has been done, and they can't figure out if, the things a POS, or if it works.

Well, I stumbled across that it uses NASA technology, so basically I went to NASA's website, and looked for water purification, and then found out, that they basically are using bio-ceramics, to pass FIR (far-infrared), to the water, to irradiate it, which in turn, will work...as I've already found a patent out for a water purification that uses magnets to ionize, and make the water more reactive...then the bioceramics are used....

I'm still working on understanding the FIR technology, but in turn, could the Eco-Aqualizer, not be a lie, like many of us think it is?

By the way, Carl Denzer, or whatever his name is, that founded it, doesn't have the patent by the way, for the device that incorporates the magnetism and radiation.

[jman785]

http://www.inlandreef.com/Testing/Eco.html

I suspect, the white powder...that is around the clear inner tube, is the bio-ceramic material.

[FishinInTheDark]

Okay, this is kind of an ugly thread. The bickering gets tiresome. The reason I posted it is because I find it very interesting that the NASA rocket scientist says it may or may not work, but it does not use NASA's or FIR technology without a power source.

http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=419873

[jman785]

but it does not use NASA's or FIR technology without a power source.

Bio-Ceramic is the product which is made from of various kind of ceramic mixed with mineral oxides likes Silica Oxide (SiO2), Aluminium Oxide (AI202) and ect. The mixture of these materials will emit FIR (far-infrared rays)

Bio-ceramic is made from 26 kind of ceramic with various mineral oxides and heated together at 1600 degrees centigrade and left to coll down. After it has cooled down, this bio-ceramic will be capble emitting FIR (far-infrared rays)

Far-infrared rays is part of the sunlight spectrum which is invisible to the naked eye. It also known as Biogenetic rays (between 6 to 14 microns). Biogenetics rays has been proven by scientists to promote the growth and health of living cells especially in plants, animals and human beings.

FIR cause resonance with water molecules. It ionize and activates water molecules in our cells and blood thus improving our blood circulation and health conditon. The human body contains more than 70% water (H2O) by weight.

[jman785]

If FIR technology is bio-ceramic material, than a power source isn't needed.

I'm not saying I believe Eco-Aqualizer works, or it doesn't work. I'm just saying, I've been researching some of its 'technology'.

[jman785]

Bio-ceramic is made from 26 kind of ceramic with various mineral oxides and heated together at 1600 degrees centigrade and left to coll down. After it has cooled down, this bio-ceramic will be capble emitting FIR (far-infrared rays)

[FishinInTheDark]

Jared,

I'm a little concerned: Three posts in a row from you, the last one quoting the first. Are you talking to yourself? :lol: If so, you apparently are in agreement!

I don't claim to know anything at all about the Ecoaqualizer. If you tell me it's using FIR, I believe you. If you tell me it isn't, I believe you. If you tell me you blow into it like a flute and the soundwaves make impurities dance right out of the water column, I'll believe you. I was just passing on a thread where a guy who supposedly knew what he was talking about says the company's claims aren't true.

I see you posted there! I will be interested to see what the rocket scientist has to say to your scientific rebuttal! You seem to know more about the technology than anyone else who has posted on that particular thread!

Anyway, be careful what you post in this CF thread, because Jared might hear you! :wink:

Conni

[jman785]

Conni,

I didn't direct it towards you...I was just letting you know, what that guy said, was 'wetarded' :)

[FishinInTheDark]

No offense taken! He seemed pretty sure of himself, but he ticked off enough others to make me question him, but then again: I'm no rocket scientist!

[paulsreef]

I'm sorry, I couldn't resist jumping into this. This product has provided more fun, amusement and debate than any other product I've seen hit the market in a long time. People either love it or hate it... and no one's sure whether it works or not. Me? I got one free from the manufacturer when they first came out. I don't know if it does anything or not, but it does make an excellent extended hose barb for joining two lengths of tubing together :-D

For what its worth, I had some fun with this thread on another site: http://www.3reef.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.pl?board=Product;action=display;num=105080033 3

I'm reefguy in that conversation. Never did get satisfactory answers to my questions though...

Paul

Paul,

I gotta admit that I'm a "doubting Thomas" but I'm always willing to discuss things.

Did Habib ever translate all of his findings into English? (BTW...met him at MACNA. He is an extremely nice guy).

Also, with your research on Hydrogen Peroxide did you find any dosing levels that would be safe on a reef tank without dropping the pH down too far?

Maybe it is like Potassium Permanganate and operates in an opposite manner. In fact, if you are usinging an oxidizer like this, if you overdose, the cure would be Hydrogen Peroxide and a quick water change. (I've done a little research on this and while I wouldn't put it in a reef tank, the thought of using it while curing LR is interesting).

You brought a point on the 3reef thread about not needing as much Calcium or Alkalinity. Yikes....that has to mean that he is not testing properly or SOMETHING is no longer growing. Frankly that scares me a bit.

Double-Post

Edited by Jared

[gman0526]

I agree with you. But I beleive that the biggeri ssue is not that they don't know if it does work or not, but the fact that very few people seem to understand HOW it works.

And as far as that 3reef thread seems to me that the guy doing the review had too many variables when he first started the review that now he can not claim that this"Eco-Aqualizer" is God's ultimate gift to reefers.

Might as well drop a 220v line in your tank, pour a bottle of Vodka for kicks, and have a microwave oven next to your tank running all the time (should create a strong enough magnetic field) with all this cure everything magic equipments.

Wait.. I got it I have an idea for a DIY Eco-Aquarever. Takea microwave oven drill an input hole an output hole,run a water line inside a bucketfull of ceramic rings,and run the darn thing for 4hr intervals.

Sounds good??? :razz:

[FishinInTheDark]

You better patent that thing now, or someone will!

[gman0526]

I just realized that somebody might actually try this and start a thread on some forum about it and some so called "experts" will debate for months on the pros/cons of it and no scientific proof to back it up will be presented.

BTW patent has already been filed, so anybody trying to attemp this should contact me for the latest fees for using this new and revolutionary technology that will make your corals grow 1in. overnight (I know a guy that knows a guy whose brother's second cousin is using it and can vouch for me) and colors are so bright that the corals are self-luminiscent (new word) they provide each other with 10000k of usable light. Also this product can cycle a tank in 10 secs flat (ask the same guy). So you know where to find me rates are dirt cheap.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[jman785]

Gman0526,

We are trying to keep the posts in this thread, serious post, about the Eco-Aqualizer. I'm not doubting the Aqualizer, until I get some more proof, nor am I saying it does work until more proof comes in. Although the theory behind the processs, does prove right...but does it really work in this application?

I've brought it to the attention of some of the fellow's at the Gulf Coast Marine Specimen Laboratory...as well as a few local aquariums...where they'll be doing CONTROLLED experiments using this unit.

[gman0526]

Jared what I'm trying to demonstrate is the fact that the product has been out there for what? 2+ yrs and still we are discussing if it works or not and most of the people that say it works don't even know HOW.

And this is a basic example of why you have to try things for yourself and getting real (at least for the tester) facts of the product's effectiveness or not. Just because a technology is harmful in one application doesn't mean is harmful for another. Take nuclear energy, put it in a bomb we know what it can do, put it in a nuclear reactor and most of the time we get enough power to light up a city. Thruth is in the eye of the beholder.When we make our cases in a discussion like this we need evidence not anecdotes or results from other applications.

And honestly tell me how many threads have you read in many forums that started just from a comment like mine about the DIY thing. My suggestion is if anybody wants to prove or unprove the validity of the company's claims, buy one, don't change anything else on your tank maintenance routine, equipment or anything else and come back with some solid, recorded facts before we make a statement pro/con the product, technology, equipment, whatever.

[jman785]

What kind of info do you want recorded Gman?

Such as parameters to the least...

What kind of information would you like documented throughout the experiment.

Keep in mind this experiment that is going to be starting, will be in a controlled enviroment.

[gman0526]

Well that would be nice for starters. You work very closely with GCMSL, you know that whenever an experiment is going to be performed empirical and recordable data has to be obtained. There's only so many variables that can be taken into account when trying to prove anything, same approach should be taken here. We can't prove or disprove anything if we test anything x way and when we test it z way we changed half of the variables involved. How do you know which of those variables is the one that triggered the change?

My point is there's so many endless, useless threads on the net, with so many "experts" saying why it should/shouldn't be done and whenever proof/facts are requested they go into arguing how many titles and college degrees they have and the proof is never there. There's this thread in another forum from a kid that built a DIY chiller and out come 3 electrical/mechanical/thermodynamic engineers telling the kid it can't be done or used because of all this laws of physics. And still after all the hoopla/techno babble the kid's tank is doing great the DIY works awesome, has been for more than 3mos. or so, and still these "experts" try to tell the kid is not going to work.

I wish I knew half of all the techno stuff relating to this, to form my own opinion, and wish I had the means to experiment with 10 different tanks and record all the data that should be recorded, but I can't.

Honestly, in none of the 1000's of threads out there on this issue is there enough proof to validate or dismiss the company's claims. Take the guy that Paul was trying to talk to on 3reef, his parameters where pretty much the same throughout the whole review (other that nitrates dropping), and yet he reports that his tank is better than ever, now what parameters are we not measuring that this device affects that the tank is so much better? But if you ask him what single piece of data he has to prove that it was this Eco-Aqualizer responsible for the change, he can't provide it, more when he changed so many things when he started to use it.

If it works for your fellow reefer, congratulate him, move on, but this doesn't mean that you gotta run and do the same thing.

And Jared, this in no way is intended as an attack on you, and I'm sorry if I chose the wrong thread to express my opinion on this matter. :chuggin:

[paulsreef]

What's he's getting at is that a controlled, well documented test using approved scientific methods needs to be done by an impartial and unbiased third party. The results and methods should be of a quality that they could be publshed in any reputable scientific journal. Anything short of that will only raise more question.

[gman0526]

Exactly

[jman785]

What variables should be considered, when testing the Eco-Aqualizer though? I'm asking this as a question to throw to GCMSL.

What are some things they should monitor, etc?

[gman0526]

There's gotta be some other tests that have been "forgotten". From what I remember almost every thread I have read on the issue has been from hobbists that had stablished tanks and were having "yellow water", nitrates, algae or plain old cloudy water in their tanks.

They mostly state that their params remained stable w/o water changes being performed regularly. If I'm not mistaken there were a lot of cases the nitrates problem was the most significant improvement other than water clarity.

My real concern here is where do all this "metabolic wastes" go after they get removed from the water. Do they precipitate? Have you heard or read anything about sustrate changes while using this?

What about heavy metal concentration in the water?(Fe, Pb, Al,etc.) It's definetely gotta be something we as hobbists don't usually test for.

HTH at least a little.

[gman0526]

Jared, have the folks over at GCMSL been able to conduct any experiments on this product?

[jman785]

They are in the process of a few experiments, I myself have been away from GCMSL for a little bit...as well as on the board, busy with a car I purchased...trying to get things right with it, the AC compressor has a leak, so I have to dish out 600.00 on that...so I've been quite busy...but I'll let you know of any updates George, via this thread.

[gman0526]

I hear ya Jared i've been there myself, thanks for the reply.