Garuf
Member
I'd rather it was good enough for Tom Barr or ceg. 😉
-
You are viewing the forum as a Guest, please login (you can use your Facebook, Twitter, Google or Microsoft account to login) or register using this link: Log in or Sign Up
Active Carbon filter do u or not?
- Thread starter paul.stopher
- Start date
Mark Evans
Member
Garuf said:
i see your point, but you don't always need a scientific answer to show that something works. Amano seems to be higher up the tree than the Clive or tom....no? 😀
Garuf
Member
Mainly because he's got good marketing people! 
Penac w and the like are all snake oil but people buy them because amano says they're good, where as if you're doing it to the letter you're following a system that shouldn't produce algae. Then people go "oh it must be because I put this special powder in that people say makes my plants super healthy" not look at it and go "well the co2's there and the ferts are there and I'm doing regular water changes so the plants have everything they could want so what am I putting this stuff in for?".
I don't think I'm being too unreasonable in wanting an explination for why something works, otherwise I'd still be believing that I need heating cables and low flow are needed, that the earths flat, crystals can heal people and the moon is cheese. 
Penac w and the like are all snake oil but people buy them because amano says they're good, where as if you're doing it to the letter you're following a system that shouldn't produce algae. Then people go "oh it must be because I put this special powder in that people say makes my plants super healthy" not look at it and go "well the co2's there and the ferts are there and I'm doing regular water changes so the plants have everything they could want so what am I putting this stuff in for?".
I don't think I'm being too unreasonable in wanting an explination for why something works, otherwise I'd still be believing that I need heating cables and low flow are needed, that the earths flat, crystals can heal people and the moon is cheese.
Mark Evans
Member
Garuf said:otherwise I'd still be believing that I need heating cables and low flow are needed, that the earths flat, crystals can heal people and the moon is cheese.
you mean to say their not?
.....I feel cheated now. next you'll tell me there's no santa! Each to their own i guess.
Garuf
Member
Horses for courses. I like science and reason, what I don't like is stuff that you have to believe in to see it's benefit. Faux science if you will.
Garuf
Member
We'll get to the bottom of it eventually. I'd suggest that it depleats quickly and the improved clarity and stability is because it becomes a home for bacteria not so much carbons stripping qualities. I've been wrong before though and this is just an assumption.
JamesM
Member
Welcome to the interwebnetmzm said:
JamesM
Member
I don't think I could imagine a day now without stumbling upon a good internet debate
viktorlantos
Aquascaper
I really do not have bad experiences with Active Carbon. But the sponge not worth anything.
check this video. maybe too promo and oldie but intresting:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDiEMFG_ ... r_embedded
All i can say that i run only with NA Carbon filtration on my nano tank for more than 2 months now. Crystal clear water even the bad ass algae disappeared from the very begining which was super hard to kill with any CO2 and Carbo. CRS shrimps are fine etc. Not seen any plant problems and here the carbon is really heavy in use. 750ml to a 20l tank!
check out the high res image to see there are zero algae: http://www.flickr.com/photos/viktorlant ... 9/sizes/o/
a few weeks ago i added the same amount of carbon to my 240l tank. water is is clear there too. works slower but result is the same. http://www.flickr.com/photos/viktorlant ... 4/sizes/o/
do not know how long i can use it, as it works as a bio filtration after a time, but in the nano tank nearly 3 months after the installation runs in 24 hours a day and sill perform like a hell. 5 minutes after water change i got crystal clear water. no coloring along the week etc.
Its not a magic. Just an option for the water clarity. Who worries about that a lot i prefer just like purigen. But for me this is really performed great. Really helped with algae in the nano, clear water, shrimps are happy, no plant problems here and in the large tank too.
check this video. maybe too promo and oldie but intresting:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDiEMFG_ ... r_embedded
All i can say that i run only with NA Carbon filtration on my nano tank for more than 2 months now. Crystal clear water even the bad ass algae disappeared from the very begining which was super hard to kill with any CO2 and Carbo. CRS shrimps are fine etc. Not seen any plant problems and here the carbon is really heavy in use. 750ml to a 20l tank!
check out the high res image to see there are zero algae: http://www.flickr.com/photos/viktorlant ... 9/sizes/o/
a few weeks ago i added the same amount of carbon to my 240l tank. water is is clear there too. works slower but result is the same. http://www.flickr.com/photos/viktorlant ... 4/sizes/o/
do not know how long i can use it, as it works as a bio filtration after a time, but in the nano tank nearly 3 months after the installation runs in 24 hours a day and sill perform like a hell. 5 minutes after water change i got crystal clear water. no coloring along the week etc.
Its not a magic. Just an option for the water clarity. Who worries about that a lot i prefer just like purigen. But for me this is really performed great. Really helped with algae in the nano, clear water, shrimps are happy, no plant problems here and in the large tank too.
Very interesting indeed! Thanks Viktor.
This however also leaves the question as to how does the carbon differentiate between the good and the bad stuff it absorbs? ie. How would carbon absorb the fish waster, tannins etc. and not absorb the good stuff as well such as plant ferts?
This however also leaves the question as to how does the carbon differentiate between the good and the bad stuff it absorbs? ie. How would carbon absorb the fish waster, tannins etc. and not absorb the good stuff as well such as plant ferts?
viktorlantos
Aquascaper
mzm said:
well, maybe i posted these links earlier or not you can read it:
http://www.algone.com/activated_carbon.php
http://joejaworski.wordpress.com/2008/0 ... ed-carbon/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Activated_carbon
The first 2 is a reaf article, but give answers to many questions about the activated carbon.
This not differentiate good and bad things. Removes everything which Activated Carbon removes usually. Some article says it can cause problems with planted aquariums as it removes ferts or cause problems with Iron. This is the reason why i pasted above my tanks which shows there are no plan defficiency on the short and mid term use. One thing i not mentioned. On all of my tanks i do use ADA ferts. Which is weaker than EI or Dry ferts. So if this type of fert not cause any problem then with EI or Dry ferts would not cause too. Just pick a good AC for your test.
Hi,
I agree with Viktor. The empirical data he presents should give us loads of confidence. One of the reasons we get confused (and often perceive information from different sources as being conflicting) is because we fail to remember our objectives in relation to a products performance.
The fundamental operating principle of activated carbon is that it provides a high surface area (on par with the better sintered glass filter media) upon which certain compounds adhere, due to what can be loosely described as a weak electrostatic attraction (Van Der Waals forces). One can think of this in the same way we would pass a comb through our hair and then use the comb to pick up small bits of paper. This attraction is referred to as "adsorption" (as opposed to "absorption"). The expression "activated" sounds sexy but all it means is that the carbon material is made more porous in order to increase the surface area.
Activated carbon does not "choose" which atoms or molecules to remove from the water. It just so happens that many compounds that WE consider bad, for example those that contribute to discoloration, or those that have some level of toxicity, because of their chemical structure and arrangement of orbiting electrons, are attracted to the carbon surface and are held on that surface. Different compounds have different strengths of attraction. Some have zero attraction and are therefore not removed from the water column. Some are weakly attracted and so are only partially (or slowly) removed, while others have a strong attraction and are strongly removed. There is some evidence that some ions/compounds we consider to be micronutrients have some attraction to the carbon surface.
One can then remove and discard the carbon, or, if the carbon is in the filter or substrate, nitrifying bacteria, which also colonize the carbon surface, then have access to an all-you-can-eat buffet of compounds sharing that surface.
So in the grand scheme, based on this operating principle, activated carbon is a very good thing as it removes many bad things. The small penalty is that it may remove some good things, but so what? Just add more of those good things and stop worrying. As Viktor points out, his dosing scheme is less intense than EI or PMDD therefore, if no negative results are observed with leaner dosing, then we heavy handed dosers should have little to fear. One simply has to get over the possibility of small losses in micros and carry on. There are a lot more important things that deserve our attention.
To answer the question of whether one "needs" carbon, well, as Chris stated, one can remove bad things from the water column either by doing frequent water changes, or by using alternative chemical filtration such as Purigen. Another way of clarifying the water is to make the bacteria colony more effective by increasing their population though oxygenation and by better distribution of O2 in the water column. This is done by increasing CO2 levels. So you can see that the question of "need" depends on what path is to be followed and what the hobbyist feels is easier or more appropriate for his/her circumstance. One also has to consider which bad things are in the water supply or are generated by the tank itself along with the assessment of available time and resources when deciding the method to use.
Cheers,
I agree with Viktor. The empirical data he presents should give us loads of confidence. One of the reasons we get confused (and often perceive information from different sources as being conflicting) is because we fail to remember our objectives in relation to a products performance.
The fundamental operating principle of activated carbon is that it provides a high surface area (on par with the better sintered glass filter media) upon which certain compounds adhere, due to what can be loosely described as a weak electrostatic attraction (Van Der Waals forces). One can think of this in the same way we would pass a comb through our hair and then use the comb to pick up small bits of paper. This attraction is referred to as "adsorption" (as opposed to "absorption"). The expression "activated" sounds sexy but all it means is that the carbon material is made more porous in order to increase the surface area.
Activated carbon does not "choose" which atoms or molecules to remove from the water. It just so happens that many compounds that WE consider bad, for example those that contribute to discoloration, or those that have some level of toxicity, because of their chemical structure and arrangement of orbiting electrons, are attracted to the carbon surface and are held on that surface. Different compounds have different strengths of attraction. Some have zero attraction and are therefore not removed from the water column. Some are weakly attracted and so are only partially (or slowly) removed, while others have a strong attraction and are strongly removed. There is some evidence that some ions/compounds we consider to be micronutrients have some attraction to the carbon surface.
One can then remove and discard the carbon, or, if the carbon is in the filter or substrate, nitrifying bacteria, which also colonize the carbon surface, then have access to an all-you-can-eat buffet of compounds sharing that surface.
So in the grand scheme, based on this operating principle, activated carbon is a very good thing as it removes many bad things. The small penalty is that it may remove some good things, but so what? Just add more of those good things and stop worrying. As Viktor points out, his dosing scheme is less intense than EI or PMDD therefore, if no negative results are observed with leaner dosing, then we heavy handed dosers should have little to fear. One simply has to get over the possibility of small losses in micros and carry on. There are a lot more important things that deserve our attention.
To answer the question of whether one "needs" carbon, well, as Chris stated, one can remove bad things from the water column either by doing frequent water changes, or by using alternative chemical filtration such as Purigen. Another way of clarifying the water is to make the bacteria colony more effective by increasing their population though oxygenation and by better distribution of O2 in the water column. This is done by increasing CO2 levels. So you can see that the question of "need" depends on what path is to be followed and what the hobbyist feels is easier or more appropriate for his/her circumstance. One also has to consider which bad things are in the water supply or are generated by the tank itself along with the assessment of available time and resources when deciding the method to use.
Cheers,
