Twinstar..what is it?

[dw1305]

Hi all,

but last I checked the general consensus was it produces micro O2 bubbles, and is not an O3 generator.

We think it is a oxygen nano-bubble generator, and this technology <"does have a patent">.

Have a look at <"page 33 & page 34"> of this thread.

cheers Darrel

 

[ourmanflint]

Physics applies the same no matter where you are, the only possible output from electrolysis of water is , H2, O2 & O3

There are zero other outcomes this is absolute!

 

[ourmanflint]

Hi all,We think it is a oxygen nano-bubble generator, and this technology <"does have a patent">.

Have a look at <"page 33 & page 34"> of this thread.

cheers Darrel

Yes of course it produces micro bubbles of O2 but it also produces ozone, it is impossible for it not to. As for the patent, it's just an application in the USA, you can patent almost anything in the US, not valid anywhere else though

 

[ourmanflint]

Did you test twinstar?

Why would I need to? I'm not saying it doesn't work, but it works by very conventional means, there is nothing magic about it. Ozone and O2 will kill unicellular algae, nothing new there.

 

[tmiravent]

The discussion still rolling, nice!

Does anyone know how is made the new chihiros mesh?
Very surprised with that one!
It claims that is no need to clean...

Now i'm using Twinstar mesh in a simple timer/power supply (same result's, not so pretty or fancy)
And Chihiros mesh in Twinstar Nano, just for fun! (this new mesh is crazy)

I find some 'improvement' in water quality/clarity and better look in plants.
I'll put 'electrolysi' in external reactor, still not convinced about the 'white gear' inside the tank...

cheers

 

[iunknown]

The chihiros mesh is much better. I've been using it with the twinstar unit (brain) and have been really pleased with the performance. I dosed too much urea and got green dust algae. But where the twinstar bubbles hit the glass there was no algae.

 

[Ricardo Romão]

Why would I need to? I'm not saying it doesn't work, but it works by very conventional means, there is nothing magic about it. Ozone and O2 will kill unicellular algae, nothing new there.

Contrary to the other copies, Twinstar is not harmful to plants or fish. And the radicals are only available in the water for a few fractions of time. It is tested in the laboratory.

 

[tmiravent]

Hi Ricardo, would be nice to see that test.
Always nice to discuss these gears with some ' sientific' info.
Also very nice to side by side test, in that way we could see the 'things' that are diferent.
merry Christmas to everyone!
cheers

 

[three-fingers]

Contrary to the other copies, Twinstar is not harmful to plants or fish. And the radicals are only available in the water for a few fractions of time. It is tested in the laboratory.

So... how exactly is it not harmful at all? What makes Twinstar different from copies?

Being present for a short time doesn't mean it's not harmful at all, the negative effects are just reduced due to less exposure, same goes for any perceived positive effects. I should note that I think that both the negative and "positive" effects are pretty much negligible with this device, from everything I've seen online over the past few years anyway.

After years of reading about these online, they still don't seem an attractive option to me, and I actually like buying new gadgets. However small, I can still only perceive negative effects on fish/shrimp/bacteria the same as the algae it harms and this goes against my style of fish and plant keeping.

I don't like using gluteraldehyde either for the same reasons.

I can see why it would be very attractive if you believe the marketing and are mainly interested in aesthetics as opposed to the welfare of livestock though.

Some people in the hobby are just more interested in gadgets/technology than biology, which is fine as long as no misleading claims are made. I wouldn't use one if I was given it for free, there are cheaper/more sustainable ways to maintain an algae-free planted tank.

 

[alto]

I can see why it would be very attractive if you <snip> are mainly interested in aesthetics as opposed to the welfare of livestock though.

In what way is it harmful?
😕

 

[foxfish]

I wonder if Twinstar has been a financial sucsess?

I am a member of several forums that have discussed the device and there does appear to be quite a few satisfied purchasers!
That is not to say it is beneficial for our tanks but, the device seems to have made a lot of people quite happy!

I use lots of things that I know are not good for me, doesn't stop me buying them though!
In fact a glass of champagne looks a bit like a Twinstar in action 🙂

 

[three-fingers]

In what way is it harmful?
😕

In the same unknown way some people think it is beneficial. It's meant to "sterilise" or "kill" algae. The manufacturers do not say exactly how it works, but there is no magic device or chemical that can do this in aquariums without also harming beneficial microorganisms. After years being on sale, this device still hasn't demonstrated such an ability - there is no evidence at all - only subjective user anecdotes of minimal perceived positive effects, and lots of healthy skepticism/direct criticism from many experts.

The expert aquascapers (some also sell the units) that have used them can't explain how they work either, and nobody has even attempted to explain how it could have negative effects on algae but not beneficial microorganisms.

In absence of a manufacturers explanation, we have deduced that it is probably creating oxygen microbubbles + ozone -and if this is the case, then it is both harmful to algae and beneficial microorganisms.

http://www.ozonesolutions.com/journal/2010/how-does-ozone-kill-bacteria/

 

[AverageWhiteBloke]

I recently purchased the doctor one from Hinterfield but can't comment on positive or negative effects as yet. The Twinstar without definite benefits was a bit rich for my blood at three times the price. I based the logic for buying it on the fact many very experienced scapers seemed to have used one with positive results, however that begged the question would they have had similar results without using it? I suppose unless someone is prepared to set up two identical tanks and trial it one with and one without we will never likely know.

Looking into the science side of things the general census of opinion that was repeating was that it had an oxygen enriching effect combined with a slight sterilising effect using o3. Hinterfield themselves also agree that there is nothing better than good tank/filter husbandry to keep things in good condition but these are more aimed at people who don't have as much time on their hands as a bit of a sticking plaster.

That's the category I fit in, I like to keep on top of my tank but I also have a very busy lifestyle and sometimes the water change and filter clean have to wait until I can do it so in the mean time it may help. Also, my particular tank is quite good at holding co2 over night because I don't have a great deal of surface agitation which I assume also goes for oxygen being atmospherically absorbed in. Sure the plants should provide the oxygen through the lighting period to keep things in check through the dark period but I guess a little pure o2 via the doctor at lights off can't be a bad thing? I was looking at maybe setting an air stone up on a timer but this bit of kit supposedly kills two birds with one stone.

Regarding the sterilising effect, we also know that Ozone in tanks has been used for some time to kill algae and harmful bacteria. It would appear that these devices have been set up with and internal timer of some description so that they only dose enough for it not to be harmful to fish and filter. It would be good to see the data of what is in fact an harmful level and how the calculations were made to prevent this level being reached. Hence the "algae inhibitor" and "steriliser" versions. One would assume that bacteria require a slightly higher dosing than the algae to destroy it. Obviously because our tanks contain different volumes of water there was no one size fits all hence the three settings which appear on mine to be in 30 ltr increments. So the mini is for 60-120 ltr tanks giving you the ability to tune the dose further depending on your actual volume. Turning it up just increases the frequency its operation. The argument still does exist though that if it kills off good bacteria then by default it will also destroy the beneficial ones. It does say in the instructions (in pigeon English 😀) to avoid putting it anywhere near the inlet of the filter. Again I would assume that would be because the o3 by the time it has reached the inlet has already oxidized with whatever and has lost it's spare o and is now just a fine o2 bubble being dissolved into the column and not sucking o3 directly into the filter canister destroying the helpful bacteria that reside within. My understanding is, especially when we carry out huge WC at times of issues that this has no negative effect on the beneficial bacteria because the majority of it is inside the filter or attached to surfaces in the tank. So killing off any beneficial bacteria in the column is as such no different than carrying out large WC's no?

To summarise I think essentially it is an Ozone creator with some level of control which may be beneficial for people who just need a bit of an helping hand same as liquid carbon is. It provides a mild sterilising effect, enrichment of oxygen levels and kills off algae spores in the column preventing certain spores replicating and feeding off nutrients in the column leaving more for the plants. No bad thing. Yes there is another way of achieving this, the natural way and a way that we all in this board strongly advocate but it's just another gadget that helps same as the filter is. We could all set up tanks using soil and no dosing/filtration with just enough live stock to provide nutrients and the correct amount of lighting to sustain the amount of nutrients and co2 naturally produced Walstead style without changing any water but unfortunately we all buy equipment and lighting that accelerates plant growth to have the scapes we dream of and see in here and we end up buying gadgets like these to make up for the shortfall of effort.

All this of course is just my opinion of course based on what I've read by people with far more insight than I.😉

 

[AverageWhiteBloke]

Just to add to that because I missed my edit time 🙂 Another point may be that I read somewhere I think on one of DW's posts that increased oxygen in filters makes the filter more productive as more waste can be broken down o2 being the limiting factor so the residual o2 created post o3 stripping out whatever it has came in contact with first being sucked into the filter can be seen as possibly beneficial also. I'm all for keeping things has nature intended, I am a purist that way but in this case I see the Twinstar/Doctor has being more natural than liquid carbon. Basically it has used a small electric charge to convert what was already in the aquarium splitting two molecules into two atoms both beneficial at the correct amounts which destroys pollution the same has been happening in our upper atmosphere since the beginning of time. LC on the other hand is a harsh chemical harmful to fish/plants and user if not used correctly.

Tom Barr did comment that o2 is also toxic at too high levels as is o3. Maybe what Chihiros and Twinstar have done is calculated these levels and came up with a product that takes the leg work out for you and came up with a better way of dosing it in the aquarium than previous methods. And that is their "Secret" or not so as the case may be.

 

[alto]

The manufacturers do not say exactly how it works

This is standard policy for any patented product

It's meant to "sterilise" or "kill" algae <snip> but there is no magic device or chemical that can do this in aquariums without also harming beneficial microorganisms.

I'd guess that UV sterilizers would also fall into this category

After years being on sale, this device still hasn't demonstrated such an ability - there is no evidence at all - only subjective user anecdotes of minimal perceived positive effects, and lots of healthy skepticism/direct criticism from many experts.

Both parts of this statement are equally subjective 😉

In absence of a manufacturers explanation, we have deduced that it is probably creating oxygen microbubbles + ozone -and if this is the case, then it is both harmful to algae and beneficial microorganisms.

Again subjective, & completely lacking in any supporting evidence ... if Twinstar were a litigious sort of company, they's have lots of grist for the mill 😀

Unlikely event?
Robert H does a good summary here of Novak's litigious behaviour here

Well you were never really his target in the first place. Actwin and Benn is who he really wanted. Everyone else was just fodder. I just remembered it differently.. like he claimed he served you but you disputed it, he left the summons with a relative of yours, or a friend, or something. I don't know, I don't remember. It was like five years ago right?

Its all old news now any way. Nobody cares about it any more. Its been seven years since it started.You were the only one out of all the people who came out of it untouched. Everyone else was affected by it in some way, some more severe than others. It pretty much killed the APD list and it had a profound affect on the internet aquarium community. The Usernet is completely out of the picture, and there is not any thriving un moderated aquarium forum in existence any more. Most of the defendants aren't even involved in the hobby today, at least publically.

There were APD list folk that I rather liked that ended up in bankruptcy & losing their homes during this bizarre lawsuit

 

[AverageWhiteBloke]

I guess what would put this thing to bed would be to see some data that benefitted both manufacturer and consumer in the same way we look at ferts and co2.

EI was proven to be at a level that the plants cannot consume any more regardless of lighting whilst salts were not at toxic levels to the fish.
Co2 is recommended at 30ppm which is beneficial to Plants while not stressing the fish.

In the same way so as to negate placebo effect, better original Plants or external source of lighting or tank differences it would be best using a single tank and be able to fill in the following blanks...

Based on the assumptions that a small amount of Ozone and killing of algae spores/ bacteria both beneficial and not so is of benefit in the column and increased oxygen levels makes the filter more productive. The data would have to look something like...

Test tank which was shown to contain "x" amount of bacteria count and "y" amount of algae spores per (method of measurement) after dosing with Twinstar for (measure of time) showed that "x" and "y" reduced by (whatever) and at no time did the levels of o3 or o2 reach values known to be toxic to fauna being "a" ppm of o2 and "b" ppm of o3.

Fill those blanks in and that could end it. Maybe getting those parameters is an expensive situation if done by a certified body of some kind and the reason there is no data from back this up due to financial constraints. In the case of Twinstar they have had to R and D and organise the tooling whereas Chihiros have just copied the engineering which would explain firstly the price difference and because existing technology has been used but maybe implemented better no patents have been infringed or created hence no litigation had ensued.

 

[three-fingers]

This is standard policy for any patented product

This has already been stated, however that doesn't make it a good policy.

I believe it stifles both individual hobbyists learning and the development of science related to the hobby and lowers trust in their product. You are allowed to have a different opinion, I'm personally more interested in discussing the science of how the Twinstar works (or doesn't) than the reasons why the manufacturer won't tell us, I'll leave that speculation to others 😉.

I'd guess that UV sterilizers would also fall into this category

Not at all, UV sterilisers aren't magic to people who know how they work. Totally different from Twinstar as they claim to do totally different things, in different ways.

At the right flowrate UV units kill greenwater, along with both beneficial and pathogenic bacteria only in the UV chamber, you don't irradiate the whole tank with a short burst of UVC to somehow kill the baddies while leaving the goodies unharmed.

The Twinstar floods the whole water column for short space of time with something that is claimed to kill algae and pathogenic bacteria depending on the "controller" unit the electrolysis disc is attached. Twinstar make no claims it doesn't harm beneficial bacteria on the tanks surfaces, animals bodies and anything else the O3 comes into contact with, so with my understanding of physics and biology I can only presume that it does harm these beneficial bacteria and potentially the sensitive parts of fish/shrimp.

I think this harm is very minimal, possibly negligible, but only because the "positive" anti-algae effects are minimal too. Have you seen the picture in this thread of the disc covered in algae?

I'd rather have a nearly negligible amount of extra algae in my tank than subject my animals to this unknown quantity, then there's the cost of the unit + replacement parts and the space it takes up in the tank...and time cleaning it when it gets covered in algae.

Both parts of this statement are equally subjective 😉

Not sure what point you are trying to make here - there is only subjective evidence available on this devices abilities in aquariums at the moment, I think that fact says a lot after so many years of the product being available. Burden of proof is on Twinstar or it's users to provide objective evidence that it works as advertised, not the other way around. Regardless, I just post my opinions and try to explain them thoroughly. I would never try to imply my opinions are free from subjectivity...lets leave the philosophy for another thread now though.

Again subjective, & completely lacking in any supporting evidence ... if Twinstar were a litigious sort of company, they's have lots of grist for the mill 😀

Again...not sure what point you are making? Did I imply anywhere that Twinstar were a litigious company? I don't think they are, they may be, but I don't care either way. I think they are a company with great marketing and a crap product, I have have no further opinion on their business practices at this time.

Unlikely event?
Robert H does a good summary here of Novak's litigious behaviour here

OK, I'm still not sure how this is relevant to anything quoted in my post. I did read that thread, but I still don't know why. Maybe your trying to imply I should be scared of Twinstar because of my opinion of their product?

There were APD list folk that I rather liked that ended up in bankruptcy & losing their homes during this bizarre lawsuit

I am sorry for your loss.

 

[rebel]

Haha I agree on the burden of proof statement. It's actually a common issue when discussing matters with pseudo scientists so it's important understanding that concept.

Sorry OT, back to the twinstar and Tatooine.

 

[Ricardo Romão]

@three-fingers

Please let me ask you, did you ever user twinstar? I mean the real, not the fake.

Of course it can get algae, so because of it, it means that twinstar does not work? If you have the same car accident in a porsche or in a fiat, of course, you can die in both, but where do you think you will have a higher probability to die? If you die in the porsche it means that the security in both cars are the same? 🙂

Algae depends on many factors. If you have 100mg/l of NO3 and 0mg/l of PO4, you expect no algae?

Twinstar is very effective to inhibit green algae. It is easy to test. Just put one in your aquarium and you will see you will have to clean the glasses much less. Easy, very easy test.

Of course again twinstar will not explain exactly how it works, step by step, only why it works. Chinese already try to copy without it. Would you explain it? To allow others to copy your technology? When you go buy a car, do you ask more about specifications in turbo or something else? Manufacturers will not show you, only horse power, cc, emissions and so on...

Please see the pictures bellow and look how clean, crystal clear and how collorful they look like. The second one is one a shop, here you can see the video (with twintar light and twinstar sterilizer), this way you can see it is not photoshop:

 

[Ricardo Romão]

150 days the first and the second less than 2 months I think