Bakki Shower/Bacteria House vs Conventional Submerged Filtration System.

[PapaBear]

Quote: Originally Posted by Valarc I happen to know for a fact that the moon is made of green cheese - but no one gave me the fairy dust and unicorn poop I need to prove it, so it's difficult for me to write it out here. I don't have the data, yet I claim to know for a fact - proving I have absolutely no understanding of the scientific process.

The Fairy Dust is on the moon,(didn't you see it kick up when Neal Armstrong was running around up there??? ) and it is protecting the cheese. Kinda like the powdery film on a round of gouda. The Unicorn Poop is hidden deep within the craters on the dark side which means you'll have to go over to the dark side to prove your theory . (just don't take luke with you for he must never go over to the dark side)

[bekko]

Quote: After using BH for 5 months now, I am of the opinion that is an excellent media and superior to lava rock.

But James, if you don't have lava rock then where will you get the Yellow Cosmic Rays needed to keep the system in harmony?

Quote: I have not done an experiment yet where there is no water change.

Remember SMG's BH test? She said that without water exchange the water got very funky (technical term for "yucky").

MikeM, only free ammonia (un-ionized ammonia) can be volatilized away to the atmosphere. Free (un-ionized) ammonia is gasious while ionized ammonia is water soluble. Therefore the process is pH dependent and happens to a much higher degree at high pH. Ammonia has to be converted to its more toxic form before it has any chance of being volatilized away. Only 1-2% of the total ammonia is in the form of free ammonia in the typical koi pond. Nonetheless, I agree that the volatilization of ammonia is probably significant because of the heavy aeration in a koi pond. Because they are in equilibrium, when that 1-2% of the free ammonia is volatilized away, more ionized ammonia is immediately converted to free ammonia.

There are only three ways to get nitrate out of a koi pond:
1) water exchange - flush it away
2) denitrification - an anaerobic process where the oxygen in nitrate is scavenged by microbes producing ammonia and free nitrogen (N2 gas). The N2 gas can volatilize away to the atmosphere.
3) uptake of nitrate by plants - Note, that to remove nitrate from the system using plants, the plants have to be cut and thrown away. Otherwise, when the plant leaf dies, the nitrogen is returned to the water. For single cell algae, the algae have to be flushed away with water exchange before the cell can die and decompose in order to permanently get rid of the nitrogen.

You hear a lot of people say that a trickle tower increases aeration and lowers nitrate levels. Which one of the above three way of removing nitrate does a trickle tower use? Strangely enough, a trickle lowers nitrate by providing a site for anaerobic denitrification!! "Hogwash" you say. How can there be anaerobic processes in a trickle tower? Well, the anaerobic sites can be very small (a hundred microns or so) and trapped within biofilm or a small crevice. All that aeration means that nitrogen gas is immediately swept away and not converted back to ammonia. That's the only possible explaination.

-st evehopkins

[MikeM]

Well, Steve, no disagreement with the main points you make, but at pH 8.0 I think degassing 30% 0f the pond volume every hour can have a material effect. Add heavy aeration of another 25% per hour and the impact multiplies. Nitrate level is maintained at a lower level because there is less ammonia to nitrify. .. just my thoughts.

[dtbh]

Quote: Originally Posted by MikeM A couple of comments. First, having seen pics of the koi dtbh cultivates, we could all wish to do so well. Hard to imagine doing better short of a mud pond or Momotaro's greenhouse. Second, if the fresh water is that high in nitrate, the system is doing extremely well to maintain the level so close to the source level. Third, to the extent a Bakki-type system results in lower nitrate levels, I'd look at degassing effects lowering ammonia levels, which in turn produces lower nitrate. [I recently read a post about an experiment that concluded there was no reduction in ammonia levels as a result of degassing. This conclusion is contradicted by my personal experience. I think everyone has smelled the ammonia released in the atmosphere by degassing units, open trickle systems and the like.] Fourth, I do not believe that I've read or heard of anyone with a Bakki-type system concluding that they do not work, but much disagreement about how they work and the comparative benefits of less expensive alternatives. I think sometimes the discussion gets extreme when someone de-bunking a claim regarding how it works goes further to say this sort of system does not work. Perhaps not the cure-all some would like it to be, but not many ponds would be unimproved by the addition of a shower system, whether it be an open shower like the Bakki-type systems or the enclosed shower of a trickle tower. As an aside: dtbh, how about progress shots of your Shiro Utsuri some time soon?

Hi Mike, the shiro utsuri has been placed in a 700 ton pond at a dealer's premise as she was growing too big for my pond...she was showing signs of a lateral bend at the front mid-third. Hopefully it will help. It has been 2 months now. I will net her some time end of this month to see any development either way and take some photos. From what I can see 3 weeks ago her sumi has developed further.

Thanks, dtbh

[PapaBear]

Quote: Originally Posted by bekko ...You hear a lot of people say that a trickle tower increases aeration and lowers nitrate levels. Which one of the above three way of removing nitrate does a trickle tower use? Strangely enough, a trickle lowers nitrate by providing a site for anaerobic denitrification!! "Hogwash" you say. How can there be anaerobic processes in a trickle tower? Well, the anaerobic sites can be very small (a hundred microns or so) and trapped within biofilm or a small crevice. All that aeration means that nitrogen gas is immediately swept away and not converted back to ammonia. That's the only possible explaination. -st evehopkins

Excellent point and often overlooked or ignored altogether. Our favorite biobugs exist on a microscopic level as does the work they do for us. In the case of clay and rock type media in particular all they need is a thin film of scum to live outside the aerobic environment, but nitrite and nitrate exist at an even smaller molecular level which easily communicates through that same film.

[bekko]

We're saying the same thing Mike, but I did not express the point well. Conventional wisdom is that ammonia volatilization is rarely a significant factor because of the pH thing. However, koi ponds may be a special case because of the large amount of aeration. Of course, you are also correct that if the ammonia excapes to the atmosphere there can be no nitrate.

-steve

[junglegeorge12]

Actually val the moon is made up of star dust. Your physics teacher must have been wrong.

I have a piece of BH sitting on front of me, and one day will probably pick it up and take it to a geological lab a friend works at and have it analyzed. But, with that list from JR it would eliminate lots of work and save time. And yes, val, I do know it works. The way you talk is really pathetic. You accost it, even though it works and folks with decades of experience are saying so, but have nothing constructive or informative to contribute to the discussion on why. Only personal assaults to make on those who support it's makers claims. If you were what you claim you should easily be able to tell us in one post why it works, even if it is not FIR. So go ahead. I will hold my breath while waiting. Oh I forgot, when it comes to why it works you are basically clueless. Yet your only claim is that you know it all and are a great scientist? Yeah right, that's why you have ten hours a day to chat online, cuz all NSF research facilities pay folks for that don't they??? Do they pay you to mock people? Or is it just your sick pastime? Mockers and dead people have two things in common, they are utterly worthless and accomplish nothing, and their words are pointless.

You obviously have a very unhealthy obsession with bashing a product that you do not even have or have a clue as to how it works,a nd people you have never even met??? Kind of a wierd obsession to have. Hours and days you spend online weekly bashing it, and vulturously looking for the next thread on it so you can accost and belittle me and others. And you make continuous comments about my mental health??? I think you need a good clean mirror.

At least JR is trying to understand it. Why not lay off until you do? That materials list would enable me to find out very quickly what piezo, dielectric, and ferroelectric properties BH has. The FIR properties would require quite a bit more work to investigate.
Do you also deny the reality of piezoelectricity or ferroelectricity val? Is that fairy dust too? Has your great community college science teacher told you all that stuff is make believe too? If you are such a great knowledgeable scientist why don't you tell us all what piezoelectric ceramics are made of and how they are made, and how they work, then do the same with ferroelectric ceramics, the dielectrics ok? While you are at it explain the effects of the electromagnetic fields each creates and what causes electromagnetic fields. C'mon if you are who you say you are it should take less than 3 minutes.

[bekko]

shhhhhh.......

[KoiCop]

Quote: Originally Posted by bekko shhhhhh.......

Yeah, what he said. Don

[Valarc]

George if you want to keep mocking my science - feel free, come visit me. Emory University, Math and Physics Center - first floor. Ask around for the guy with the koi - they will point you in my direction. Explain your nutjob theories about piezoelectricity causing the emission of far infrared rays which can affect biological processes. I'll make sure I invite the biophysicisits down the hall who use the full spectrum of infrared radiation to study cellular structure, exactly BECAUSE its photons are too weak to cause any measurable changes in the systems. When they hear your idiotic theories, I'm quite sure they will laugh you out of the building. Would you like my supervisor's email address so you can follow through with your threat and try to get me fired? Of course, he would probably forward your message to his colleagues so they could share the laugh.

Nowhere, ever, have I ever claimed BHM does not work. I have simply stated that the far infrared nonsense is exactly that - nonsense. As to why I don't explain why it works - my field of study is physics. I understand the physics and can assure you that far infrared radiation is not having any effect whatsoever. I do not, however, know the chemistry, or the biology - so I will leave it to others to explore. Unlike you, I only talk about things I actually know - you clearly spout off at the mouth about things you don't comprehend.

I've been good lately about ignoring your posts when I see that "click here to read the post" button, but I had to give in to the temptation. It is truly a sad state of affairs that we are incapable of having a discussion about bakki showers without you polluting the threads with your false science and your lunatic ramblings.

Edit: sorry everyone, I let myself get dragged in by his nonsense again - I won't be replying to any more of his crap - I hope this discussion keeps going because there's been some excellent info.