What do bio balls do???
- Thread starter asharp13
- Start date
florida joe
Well-Known Member
All media can become impacted with detritus. And when it does it is a good idea to clean it. Bio balls are basically in one area and are easier to remove and clean.
never really been a fan of them
so I can assume you have used them at one time. what was it about them that you did not like ?
never really been a fan of them
so I can assume you have used them at one time. what was it about them that you did not like ?
pezenfuego
Active Member
Bioballs that float halfway out of the water are incredibly inefficient at housing aerobic bacteria. IMO
I would take the side of the LR rubble. If you can find some places, they will allow you to take a lot of rubble from their bins of LR for cheapcheapcheap. But if you're only option is to buy LR and break it, I would much rather go with the bioballs for simplicity and price reasons.
It is your choice, you have to weigh the pros and cons. As said before, bioballs are easy to clean and LRR is not. One advantage to LRR though, is that it can house some anaerobic bacteria that is able to convert nitrates to nitrogen and oxygen. Which is something that bioballs can't do.
I would take the side of the LR rubble. If you can find some places, they will allow you to take a lot of rubble from their bins of LR for cheapcheapcheap. But if you're only option is to buy LR and break it, I would much rather go with the bioballs for simplicity and price reasons.
It is your choice, you have to weigh the pros and cons. As said before, bioballs are easy to clean and LRR is not. One advantage to LRR though, is that it can house some anaerobic bacteria that is able to convert nitrates to nitrogen and oxygen. Which is something that bioballs can't do.
florida joe
Well-Known Member
Bioballs that float halfway out of the water are incredibly inefficient at housing aerobic bacteria. IMO
why do you think so
One advantage to LRR though, is that it can house some anaerobic bacteria that is able to convert nitrates to nitrogen and oxygen. Which is something that bioballs can't do.
Oxygen ?
why do you think so
One advantage to LRR though, is that it can house some anaerobic bacteria that is able to convert nitrates to nitrogen and oxygen. Which is something that bioballs can't do.
Oxygen ?
pezenfuego
Active Member
Originally Posted by florida joe
http:///forum/post/3132572
why do you think so
Some bioballs sink (that I have had). I wish I could remember the brand but there was one type that floated WAY too much, more than normal bioballs would. I just think that you are losing surface area if less than half the bioball is in the water. However, if you have a lot, then the ones on top would sink the lower ones.
This just seemed to be a notable thing to include.
http:///forum/post/3132572
why do you think so
Some bioballs sink (that I have had). I wish I could remember the brand but there was one type that floated WAY too much, more than normal bioballs would. I just think that you are losing surface area if less than half the bioball is in the water. However, if you have a lot, then the ones on top would sink the lower ones.
This just seemed to be a notable thing to include.
pezenfuego
Active Member
Originally Posted by florida joe
http:///forum/post/3132572
why do you think so
Oxygen ?
NO3 is nitrate, correct?
If nitrogen trioxide (is it trioxide...idk anyway)
Subtract the nitrogen and you get...oxygen.
At least that's the way I see it. Feel free to prove me wrong, I love to learn.
http:///forum/post/3132572
why do you think so
Oxygen ?
NO3 is nitrate, correct?
If nitrogen trioxide (is it trioxide...idk anyway)
Subtract the nitrogen and you get...oxygen.
At least that's the way I see it. Feel free to prove me wrong, I love to learn.
stanlalee
Active Member
Originally Posted by reefkprZ
http:///forum/post/3132368
I call it innefficient because of the surface area avaiable for the square inch of space consumed.
bioballs have 3-6x the surface area of lava rock and even the most porous liverock can not compare to the surface area of bioballs. liverock has many other benefits but surface area (comparitively speaking) isn't one of them. most people put in liverock because they dont want to do bioball maintenence but it doesn't function better aerobically. liverock does have the benefit of anaerobic area which bioballs dont have.
http:///forum/post/3132368
I call it innefficient because of the surface area avaiable for the square inch of space consumed.
bioballs have 3-6x the surface area of lava rock and even the most porous liverock can not compare to the surface area of bioballs. liverock has many other benefits but surface area (comparitively speaking) isn't one of them. most people put in liverock because they dont want to do bioball maintenence but it doesn't function better aerobically. liverock does have the benefit of anaerobic area which bioballs dont have.
pezenfuego
Active Member
Originally Posted by Stanlalee
http:///forum/post/3132633
bioballs have 3-6x the surface area of lava rock and even the most porous liverock can not compare to the surface area of bioballs. liverock has many other benefits but surface area (comparitively speaking) isn't one of them. most people put in liverock because they dont want to do bioball maintenence but it doesn't function better aerobically. liverock does have the benefit of anaerobic area which bioballs dont have.
I do believe this to be incorrect. Put a smooth mentos in diet cola. Then try one that has the tiny little bumps. The one with the tiny bumps does WAY better.
Think of it like a golf ball. A golf ball has tons of surface area due to the little indentations. Live rock has WAY more little indentations, nooks, crannies, and such ie more surface area. At least I believe this is what Reefkprz was thinking when he said this.
http:///forum/post/3132633
bioballs have 3-6x the surface area of lava rock and even the most porous liverock can not compare to the surface area of bioballs. liverock has many other benefits but surface area (comparitively speaking) isn't one of them. most people put in liverock because they dont want to do bioball maintenence but it doesn't function better aerobically. liverock does have the benefit of anaerobic area which bioballs dont have.
I do believe this to be incorrect. Put a smooth mentos in diet cola. Then try one that has the tiny little bumps. The one with the tiny bumps does WAY better.
Think of it like a golf ball. A golf ball has tons of surface area due to the little indentations. Live rock has WAY more little indentations, nooks, crannies, and such ie more surface area. At least I believe this is what Reefkprz was thinking when he said this.
florida joe
Well-Known Member
Subtract the nitrogen and you get...oxygen.
And just how does this separation take place? With out interaction between air and nitrogen gas in our tank all living things would die do to oxygen starvation .
Nitrogen and oxygen are two different elements nitrogen does not have the ability to give off oxygen but if so please school me
Ammonia NH3 burns in oxygen to produce nitrogen dioxide NO2 and water. There is not a reverse process where nitrogen gas produces oxygen but if there is please school me as I also love to learn
And just how does this separation take place? With out interaction between air and nitrogen gas in our tank all living things would die do to oxygen starvation .
Nitrogen and oxygen are two different elements nitrogen does not have the ability to give off oxygen but if so please school me
Ammonia NH3 burns in oxygen to produce nitrogen dioxide NO2 and water. There is not a reverse process where nitrogen gas produces oxygen but if there is please school me as I also love to learn
posiden
Active Member
Originally Posted by florida joe
http:///forum/post/3132739
And just how does this separation take place? With out interaction between air and nitrogen gas in our tank all living things would die do to oxygen starvation .
Nitrogen and oxygen are two different elements nitrogen does not have the ability to give off oxygen but if so please school me
Ammonia NH3 burns in oxygen to produce nitrogen dioxide NO2 and water. There is not a reverse process where nitrogen gas produces oxygen but if there is please school me as I also love to learn
About the only way I know of, is through the thing we hate in our tanks. Cyanobacteria.
http:///forum/post/3132739
And just how does this separation take place? With out interaction between air and nitrogen gas in our tank all living things would die do to oxygen starvation .
Nitrogen and oxygen are two different elements nitrogen does not have the ability to give off oxygen but if so please school me
Ammonia NH3 burns in oxygen to produce nitrogen dioxide NO2 and water. There is not a reverse process where nitrogen gas produces oxygen but if there is please school me as I also love to learn
About the only way I know of, is through the thing we hate in our tanks. Cyanobacteria.
pezenfuego
Active Member
Originally Posted by Posiden
http:///forum/post/3132809
About the only way I know of, is through the thing we hate in our tanks. Cyanobacteria.
Disclaimer: *This is not through research, don't take it to heart*
NH3 is ammonia and the converting bacteria utilizes the oxygen in water (which is why it is aerobic) and converts the H3 to water by utilizing the O2. Then the it uses some extra O2 and creates NO2 which is nitrite. After that another bacteria adds another oxygen ion to get NO3. Then the anaerobic bacteria splits the N from the O3 to give you Nitrogen and oxygen. Hence why there are bubbles on your LR sometimes. Of course cyano does the same thing to produce oxygen
But I don't know this for sure, it is a major spitball. I would ask a biology and/or chemistry teacher at school, but I doubt they would have a clue to tell you the truth.
http:///forum/post/3132809
About the only way I know of, is through the thing we hate in our tanks. Cyanobacteria.
Disclaimer: *This is not through research, don't take it to heart*
NH3 is ammonia and the converting bacteria utilizes the oxygen in water (which is why it is aerobic) and converts the H3 to water by utilizing the O2. Then the it uses some extra O2 and creates NO2 which is nitrite. After that another bacteria adds another oxygen ion to get NO3. Then the anaerobic bacteria splits the N from the O3 to give you Nitrogen and oxygen. Hence why there are bubbles on your LR sometimes. Of course cyano does the same thing to produce oxygen
But I don't know this for sure, it is a major spitball. I would ask a biology and/or chemistry teacher at school, but I doubt they would have a clue to tell you the truth.
reefkprz
Active Member
Originally Posted by Cranberry
http:///forum/post/3132797
It would be if I knew if we are talking submerged or trickle filter *JOKE*
I would guess by the diagram submerged not in a trickle set up. the height of the second baffle from the left dictates water height he wants to place them under the sponge media to the far left. but the OP will have to clarify that as the diagram may not be to actual scale.
http:///forum/post/3132797
It would be if I knew if we are talking submerged or trickle filter *JOKE*
I would guess by the diagram submerged not in a trickle set up. the height of the second baffle from the left dictates water height he wants to place them under the sponge media to the far left. but the OP will have to clarify that as the diagram may not be to actual scale.
reefkprz
Active Member
Originally Posted by Stanlalee
http:///forum/post/3132633
bioballs have 3-6x the surface area of lava rock .
where did you find that info? I would love to give it a gander. and that may be true considering lava rock has huge pores leaving far more gaps and less actual surface area. but I am talking micro porous rock not lava rock which is unusable in reef tanks anyways due to their toxic nature to marine life.
http:///forum/post/3132633
bioballs have 3-6x the surface area of lava rock .
where did you find that info? I would love to give it a gander. and that may be true considering lava rock has huge pores leaving far more gaps and less actual surface area. but I am talking micro porous rock not lava rock which is unusable in reef tanks anyways due to their toxic nature to marine life.
reefkprz
Active Member
Originally Posted by florida joe
http:///forum/post/3132511
.A cubic foot of bio-balls has a surface area of 160 square feet.
Bio-balls possess much greater surface area per pound than live rock as per my phone call to mote marine laboratories
I agree I actually stated that in the post previous to the one I am quoting
Originally Posted by florida joe
http:///forum/post/3132511
.But we are talking about surface area where we can establish colonies of nitrifying bacteria for these colonies to form with in the rock as you are stating they would have to be feed nutrients through advection and have oxygenation achieved the same way IMO 99 percent of your nitrification is achieved on the surface area and again IMO there is more surface area on bio ball then there in on rock.
Like I figured your only considering the outer perimeter as effective surface area in the live rock. I pourous live rock there will definatly be flow through the rock (ever used a turkey baster to blow crap out of one portion of a rock and watch it jet out the other side or even the same side 3 inches away) there is definatly flow through as long as the pored dont get plugged. think of LR as a stone sponge, I coulnt all the surface area that is inside as well for aerobic activity. maybe not at the same level as the fast flowing outer portions but slow flow as long as it is aerobic actually has more time to react with the amount of nitrogenous waste in the water. say (roughly) an equal flow rate on the outer surface of both media removes 10% of nitrogenous waste from the passing water, (in this case bioballs are all outer surface area and would win if that was the only consideration) slow that flow rate down by forcing the water to travel through pores and the water has more contact time with the bacteria increasing the amount it gets to utilize before the water moves on, so decreased flow rate is compensated for by longer contact time removing roughly the same amount of waste possibly more depending on the porosity of the rock and flow rate through a given piece.
ever pick up a chunk of live rock and let it "drain" into a bin, thats how much volume is inside the rock . not an accurate measument of surface area but it tells you how much is void and how much is solid. some rock will double their weight in the water that drains out showing how porous the rock is simple by the fact that so much water can fit inside it, all that water is contacting surface area. I've broken up more LBs of rock than I can count and it always amazes me at how pourous LR is. also the faster a rock drains the more congruent pores there are.
Originally Posted by florida joe
http:///forum/post/3132511
.
BTW it is always a pleasure to cross swords with you my good old friend
always a pleasure to discuss things with you too, its been too long my friend.
http:///forum/post/3132511
.A cubic foot of bio-balls has a surface area of 160 square feet.
Bio-balls possess much greater surface area per pound than live rock as per my phone call to mote marine laboratories
I agree I actually stated that in the post previous to the one I am quoting
Originally Posted by florida joe
http:///forum/post/3132511
.But we are talking about surface area where we can establish colonies of nitrifying bacteria for these colonies to form with in the rock as you are stating they would have to be feed nutrients through advection and have oxygenation achieved the same way IMO 99 percent of your nitrification is achieved on the surface area and again IMO there is more surface area on bio ball then there in on rock.
Like I figured your only considering the outer perimeter as effective surface area in the live rock. I pourous live rock there will definatly be flow through the rock (ever used a turkey baster to blow crap out of one portion of a rock and watch it jet out the other side or even the same side 3 inches away) there is definatly flow through as long as the pored dont get plugged. think of LR as a stone sponge, I coulnt all the surface area that is inside as well for aerobic activity. maybe not at the same level as the fast flowing outer portions but slow flow as long as it is aerobic actually has more time to react with the amount of nitrogenous waste in the water. say (roughly) an equal flow rate on the outer surface of both media removes 10% of nitrogenous waste from the passing water, (in this case bioballs are all outer surface area and would win if that was the only consideration) slow that flow rate down by forcing the water to travel through pores and the water has more contact time with the bacteria increasing the amount it gets to utilize before the water moves on, so decreased flow rate is compensated for by longer contact time removing roughly the same amount of waste possibly more depending on the porosity of the rock and flow rate through a given piece.
ever pick up a chunk of live rock and let it "drain" into a bin, thats how much volume is inside the rock . not an accurate measument of surface area but it tells you how much is void and how much is solid. some rock will double their weight in the water that drains out showing how porous the rock is simple by the fact that so much water can fit inside it, all that water is contacting surface area. I've broken up more LBs of rock than I can count and it always amazes me at how pourous LR is. also the faster a rock drains the more congruent pores there are.
Originally Posted by florida joe
http:///forum/post/3132511
.
BTW it is always a pleasure to cross swords with you my good old friend
always a pleasure to discuss things with you too, its been too long my friend.
srfisher17
Active Member
Originally Posted by reefkprZ
http:///forum/post/3132995
I guess the only way to be sure would be to set up an expiriment and do some actual testing, on whether 1 cubic gallon of live rock rubble or 1 cubic gallon of bioballs broke down more ammonia in a set time frame.
Good idea, but doesn't the LR vary too much to produce a valid result? This is a good discussion; but, IMO & IME, aerobic bacteria is so easy to culture and so effective that almost anything will do the job in all but the heaviest stocked tanks.
http:///forum/post/3132995
I guess the only way to be sure would be to set up an expiriment and do some actual testing, on whether 1 cubic gallon of live rock rubble or 1 cubic gallon of bioballs broke down more ammonia in a set time frame.
Good idea, but doesn't the LR vary too much to produce a valid result? This is a good discussion; but, IMO & IME, aerobic bacteria is so easy to culture and so effective that almost anything will do the job in all but the heaviest stocked tanks.