Use Charcoal instead of liverock theory..... kinda dumb, brace yourself.

[billybob983]

Okay, so, I have been thinking..... What on earth is the most porous material thats reef safe and I keep returning to Charcoal.

So, with that in mind, lets run over a few fun facts. Fresh charcoal in large quantity would suck up half the minerals in the tank. Charcoal is associated with/to, if you have tangs, HLLE. Other than that, I dont see why it is not used?

As I see it, we know charcoal is full of microscopic pores, which absorbs all the things it absorbs. My idea is that we need to do is fill those pores with an inert permeable substance, thus, stopping any further absorption of metals and such while also giving the biological benefits were looking for.

So, make sure your sitting down for my idea. Ready?

Take your charcoal and put it into a fine fabric bag. Drop that in a 5 gallon bucket half filled with salt water and any type of dead fish/shrimp you chose. Slosh around every 2 days (with a lid on) and let sit for a week or two, even 3. By the end of 3 weeks, all the pores have to be filled with junk by now. Have a brave soul empty the bucket for you and refill with newer (old water change saltwater is fine) swish around, drain and refil. Now, start your cycle like any other live rock. The charchol pores should, in the end, be filled with stuff, and, or, a film, which will not absorb anything more. You will now have a gazillion sq ft of aerobic and, or, anaerobic filtration that no other media can surpass.

Okay, thats my idea, and, I take a size 36 straight jacket, white is fine.

[Noknock]

I think it's too brittle and not large enough. Even the lump charcoal I use for grilling is to small and would end up a pile of rubble after trying to glue corals to it.

[McPuff]

You're suggesting to use this method to cycle the tank?

[BrettDS]

I think what you're missing is that the reason that charcoal has "a gazillion square feet" of surface area is because of all the tiny pores. If you intentionally fill them with junk then it will just have the few square inches of surface area of the actual external surface of the charcoal.

[conjuay]

[/QUOTE] Okay, thats my idea, and, I take a size 36 straight jacket, white is fine.[/QUOTE]



Wouldn't your "Live Rock" float? I think it would take a long time get waterlogged.
My problem with a straight jacket is I like to roll up my sleeves.

[dkeller_nc]

GAC won't appreciably absorb minerals from your tank water. It will absorb organics from the water up to the point that it's saturated, but your cycling effort (with the dead shrimp) will be more than sufficient "use up" its capacity.

And yes, it will be highly effective as a biological filter, just as foam filters are, or any other material with a reasonably high surface area.

Keep in mind that the surface area of GAC is determined by the adsorption of small molecules (methylene blue adsorption is one way to measure this, but there are others). Bacteria are many orders of magnitude bigger than those molecules, so the accessible surface area for colonization will be somewhat less than the "advertised" surface area.

If the goal is to provide a portable biological filter for a fish QT (for example), it will work well, though a suitably cycled sponge filter might be a good deal more convenient. But since IMO a reef tank is a reef tank because it has live rock, I'm not sure about the appeal of a tank that is otherwise bare that solely utilizes GAC in a reactor or cannister filter.

[billybob983]

I think it's too brittle and not large enough. Even the lump charcoal I use for grilling is to small and would end up a pile of rubble after trying to glue corals to it.

No, it will be in a bag out of site, out of mind. Rock would still be in the tank, but, not depended on as what we usually use it for, except for gluing frags.



I think what you're missing is that the reason that charcoal has "a gazillion square feet" of surface area is because of all the tiny pores. If you intentionally fill them with junk then it will just have the few square inches of surface area of the actual external surface of the charcoal.

Thats the thing, it doesnt matter which way it gets clogged with a biological load. It can go one of two ways. It will produce either aerobic or anaerobic bacteria. I am thinking and placing my bet, because there is so much surface area in a chunk of it, it will become anaerobic, which is what we are looking for to break down nitrates.

[SeattleReefer]

http://www.amazon.com/CerMedia-MarinePure-Block-Bio-Filter-Freshwater/dp/B00HYUY35W?ie=UTF8&keywords=marinepure&qid=1465500150&ref_=sr_1_1&sr=8-1

[billybob983]

Thanks for the link but i have read up on them and even Randy Holms-Farley did a little investigating on them and found they leach aluminum Ions. As to what effect, its unknown. I am looking for something a little more inert. If it wasnt for that fact, I would be all over them.

[Rybren]

A scintered glass media such as Siporax is inert, will give you all of the surface area you need, doesn't leach aluminum, and you won't have to deal with messy GAC.

[billybob983]

A scintered glass media such as Siporax is inert, will give you all of the surface area you need, doesn't leach aluminum, and you won't have to deal with messy GAC.



Would that be free of silicates that can foster diatom algae blooms?

[Rybren]

As far as I know, yes. I have 2 litres of Siporax in my sump and have not noticed any diatoms.

[billybob983]

I will look into it, thanks.

[CStrickland]

Are you trying to fix an issue? There's plenty of minimalist tanks that use way less than a pound per gallon of rock so if you don't want to fill up your tank with rock maybe try that first. It's not a direct relationship between surface area and bacteria population. You might be creatively fixing a problem you don't and won't ever have.

I would be very careful sourcing the charcoal. It can be made from all sorts of things like coal, coconut shells, etc etc. some are likely better for a reef tank than others.

[2_zoa]

I guess I don't get it?

The title says to use charcoal INSTEAD of live rock. Yet I read that live rock will be used as decoration and a place to glue frags? Well, imo you've just lost the whole "crazy" idea and replaced a large old idea (dirty uncleaned pile of bio balls) and made the same gunk factory in a smaller package.

If you don't flow water through the carbon and just leave it in a fine mesh bag, a bio film will cover the bag completely encasing the carbon inside. Ask me how I know.

Maybe I'm not following along.....

[billybob983]

Your on target for the most part, but, unlike bio balls, charcoal has minute caverns in it. As long as they get filled with a permeable goo, that in itself should encourage anaerobic nitrate eating bacteria.

Wouldn't the encasing bacteria on the bag, again, promote an anaerobic effect inside where the charcoal is?

I mean you either have high flow reaching everything which keeps it a bioball or a film on it that turns it into an anaerobic environment with no oxygen. If that doesn't work, what kind of film do we need to make a proper barrier where the outer is anaerobic and the interior is anaerobic?

i am not talking about a too fine of a mesh, but, small enough to keep big pieces out and in the high flow area will wash through/over the charcoal grains and back out of the bag.

[2_zoa]

Your on target for the most part, but, unlike bio balls, charcoal has minute caverns in it. As long as they get filled with a permeable goo, that in itself should encourage anaerobic nitrate eating bacteria.
so, I see bio balls being better only due to the fact that if need be....they could be cleaned and reused without the seasoning effort. Charcoal is great because of those minute caverns you speak of, try cleaning them. Bio balls got a bad rap mostly cause most users didn't clean them. Even live rock can become impacted, hence the debate about using live rock rubble in place of bio balls. Right?

Wouldn't the encasing bacteria on the bag, again, promote an anaerobic effect inside where the charcoal is?
my mind sees this as an inclusive type area. Meaning, what's in the bag stays in the bag. The bio film would live on the contents of the bag till it was all used up. A decrease in the film would let in more junk allowing more bio film to grow encasing it again. Repeate the cycle over and over.

I mean you either have high flow reaching everything which keeps it a bioball or a film on it that turns it into an anaerobic environment with no oxygen. If that doesn't work, what kind of film do we need to make a proper barrier where the outer is anaerobic and the interior is anaerobic? not sure it's a film. Instead it may be all about flow rates. Water passes much more slowly through the center of our live rock then on the outer surfaces.

i am not talking about a too fine of a mesh, but, small enough to keep big pieces out and in the high flow area will wash through/over the charcoal grains and back out of the bag.in my case, I use ROX Carbon. It takes a pretty small mesh to keep that stuff in the bag. At the time I referenced, I was using carbon passively. I kept the bag in my overflow area as its small and has a relatively turbulent flow. I thought it would be a great place for it so water would pass through it. It did. Yet life found a way.

I like where your coming from. I'd really like to know if using carbon (large chunks ((as rock work)) or bags) could run a tank long term. I "think" if it did. It would be for reasons other then what we believed them to be. Surface area for bacteria comes from all things wet. Right? Could be glass, sand, plumbing, combination of all....etc.

Maybe someone should run a carbon based tank on an old wet dry system? Might be interesting.