Biomax Ceramic Rings - How Is This Believable Or Even Possible

I was doing research on the biomax ceramic rings. I got probably more than I needed, and made my own intank wet/dry design. As I was reading I came across this. Quote: "The surface of BioMax is made up of a complex pore system that allows bacteria colonies to thrive, establish and multiply. Each ceramic ring contains at least 100 square feet of surface area providing more biological power than a traditional cartridge." I mean how is that even possible?? These things are so small and 100sq ft each?? I must have acres worth! Going by that math I should really only need like..5 rings. What's the sq footage recommend per 5 or 10 gallons?? I have a 30 gallon kinda overstocked tank so I wanted to make sure my filters can handle it. And they do, without any problem. But I mean..100sq ft each?? Does anyone know what the recommended sq ft is per w.e gallon(s)??

Thanks

 

I was doing research on the biomax ceramic rings. I got probably more than I needed, and made my own intank wet/dry design. As I was reading I came across this. Quote: "The surface of BioMax is made up of a complex pore system that allows bacteria colonies to thrive, establish and multiply. Each ceramic ring contains at least 100 square feet of surface area providing more biological power than a traditional cartridge." I mean how is that even possible?? These things are so small and 100sq ft each?? I must have acres worth! Going by that math I should really only need like..5 rings. What's the sq footage recommend per 5 or 10 gallons?? I have a 30 gallon kinda overstocked tank so I wanted to make sure my filters can handle it. And they do, without any problem. But I mean..100sq ft each?? Does anyone know what the recommended sq ft is per w.e gallon(s)??

Thanks


View attachment 469302

Sq footage is whatever imho. Just get a decent amount of of the things. I do like 1 per gallon or so

 

The rock is very porous, VERY VERY porous. it may not actually be true in all cases but in "most" it is. they basically blow micro bubbles in to ceramic and there it is.

 

Just seems like if I crush one up to the absolute finest particals I could never cover close to 100sq ft. That's equal to aroumd 3.5 miles!!! Each!! Just don't seem possible. And thanks for the 1 per gallon. Good to know. So I definitely have more than needed.

 

Just seems like if I crush one up to the absolute finest particals I could never cover close to 100sq ft. That's equal to aroumd 3.5 miles!!! Each!! Just don't seem possible. And thanks for the 1 per gallon. Good to know. So I definitely have more than needed.

trust me if you crushed it to the thinnest possible you would get that far But as stated above. Its a marketing thing. But I do recommend using them.

 

I gotta have at least 120. That's about 420 freakin miles worth!! I could drive to Canada from Connecticut. I literally have that much worth of bacteria holding goodness. And it fits in a pill bottle!!

 

I gotta have at least 120. That's about 420 freakin miles worth!! I could drive to Canada from Connecticut. I literally have that much worth of bacteria holding goodness. And it fits in a pill bottle!!

this is the future baby!

 

I hear ya. Try to visualize 3.5 miles or 100 square feet. Each. That's all I am saying. If you told me that and I never read it I would never have believed it. And I do use them, obviously. Although to tell you the truth, I've had fish tanks since I was a little kid long before this bio media thing came along and we got away without it just fine. I think it's more a marketing gimmick than anything else. It's only real benefit is if, like me, you have a little less gravel than you should and have a few more fish than you should. So the traditional rule of 1" per 1 gallon you can kinda get away with much more now. Not saying you should, but it does make it very possible without worrying about toxic water. That is my feeling on this. We never used it, it didn't exist and we did just fine

this is the future baby!

Haha true that!

Oh there is one more thing about them that can definitely be a plus, but also a huge minus. I changed out all of my substrate about 2 weeks ago at once. I got a bottle of TSS cuz I figured I'd have a spike. I wanted to see how efficient the bio filters really are tho so I didn't put it in right away. I wanted to test first. Anyways, 2 inches worth of gravel in a 30 gallon aquarium at once and not a thing changed. No spikes, even small ones. So that was awesome and shows how well they work. On the other hand... Because it really does hold ALL or very very close to all worth of your bacteria, if anything happens with power or ur filter or anything where the media don't have that water running through it tells me that in just a few hours your tank can become a toxic waste pool very fast. So it's a huge pro and a huge con

 

Just seems like if I crush one up to the absolute finest particals I could never cover close to 100sq ft. That's equal to aroumd 3.5 miles!!! Each!!

Not sure how you're comparing 100 sq. ft. to 3.5 miles, but a square foot is a unit of area while a mile is a unit of length or distance. A square mile (which is a unit of area) is almost 27.9 million square feet, so it would take almost 279,000 of these rings (27.9 million divided by 100) to make one square mile of surface area. A 10 foot by 10 foot room is 100 sq. ft.

 

Just out of curiosity, what formula are you using to convert area to distance?

 

3.5 square miles. And it is possible to calculate that. You can say a one foot long space or area could cover x amount of distance

 

10 to the negative sixth power means one millionth. So that's 0.000003587 square miles, not 3.587 square miles.

Scientific Notation

 

My point was more along the lines of trying to put into a visual how much a single ceramic ring can hold not debating about math

Again, not my point nor do I care. 100sq ft from a single ring. That is my point.

 

Must be one of those "new math" things invented after I got kicked out of school in the 50's.

 

That's not what this says. Look at the conversion below that. 3.5 square miles

You're overlooking the "x 10^-6" part of the answer you got. That basically means "take 3.587 and move the decimal point six spaces to the left."

 

You're overlooking the "x 10^-6" part of the answer you got. That basically means "take 3.587 and move the decimal point six spaces to the left."

Thank you for the correction. I shoulda used a different idea to get across my point to try and visualize how much 100sq ft is per ring. And you are absolutely right and I was wrong. (Not being sarcastic I have no problem admitting when I am wrong) I was trying to putinto perspective the size of something that big in something so small

 

If you think that's unbelievable check activate carbon which has a surface area in excess of 3,000 m2 (32,000 sq ft), per gram. I'm doing a study seeing how well those bio media really perform against a colony of bacteria in carbon. The problem with carbon is the caves (pores) can be smaller than bacteria sizes.

 

I was trying to putinto perspective the size of something that big in something so small

Yeah, it's pretty mind-boggling how big the surface area of a fine sponge can be compared to its overall volume. The Menger sponge is theoretical fractal shape that pushes this to the absolute limit: its surface area approaches infinity even while its volume approaches zero. Of course a "sponge" structure this extreme can't be constructed with real-world materials, only in the minds of mathematicians.

 

I'm glad you brought that up actually. I wanted to as about that. What happens if your carbon has been exhausted and been sitting in ur tank for a couple months. Would it turn into a better biological media than the rings? Or does it fill up with the **** it's collected and lose a lot of it's pours and surface area. Cuz if it really has that much area on it, would it be safe to say that exhausted carbon will be a better way to house bacteria???

 

I'm glad you brought that up actually. I wanted to as about that. What happens if your carbon has been exhausted and been sitting in ur tank for a couple months. Would it turn into a better biological media than the rings? Or does it fill up with the it's collected and lose a lot of it's pours and surface area. Cuz if it really has that much area on it, would it be safe to say that exhausted carbon will be a better way to house bacteria???

This is what we believe now we have to prove it scientifically which the bio media companies would hate. The lead study is running with carbon in the substrate.

 

Yeah, it's pretty mind-boggling how big the surface area of a fine sponge can be compared to its overall volume. The Menger sponge is theoretical fractal shape that pushes this to the absolute limit: its surface area approaches infinity even while its volume approaches zero. Of course a "sponge" structure this extreme can't be constructed with real-world materials, only in the minds of mathematicians.

Wow. See I never thought to really look into these things. I just bought bio media cuz it said this or that. I wonder if a regular sponge actually has more surface area. I use car wash sponges from Walmart and the dollar store and cut them to put on my intake and in my power head filter. I don't keep them in long because I don't want them to break down and 2) I don't want them to start holding bacteria. But maybe there actually better than ceramic rings for surface area. Still wouldn't use them tho they get to clogged to quickly and the rings stay good for a long long time and almost never have to clean em

This is what we believe now we have to prove it scientifically which the bio media companies would hate. The lead study is running with carbon in the substrate.

So does it still hold a lot of it's surface area if it's been exhausted??

Would used carbon be a better biological media?? If it still holds a lot of it's surface are after being exhausted would it be able to house more bacteria?? What would be the down side of that if it does work? I know ur not supposed to keep it in long cuz it will start to house some (plus the debate of it leaching stuff back into the tank, from my research tho that's not really true) but what if I kept it in there for a few months. I wonder if it would over take my ceramic rings with the amount of bacteria?

This is what we believe now we have to prove it scientifically which the bio media companies would hate. The lead study is running with carbon in the substrate.

Wait..carbon in the substrate?? Or as the substrate??

 

So does it still hold a lot of it's surface area if it's been exhausted??

Yes. The exhaustion is gasses trapped in the pores bouncing back and forth where it can't take anymore without it bouncing back out. That's kinda how it works. Think of gas molecules or other molecules that fit into the pores as ping pong balls. It doesn't prevent bacteria from contaminating the surface. There's been studies on bio-activated carbon which show bacteria don't want to grow on this type of carbon as well but that's not typical activated carbon. All studies are published and available for glances on your favorite search engine.

Wait..carbon in the substrate?? Or as the substrate??

In first test case yes 50% of a 10 gallon bottom surface mass 11 oz.

 

Yes. The exhaustion is gasses trapped in the pores bouncing back and forth where it can't take anymore without it bouncing back out. That's kinda how it works. Think of gas molecules or other molecules that fit into the pores as ping pong balls. It doesn't prevent bacteria from contaminating the surface. There's been studies on bio-activated carbon which show bacteria don't want to grow on this type of carbon as well but that's not typical activated carbon. All studies are published and available for glances on your favorite search engine.

Thanks. And that is exactly why I never keep mine in more than 5 weeks. I only use a little bit also. They say 3 tablespoons is enough for a 50 gallon aquarium. That's all I use in my 30. 3 tablespoons every 4-5 weeks

In first test case yes 50% of a 10 gallon bottom surface mass 11 oz.

That is really interesting. If you don't use bio media I can see that being a huge benefit to help house bacteria, if it works and there's no drawbacks to using it that long and that way. If u do use bio media than I don't really see a point. 2 weeks ago I changed out all my substrate at once without ANY harm or spikes at all so definitely mostly all of it will grow on ur bio media if you have it. Very interesting though for sure.

 

If your power goes off and circulation stops bacterias in the carbon in the substrate has a better chance of longer term survival as well or just a back up 2.5W-10W air pump is enough. Also, the test tank is completely unfiltered.

 

Only if ur not using bio media in the first place. If u are and the power or pump fails it's definitely not gonna grow fast enough on the substrate to make up for that. BUT again, if u don't use bio media and change out ur regular filter media enough then I can see that

 

Only if ur not using bio media in the first place. If u are and the power or pump fails it's definitely not gonna grow fast enough on the substrate to make up for that. BUT again, if u don't use bio media and change out ur regular filter media enough then I can see that

We have also Wisteria medium about 8" 5 stems in the test tank @ 14 hours light. Brand new tank cycling with fish at near full load (5 guppies, 2 corys). Max NH3 has been 0.25 ppm over 4 days no water changes no detectable NO2 or No3 at this time. All subject fish alive and well. So it looks like carbon also pulls in some NH3. We are waiting for a change testing every 4 hours or so. We keep a sample bottle full for comparison against the next sample because sometimes it's hard to tell visually. If we think we have a success we are going to use the spectrometer method for the next experiment to see if results repeat.

 

Does this mean water wisteria was able to absorb enough ammonia to keep ammonia levels in the tank at or below 0.25 ppm without a conventional cycle (establishing a beneficial bacteria colony)?

 

The cycle is unfinished at this time and complicated by the fact plants can absorb all three NH3 NO2 and NO3. Only measurement time will tell if it peaks. I'm expecting yes some plant adsorption of ammonia but more so carbon absorption which will eventually run out of capacity at some point and then ammonia will start to move upward. We are on day 4, somewhat unusual for our ammonia level to stay flat for 2 days at 77 deg F.

 

The cycle is unfinished at this time and complicated by the fact plants can absorb all three NH3 NO2 and NO3. Only measurement time will tell if it peaks. I'm expecting yes some plant adsorption of ammonia but more so carbon absorption which will eventually run out of capacity at some point and then ammonia will start to move upward. We are on day 3, somewhat unusual for our ammonia level to stay flat for 2 days at 77 deg F.

Interesting. I hope you post about the results of your experiments in the future!

 

How is this believable?

It doesn't matter if you believe it or not.

Science is true even if you don't believe in it.

This is because it can be tested and the same results can be obtained by a different person doing the same test.

 

Test from midday. Sure enough we are moving up. Move up has not been linear, well so far anyway. I expect nitrite to start testing positive by the evening.

 

RI might be the smallest state but has longest coastline. Fact.

 

Bacteria and molecules are on two different size scales. Science can design a "trap" for almost any molecule, see "zeolite" for example. There's hundreds of variations of zeolite, both natural and manmade.

Also, I have no problem envisioning a 10'x10' floor space, lol. Math, how does it work?

 

Keicola46 an adult human has 100,000 miles of blood vessels in their body. If there are enough microscopic pores and channels then I believe 100% each pellet has as much surface area as they claim.

 

Here is a science based article to help you wrap mind around the concept better Plant and Soil Sciences eLibrary

 

Just seems like if I crush one up to the absolute finest particals I could never cover close to 100sq ft. That's equal to aroumd 3.5 miles!!! Each!! Just don't seem possible. And thanks for the 1 per gallon. Good to know. So I definitely have more than needed.

I don't know where you get that sq.ft. - https://www.cermedia.com/MarinePure Project Report.pdf had a good report on them with surface area/gram and their effectiveness.

It's not that you could cover 100sqft by spreading out the material used to make them, it's the confusing 3-dimensional aspect - but there are so many caves, nooks and crannies in them.

Some real world examples are the fins on your HVAC condenser outside your home - the aluminum fixes surround the compressor fan to suck air over as much surface area as possible - if they were solid - you'd have much less area.

An easier to visualize example is a building: take a piece of land - 100-ft long and 100-ft wide, you get 10,000-sqft of surface area. Now put a 100-foot tall building on there. You have 10,000-sqft of surface area on each side of the building, AND the roof- the four sides and roof at 10,000-sqft gives you 50,000-sqft of surface area. Now add a window at each floor at 10' increments - you will have 10 additional surfaces of 20,000sqft at each window - 10,000-sqft for the floor AND another 10,000-sqft for the ceiling and that's ignoring the walls. Now shrink those windows to 1' - the surface area per window doesn't change, just the number of multiple of the 20,000-sqft areas - with a 1' window - you get 2,000,000-sqft of surface area. Now shrink that to a microscopic level and that's how porous stones can have such a large surface area.

 

Based on your recommendations, I just order 2 boxes of Fluval Bio-Max rings. So, do you get a commission from Amazon?

 

Just seems like if I crush one up to the absolute finest particals I could never cover close to 100sq ft. That's equal to aroumd 3.5 miles!!! Each!! Just don't seem possible. And thanks for the 1 per gallon. Good to know. So I definitely have more than needed.

100 sq feet is a square 10ft by 10ft, sounds quite high but once you're dealing with micro and nano materials such surface areas are achievable . 1 gallon of clay has a surface area of around 3 million square cm. That's because it's made up of billions of sub micron particles. The surface area isn't the area of surface it would cover, it's amount of surface the material possesses, so smashing something to dust tells you nothing about it's surface area.

 

100 sq feet is a square 10ft by 10ft, sounds quite high but once you're dealing with micro and nano materials such surface areas are achievable . 1 gallon of clay has a surface area of around 3 million square cm. That's because it's made up of billions of sub micron particles. The surface area isn't the area of surface it would cover, it's amount of surface the material possesses, so smashing something to dust tells you nothing about it's surface area.

To help with this visualization, recall also that even a perfectly smooth piece of paper, which would be a very uncomplicated shape, has two sides! Thus, the surface area of the paper would be double its "top" (plus the very, very small surface area present all around the edges).

 

To help with this visualization, recall also that even a perfectly smooth piece of paper, which would be a very uncomplicated shape, has two sides! Thus, the surface area of the paper would be double its "top" (plus the very, very small surface area present all around the edges).

to add, if you looked at the paper at the 10-100nm scale the paper wouldn't be flat it would be porous like a sponge and have huge mountains and valleys. Meaning the surface area we see without eyes can probably be multiplied x100 or even x1000 when looked at on the microscopic or submicroscopic level