Cichlid Fish Forum banner
1 - 12 of 12 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
520 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Saw a post on another site about this gadget and decided to try it. It reduced the turbidity in my 150gal from 1.50 to 0.75
Here are some before and after shots from my phone cam.
before

after

before

before

The tank has been set up for about 15 years, with only different fish incarnations as changes, I'd been having turbidity problems the last couple months. You be the judge.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,008 Posts
Try taking the "Eco-Aqualizer" off of your system and see if it goes back to the way it was . . . don't change anything else, do your normal water changes . . . run it for a month sans-ecoaqualizer and repost some pics . . .

There's been a lot of . . . how shall I say . . . skeptical criticism of this product, especially from the reef keeping folk. The science behind it is not so sound, apparently . . .

I'm not gettin' down on the eco-aqualizer . . . I was thinking about getting one for myslef a while back . . . I'd get one if you could show a degridation in your water quality after it has been taken off your system . . .

I just think of those magnetic bracelets, magnets in your shoes, those gas-line magnets for your car that's supposed to increase gas mileage . . . I'm skeptical . . . prove me wrong!

:thumb:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
520 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
I hadn't thought of trying that, good idea. Thanks
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,422 Posts
I would not be so quick to jump to conclusions about this product based on a tiny bit of quick internet level research.

There's certainly alot of pseudoscience and mumbo jumbo about the product... but... electromagnetism does not require things to be plugged in... it requires an electrical charge. For all we know there's a battery in this thing... magnets do affect water... water is an odd little beast. You can google the properties of water and you'll read plenty about the molecules orienting themselves based on magnetic fields... for all we know this unit might simply be temporarily creating H2O2 in there or something.

Using pseudoscience to combat pseudoscience is just more ___ on the pile.

Now if Rex had bought a couple of these things and actually run the tests he threatened the owner with, I might have more respect for the article. Until then, both sides are equally suspect.

Until I "know" something isn't correct, I reserve judgement. :thumb:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,008 Posts
I've seen the Eco-Aqualizer disassembled . . . it is just a tube magnets. :?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,422 Posts
if the unit is just magnets, then this is our old friend from the 60's reborn. :wink:
"magnetic water therapy"

some of the new swimming pool filters employ some new "magical" toys... electrolysis splits NaCl, or Ozone by corona discharge... makes me stay open to new claims... but not usually rebirths of some really old ones. :lol:

Well, let's see this tank in a few weeks of no aqualizer... :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
520 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
I too am a skeptic, the info on it sounds a bit on the "cosmic" side. so after ordering, and before it arrived in the mail I started doing turbidity, pH, alkalinity and ammonia samples. There were no changes in any perameter other than turbidity.
Turbidity was measured in NTUs on a HACH 2100N Turbidimeter (I work as an analyst in a water quality lab, hence access to the equipment).
Before install
10/16/06........3.19 NTU
10/20/2006 ....1.68 NTU
10/24/2006.....1.44
After install
10/25/06..........0.75
10/26/06..........0.74
10/27/06..........0.70
10/31/06..........0.75
pH has remained approx 7.95
ammonia approx 0.02 mg/L
alkalinity approx 83 mg/L
By the way, I have no ties to the ECO company, this all started after reading a post on cichlid.org and seeing an ad in TFH mag. I just decided to see what this voodoo gizmo was about, and must admit, I think any criticism and commentary is healthy. I haven't taken it off line yet, maybe next week.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,956 Posts
Number6 said:
I would not be so quick to jump to conclusions about this product based on a tiny bit of quick internet level research.
It is not a tiny bit of quick Internet level research. I quoted one link, but the product has been denounced as a scam on reputable fish sites for years.

There's certainly alot of pseudoscience and mumbo jumbo about the product... but... electromagnetism does not require things to be plugged in... it requires an electrical charge. For all we know there's a battery in this thing
It has been stripped down by investigators and there are no batteries in it--much less 10-yr ones--and the vendors don't even make this claim.

magnets do affect water... water is an odd little beast. You can google the properties of water and you'll read plenty about the molecules orienting themselves based on magnetic fields... for all we know this unit might simply be temporarily creating H2O2 in there or something.
What's hydrogen peroxide got to do with it? How do you create H2O2 out of H2O without input of energy or other chemical reagents? Maybe it's creating Kryptonite!!

Using pseudoscience to combat pseudoscience is just more ___ on the pile.
Sorry, I don't think the debunking link I posted is pseudoscience. It opposes facts to the unscientific claims of the Eco promoters.

Now if Rex had bought a couple of these things and actually run the tests he threatened the owner with, I might have more respect for the article. Until then, both sides are equally suspect.
That would be nice, but perhaps Rex doesn't feel like spending 2X $50 on disproving a fraud. He didn't 'threaten' the owner with anything as far as I can see, He offered to run a test if the owner supplied the product, not too surprisingly he was not taken up--but that's long ways from 'threats'.

It really surprises me that you consider "both sides are equally suspect."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,422 Posts
K.K. I was referring to what Rex did. His "article" just isn't all that convincing. It's just more pseudoscience as far as I can see.

If one sets out to disprove something, as that article did, then the burden of proof shifts onto them and off the original claims. They must now prove the product is a sham. This is different than those who might doubt the veracity of the manufacturer. One doesn't need proof to doubt... for the doubters, the burden of proof remains on the manufacturer to prove results.

I doubt this product does anything... but it needs to remain a doubt until I see some more info from fellow hobbyists actually running any bit of equipment with results. Then, I would waste $50 before I would start to say it does nothing. IMO, it's kind of an unwritten rule of the consumer review process... you do actually have to own a product before you should review it.
Just another perspective :)
 
1 - 12 of 12 Posts
Top