THE OFFICIAL ASK ALBERT THIEL THREAD

[albertthiel]

Majano Wand a.k.a. Aiptasia Wand

 

Invented by Paul B. a member of this Forum

 

Some time ago Paul B. sent me a sample of the Majano Wand to test out and report on, something I gladly do for products sent to me, and test myself and always give objective feedback on anything I test.

 

I never accept money for anything I test and can therefore be totally objective. So here is the background and the results of the testing:

 

Paul sent me the Majano Wand but it should also be called Aiptasia Wand as it was used by me on an Aiptasia that came in on one of the rocks that I got from dling (David) and that had some corals on it, but also an Aiptasia that after a short while had gotten bigger and suddenly became really visible to me, whereas originally I did not notice it because, I guess, it was too small to draw my attention.

 

So since I was going to test the Wand at a pet store nearby (not my LFS) but had not done so yet, I decided to try the Wand out on the Aiptasia on that rock.

 

On the rock you can see a large round hole and slightly higher up and to the right, by the bottom of the heater, you can see the hole that the Aiptasia was lodged in.

 

In the second picture you can see (but not very well) the tip of the Wand stuck into the hole.

 

In the third picture you see the actual tip out of the water, and the last picture shows what happens when you fry the Aiptasia by pushing on the red button of the Wand part shown in the last picture.

 

The method to use is to put the tip (needle-like) on the Aiptasia and then push on the red button and whatever happens as a result fries what you hold the tip against and bubbles form which you can see in the picture below as well.

 

As is obvious the Aiptasia that was in that hole is a "goner" as there is not even the tiniest piece of it to be seen any longer. The time it took to really eliminate the Aiptasia was maybe 20 seconds and I pushed the button about 4 times and held it on the Aiptasia for about 2 to 3 seconds.

 

I probably held it longer than I needed to and feel that the Wand works so well that the Aiptasia was actually gone and melted or fried or whatever you want to call it even if I had stopped after 2 times.

 

Now if the Aiptasia is larger than the one I had then you may have to repeat the button pushing 3 or 4 times indeed, but you do it all in one session.

 

Hold the tip on the Aiptasia, push the button, hold for a second or two, wait maybe 2 seconds, push again and hold for a second or two, and repeat a few more times if needed, although based on what I saw it is my feeling that in most cases you will not need that many on Aiptasias but you will probably on Majanos as they are typically quite a bit larger than an Aiptasia.

 

The conclusion is that if you have Aiptasias, this is a far more terminal way of getting rid of them than injecting with a liquid (KW, or lemon juice or joe's juice), as this really "burns" the Aiptasia up in a very short period of time and the pieces that may enter the water cannot regenerate as they are "mush" of tissue that have no way of regenerating.

 

The mush floats away and seems to dissolve pretty quickly and the skimmer and mechanical filter can remove whatever is left of it if anything.

 

The conclusion is that if I see any other Aiptasias the Wand is what I am going to use for sure. It works and it works real fast and real well and gets rid of the Aiptasia and if it does the same thing on Majanos, and I do not see why not, then it is the method to use to get rid of those as well if you have any (I do not).

 

Below are the pics referred to above. Also if you have any questions about the WAND, post them here for Paul or myself

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Albert

Edited November 24, 2012 by albertthiel

[Paul.b]

Albert, thank you for reviewing my invention. I am glad you like it. It is specifically used for majano's, hence the name but as you found out, it will fry any water based creature but will leave alone anything else.

Take care.

Paul

[albertthiel]

Baby or Teen Yuma & Oxydator

 

Haven't posted an update on the Teen Yuma for a few days ... here is what it looks like:

 

 

 

 

And I installed an Oxydator in my Tank last night ... (was sent to me by Paul from the U.K. as he is now using a larger one for his new tank). More on the oxydator later.

 

 

 

Albert

[albertthiel]

Albert, thank you for reviewing my invention. I am glad you like it. It is specifically used for majano's, hence the name but as you found out, it will fry any water based creature but will leave alone anything else.

Take care.

Paul

 

Yes having seen how fast and in what way it gets rid of an Aiptasia, I have not doubt that it will "zing and burn" the Majanos with ease as well.

 

Basically what I saw when I zapped the Aiptasia was little white blobs of dead Aiptasia coming out of the area where it was and even though I used the button on the wand 4 times I am sure that the Aiptasia was a GONER after 2.

 

I can very well see the WAND doing exactly the same to Majanos given how it took care of that Aiptasia

 

Great piece to get rid of those unwanted Majanos and Aiptasias.

 

For those interested you can find more info on http://www.majanowand.com

 

Albert

[albertthiel]

Water Changes Revisited : How to and What to Watch For?

 

© Marc Levenson

 

Water changes are a task we rarely relish. Some swear by them, and others do them sporadically throughout the year.

 

While water changing philosophies vary from hobbyist to hobbyist, the bottom line is that water changes can benefit your livestock.

 

They are the easiest way to improve water quality and also are one of the most inexpensive solutions when trying to solve a chemistry problem in the system.

 

Link : http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2007-11/nftt/index.php

 

Albert

[Paul.b]

While water changing philosophies vary from hobbyist to hobbyist, the bottom line is that water changes can benefit your livestock.

 

They are the easiest way to improve water quality and also are one of the most inexpensive solutions when trying to solve a chemistry problem in the system.

 

This of course is true, but also IMO if you have to constantly change your water because you are having problems with either parameters, disolved organics or diseases, I think there is probably something wrong with either the way you set up the system or your current practices.

Water changing will eliminate some organics and add some trace elements but eventually your tank should be self sufficient or at least mostly so. Not in a couple of years but eventually. Bacteria do most of that work for us and for free.

A new tank needs much more water changes than a much older system partly because of the experience of the hobbiest and partly because the bacteria have reached the point where they are capable of reducing all of the organics that we put in the tank and the rest will be removed by the skimmer, ozone (if used) and algae. There are thousands of types of bacteria and as soon as we set up the tank, they cover all available real estate but not all bacteria are there to help us. Much of them are just hanging out eating whatever they want but they may not be reducing the pollutants to what we want them to produce. There are also disease causing bacteria but I think there are far fewer of these in a healthy system and our fish have developed an immune system that, when healthy, are not affected by those bacteria.

IMO of course as is everything that I write (or make up)

[atoll]

Ermmmm who? LOL

 

Baby or Teen Yuma & Oxydator

 

Haven't posted an update on the Teen Yuma for a few days ... here is what it looks like:

 

 

 

 

And I installed an Oxydator in my Tank last night ... (was sent to me by Paul from the U.K. as he is now using a larger one for his new tank). More on the oxydator later.

 

 

 

Albert

[albertthiel]

This of course is true, but also IMO if you have to constantly change your water because you are having problems with either parameters, disolved organics or diseases, I think there is probably something wrong with either the way you set up the system or your current practices.

Water changing will eliminate some organics and add some trace elements but eventually your tank should be self sufficient or at least mostly so. Not in a couple of years but eventually. Bacteria do most of that work for us and for free.

A new tank needs much more water changes than a much older system partly because of the experience of the hobbiest and partly because the bacteria have reached the point where they are capable of reducing all of the organics that we put in the tank and the rest will be removed by the skimmer, ozone (if used) and algae. There are thousands of types of bacteria and as soon as we set up the tank, they cover all available real estate but not all bacteria are there to help us. Much of them are just hanging out eating whatever they want but they may not be reducing the pollutants to what we want them to produce. There are also disease causing bacteria but I think there are far fewer of these in a healthy system and our fish have developed an immune system that, when healthy, are not affected by those bacteria.

IMO of course as is everything that I write (or make up)

 

Paul (edit) ... well I think that is one viewpoint that some will agree with but OTOH since necessary elements get depleted by the life forms in the tank, their concentration in the water will become lower and lower, to the point where they will be deficient in their concentration and the life forms that need them no longer have access to a sufficient amount of them and you will be starving them for those elements.

 

Examples would include iodine, strontium, molybdenum, boron, magnesium, potassium etc.

 

And to use your examples, skimmers, ozone, and add chemical filtration media, all will remove unwanted compounds, but will also remove beneficial ones.

 

So unless we make water changes and replenish some of those compounds in that manner, and possibly supplement others by using additives, eventually the life forms will be starving for some of the elements and compounds they need for growth and survival.

 

Personally I prefer small frequent water changes rather than large infrequent ones btw.

 

So not sure I can agree with you ... but you can try to convince me ...

 

Albert

Edited November 24, 2012 by albertthiel

[albertthiel]

Ermmmm who? LOL

 

Yes very interesting indeed ... a hobbyist in Greater Manchester, U.K., sets up a larger reef, and one in the US in Greater Atlanta, ends up with his Oxydator ... odd ... "magic" I guess :-)

 

Albert

[albertthiel]

Water Changes by Randy Holmes-Farley

 

© Randy Holmes-Farley

 

A different perspective on Water Changes

 

Link : http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2005-10/rhf/index.php

 

Albert

[atoll]

Albert read back your posts you have called me Paul and Paul Les now im getting confused who is who and having an identity crisis lol LES.

Yes very interesting indeed ... a hobbyist in Greater Manchester, U.K., sets up a larger reef, and one in the US in Greater Atlanta, ends up with his Oxydator ... odd ... "magic" I guess :-)

 

Albert

[brandon429]

One neat similarity in water change articles is that none of them apply to pico reef keeping only larger tanks. Its amazing the void that exists in formal reference for smaller systems. One year max is about the average lifespan of a pico reef using water change methods developed for larger reefs and their unique chemistry.

Someone needs to invent a balancing method so small tanks won't need as many water changes that would be huge.

[albertthiel]

Albert read back your posts you have called me Paul and Paul Les now im getting confused who is who and having an identity crisis lol LES.

 

Oops indeed ... I went back and edited the post so it now says Paul (the one on water changes)

 

I did so as soon as I read your message as I sure do not want you to get confused about your identity :-) and have to go to rehab to find out who you really are :-) that would be a problem indeed as who would take care of the tank if they kept you for a couple of weeks (lol) ...

 

Sorry for the mistake ...

Albert

[albertthiel]

One neat similarity in water change articles is that none of them apply to pico reef keeping only larger tanks. Its amazing the void that exists in formal reference for smaller systems. One year max is about the average lifespan of a pico reef using water change methods developed for larger reefs and their unique chemistry.

Someone needs to invent a balancing method so small tanks won't need as many water changes that would be huge.

 

Indeed Brandon there is so little literature really that deals with Pico reefs and what applies to Nano reefs of say 10 gallons does not necessarily work for Pico 1 gallon or so ones.

 

As to water changes what seems to work best is to do 100% ones and clean out all detritus and try not to ever let them run a cycle ... at least that is the best that I could find for you. Blow off all rocks or whatever is in the Pico and siphon it all out and replace all the water you can as you can of course never really get 100 % out, but you can probably get close enough.

 

Albert

[Lawnman]

Albert not sure if you recall but a few weeks ago I posted a picture asking what a coral was. You said try to get a better picture. This is the best I can get. It came as a hitchhiker on a leather coral. Green with little white whiskers that mobe in flow.

[brandon429]

Any chance that is a star pavona like what Albert has?

[albertthiel]

Any chance that is a star pavona like what Albert has?

I enlarged the picture and it does "look" like a Cactus coral - Pavona as Brandon states indeed, with a lot of short tentacles

 

Thanks Brandon

 

Albert

[albertthiel]

Albert not sure if you recall but a few weeks ago I posted a picture asking what a coral was. You said try to get a better picture. This is the best I can get. It came as a hitchhiker on a leather coral. Green with little white whiskers that mobe in flow.

 

Lawnman: not sure what light it is under when the pic was taken, as the picture is very dark, but as I said in my other post to Brandon, I enlarged the pic in Preview on my Mac, and it does look a lot like one of the Cactus corals I have, and of which I have posted quite a few pictures.

 

Below are two older ones with those short tentacles showing.

 

 

 

 

Is that what it looks like when under brighter light ?

 

Albert

[albertthiel]

I am reposting this Link to an article by Randy Holmes-Farley not so much for the content (which is quite detailed, but also for the many many internal links that are included to other articles that may be of interest to many who read this thread

 

What Chemicals Must be Supplemented

 

© Randy Holes-Farley

 

Link : http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2007-04/rhf/index.php

 

Albert

[Paul.b]

Albert, I think you mis interprepreted my intentions of that water change post I wrote.

I don't mean to not change water, I just meant that it is much more important in a newer system, "but" we still have to change water at least eventually. I change water on my tank but only about 5 or 6 times a year, some people do a small water change every day or week which to me anyway is overkill. Water IMO actually gets better to a certain degree as it ages which is one reason that a tank with 100% new water looks lousy and the creatures are not happy. As creatures and algae live in the water they do of course create some undesirable substances which we know about but these substances are what fish evolved to live in and algae at least imparts some beneficial elements to water. This knowledge was written about many years ago, somewhat by your friend Guido Huckstead but unfortunately today we don't hear much about the benefits of aged water. Straughn also touched on the subject but I forget where.

I do know from personal experience that water that is full of algae or so called nusience algae seems at least to be very healthy for the animals as long as it does not shade the corals.

 

A new tank needs much more water changes than a much older system partly because of the experience of the hobbiest and partly because the bacteria have reached the point where they are capable of reducing all of the organics that we put in the tank and the rest will be removed by the skimmer, ozone (if used) and algae.

 

This is my tank maybe 15 or 20 years ago in a particularly bad hair algae cycle. Yes I know, horrible.

But the corals and fish were fantastic with the fish spawning in the algae and the corals (all LPS at the time) seming to grow very nicely)

 

No, we don't want our tank looking like that but I added it to show that some things in this hobby that are considered bad or toxic waste are really a benefit in disguise if we could just harness the good parts of it while eliminating the bad parts.

An algae scrubber will work for us in this case.

 

Edited November 25, 2012 by Paul.b

[albertthiel]

Albert, I think you mis interprepreted my intentions of that water change post I wrote.

I don't mean to not change water, I just meant that it is much more important in a newer system, "but" we still have to change water at least eventually. I change water on my tank but only about 5 or 6 times a year, some people do a small water change every day or week which to me anyway is overkill. Water IMO actually gets better to a certain degree as it ages which is one reason that a tank with 100% new water looks lousy and the creatures are not happy. As creatures and algae live in the water they do of course create some undesirable substances which we know about but these substances are what fish evolved to live in and algae at least imparts some beneficial elements to water. This knowledge was written about many years ago, somewhat by your friend Guido Huckstead but unfortunately today we don't hear much about the benefits of aged water. Straughn also touched on the subject but I forget where.

I do know from personal experience that water that is full of algae or so called nusience algae seems at least to be very healthy for the animals as long as it does not shade the corals.

 

This is my tank maybe 15 or 20 years ago in a particularly bad hair algae cycle. Yes I know, horrible.

But the corals and fish were fantastic with the fish spawning in the algae and the corals (all LPS at the time) seming to grow very nicely)

 

No, we don't want our tank looking like that but I added it to show that some things in this hobby that are considered bad or toxic waste are really a benefit in disguise if we could just harness the good parts of it while eliminating the bad parts.

An algae scrubber will work for us in this case.

 

 

Well Paul (not Les .. :-0 made that mistake before by replying to the wrong member), you bring up several points, and there is the additional fact that you have a large tank, versus a lot of hobbyists who have Nano Reefs that are much smaller than yours.

 

Also, whereas algae growth does have its benefits, as they uptake nutrients, where they grow also has to be taken into account as you point out yourself, as if they grow out of control, and choke corals, then obviously they are a problem.

 

And in smaller aquariums when they start to grow all over the place, that growth causes problems for those Nano Reefs, because often those tanks contain lots of life forms, and most areas are covered with them, the algae will start growing where no one with a Nano wants them to grow, meaning close to or on the base of corals and that can cause the loss of the coral if the algae infests the entire skeleton.

 

In your case the algae scrubber solved the issue of where they grow and so you have eliminated the "appearance issue" that those with smaller tanks have to deal with, but the thing is that most Nano Reefers do not have algae scrubbers. They may have sumps and fuges and promote the growth of algae there and for those that may solve the issue, but for those who do not have that kind of set up the algae will grow as explained above.

 

So to prevent that from happening, those Hobs use all kinds of methods to try to prevent algae from appearing and taking over their small tanks (and that includes water changes to keep the nutrient levels low and chemical filtration to achieve the same).

 

In smaller tanks where the ratio of life to gallons of water is high, depletion of necessary compounds will occur far faster than in a large aquarium where that ratio is the reverse and where even though the depletion will occur because of the large volume of water the reduction will not be as large as in a small aquarium that has a heavy bioload.

 

I think it is difficult to compare a large tank, and what happens in it, and that has a fairly balanced and low bioload compared to the number of gallons in the tank, versus a small Nano Reef with a heavy load and obviously a lot of less water.

 

So I cannot disagree with you on your approach because you do have a large system, and a scrubber, etc. but when it comes to smaller tanks, water changes are IMO and IME needed. How often and how large is debatable and really depends on the bioload and the size of the tank, and also on the type of life forms kept as some will deplete elements and compounds faster than others.

 

I guess it is sort of akin to comparing apples and oranges ... and we know that doing so does not work and does not make a lot of sense.

 

What you do obviously works well for you and so I have to accept that your system does not need more care than what you are giving it now, but on smaller tanks a lot of what can be done in large tanks, cannot be done in smaller ones.

 

And that applies not just to algae growth, nutrient control, water changes, adding compounds etc. but also to stocking practices:

 

For instance in a large tank you can more than likely put two Boxer shrimp and have no issue, but if you try that in a small tank, they will fight to death and one will end up being killed by the other one. And Boxer shrimp are not the only example of the differences.

 

Whereas you can kept schooling fish in your tank, doing so in a small Nano-Reef will not work because they will take over the whole tank and not allow any other fish to "become threats to their territory and their food supply", at least that is how it seems and how it happens.

 

In large tanks you can easily add conspecifics (same species, mixing males and females) and not have any issues, but if you do so in a Nano Reef you will have problems for sure.

 

I think we have to agree to make a distinction on what needs to be done in large tanks, versus what is necessary in Nano-Reefs.

 

And yes there are theories on aged water versus not so aged water the content of which is affected by water changes, but in the case you mention, Guido et al. and Peter Wilkens et al. were really discussing larger systems and not Nano-Reefs.

 

So I will not disagree with you on your statements but reiterate that in small tanks things are different and need to be dealt with in a different manner.

 

Now you may have a different opinion even on the care for small tanks and I will gladly read your comments and arguments ... Thanks for the post Paul.

 

Albert

[albertthiel]

How Coral Reefs Work - Multi-page Article

 

© science.howstuffworks

 

Once you get to the end of one page, click on the page numbers to move through all of the article

 

Link : http://science.howstuffworks.com/environme.../coral-reef.htm

 

Albert

[albertthiel]

A link to a large number of Videos on Reef Tanks and What is kept in Them

 

© various Hobbyists who posted them

 

Start with the one that comes up and find a large number more on the right side of the screen

 

Link :

 

Albert

[albertthiel]

Conservation: Turneffe Atol Marine Reserve is a Reality

 

© flylifemagazine & turneffe flat lodge

 

 

View the article and use the site to navigate to other most interesting Conservation Projects

 

Link : http://flylifemagazine.com/conservation-tu...e-is-a-reality/

 

Albert

[albertthiel]

I installed an Oxydator a Few Days Ago (2)

 

So far what I can report on the effects of the effect the Oxydator has done for my tank is the following:

 

• Water clarity is higher than it was before
  
• Skimmer seems to operate better (looks like I get smaller bubbles)
  
• Foam (skimmate) is a little darker than before
  
• Brown film growth on glass seems to have slowed down a good deal. Cleaned it before installing the Unit and so far I can only see 1 small patch versus what would have appeared in 2 days before installing it
  
• All corals look real good and extended
  
• No adverse effects on anything in the tank, on the contrary
  

 

In essence so far so good ! It is early yet to see whether anything else changes or looks better but in 2 days the unit has been some good and nice differences in my tank.

 

I strongly recommend the Oxydator to everyone. The problem is that the distributor here in the US seems to be out of stock, and has been for some time.

 

I am looking into how we can obtain them via an alternate channel, and if I find one I will post it here.

 

Back to writing now ...

 

Albert