Josh_Canada
New member
i would pass on the algae proof glass. Problems i could see difficult: tank friendly, clarity, price. If you run a magfloat daily, the algae shouldn't be too bad, at least in my experience.
What if...
- Thread starter yongpanda
- Start date
alcko
New member
man...seems like everybody hates your idea.
If there were no cost difference, the answer is an obvious yes. i would think most people would prefer this magic glass over normal glass. WHY NOT?
Yes, it is so easy to wipe with your mag, but if you could choose to do it/ not do it, i think most people would choose to not do it.
seems very clear in my head....
However, i think most people are getting at the fact that the price won't be the same (you must be compensated for your research), and they are not willing to pay for this magic glass when they came simply wipe it with a mag every week
If there were no cost difference, the answer is an obvious yes. i would think most people would prefer this magic glass over normal glass. WHY NOT?
Yes, it is so easy to wipe with your mag, but if you could choose to do it/ not do it, i think most people would choose to not do it.
seems very clear in my head....
However, i think most people are getting at the fact that the price won't be the same (you must be compensated for your research), and they are not willing to pay for this magic glass when they came simply wipe it with a mag every week
I don't think that is really the problem if you have this magic glass that doesn't grow algae it will still grow at the same rate somewhere else it the tank. The glass is easy to clean but I doubt the places the algae would grow instead would be as easy.
We all want tanks that don't grow algae but this is best achieved by regular water changes and low/no excess nutrients. Even if this magic glass existed it would just move the problem to another part of the tank.
noahm
Active member
There is some work being done on a surface with a microtexture based on shark skin that apparently significantly inhibits bacterial growth, so I wouldn't say it is impossible. Algae may find it a more appealing surface though. Who knows. Maintaining glass clarity may be the deal breaker.
I believe the company is Sharklet.
Ahh. here is a link to one of the old articles.
http://www.hospimedica.com/?option=com_article&Itemid=294721620&cat=Critical Care
I believe the company is Sharklet.
Ahh. here is a link to one of the old articles.
http://www.hospimedica.com/?option=com_article&Itemid=294721620&cat=Critical Care
Last edited:
noahm
Active member
Anyway, it looks like they have made it into an adhesive film. I would give them a call and see what kind of applications it can be used in, clarity issues etc. It not a chemical process, but rather a printed texture, so it shouldn't leach anything. Who knows, maybe they will give you a sample you can stick on a tank.
Last edited:
SushiGirl
Premium Member
I don't have enough on my glass for it to float around in my tank. If I did, I'd be pretty worried about what the issue was with my water quality.
yongpanda
New member
For those who are having issues with algae are indeed combating high nutrient levels. There are solutions right now to lower these levels such as using a refugium or a skimmer. And for those who prefer to scrape algae are only recycling it in the tank to become another pollutant. It isn't whether or not it is visible to the eye, its the fact that you are merely removing it from the glass and letting it become another piece of detritus that will pollute the tank.
The purpose of an all clean glass tank isn't only for convenience for those with algae problems, small tanks without a skimmer/refugium, maintenance, but also for the sake of keeping water clean in itself. In my experience, algae is more readily grown on glass in comparison to sand or live rock. Why? only safe to assume that the bacteria that reside in those areas are capable of controlling it unlike the glass. In the end, the glass surface acts as a farm for algae to thrive.
On top of all this, the people who are suggesting that I look at the already developed technologies right now to combat "biofouling" should look and research for their own sake because the use of hydrophobic/hydrophillic properties of water is not consistent. Research has already determined that different types of algae are capable of attaching onto surfaces whether it is hydrophobic or hydrophillic.
My alternative is indeed bio-friendly so that livestock in tanks do not die. My idea specifically is looking at an alternative other than those dealing with the affinity of water. Just as how most algae attach themselves using a glyco-protein, I am looking for an inhibitor that will inhibit the attachment of it. I've seen mold-preventing sprays that use enzymes that inhibits its glyco proteins and is exactly the type of reaction I'm trying to get. Only problem is to make this something that will not have to be reapplied
I am not close minded and open to other ways, and another may be use of electricity. Just like the recent product that zaps aiptasia, and the technology of moving electrical currents through glass, an electrical pulse can be distributed/sent specifically to the level so that algae will die upon rooting YET will not harm any other organism.
There are many other ideas out there including those that look to cause apoptosis to organic cells that try to attach to a surface, and etc. This feature of having a algae free or maybe even one that is free of organic compound isn't only applicable to tanks, but others as well: overflows, pumps, skimmers (so air intakes don't get clogged), prevents water stains, a simpler setup without a refugium and so on.
Just remember that I am only sharing an idea that I am researching into and not one that is already proven.
The purpose of an all clean glass tank isn't only for convenience for those with algae problems, small tanks without a skimmer/refugium, maintenance, but also for the sake of keeping water clean in itself. In my experience, algae is more readily grown on glass in comparison to sand or live rock. Why? only safe to assume that the bacteria that reside in those areas are capable of controlling it unlike the glass. In the end, the glass surface acts as a farm for algae to thrive.
On top of all this, the people who are suggesting that I look at the already developed technologies right now to combat "biofouling" should look and research for their own sake because the use of hydrophobic/hydrophillic properties of water is not consistent. Research has already determined that different types of algae are capable of attaching onto surfaces whether it is hydrophobic or hydrophillic.
My alternative is indeed bio-friendly so that livestock in tanks do not die. My idea specifically is looking at an alternative other than those dealing with the affinity of water. Just as how most algae attach themselves using a glyco-protein, I am looking for an inhibitor that will inhibit the attachment of it. I've seen mold-preventing sprays that use enzymes that inhibits its glyco proteins and is exactly the type of reaction I'm trying to get. Only problem is to make this something that will not have to be reapplied
I am not close minded and open to other ways, and another may be use of electricity. Just like the recent product that zaps aiptasia, and the technology of moving electrical currents through glass, an electrical pulse can be distributed/sent specifically to the level so that algae will die upon rooting YET will not harm any other organism.
There are many other ideas out there including those that look to cause apoptosis to organic cells that try to attach to a surface, and etc. This feature of having a algae free or maybe even one that is free of organic compound isn't only applicable to tanks, but others as well: overflows, pumps, skimmers (so air intakes don't get clogged), prevents water stains, a simpler setup without a refugium and so on.
Just remember that I am only sharing an idea that I am researching into and not one that is already proven.
schoch79
New member
I get your point you are trying to get across. I would say most people would probably seriously consider buying a tank made of this magic glass assuming it has been extensively tested and save for the inhabitants, is as clear as "normal" glass, and not prone to breaking/shattering under normal aquarium loads, even with an increase in cost. Years ago before low iron glass I wonder how many laughed at the idea of paying almost twice as much for glass that scratches easier and cracks easier just because it is clearer. I mean how stupid is that? Let's use weaker glass for our aquariums and pay twice the amount for it. I mean yeah now everyone loves it and is willing to pay the premium for it. I say go for it. If you can do it and meet all requirements people are looking for in aquarium glass I'm sure people would love it just as much. It's just another part of maintanence simplified. To look at that in another way we could always say stop using skimmers and just do more water changes. That would eliminate adding supplements and keep the water clean. The list could go on.
alcko
New member
You're completely correct and have a great point.
My question is: do people with ULNS and top notch husbandry have mag floats?
The answer to the question is a no brainer if this "magic glass" doesn't effect the tank and the clarity of the glass. Who doesn't want an algae free glass?
anyways, if you have good water quality, there shouldn't be any stringy HA on your glass. Just a light dusting of algae on your glass that a swipe of the mag float can't take care of.
I would say yes they do, ULNS or not. You will always get a light dusting of algae/bio film on the glass.
anyways, if you have good water quality, there shouldn't be any stringy HA on your glass. Just a light dusting of algae on your glass that a swipe of the mag float can't take care of.
I would say yes they do, ULNS or not. You will always get a light dusting of algae/bio film on the glass.
On top of all this, the people who are suggesting that I look at the already developed technologies right now to combat "biofouling" should look and research for their own sake because the use of hydrophobic/hydrophillic properties of water is not consistent. Research has already determined that different types of algae are capable of attaching onto surfaces whether it is hydrophobic or hydrophillic.
Of course they are able to attach. That's the problem. You cannot alter surface chemistry to keep organisms from attaching unless you add releasable toxic chemicals. No matter what the surface initially looks like chemically (or even physically by texturing on the size scale of individual cells, as pointed out earlier), it eventually is coated with organic stuff and other materials that makes it suitable for them. I am very familiar with this field and all of the ideas you suggest. None work long term. I know you do not trust me, but I really do have a thorough understanding of surface chemistry and biomaterials and such related issues, both from extensive education and many years of working in this area.
That said, there's nothing wrong with reading and dreaming. Just don't try to mislead folks into thinking this is plausible.
Just remember that I am only sharing an idea that I am researching into and not one that is already proven.
Trust me on this one point, I won't let anyone forget that truism. That's the main reason I spend time on these boards: to help nonscientists deal with many technical issues that are beyond their normal range of experiences.
Of course they are able to attach. That's the problem. You cannot alter surface chemistry to keep organisms from attaching unless you add releasable toxic chemicals. No matter what the surface initially looks like chemically (or even physically by texturing on the size scale of individual cells, as pointed out earlier), it eventually is coated with organic stuff and other materials that makes it suitable for them. I am very familiar with this field and all of the ideas you suggest. None work long term. I know you do not trust me, but I really do have a thorough understanding of surface chemistry and biomaterials and such related issues, both from extensive education and many years of working in this area.
That said, there's nothing wrong with reading and dreaming. Just don't try to mislead folks into thinking this is plausible.
Just remember that I am only sharing an idea that I am researching into and not one that is already proven.
Trust me on this one point, I won't let anyone forget that truism. That's the main reason I spend time on these boards: to help nonscientists deal with many technical issues that are beyond their normal range of experiences.
spamreefnew
New member
I don't think it is a bad idea at all. I have seen a video of nano treated glass for office buildings in witch dirt and water will not stick to the glass what so ever. people can be a touch rude here also 
I'm sorry if you think I'm being rude. That was not my intention. I always want to encourage healthy discussions and debates. My intent was only to help assist folks in understanding chemical and biological realities. That said, Iโll happily step out of this thread as I think I've adequately made my point.
jcolletteiii
New member
..maybe transparent aluminum would inhibit algal growth 
rtparty
Raise The Reef!
I don't know if I understand the whole part about how algae is a pollutant? People want a tank that doesn't grow algae???? That literally makes me pull my hair out!
What people don't want is nuisance algae that can overrun a tank. Trust me, no one hates a tank full of macro algae more than me. I don't even like the "pretty" algae. I want a tank with corals, not macro algae. I have nothing against people who have macro tanks. I think they can look good in their own way but I don't want that in my tank. If I buy a coral and it has any type of macro on it, I scrub it off and hit the algae with some hydrogen peroxide. I don't want it in my tank.
I do, however, want my tank to grow the good algae. I find the algae on glass to be good algae. Fish, snails and other bugs in the tank love it! Find me a fish or snail that loves Bryopsis. When you scrape your glass, it feeds the tank. There are filter feeders, sponges and other micro fauna that eat the algae.
If I have an herbivorous fish that loves to graze all day, I keep a pane of glass coated in algae for about a week. I then scrape it off and let another side of my tank grow the algae for a while. The fish love this! They have a nice place to graze and it grows back quickly for them.
How is that harming me or my tank? Algae filters water. It rarely, if ever, pollutes it.
Why doesn't it grow on rock as fast? Heard of copepods? They LOVE eating up the algae on rocks. Rarely do I see a copepod on the glass.
By not cramming 20 fish into a 6 square foot area, it is extremely easy to control algae. It also helps to balance your tank out with herbivorous fish. If you have a bunch of wrasses, they will eat your copepods and disturb the balance in your tank.
I think if you want to find something to inhibit algae growth, go for it! I support growth and moving forward. I am sure there are applications that would use the technology and you could make good money with it all. I just don't see it being a great idea to use in aquariums.
Totally my opinion on it all and nothing more. I am not a scientist or anything even close. Science is actually one of my worst subjects.
What people don't want is nuisance algae that can overrun a tank. Trust me, no one hates a tank full of macro algae more than me. I don't even like the "pretty" algae. I want a tank with corals, not macro algae. I have nothing against people who have macro tanks. I think they can look good in their own way but I don't want that in my tank. If I buy a coral and it has any type of macro on it, I scrub it off and hit the algae with some hydrogen peroxide. I don't want it in my tank.
I do, however, want my tank to grow the good algae. I find the algae on glass to be good algae. Fish, snails and other bugs in the tank love it! Find me a fish or snail that loves Bryopsis. When you scrape your glass, it feeds the tank. There are filter feeders, sponges and other micro fauna that eat the algae.
If I have an herbivorous fish that loves to graze all day, I keep a pane of glass coated in algae for about a week. I then scrape it off and let another side of my tank grow the algae for a while. The fish love this! They have a nice place to graze and it grows back quickly for them.
How is that harming me or my tank? Algae filters water. It rarely, if ever, pollutes it.
Why doesn't it grow on rock as fast? Heard of copepods? They LOVE eating up the algae on rocks. Rarely do I see a copepod on the glass.
By not cramming 20 fish into a 6 square foot area, it is extremely easy to control algae. It also helps to balance your tank out with herbivorous fish. If you have a bunch of wrasses, they will eat your copepods and disturb the balance in your tank.
I think if you want to find something to inhibit algae growth, go for it! I support growth and moving forward. I am sure there are applications that would use the technology and you could make good money with it all. I just don't see it being a great idea to use in aquariums.
Totally my opinion on it all and nothing more. I am not a scientist or anything even close. Science is actually one of my worst subjects.
Meh... algae free glass? Excess algae is a symptom of other issues within your tank.. If you want to cut down on algae growth - look at why you are getting so much excess algae and treat the cause, not the symptom.
There are much more useful areas to focus research and effort at the moment than glass which won't allow algae to attach.. If you have enough algae that your tank is "polluted" every time you clean the glass then you definitely are focussing your efforts in the wrong direction at the moment.
-Dave
There are much more useful areas to focus research and effort at the moment than glass which won't allow algae to attach.. If you have enough algae that your tank is "polluted" every time you clean the glass then you definitely are focussing your efforts in the wrong direction at the moment.
-Dave
Similar threads
