Filter Carbon

[Miss Wiggle]

As a result I still feel the comments I posted above should carry more weight than those of people brewing (and presumably drinking) homebrew.

come on now, that's a bit uncalled for. if no one paid any attention to the thoughts of a drunkard then I'd just get ignored most of the time



oh wait, maybe your right

 

[andywg]

come on now, that's a bit uncalled for. if no one paid any attention to the thoughts of a drunkard then I'd just get ignored most of the time

Drinking alcohol and drinking homebrew are two very different experiences.

Take Vodka: Smirnoff usually doles out 37.5%, many Russian homebrews hit the 90% mark.

 

[Miss Wiggle]

he he i know, my dad makes and drinks a fair bit of his own homebrew, doesn't seem to have harmed him much, he's got a very well paid job as a tax inspector....... oh wait maybe it has

 

[raptorrex]

what nobody has been able to do yet, is offer any rebutals, that truly stand up, and are more than just expert opinions. and ATM with expert testimony having to be looked at closley in the uk. after so many people being wrongly convicted of crimes through it over the past few years. any comments are to be seen as just that comments.

i have spent tens of hour lookin for information on this subject. and have yet to see anything that would suggest my theory is not correct. atm it is no more than an educated theory, but it stands up. until scinece can be found, that says other wise.

You are doing science backwards, just like they do with ID. You are saying "this is how I believe it works - you prove me wrong". You will note there is no science to back your theory either.

By the same logic, I can reveal my Pastafarian roots and state my belief that the molecules are not adsorbed, they are merely stored by the Flying Spaghetti Monster in one of his noodly appendages. I don't have any evidence to suggest it is otherwise, so it is a vaild scientific argument until someone proves me wrong.

that is fair enough, how do you explain the actions of my farther?

i do see your point, but my link was atleast backed up by the fact that the system is used in industry, suger not booze.

lol your flying spagehetti comment though funny, misses the point, my theory is based on the knowledge we all have on carbon, that particals are adsorbed to its surface, this is not the case with spagehtti, as far as i know. we all know carbon can be deadsorbed, something again that pasta is not likley to do.

as for scientific proof:
i have shown that carbon is deadsorbed at temps of over 160 degrees, on an industrial scale, the suger industry.

you rebut that by sayin they are probably removing different thing, but offer no evidence of that being the case!

i have said many people do try to deadsorb their carbon seemingly without problems.

but you can show me no evidence that doing this is not effective. unless, unlike me, you could post a link, showing where this method was used and failed, by the remaining chemicals having caused some problems for, well anyone! or indeed any scientific evedence that deadsorbtion is even possible, in an aquarium.

as for doing science backwards. lol many scientific notions, start life as a theorys, that is why ther is so much argument at first when a new theory arrives.
though i will say, much of what i say is already proven, its just at the edges, we have dissagrement.

a chalenge to all:

we need one provable case of deadsorbtion in an aquarium

we need one provable case of carbon, not being able to be deadsorbed in a conventional oven, at least to the point where it was safe to use again.

a simple search on google wil provide you with plenty of testamony as to the validity of my theory. in the absence of any scientific evidence to the contarery, i can only go by peoples experience.

you would think that information on this would be easey to find, especially if it were not possible. could it be that there is no science on this because the perceved problems of using acrbon are just that. percived problems?

 

[andywg]

that is fair enough, how do you explain the actions of my farther?

What, that his air filter worked the way it was meant to? As I stated, it was not an aquatic system. It had different goals and objectives

i do see your point, but my link was atleast backed up by the fact that the system is used in industry, suger not booze.

Again, it is beings used to pinch some impurities from sugar, not for the removal of dissolved organics.

lol your flying spagehetti comment though funny, misses the point, my theory is based on the knowledge we all have on carbon, that particals are adsorbed to its surface, this is not the case with spagehtti, as far as i know. we all know carbon can be deadsorbed, something again that pasta is not likley to do.

"Not likely"... in your view. You still haven't disproved that it is the FSM that does it. This is the same as your comment that no one has disproved you. Science isn't about thinking of something and then getting it disproved, it is about observing something, hypothesising and then testing to see if the hypothesis agrees with controlled test results.

and yes, I shall forgive you this once for not capitalising His name

as for scientific proof:
i have shown that carbon is deadsorbed at temps of over 160 degrees, on an industrial scale, the suger industry.

you rebut that by sayin they are probably removing different thing, but offer no evidence of that being the case!

Your own link that talks about the sugar industry states that dissolved organics are not removed. The whole argument for using carbon in the aquarium is to adsorb dissolved organics. I need not offer evidence, I have just read the link you posted. (which itself could be debated to be no science as it lists no references, but I digress).

i have said many people do try to deadsorb their carbon seemingly without problems.

but you can show me no evidence that doing this is not effective. unless, unlike me, you could post a link, showing where this method was used and failed, by the remaining chemicals having caused some problems for, well anyone! or indeed any scientific evedence that deadsorbtion is even possible, in an aquarium.

So because something seems to work in completely non scientific experiments I have to now disprove it? And who are these people? What were the controls on the tests they did?

Show me where they have had a constant level of dissolved organics, have been able to view the amount adsorbed by the carbon and then can see how the carbon has an effect on the level of DOC in the water which tapers out before being cooked and then starts working to the same level again.

Otherwise it is just some people putting some wet carbon in the oven. How do they actually measure the adsorbtion level of the carbon?

as for doing science backwards. lol many scientific notions, start life as a theorys, that is why ther is so much argument at first when a new theory arrives.
though i will say, much of what i say is already proven, its just at the edges, we have dissagrement.

A scientific theory has to be based on controlled experiments and observations. Newton didn't theorise gravity and then set out to find it, he observed what was happening around him, moitored the results and then drew up the theory based on what he had seen. further tests were carried out to see if his theory was correct. That is how science works.

Doing it backwards means you already know what you are looking for and brings you to things like the "evidence" for intelligent design. Theory has an entirely different meaning in science, the confusion over which is oft exploited (Theory of Evolution anyone?)

we need one provable case of carbon, not being able to be deadsorbed in a conventional oven, at least to the point where it was safe to use again.

Nothing to do with safe, you said it improved with age, so I want to see it adsorbing more each time it is cooked in the oven. My point is that since we want it to remove DOCs, which your own supporting article states will not be de-adsorbed in an oven, I say it will become less and less efficient each time.

As an arbitrary amount, suppose 50% of the molecules adsorbed are dissolved organics. Second time round it will only have 50% of its previous amount. thrid time you are down to 25%. It will not be worth it.

a simple search on google wil provide you with plenty of testamony as to the validity of my theory. in the absence of any scientific evidence to the contarery, i can only go by peoples experience.

you would think that information on this would be easey to find, especially if it were not possible. could it be that there is no science on this because the perceved problems of using acrbon are just that. percived problems?

A simple search on Google will give much testimony that god created teh world in 7 days and the dinosaurs walked with man. There is much testimony to the validity of your theory, but I have seen much testimony to how great a brand of shampoo is, doesn't men it actually is that good.

Why do you have so much trouble heeding the advice of experts in the field over people you have found on google? The real problem people have with carbon is that there is a much easier and far better way to maintain water quality: the Water Change! It affects all impurities in the water.

 

[OohFeeshy]

Just to butt in here- what is your evidence for saying it 'gets better with age'? You can't *see* it absorbing anything, nor can you probably list exactly what it is removing. If anything, it will get worse with age- even if baking it can remove some of the stuff, it's not going to be 100% effective.

 

[nmonks]

This is pretty much what I'm thinking. Whether you like carbon or not, I'm not sure how you can objectively measure how much stuff it is absorbing. So arguments about whether it is rechargeable or not seem to be unsustainable either way. With a protein skimmer, you can *see* the stuff you're removing. With a biological filter, you can measure the nitrites. With carbon, you have to take it on trust.

Neale

Just to butt in here- what is your evidence for saying it 'gets better with age'? You can't *see* it absorbing anything, nor can you probably list exactly what it is removing. If anything, it will get worse with age- even if baking it can remove some of the stuff, it's not going to be 100% effective.

 

[andywg]

This is pretty much what I'm thinking. Whether you like carbon or not, I'm not sure how you can objectively measure how much stuff it is absorbing. So arguments about whether it is rechargeable or not seem to be unsustainable either way. With a protein skimmer, you can *see* the stuff you're removing. With a biological filter, you can measure the nitrites. With carbon, you have to take it on trust.

Neale

Trust in Him (The Flying Spaghetti Monster).

 

[raptorrex]

Just to butt in here- what is your evidence for saying it 'gets better with age'? You can't *see* it absorbing anything, nor can you probably list exactly what it is removing. If anything, it will get worse with age- even if baking it can remove some of the stuff, it's not going to be 100% effective.

i said that i was not sure on this, but, with knowledge of the thermal proccesses involved, would make it seem, this may be possilble. i have linked on other threads exactly what carbon can and does remove! as for the rest people may disagree, but i have still seen less evidence against my theory tank i have offered for.

andy sorry but a theory is just that, an basis on which scientific experiments are done, to prove or disprove it! perhaps a defenition of theory is in order!

 

[nmonks]

No, you can't prove a theory. All you can do is try to disprove it or else find evidence to support it. Evolution can't be "proved" as such, it is simply that all the evidence found so far supports it, and none of the alternative theories (such as Lamarckism) stand up to testing. So evolution remains the "best" theory because it is the one that fits the data and hasn't yet been disproved.

(It's actually a bit more complicated that this, any my apologies to any scientists or philosophers out there, but for now, this'll do.)

Cheers, Neale

andy sorry but a theory is just that, an basis on which scientific experiments are done, to prove or disprove it! perhaps a defenition of theory is in order!

 

[raptorrex]

ok taking what neale says,
i challenge anyone to disprove my theory! at least give any provable evidence that any part is wrong!

cant be more simple than that.

as i have spent many hours looking into this, perhaps someone would be good enough to do the same to rebut it!

and lol no andy, the comments from your MAN, do not in anyway constitute provable evidence.

you may not agree with me. you may well not like what i say. but i have put forward my theory, like it or not only only way to rebut it is to provide proper evidence against it. this is something i need not do, and as neale says a theory can never be prove, but if wrong it can be disproved.

 

[andywg]

i challenge anyone to disprove my theory! at least give any provable evidence that any part is wrong!

Spoken exactly like an ID believer on his way to Kansas for a schools board meeting.

If you will adopt such a ludicrous stance (that science has to prove you wrong rather than you prove yourself right) then there will be no meaningful debate.

 

[raptorrex]

i challenge anyone to disprove my theory! at least give any provable evidence that any part is wrong!

Spoken exactly like an ID believer on his way to Kansas for a schools board meeting.

If you will adopt such a ludicrous stance (that science has to prove you wrong rather than you prove yourself right) then there will be no meaningful debate.

did you read neales post. a theory can only be disproved not proved!! i took no stance, i mealy use the comments from another poster.

if you had any real science to refut my comments, i am sure you would have used it by now. so could i suggest you find some? and you can be sure i have tried to find any evedence ether way,. and on the whole failed. this is why i have had to put this forward as a theory, and not fact.

you may refuse to accept my theory, but untill you provide evidence againt it, my theory is as valid as any.

 

[andywg]

did you read neales post. a theory can only be disproved not proved!! i took no stance, i mealy use the comments from another poster.

if you had any real science to refut my comments, i am sure you would have used it by now. so could i suggest you find some? and you can be sure i have tried to find any evedence ether way,. and on the whole failed. this is why i have had to put this forward as a theory, and not fact.

you may refuse to accept my theory, but untill you provide evidence againt it, my theory is as valid as any.

Sadly, in terms of "real science" you have no theory. From wiki:

A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from and/or is supported by experimental evidence

You have no experimental evidence, therefore you have (at best) a hypothesis, but certainly not a theory. Therefore your "theory" is certainly not as valid as any other theory.

I fear you have intentionally mis-interpreted neale's comment on proving theories. Perhaps Stephen Hawkings does it better in A Brief History of Time:

any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis; you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory. On the other hand, you can disprove a theory by finding even a single repeatable observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory

The point being we can never be absolutely sure that a theory is exactly the way it is, just that it best fits all the evidence we have until now. However a new understanding, or set of results, may change that at some point in the future.

Just because there is no scientific test to refute a claim does not mean the converse is true. I have scoured google and can find no scientific tests to tell me that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is not real, this does not mean it is real. If you carry on descending into the realms of pseudo science at this rate, you will start to draw a correlation between global warming and the number of pirates in the world:

 

[Bignose]

You are right, about "theory" used in common everyday English and "theory" as used by scientists are almost completely different. Theory as used by scientists means a preponderance of evidence. And, all available data continue to fit into the theory, with every new experiment. This is why it is the "Theory of Gravity" Not the Law or Rule. Yes, it is just a theory, but I don't see cars flying up off the road any time soon.

Here are some rebuttals:

Title: Rapid response concentration-controlled desorption of activated carbon to dampen concentration fluctuations
Author(s): Hashisho Z (Hashisho, Zaher), Emamipour H (Emamipour, Hamidreza), Cevallos D (Cevallos, Diego), Rood MJ (Rood, Mark J.), Hay KJ (Hay, K. James), Kim BJ (Kim, Byung J.)
Source: ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY 41 (5): 1753-1758 MAR 1 2007

This is an article that discusses how to keep an air/organic mix at the same concentration the entire time by using adsorption/desorption on carbon. What the researchers do, is have an activated carbon cloth in the pipeline with the air/organic stream. If the concentration of the organic was high, more was adsorbed onto the carbon. If the concentration was low, the carbon would release more organics. The point is, even though the source of the air/organic stream could have variations in its concentration, because of the equilibrium process of adsorption/desorption, as the air stream exited the carbon cloth, the concentration of organics in the air was much more constant. The fluctuations in the concentration were dampened out. Engineers are very interested in information like this so that even though the source of the organic vapors may be unsteady, there is a way that the process can be made steady, and hence easier to control.

Title: Adsorption and desorption of volatile organic compounds in fluidized bed
Author(s): Yazbek W (Yazbek, Wael), Pre P (Pre, Pascaline), Delebarre A (Delebarre, Arnaud)
Source: JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING-ASCE 132 (5): 442-452 MAY 2006

This was experiments and models predicting the adsorption/desorption of acetone in carbon beds. At room temperature.

I can cite many, many more. The point is, have you studied any physical chemistry? Can you discuss anything about equilibrium processes? Do you know how they behave? adsorption/desorption by its very nature is an equilibrium process, which means that there is always some adsorption occurring and always some desorption occurring. Always. This has been known for quite some time now.

Now, in terms of regenerating carbon after wastewater applications. Companies like Siemens use furnaces to cook the carbon. http/www.usfilter.com/en/Corporate/Techn...echnologies.htm Here is another http/www.mintek.co.za/downloads/Minfurn.pdf If there was a way for the companies to do it at 200 degrees F, why would they waste money in building a furnace?!? Companies do not waste money is there is a cheaper way to do it. Not only cheaper, but no furnaces would also be a lot safer. Another option for regeneration is very strong acid. High concentration of acid with a pH around 3.0 is usually needed, which also is not a very safe method in industrial processes when regenerating tons of carbon. Again, if it only took heating to 200 F, why run the risk of using dangerous acid?!?

Finally, I have seen no evidence whatsoever supporting the carbon gets better with age argument.

bobo, if there are other point you'd like to see addressed, please let me know. I can do the research and look these things up. And back up mu opinions with peer-reviewed journal articles. Can you do the same?