Understanding Vibrant: Algaefix, Polixetonium Chloride / Busan 77

[sixty_reefer]

Before saying they do not match, please read my post that I linked for you so that you can have a minimal understanding of how to match an IR. Absolute peak intensity is meaningless. Relative peak sizes within a spectrum, and location of each peak are what's important, and they match.

There is no possibility of the material in Vibrant being roseobacticide. NONE. The NMR will be totally different, and I expect the FTIR is also totally different. To your untrained eye, of course, some parts will look similar because both molecules have some of the same chemical moieties, such as C-C and C-O and C-H bonds. But they will not match in all peaks, especially in the 500-1600 cm-1 range. That region is called the fingerprint region because it is specific to a structure.

I’m not saying roseobacticide is the ingredient, I’m just saying that it appears to have a similar ftir. There is many other strains of bacteria out there and data from those strains will be kept away from the internet for obvious reasons.

 

[MnFish1]

I'm not aware of any contradictory data, and while it is certainly possible that the bacterial experiments somehow were contaminated by bacteria on the equipment, I do not see how there is any evidence that such is the case, or any reason to think there must be flaws. No one is claiming that the vibrant polymer is or must be sterile. Why would it be?

What exactly do you believe is the contradiction?

I did not mean to suggest that the bacterial experiments contradict the NMR. I meant to say - that if there looks like an apparent contradiction (to Sixty) - the likelihood is there is a problem with the bacterial part not the NMR part.

 

[a.t.t.r]

I’m not saying roseobacticide is the ingredient, I’m just saying that it appears to have a similar ftir. There is many other strains of bacteria out there and data from those strains will be kept away from the internet for obvious reasons.

Oil is a liquid. Forget that what comes out of my tap test as h2o. It is a liquid like oil so maybe my tap is producing mineral oil.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

I’m not saying roseobacticide is the ingredient, I’m just saying that it appears to have a similar ftir. There is many other strains of bacteria out there and data from those strains will be kept away from the internet for obvious reasons.

If you want to claim a match to anything else, I'm happy to look at it with you. Your untrained eye would be useless without some coaching on interpretation. hexagrammid already went down that route earlier in this thread, trying to find any explanations.

 

[Sean Clark]

Half of this is sad. The other half I commend for your tolerance to all of the noise.

 

[CoralB]

Half of this is sad. The other half I commend for your tolerance to all of the noise.

What he said!!!

 

[sixty_reefer]

Oil is a liquid. Forget that what comes out of my tap test as h2o. It is a liquid like oil so maybe my tap is producing mineral oil.

Interesting analogy not really sure what you really expect me to reply to this

 

[A_Blind_Reefer]

So I watched Train to Busan…..and I’ve used Vibrant…..exactly how long is it before I turn into a Zombie?

 

[Who me?]

To me I only see vibrant matching with vibrant, the algaefix seems low and different peaks. I didn’t save the ftir from roseobacticide as I didn’t wanted to get involved further in the discussion although the peaks are very similar if not identical, and there’s a few articles online that will demonstrate that you can harvest roseobacticide from bacteria.

What I find interesting is you refuse to accept the results which are clearly shown. Just because you do not know how to read the results does not mean they are incorrect. Vibrant and Algaefix are a clear match to anyone who understands how to read the graphs.
You have multiple people here telling you the result, yet you seem unwilling to accept that truth simply because you are unable to properly read the results yourself??

 

[rtparty]

“The opinion of 10,000 men is of no value if none of them know anything about the subject.” - Marcus Aurelius

A little over 10 years ago I tore my ACL playing basketball. I went to the doctor hours after it happened, they ran tests, and found no ligament damage. Come to find out they were old, outdated tests performed by a doctor that was not properly trained on diagnosing ACL tears.

A few months later after my knee was not getting better I went to a specialist. They knew immediately what had happened. My injury "walked like a duck and talked like a duck." Therefore, it was a duck. They ran their official tests with a couple machines and confirmed what they knew. I had surgery a month later.

What's my point you ask?

One doctor (multiple posters in this thread) was not trained on the subject and knew nothing. Their opinion mattered not. The trained doctor (multiple trained experts, some even world renowned and recognized, in this thread) knew how to use the tools properly and could diagnose what happened.

How foolish would I have looked if I argued with doctor number two? About as foolish as anyone that wants to argue with the top scientists in this thread that already combed through the experiment and found no fault.

 

[LgTas]

The last few pages have been frustrating to read. I'll try summarise to save others:

"I'm untrained but I'm going to cherry pick through the thread (rather than read it all) and ask out of context questions based on speculative theories. Then when a respected specialist(s) interprets the threads' 1st hand data into a clear answer, I will ignore that and rather ask more speculative questions"

 

[sixty_reefer]

What I find interesting is you refuse to accept the results which are clearly shown. Just because you do not know how to read the results does not mean they are incorrect. Vibrant and Algaefix are a clear match to anyone who understands how to read the graphs.
You have multiple people here telling you the result, yet you seem unwilling to accept that truth simply because you are unable to properly read the results yourself??

why do you find that interesting? The fact that you haven’t picked up some of the errors in the data means a lot.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

why do you find that interesting? The fact that you haven’t picked up some of the errors in the data means a lot.

I have not seen any errors.

what errors are you talking about?

The story is entirely consistent with Algaefix and Vibrant being the exact same material. No data presented in this thread suggests otherwise.

 

[Lasse]

@sixty_reefer - You miss the important point here. An algaecide is an algaecide whatever its origin is. To sell an algaecide and argue that its a natural product of bacterial origin is at least greenwashing if you were to meet a kind judge.

I do not doubt for a second that the @Randy Holmes-Farley, @taricha and @jda are right in this case - IMO they are more than right but - I´m a little confused about this. It seems to me that JDA´s graph is upside down - otherwise I can´t see a match with the other graphs because as it is at now - its a mirror of the other two. But I am not used of this method or to interpret the result.

Here are all three (taricha vibrant and algaefix, and JDA vibrant). They match.

Sincerely Lasse

 

[A Young Reefer]

why do you find that interesting? The fact that you haven’t picked up some of the errors in the data means a lot.

Mate I appreciate the fact you are asking questions and all, but it’s a bit much.
Best case scenario let’s say that vibrant DID have 60% bacteria in it (which is not the case). What about the other 40%? Test results showed that it’s an Algaecide which I haven’t been told about before Purchase. This doesn’t make UWC’s situation any better.
away from science, let’s discuss logic do you seriously believe that there is some sort of super bacteria that can do what vibrant claims it does? And this super bacteria can’t reproduce in neither salt nor fresh water? And this super bacteria that could potentially be a disaster to marine life, is in the hands of some hobbyists with “fish tanks”? If your answer is yes then I have nothing else to say.
Your continuous criticism towards the tests is unnecessary, because all of these tests weren’t necessary in the first place. people volunteered and took the time to do them, so you can either do your own tests or just be thankful and work with what you have.

 

[sixty_reefer]

Mate I appreciate the fact you are asking questions and all, but it’s a bit much.
Best case scenario let’s say that vibrant DID have 60% bacteria in it (which is not the case). What about the other 40%? Test results showed that it’s an Algaecide which I haven’t been told about before Purchase. This doesn’t make UWC’s situation any better.
away from science, let’s discuss logic do you seriously believe that there is some sort of super bacteria that can do what vibrant claims it does? And this super bacteria can’t reproduce in neither salt nor fresh water? And this super bacteria that could potentially be a disaster to marine life, is in the hands of some hobbyists with “fish tanks”? If your answer is yes then I have nothing else to say.
Your continuous criticism towards the tests is unnecessary, because all of these tests weren’t necessary in the first place. people volunteered and took the time to do them, so you can either do your own tests or just be thankful and work with what you have.

It’s unfortunate that you see it that way, there’s product A and product B being compared to each other by many different methods there’s no direct comparison with ingredient C apart from a chart used on a advert, so far the hole thread is based on product A and B being similar. How can you tell which one is wrong with that information? It’s all based on a assumption that one of the products is at fault.
most of the research is based on assumptions for example the bacterial tests show that there is bacteria in the vials and the other lab test shows that there isn’t bacteria in the vial, this information contradicts itself and there is a assumption being made that could be due to contamination, even if there was contamination this should of showed in the lab test making that test unreliable and it should be redone for assurance that is correct.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

but - I´m a little confused about this. It seems to me that JDA´s graph is upside down - otherwise I can´t see a match with the other graphs because as it is at now - its a mirror of the other two. But I am not used of this method or to interpret the result.

I explained that when JDA first posted it. The same IR data can be shown as absorbance of light by the sample, or transmittance of light by the same. That inverts the peaks.

Understanding Vibrant: Algaefix, Polixetonium Chloride / Busan 77

Agreed on the wariness in interpretation. At best, this scenario may only be plausible in other reefs with high organics that also don't run GAC and don't do many water changes. Once I run my tank water through GAC, it both removes this detectable material, and drops the sensitivity to new...

www.reef2reef.com

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

It’s unfortunate that you see it that way, there’s product A and product B being compared to each other by many different methods there’s no direct comparison with ingredient C apart from a chart used on a advert, so far the hole thread is based on product A and B being similar. How can you tell which one is wrong with that information? It’s all based on a assumption that one of the products is at fault.

Not true. You make that incorrect assumption because to you, these methods are a black box. That is not the case to all of the expert chemists who have reviewed the results in this thread.

In reality, both NMR and IR have results based on the structure which tells what the structure is. To a knowledgeable chemist, the NMR tells what the structure is and what it is not. The IR also gives important structural information.

Here's the chain of thought that disproves the Vibrant claims:

1. Algaefix claims to contain a known algaecide in the legal documentation of its safety data sheet.

2. NMR and IR of Algaefix and Vibrant show them to be identical materials.

3. Carbon and proton NMR together show that both Algaefix and Vibrant materials are consistent with the known algaecide structure named in the Algaefix safety data sheet, and are inconsistent with nearly every other possible chemical. Only a few theoretically possible chemicals might have the same for both the carbon and proton NMR, 99.9999999% of known chemicals are excluded from being present (random made up number to give some nonchemist meaning to the first sentence).

4. The IR of both Algaefix and Vibrant is consistent with the structure and fits a posted spectrum of Busan 77.

5. Several additional experiments with established tests for quantifying quaternary ammonium compounds show identical results for Vibrant and Algaefix.

6. The NMR and IR are inconsistent with Vibrant's claims for contents. For example, the amount of aspartic acid claimed is easily proven to not be present by both methods. None was found and it would show up readily in both tests.

ONLY items 1-3 are needed to demonstrate to me that Vibrant and Algaefix are the same and contain the algaecide polymer. Items 4 and 5 are supporting tests, IMO, that build the case even more, and do not demonstrate any inconsistency with the conclusion. Item 6 proves the label contents of Vibrant are incorrect.

All additional tests that anyone has done that I have seen do not dispute the identity of Vibrant as being the algaecide polymer.

 

[JCOLE]

Unfortunately, these days, online forums need less "Scientists" and more Psychologists.

 

[rmorris_14]

You guys that are arguing against the validity of the results, honestly think that if there was a valid reason for these results to be inaccurate (especially since UWC claim to have run their own tests months ago) wouldn’t have come out with a statement or some kind of explanation by now? AND let’s not forget, that BRS, one of vibrant biggest promoters, scrubbed their entire sight of all content of vibrant ever existed. Experiments aside, these inactions and actions alone lead most people to know that something is rotten in the state of Denmark.