Biological regeneration makes sense.
If you are saying that heat is not necessary to regenerate carbon, and that carbon, like wine, actually becomes better over time, then you are going against basically everything that is written about carbon usage and will stir up a heck of a lot of controversy on an aquarium site (perhaps this is your intention).
Heat is necessary to regenerate carbon, that is why it is not practical for the home aquarist and why carbon is considered a disposable product.
Here is a link to a report published by the Environmental Protection Agency about Granular Activated Carbon Absorption and Regeneration:
http://www.epa.gov/owm/mtb/carbon_absorption.pdf
Carbon regeneration is accomplished primarily by thermal means. Organic matter within the pores of the carbon is oxidized and thus removed from the carbon surface. The two most widely used regeneration methods are rotary kiln and multiple hearth furnaces. Approximately 5 to 10 percent of the carbon is destroyed in the regeneration process or lost during transport and must be replaced with virgin carbon. The capacity of the regenerated carbon is slightly less than that of virgin carbon. Repeated regeneration degrades the carbon particles until an equilibrium is eventually reached providing predictable long term system performance.
No, I am not saying regeneration of carbon is not necessary, only a kook would claim that; I imagine it absolutely necessary. I am saying science has only known about biological regeneration of carbon for about 30 years, they are still getting used to the idea. Aquarium keepers have known about it for over a century, very old books mention it, just not by the term 'biological regeneration'; the old books just say old carbon is more valuable than new, and that new carbon must be aged. Science is just catching up now. No wonder we are just catching on, ourselves.
You mention thermic regeneration, this is another means of regeneration of carbon, perhaps better, I can accept that. From what I read, biological regeneration of carbon only results in 54% to 63% effectiveness. What that translates into is that you must use 2x as much carbon over the minimum amount necessary. Since I use 2x as a guide to the size of AC filter on my tanks, and since my AC's all carry carbon, the 2x carbon is already being done. As far as I can find in my readings, the 54% to 63% biological regeneration can go on indefinitely. I can say it apparently does. I can give someone an old carbon bag of mine, they can stick it on their yellow water tank, and it will clear it in a day or two. This I have done, and continue to do, I would like to see just how many years carbon can last.
In my own mind, and this is far from scientific, biological regeneration makes absolute sense. Ever see a pine tree in the high mountains growing out of nothing but a granite boulder? Its' roots are obviously able to extract all that is necessary from solid, fractured and crumbled rock. To then believe that micro organisms can extract the minerals and organics from carbon, to feed, and so cleanse and regenerate it, is but one tiny jump of the mind.
I believe carbon sellers are the only ones who would will resist the apparent ability of carbon to biologically regenerate itself, indefinitely. It is simply a case of 'follow the money', from my observations and readings.
Again, if Prime, or any other method works and you like it, continue it. We all benefit from people using many methods and giving us many choices.
