Carbon is confusing

[Curtswearing]

I thought I understood Carbon.

Now I've recently found out I'm wrong. I've been told that this is special reef carbon.

Is Eric Borneman's Element Carbon really better or is this just another situation of repackaged Calgon Carbon?

http://storefront.addictiveaquatics.com/products/Elements_Activated_Carbon_1_Gallon-12382-0.html

 

[Scooterman]

Unless he is actually making it under controlled conditions, I'm sure the manufacturing is expensive, so where does this leave us to think?
Like most new products, seldom will I jump off the wagon & try it until I know more about a product, learned the hard way & don't want to relearn past mistakes If I can, besides don't know If I like supporting Eric's riches!

 

[DonW]

I dont know but the price seems fair. I may have to give it a shot.

Don

 

[AA-JT]

Hey Guys...

This is JT with Addictive Aquatics.. I noticed some traffic tot he website popping in from this thread so I thought I would drop in..

With regard to the Elements carbon I can assure you that it is above the bar in terms of quality. As soon as you open the bucket you will notice a significant difference in what you are accustomed to seeing with carbon. The grain size is much smaller, and there is virtually no dust. This is a product that has not been distributed in the Aquarium industry to date.

All of the physical characteristics of the Carbon are printed directly on the label, it is very much an open book. Most carbons don't list their physical properties. The only way you can truly compare one carbon to another is to evaluate pore capacity, wettability, surface area, and apparent density.

Of course no carbon is gonna be the solution to world hunger, but you certainly wont be disappointed in the quality or performance of this product.

JT

 

[MikeS]

I would doubt it is significantly different than any other carbon made from bituminous coal...I have heard that carbon made from bituminous coal is more "efficient" than carbon made from coconut husks or hardwoods becasue it is more porous. It's also more expensive. I would be curious to find out who is manufacturing this carbon for Eric...

MikeS

 

[Curtswearing]

Welcome to Reef Frontiers JT!!!

 

[AA-JT]

I would doubt it is significantly different than any other carbon made from bituminous coal...I have heard that carbon made from bituminous coal is more "efficient" than carbon made from coconut husks or hardwoods becasue it is more porous. It's also more expensive. I would be curious to find out who is manufacturing this carbon for Eric...

MikeS

Hey Mike...

Of course you are correct that bituminous coal based carbon is more efficient because of it's higher pore capacity. That characteristic combined with a smaller grain size for higher exposed surface area and wettability is what makes the difference in my opinion.

We run a very agressively fed bare bottom propagation system and were previously using Black Diamond. We did notice a visible difference in water clarity when we switched to the Elements Carbon. Of course the difference could have been attributed to the introduction of fresh carbon. We do see a clarity improvement when we change out the carbon in this system every other week regardless of brand, but it does seem to be a more drastic and lasting improvement from my observation.

And as DonW noted above it is a fair price, even less than some other premium brands on the market.

JT

 

[class clown]

$24 for a 5lb bucket ain't bad - even if there isn't anything too special about it, seems worth it to me.

 

[Boomer]

repackaged Calgon Carbon

That Curt or a Norit or Chinese GAC

and there is virtually no dust

Dust does not define how good a GAC is or isn't that is a myth. Dust is a function of hardness. If that was the case then CC is better.


Most carbons don't list their physical properties.

True and I wish they did.

The only way you can truly compare one carbon to another is to evaluate pore capacity, wettability, surface area, and apparent density.


That is nonsense who told you that ? Or maybe I should agree but you do not understand what you just typed. For if so, you would not have picked this carbon. Don't get me wrog, I'm not saying this is a bad GAC, it is a nice choice, it is just not the best choice.

I can assure you that it is above the bar in terms of quality

I will not dispute that. However, there are other GAC's sold in this hobby that are better than yours.

This is a product that has not been distributed in the Aquarium industry to date.

That does not mean anything.

It has 5% moisture, that is allot for a Bitum. Most good GAC Bitum are 3% or less.

All of the physical characteristics of the Carbon are printed directly on the label

No they are not. Where is the Molasses #, Ash % ( and both kinds), mean pore diameter and yielded pH product ? These are on any good GAC data sheet. And your GAC is not acid washed. So your GAC ranks about # 5 on my list of GAC's sold in this hobby by aquarium companies. That is not to bad. So, you have just beat out 2 of the top 7.

Of course you are correct that bituminous coal based carbon is more efficient because of it's higher pore capacity

Yes, but Peat anmd Lignite are even more so.


And yes Jt it is a fair price

 

[AA-JT]

Hi Boomer,

I certainly cant dispute anything you posted above, I will attempt however to fill-in some of the missing info so that you can more completely analyze and compare this product to others.

Iodine Number = 1050 mg/g
Surface Area = 1100 m2/g
Methylene Blue = 280 mg/g
Total Pore Volume = 1.04 cm3/g
Apparent Density = 480 kg/m3
Wettability = 99.5%
Moisure Content as Packed = 2% (max 5%)
Water Soluble Matter = 0.2%
Ph = 8
Chlorine Half Length Value (12x40 USS) = 2.2
Ball-Pan Hardness Number = 95%
Total Ash content = max 13%

I will ge the "Molasses #, Ash % ( and both kinds), mean pore diameter and yielded pH product" and submit for your review.

I'll take top 5 though!

JT

 

[Boomer]

OK

I see you fixed that moisture #, that is better. You also kinda have the ashs there "Water Soluble Matter " is more than likely the other ash, although it is not labled as such. That is allot of ash for a bitum, usallu 3-4 % ( as total ash) lower than that. Acid washing really drops it down. You want to see a Molasses # of at least 300.


I do not believe they actually gave your a Methylene Blue. That is rare for a Bitum. That and the Molasses #'s are ther most imortant #'s for us, as they tell us the ability to remove molecuels in the molecuel size range of the Methylene Blue and Molsasses. These and the Iodine # define the pore sizing in the Macro, Meso and Micro ranges.

That is a good MB # and that with the I # it tells me the Molasses # may be low. You can not really have all 3 in the proper range. However high MB #'s are good as are high Mol #s . We really do not care about I #s to much, 900 or even less is fine or even better if the other two are up there.

Pore range is defined as

Pore diameter
a) Micropores: 20A
b) Mesopores: 20 - 2,000A
c) Macropores: 2000A

 

[AA-JT]

Yeah the "Water Soluble Matter" or "Water Soluble Ash" was represented in 2 places on spec sheets oriented for different users as 0.2% for both characteristics so I assumed they were the same. So do we still rank at number 5 or have we made progress?

JT

 

[Boomer]

Nope, sorry, you still have 4 % more total ash than most good Bitum GAC's have. Still #5. All the other GAC's above you are acid washed par one and you can't beat acid washed GAC. Even if your GAC was acid washed you would still be #5. You can not out compete Lignite and Peat acid washed GAC's with a Bitum...period. That acid washed Bitum on that list is #4 and above your grade. Even if your GAC came as acid washed you still would not beat out #4. Does this all mean anything, yes and no, there is always the cost factor to throw in and I leave that out , as I'm dealing with only the best GAC, as in grade.

You are selling GAC by the pound and most go by the gal or L. Your container says 1 gal on it but I do not know if that is actually 1 gal of GAC. Lets pretend it is 1 gal of GAC, so that is about $ 6.60 / L. Most of those above yours are on the order of around $8.00 / L or so. So as I /we said that is a fair price. More than likely it would equate to something more like $7.00 / L

I forgot, where is the Molasses # or is it they do not have one. Does it have a CTC # , dechlor # or peroixide # ?

 

[MikeS]

AA-JT....who is manufacturing this carbon for Eric?

MikeS

 

[Boomer]

:badgrin: :badgrin: Yah right Mike, like he is going to tell us. Where you out drinking last night ?

 

[MikeS]

:badgrin: :badgrin: Yah right Mike, like he is going to tell us. Where you out drinking last night ?

No, but I was doing some work in the tank...maybe I got poisoned by the zoo's and I'm delerious and hallucinating...:lol:

 

[Boomer]

Yes, it must have been the zoo's Did you stick your finger in your mouth :lol:

 

[MikeS]

Yes, it must have been the zoo's Did you stick your finger in your mouth :lol:

Yeah I did...I know it's not safe, but it gives me a good buzz...:lol: I need help...:lol:

MikeS

 

[returnofsid]

As long as you drop the Zoanthids back in the tank BEFORE reaching for your mouth!!! Would that be like eating the worm in good tequila? lol

 

[lavenderfish]

As long as you drop the Zoanthids back in the tank BEFORE reaching for your mouth!!! Would that be like eating the worm in good tequila? lol

Mezcal has worms.
Fine tequila never has worms.