DonW
R.I.P.
liveforphysics said:
Carbon can easily be one of our sources for "P" addition. Although not huge it can and most times is. Most carbon is either designed to filter air or water. The stuff for air will usually have more P.
Don
My notes from Bob Fenner
- Thread starter liveforphysics
- Start date
Help Support Reef Aquarium & Tank Building Forum:
Carbon can easily be one of our sources for "P" addition. Although not huge it can and most times is. Most carbon is either designed to filter air or water. The stuff for air will usually have more P.
Don
I havent read all of the posts on this thread but I wanted to expand a bit on what Bob said so if I am repeating some stuff, bear with me.
Mike
Common Knowledge
Bob was talking about controlling nutrient imports. He said the from a nutrient import point of view tap water was low on the list. Obviously an ammount of common sence must be put to this statement.
The topic of the talk was "Algae can be your friend to" and was basically stating the it is almost impossible to control all form of algae in your tank, based on the bioloads most folks keep, also the over all equipment setup most folks have. For those that are more inclined to try to fight nutrients the so called "natural way" then a refugium is priceless.
The reasoning here is that each algae has its nitch in the world and goes after alot of simular things but also some unique things, having more differing types increases you overall capabilities. Algae also create thier own enviroments based on the eviroment they are in, algae perfer thropic conditions, which corals cant live in..so that one is a "Do the math" kinda thing. As per the effects on corals Bob when into some detail on the release and use of secondary metabolites released and used by algae to control its enviroments and kill off competitors, Ex:corals, preds and so on. Luke dont you remember the "growth inhibitors" and such he said to you??
Hmm kind of a skewed reference. ALgae have a leaky cell structure. An example would be if a strand of algae takes in 100% of the nutrients available to they will leak out 25% (rough number) back into the water column. Still a net gain but not very efficient. Another reason for quick harvest is if you look at the Mat say of a chaeto colony, only the very top exposed to all the right conditions grows, but the lower part of the mat is designed capture nutients and create condition.
Sure coral skelitons are basically a waste product of the coral, so if you use just the skeliton then you are adding just what the coral requires but no more. With arm its a collection of sand (and all tha makes it up) this also includes snail shells which contain phophates and so on.
Not so much no good but not as soluable as what has already melted, so common sence thing I guess.
Sure just not alot of available nutrients.
Sure and thus ends the life of a coral reef and begins a algal reef.
Sure, sounds good to me. Now does that mean you should grow algae in a refugium?? again that is a users choice. Lots of algaes and soft corals can grow in a main system that do not over take, such as corraline, dusters, clams and so on that take up nutrients.
This was stated in regards to microbes and such, I dont think its possible to have mono culture in our reefs, actually its impossible. But one has to remember that just haing biodiversity for the sake of diversity can come with issues also. One must try to tailor it to the critter they keep. An example with even be the keeping of algaes in a refugium. If one keeps multiple species of it, yes they will get more nitches covered but they will also get compitition, which means chemical and biological warfare.
He did, I believe the big one was that using just chaeto and no skimmer and no water changes was a recipe for a short lived tank??
Mike
Boomer
Well-known member
Luke
I did not take time to read all this and am just picking up on the GAC issue. There have been many tests done already on GAC and I have spoke on it much here RC and RS.
I will do a test measureing time and clarity of water electronicly
How electonically ? Carity is not the sole meaurement. It says nothing about toxins, copper, lead etc..
Testing GAC for P is a two-part test, rinsed and unrinsed
The blue dye as you put it sure does have a bearing, as do other GAC parameters values. The various dyes that are used are a function of molecule sizes. With that said GAC works allot like a skimmer, both are hydrophobic absorbers but GAC also acts as a molecular sieve. Mixing different typies of GAC is self-defeating.
5 min or where ever that came from is shear nonsense
All GAC has some P, it is the degree and/or if it rinsed or no rinsed first. All GAC should be rinsed to remove trapped air and any phosphoric acid residue. Lignite based GAC is the best for our application but it is not as user friendly as others. By far the most effective is PAC (Powdered Activated Carbon) but it is very, very user unfriendly
Some articles on GAC
http://web.archive.org/web/20030624143848/www.animalnetwork.com/fish2/aqfm/1997/jul/product/default.asp
http://web.archive.org/web/20000918065426/http://www.animalnetwork.com/fish2/aqfm/1998/may/features/1/default.asp
http://web.archive.org/web/20000918065819/http://www.animalnetwork.com/fish2/aqfm/1998/june/features/1/default.asp
I did not take time to read all this and am just picking up on the GAC issue. There have been many tests done already on GAC and I have spoke on it much here RC and RS.
I will do a test measureing time and clarity of water electronicly
How electonically ? Carity is not the sole meaurement. It says nothing about toxins, copper, lead etc..
Testing GAC for P is a two-part test, rinsed and unrinsed
The blue dye as you put it sure does have a bearing, as do other GAC parameters values. The various dyes that are used are a function of molecule sizes. With that said GAC works allot like a skimmer, both are hydrophobic absorbers but GAC also acts as a molecular sieve. Mixing different typies of GAC is self-defeating.
5 min or where ever that came from is shear nonsense
All GAC has some P, it is the degree and/or if it rinsed or no rinsed first. All GAC should be rinsed to remove trapped air and any phosphoric acid residue. Lignite based GAC is the best for our application but it is not as user friendly as others. By far the most effective is PAC (Powdered Activated Carbon) but it is very, very user unfriendly
Some articles on GAC
http://web.archive.org/web/20030624143848/www.animalnetwork.com/fish2/aqfm/1997/jul/product/default.asp
http://web.archive.org/web/20000918065426/http://www.animalnetwork.com/fish2/aqfm/1998/may/features/1/default.asp
http://web.archive.org/web/20000918065819/http://www.animalnetwork.com/fish2/aqfm/1998/june/features/1/default.asp
Ralph it depends on what kind of reactor you are running. I found an alturnative to the Rowalyth, its like a coarse sand but is almost pure calcium and carbonate with a touch of free carbon and Mag in it. This kind works well for fluidized reactors. If you ru a different type the place I found mine also has larger sized particules, kinda like small rocks.
Mike
Mike
wave98
Pearly
Tell us the wisdom of carbon use, and a preferred methodology.Boomer said:
Maybe spectrographicly ?Boomer said:
Should we be using carbon to remove toxins and heavy metals ? Periodicly, continuously, or emergency ?
Does carbon "strip" trace elements significantly, depending on type of usage ?
Thanks, > Barry
DonW
R.I.P.
RGibson said:
It works fine either way, fluidized or not.
Don
liveforphysics
Banned
Boomer, I have a ton of respect for your input. You are my reef chem superhero. I did find this in the first source you linked (http://web.archive.org/web/20030624...k.com/fish2/aqfm/1997/jul/product/default.asp) though.
"With the exception of the Vortex powdered carbon, none of the carbons tested leached any measurable amounts of phosphates. This was a pleasant surprise. Just a few years ago a carbon that didn't leach phosphates was the exception, and now it appears to be the rule."
From my understanding of the manufactureing process, all lignite baised carbons like you recomend are made through a superheated steam process which involves no H3PO4 or HNO3. Besides a quick rinse off for tiny particle for aesthetic your tanks purposes, I dont see the reason to waste the chemical storage space in the carbon.
Reguarding the effective time its useful, once again, dont shoot the messanger here, I'm just relaying info from the lecture. My own feelings are that it lasts much longer, though I havent carried out my own testing. To devils advocate things, I do belive the time would radically vary depending on flow rate and what sorts of things were in the water to fill the carbon.
For my testing, I was going to setup an LED with a controled temp and regulated power source at the end of a 10' chunk of ABS pipe. At the other end I would mount a sensitive and high precision photocell. I would simply record the before and after voltages on the photo cell as a measurement of water clarity. Might not be the best, but I only have about $40 non-preapproprated funds per week in my college budget to spend on my hobbys/experiments. I realize this wouldnt test levels of ions that do not effect clarity, but I think it would be at least good enough to show the tapering with time of carbons effectiveness in real tank water. Of course I would be makeing a series of base runs to test precison and get an idea of starting clarity, then processing differnt samples with different time intervals and re-measureing and ploting the data.
Depending on what sort of lab access I could get, I would love to test carbons effects on bennifical trace element absorbtion.
"With the exception of the Vortex powdered carbon, none of the carbons tested leached any measurable amounts of phosphates. This was a pleasant surprise. Just a few years ago a carbon that didn't leach phosphates was the exception, and now it appears to be the rule."
From my understanding of the manufactureing process, all lignite baised carbons like you recomend are made through a superheated steam process which involves no H3PO4 or HNO3. Besides a quick rinse off for tiny particle for aesthetic your tanks purposes, I dont see the reason to waste the chemical storage space in the carbon.
Reguarding the effective time its useful, once again, dont shoot the messanger here, I'm just relaying info from the lecture. My own feelings are that it lasts much longer, though I havent carried out my own testing. To devils advocate things, I do belive the time would radically vary depending on flow rate and what sorts of things were in the water to fill the carbon.
For my testing, I was going to setup an LED with a controled temp and regulated power source at the end of a 10' chunk of ABS pipe. At the other end I would mount a sensitive and high precision photocell. I would simply record the before and after voltages on the photo cell as a measurement of water clarity. Might not be the best, but I only have about $40 non-preapproprated funds per week in my college budget to spend on my hobbys/experiments. I realize this wouldnt test levels of ions that do not effect clarity, but I think it would be at least good enough to show the tapering with time of carbons effectiveness in real tank water. Of course I would be makeing a series of base runs to test precison and get an idea of starting clarity, then processing differnt samples with different time intervals and re-measureing and ploting the data.
Depending on what sort of lab access I could get, I would love to test carbons effects on bennifical trace element absorbtion.
aquarookie
Pure Poison :)
NaH2O said:
Bob just said "IF it is good enough to drink, it is good enough for corals". If it is that bad, it is NOT good enough to drink. If you would not use it for your animals, you surely should not use it for yourself.
Last edited:
wave98
Pearly
liveforphysics said:
The first test sounds good, but the second one looks like the big winner.
Another one would be trace element concentrations in your tank, without water changes, and using RO/DI to top off.
Just a couple of thoughts.
> Barry
wave98
Pearly
aquarookie said:If you would not use it for your animals, you surely should not use it for yourself.
I have no problems at all with drinking my tap water, but at 1.0ppm P, and 4.5 meq/L Alk , It is not good for the animals.
> Barry
Boomer
Well-known member
Barry
I tell people to use SeaChem Matrix or Magnum, as both are very good and user friendly, which some people seem to be over concerned about. I used special GAC what is not sold in the hobby. It is a acid-washed peat extruded GAC by American Norit. It looks like mechanical pencil lead.
I believe in using it continuously, actively. The trace element removal issue is a bunch hog hogwash
Luke
"With the exception of the Vortex powdered carbon, none of the carbons tested leached any measurable amounts of phosphates. This was a pleasant surprise. Just a few years ago a carbon that didn't leach phosphates was the exception, and now it appears to be the rule."
This is generally true, as so much of an issue was made of phosphate, so many switched to different grade/type of GAC. But some still contain phosphate.
From my understanding of the manufactureing process, all lignite baised carbons like you recomend are made through a superheated steam process which involves no H3PO4 or HNO3. Besides a quick rinse off for tiny particle for aesthetic your tanks purposes,
Most GAC is stream activated not just lignite. All or almost any type of GAC may be treated with acids to include many types of lignite. They are called "acid-washed GAC" and it is these we actaully should be using as they are quite prue with very low ash. Some of those GAC in those links are acid washed GAC. Some acid washed GAC is also water rinsed.
The purpose behind the rinse is three fold
1. Remove unwanted dust
2. Remove most of the PO4 if present
3. To remove any trapped gas, which can alter pH
I dont see the reason to waste the chemical storage space in the carbon.
I do not have clue what you mean by that
I do belive the time would radically vary depending on flow rate and what sorts of things were in the water to fill the carbon.
Very true, to include type of GAC
Do not forget that so called spent GAC can reused to a degree
Your test method sounds interesting, just remember that there is "clarity" /"turbidity" and then there is "Color" and they are not the same thing.
I would love to test carbons effects on bennifical trace element absorbtion
That would be a very large task, love to see someone do it. I think somewhere at home I have something on that .
I tell people to use SeaChem Matrix or Magnum, as both are very good and user friendly, which some people seem to be over concerned about. I used special GAC what is not sold in the hobby. It is a acid-washed peat extruded GAC by American Norit. It looks like mechanical pencil lead.
I believe in using it continuously, actively. The trace element removal issue is a bunch hog hogwash
Luke
"With the exception of the Vortex powdered carbon, none of the carbons tested leached any measurable amounts of phosphates. This was a pleasant surprise. Just a few years ago a carbon that didn't leach phosphates was the exception, and now it appears to be the rule."
This is generally true, as so much of an issue was made of phosphate, so many switched to different grade/type of GAC. But some still contain phosphate.
From my understanding of the manufactureing process, all lignite baised carbons like you recomend are made through a superheated steam process which involves no H3PO4 or HNO3. Besides a quick rinse off for tiny particle for aesthetic your tanks purposes,
Most GAC is stream activated not just lignite. All or almost any type of GAC may be treated with acids to include many types of lignite. They are called "acid-washed GAC" and it is these we actaully should be using as they are quite prue with very low ash. Some of those GAC in those links are acid washed GAC. Some acid washed GAC is also water rinsed.
The purpose behind the rinse is three fold
1. Remove unwanted dust
2. Remove most of the PO4 if present
3. To remove any trapped gas, which can alter pH
I dont see the reason to waste the chemical storage space in the carbon.
I do not have clue what you mean by that
I do belive the time would radically vary depending on flow rate and what sorts of things were in the water to fill the carbon.
Very true, to include type of GAC
Do not forget that so called spent GAC can reused to a degree
Your test method sounds interesting, just remember that there is "clarity" /"turbidity" and then there is "Color" and they are not the same thing.
I would love to test carbons effects on bennifical trace element absorbtion
That would be a very large task, love to see someone do it. I think somewhere at home I have something on that .
wave98
Pearly
Boomer, can you take a look at this one ? I bought some of this stuff quite a while back, and by the time it arrived, I had become leary of it. I talked with the "Boss man" at HDL in the mean time, and felt like I was being sold "snake oil".
http://www.hdltd.com/products/p_tribase.html
Here is another link at the same site with some rather extravagant claims. Such claims require exceedingly thorough proof, and the proof just doesn't exist at that site, as far as I can gather.
http://www.hdltd.com/technical/t_aerobic.html
Thanks, > Barry
http://www.hdltd.com/products/p_tribase.html
Here is another link at the same site with some rather extravagant claims. Such claims require exceedingly thorough proof, and the proof just doesn't exist at that site, as far as I can gather.
http://www.hdltd.com/technical/t_aerobic.html
Thanks, > Barry
Last edited:
Boomer
Well-known member
In short wave a big line of BS. It is just another selling trick These have been brought up on our chem forum
These have been brought up on our chem forumLlarian
Well-known member
And here's Bob's answer on Kalk:
-Dylan
---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
From: Llarian <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 12:46:41 -0800 (PST)
For Bob: down on Kalk dosing?
Hello Bob!
<Hi Dylan>
Saw your presentation at the most recent PSAS meeting. Very interesting
and informative, and I'd say one of the better ones I've been to!
(Although in missed Calfo's, in case he's reading over your shoulder.)
Anyways, you made several references to the "kalk habit" in a fairly
negative tone during the presentation, but didn't really explain that
much.
<Not much time... but was given to "peppering" my pitch to fill time...>
I was wondering if you'd be so kind as to do so?
<Glad to. The use of Kalkwasser is problematical, given the "average" human nature of aquarists in allowing, driving systems to out of balance situations
with Magnesium and alkalinity principally. This stated, with "adequate" water change outs, and/or some cursory testing and adjustment through simple
supplementation, this can be a rare occurrence. Put another way, the addition of calcium, bound up with a hydroxyl (or oxide) to the exclusion of a source
of other alkaline earth matter, materials for off-setting reserve of carbonate, bicarbonate (borate and a bit more), results in ones system, slanting,
sloping toward a chemical make-up that is less and less useful to biomineralizing life. By serial dilution, addition of these materials through water
changes (more synthetic than natural), and/or measuring/adding same through chemical supplementation, folks will avoid this shortfall/shift. However,
human nature being what it is, many folks find themselves with systems that "drift" to imbalances... more calcium, out of ratio with Mg, and dwindling
alkaline reserve. The real point is: if you're a "heavy" kalk user, you want to be regular in your good-sized/percentage water changes, use a calcium
reactor, two part supplementation in addition... or "pH buffer" product/s>
-Dylan
---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
From: Llarian <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 12:46:41 -0800 (PST)
For Bob: down on Kalk dosing?
Hello Bob!
<Hi Dylan>
Saw your presentation at the most recent PSAS meeting. Very interesting
and informative, and I'd say one of the better ones I've been to!
(Although in missed Calfo's, in case he's reading over your shoulder.
)Anyways, you made several references to the "kalk habit" in a fairly
negative tone during the presentation, but didn't really explain that
much.
<Not much time... but was given to "peppering" my pitch to fill time...>
I was wondering if you'd be so kind as to do so?
<Glad to. The use of Kalkwasser is problematical, given the "average" human nature of aquarists in allowing, driving systems to out of balance situations
with Magnesium and alkalinity principally. This stated, with "adequate" water change outs, and/or some cursory testing and adjustment through simple
supplementation, this can be a rare occurrence. Put another way, the addition of calcium, bound up with a hydroxyl (or oxide) to the exclusion of a source
of other alkaline earth matter, materials for off-setting reserve of carbonate, bicarbonate (borate and a bit more), results in ones system, slanting,
sloping toward a chemical make-up that is less and less useful to biomineralizing life. By serial dilution, addition of these materials through water
changes (more synthetic than natural), and/or measuring/adding same through chemical supplementation, folks will avoid this shortfall/shift. However,
human nature being what it is, many folks find themselves with systems that "drift" to imbalances... more calcium, out of ratio with Mg, and dwindling
alkaline reserve. The real point is: if you're a "heavy" kalk user, you want to be regular in your good-sized/percentage water changes, use a calcium
reactor, two part supplementation in addition... or "pH buffer" product/s>
pk1
Member
So, if I understand correctly (?) as long as your husbandry is good (additions of MG and ALK on a schedule) kalk is fine?
Boomer
Well-known member
Sorry but Bob does not know what he is talking about. I think you might try running that past Dr. Randy Holmes Farley he will have a good laugh. Wait, I'll send it to him
pk1
Member
Boomer, from Randy's suggestion I do all my top off dosing with kalk, works great. Keeps PH up, CA has been stable at 420 for 2 months now, but ALK drops from 8.0 to 7.75 or so in 2-3 weeks time. MG drops also. So it would seem that Mr Fenner is not so far off...as kalk adds CA in an unbalanced form...right?
