Edwardw771
NJRC Member
I called him up and ordered a media reactor, some snow and some carbon. I'll let you know the results.
-
Folks, if you've recently upgraded or renewed your annual club membership but it's still not active, please reach out to the BOD or a moderator. The PayPal system has a slight bug which it doesn't allow it to activate the account on it's own.
Bill's MACNA Logs - Dissolved Organic Carbon (DOC's)
- Thread starter blange3
- Start date
Billy
Here are some of the key points that I took away:
1) Not all DOC's are capable of being removed by skimming, probably less then half........Yes, for sure
2) 2/3 of the material removed by a skimmer isn't even organic........Yes and as of the other day we now believe that almost all of the CaCO3 is from Foraminifera and Coccolithophores, where Coccolithophore would out weigh the Forams bu allot
3) GAC, granulated activated carbon, can remove more DOC's than skimming.......And allot more than people think once Ken gets finishes with the new tests we have talked about and he seems to be proving my theory of GAC adsorption based on data sheets hands down. One GAC, Jen, Sanjay and PSU are using is one I brought into he hobby long ago, which is now being sold by BRS, ROX 0.8, which is 1.5 -1.75 more adsorbent than any of other GAC we use in this hobby.We are down to 1/3 cup / 50gal ROX vs 1/2 cup / 50 gals for others.
4) All skimmers perform about the same at removing dissolved organic carbon. Not really, the Precision Marine AP624 air stone skimmer removes at least 15 % BASE more than the next best skimmer and 40 % more than the worst skimmer. Fro TOC is is at least 5 % more than the best and up to 20 % more than the worst.
5) Proper biological filtration and water changes have the greatest impact on reducing the level of Docks.....I believe some of us have been saying that like for 30 years
6) Spikes in DOC after feeding are quickly removed with good biological filtration....... That was a new interesting thing that Ken dumped on me a few months ago and I was surprised to say the least.
Just show us what real testing does by somebody that knows what they are doing.
I will add that Bob Fanner does not see a lot of benefit in continuous carbon use.
I love the hell out of Bob and he is a good friend but he is about the last one I would take advice from on carbon or water chem. At the last MACNA he made a fool out of himself and was the talk of the event in 2008. I was going to poull him aside but just didn't have the hart to tell him, he is waaaaaaay nice a guy. So, I hope sombody did.
From his talk and questions asked.
1. If you want to run Ozone just go buy any unit and turn it up all then way and then watch the tank to see what happens. No need for any controller. I guess he has never heard of AOD before.
2. No need to filter the ozone leaving the skimmer vent with GAC and getting into the house air. I guess he has not happen to him what others have, that have choosen not to filter tha air.
3. No need to use GAC to remove an ozone from the water as it is all used up. Obviously he has never heard of TRO or OTO before and how toxic Bromine is a TRP/OTTO. And that GAC converts that Bromine right back to non-toxic Bromide which it was before the ozone treatment.
4. You measure ozone levels in the water with a conductivity or TDS meter and the unit is microsiemens at one time calle micomhos. I have no clue how he got that when it is a mV measurement with a pH meterr that has a mV setting on it.
hayabusa
Would the above statement suggest that the amount of skimmate that a skimmer produces isn't a good measure of a skimmer's effectiveness? I'm not talking about really wet skimming practices, but the thick sludge of stuff that comes out by those who skim dry.
No, it is a rather poor way of evaluating a skimmate or skimmer. This was the main part of Kens' talk. You have to analytically measure what is in the skimmate.
reeferwanabe
I've been running ozone for about 4 months and the skimmer does not pull anything any more.
That is an issue for many as the ozone is set to high and can actually kill foam. Foam improvement is around 0.04 - 0.15 mg / hr /gal. Most of us run the std dosage of 0.3- 0..5 mg /hr / gal. Lastly, high tech skimmers kill foam more so than low tech tall columar skimmers as the height of the column is a very important issue in mass -transfer.
mfisher
My understanding is while both can work, proper use of a reactor to actively pass the water over the carbon is far more effective then passive use by just placing a bag somewhere in the water flow of the sump.
Yes, by a long shoot active is better and waste-water or GAC tech will tell you that hands down.
Billy....Again..and great see you again and sending some time with you at MACNA. I've missed you the last 2 years or so.
I know Jon Warner fairly well but did not visit him accept for second or two. I was still upset at him going back on his word oft giving Ken a skimmer as promised. I would assume of the fear of this skimmer not doing good on Ken's tests. Another skimmer com. hiding from the facts at hand or afraid to address the issue at hand. But I guess I should not blame him and it was a poor attitude on my part. But Jon still has a great line of products. I did not see the GAC reactor at all and it is not on his website. So, how does it fare to the BRS reactor, which is a quick change reactor, where you can use both GAC and GFO in one reactor and change the media independently if you wish, as they have a separate chamber. .
Here are some of the key points that I took away:
1) Not all DOC's are capable of being removed by skimming, probably less then half........Yes, for sure
2) 2/3 of the material removed by a skimmer isn't even organic........Yes and as of the other day we now believe that almost all of the CaCO3 is from Foraminifera and Coccolithophores, where Coccolithophore would out weigh the Forams bu allot
3) GAC, granulated activated carbon, can remove more DOC's than skimming.......And allot more than people think once Ken gets finishes with the new tests we have talked about and he seems to be proving my theory of GAC adsorption based on data sheets hands down. One GAC, Jen, Sanjay and PSU are using is one I brought into he hobby long ago, which is now being sold by BRS, ROX 0.8, which is 1.5 -1.75 more adsorbent than any of other GAC we use in this hobby.We are down to 1/3 cup / 50gal ROX vs 1/2 cup / 50 gals for others.
4) All skimmers perform about the same at removing dissolved organic carbon. Not really, the Precision Marine AP624 air stone skimmer removes at least 15 % BASE more than the next best skimmer and 40 % more than the worst skimmer. Fro TOC is is at least 5 % more than the best and up to 20 % more than the worst.
5) Proper biological filtration and water changes have the greatest impact on reducing the level of Docks.....I believe some of us have been saying that like for 30 years
6) Spikes in DOC after feeding are quickly removed with good biological filtration....... That was a new interesting thing that Ken dumped on me a few months ago and I was surprised to say the least.
Just show us what real testing does by somebody that knows what they are doing.I will add that Bob Fanner does not see a lot of benefit in continuous carbon use.
I love the hell out of Bob and he is a good friend but he is about the last one I would take advice from on carbon or water chem. At the last MACNA he made a fool out of himself and was the talk of the event in 2008. I was going to poull him aside but just didn't have the hart to tell him, he is waaaaaaay nice a guy. So, I hope sombody did.
From his talk and questions asked.
1. If you want to run Ozone just go buy any unit and turn it up all then way and then watch the tank to see what happens.
No need for any controller. I guess he has never heard of AOD before. 2. No need to filter the ozone leaving the skimmer vent with GAC and getting into the house air.
I guess he has not happen to him what others have, that have choosen not to filter tha air. 3. No need to use GAC to remove an ozone from the water as it is all used up.
Obviously he has never heard of TRO or OTO before and how toxic Bromine is a TRP/OTTO. And that GAC converts that Bromine right back to non-toxic Bromide which it was before the ozone treatment.4. You measure ozone levels in the water with a conductivity or TDS meter and the unit is microsiemens at one time calle micomhos.
I have no clue how he got that when it is a mV measurement with a pH meterr that has a mV setting on it. hayabusa
Would the above statement suggest that the amount of skimmate that a skimmer produces isn't a good measure of a skimmer's effectiveness? I'm not talking about really wet skimming practices, but the thick sludge of stuff that comes out by those who skim dry.
No, it is a rather poor way of evaluating a skimmate or skimmer. This was the main part of Kens' talk. You have to analytically measure what is in the skimmate.
reeferwanabe
I've been running ozone for about 4 months and the skimmer does not pull anything any more.
That is an issue for many as the ozone is set to high and can actually kill foam. Foam improvement is around 0.04 - 0.15 mg / hr /gal. Most of us run the std dosage of 0.3- 0..5 mg /hr / gal. Lastly, high tech skimmers kill foam more so than low tech tall columar skimmers as the height of the column is a very important issue in mass -transfer.
mfisher
My understanding is while both can work, proper use of a reactor to actively pass the water over the carbon is far more effective then passive use by just placing a bag somewhere in the water flow of the sump.
Yes, by a long shoot active is better and waste-water or GAC tech will tell you that hands down.
Billy....Again..and great see you again and sending some time with you at MACNA. I've missed you the last 2 years or so.
I know Jon Warner fairly well but did not visit him accept for second or two. I was still upset at him going back on his word oft giving Ken a skimmer as promised. I would assume of the fear of this skimmer not doing good on Ken's tests. Another skimmer com. hiding from the facts at hand or afraid to address the issue at hand. But I guess I should not blame him and it was a poor attitude on my part. But Jon still has a great line of products. I did not see the GAC reactor at all and it is not on his website. So, how does it fare to the BRS reactor, which is a quick change reactor, where you can use both GAC and GFO in one reactor and change the media independently if you wish, as they have a separate chamber. .
So I get the impression that carbon is a BIG help in many ways. I have always run carbon off and on. How much should we be using? Is there a formula per gallon or is it just wing it? Can you use too much carbon, if not is there an advantage to running a lot extra?
Taz
PS sorry after re-reading I realized Boomer posted some quantities.
Boomer, I'm pushing 400 gallons, does this mean I should be running 4 cups of carbon? LOL, I probably never ran more than two cups if that!
Taz
PS sorry after re-reading I realized Boomer posted some quantities.
Boomer said:
Boomer, I'm pushing 400 gallons, does this mean I should be running 4 cups of carbon? LOL, I probably never ran more than two cups if that!
Hey Boomer:
I'm running probably about 2 cups (just by eyeballing the reactor, phasban 150 reactor about half full) of the GAC the group bought as a group buy a while back. Very small granular carbon.
How often would you change it? And is there a such thing as "too much" to be effective?
I have the pump on the reactor dialed in to just cause the top of the carbon to "percolate".
EDIT: Forgot to add its a 90 gallon with about a 20 gallon sump, about 135 lbs or so live rock and shallow sand bed, so I'm guessing I'm running about 90 gallons of water with displacement etc.
I'm running probably about 2 cups (just by eyeballing the reactor, phasban 150 reactor about half full) of the GAC the group bought as a group buy a while back. Very small granular carbon.
How often would you change it? And is there a such thing as "too much" to be effective?
I have the pump on the reactor dialed in to just cause the top of the carbon to "percolate".
EDIT: Forgot to add its a 90 gallon with about a 20 gallon sump, about 135 lbs or so live rock and shallow sand bed, so I'm guessing I'm running about 90 gallons of water with displacement etc.
Matt
For reactors change 1/ m. 2 cups will not hurt anything. As far as to much it is more on the order of wasting money. I use to use 1 liter for 50 gal I would say you are wasting as a 90 gal tank is ~ 75 gal filled to the brim with nothing in it but water. A 90 gal tank is the vol or outside dimensions of the tank, not the inside dimensions of the tank. That 20 gal sump is like 18 gal filled. With water displacement you are luck if you have a total water vol of 70 gal. If you have a 25 % water displacement then
75 + 18 = 93 gal
93 x 75 % = 70 gal of water = ~ 3/4 cup of GAC and you are at 2.66 x. I know what carbon you guys got so 1 cup is plenty. You are into the overkill mode now with 2 cups
For reactors change 1/ m. 2 cups will not hurt anything. As far as to much it is more on the order of wasting money. I use to use 1 liter for 50 gal
I would say you are wasting as a 90 gal tank is ~ 75 gal filled to the brim with nothing in it but water. A 90 gal tank is the vol or outside dimensions of the tank, not the inside dimensions of the tank. That 20 gal sump is like 18 gal filled. With water displacement you are luck if you have a total water vol of 70 gal. If you have a 25 % water displacement then75 + 18 = 93 gal
93 x 75 % = 70 gal of water = ~ 3/4 cup of GAC and you are at 2.66 x. I know what carbon you guys got so 1 cup is plenty. You are into the overkill mode now with 2 cups
Thanks Boomer! When I bought the carbon, I WAY overbought the carbon! LOL! To the tune of a 5 gallon bucket full, and another half full. stil.. a LONG time after the group buy. LOL!
Ok, I have only been running it a few days, will mark the calendar for change time.
Thanks for the input, always extremely helpful!
Ok, I have only been running it a few days, will mark the calendar for change time.
Thanks for the input, always extremely helpful!
Boomer or Bill,
Do you have any experience or opinions on "hot soaking" the carbon before using it. Is it worth the trouble?
Do you have any experience or opinions on "hot soaking" the carbon before using it. Is it worth the trouble?
What is with this hot soaking ;D It appears to be the topic of the week on boards. Based on some recent tests it is about useless. You may get a 1-3 % gain in pore vol based on one test. Another test showed zero gain. This is some more of that nonsense from the zeovit guy. And if you had GAC that was not acid washed and acid washed it with HCl, you would get allot of gain in pore vol and SA, as that is what acid washed GAC is all about.The so caled prupose ot the hoit soaking is to drive out traped air that takes up pore vol. However, in time simple water diffusion will drive it all out
;DTell me how you really feel boomer ;D
Being the pesimistic skeptic that I am it sure sounded like a bunch of BS. I just wanted to hear a chemist's point of view on it. Besides I'm way to lazy to start doing that.
Being the pesimistic skeptic that I am it sure sounded like a bunch of BS. I just wanted to hear a chemist's point of view on it. Besides I'm way to lazy to start doing that.
Edwardw771
NJRC Member
Phyl said:
Who Boomer, Jcurry or BillyR? Or all three? :-X
Edwardw771
NJRC Member
I know Boomer has forgot more about this aquria then I will ever know. And that he helped make our MACNA great.
Phyl said:
Ahh that one hurt. Actually I have lots of tanks, 2 125s, a 45, 2 30s, a 29 and a 5gallon hex. They just don't have any water in them
