How do I raise my Alk levels

[Boomer]

I will reply to your post Greg to just answer your question. I run a chem forum on another large board and am they major poster and contributor to Dr. Randy Holems-Farley Reef Chemistry forum on RC.

Yes it is going nowhere I could not agree more. As far as the comment, sorry, to late to remvoe it now but I do not like being belittled with his kinds of remarks. It was hitting the submit buttom before thinkin and my error, which I apologize for. :-[

 

[RichT]

All kidding aside, it's great to have you here Boomer. The knowledge and experience you bring is invaluable to the members of this club. It's always best to have as much information, slanted or not, on any subject so one can make the best decision for them self. But the less slanted, the better chance one has of making the correct decisions.

 

[chase33]

Gee, CO2, pCO2, NaHCO3, pO2, Na2CO3, H2O ???. That's a ton of information to remember. I only wanted to raise my alk levels not become a Scientist ;D. Good thread though. I will come back to it when I advance to this level in the hobby. Well above my head at this point though. Anyway after a water change last night and continued dosing my Alk levels are now at 7 dKH and the CA has remained at 410. The PH is 8.4. I guess I'm on my way to getting where I need to be.

Thanks for the help .

 

[blange3]

Anyway after a water change last night and continued dosing my Alk levels are now at 7 dKH and the CA has remained at 410. The PH is 8.4. I guess I'm on my way to getting where I need to be.

Thanks for the help .

Hey chase, hard to believe so much ground has been covered in 2 days!

7dkh or slightly higher is where my tank has been running with a range of ph from 7.9 to 8.2. Since I've switched to Tropic Marin I haven't really been able to get the Alk up and have stopped trying. I'm going with Kalk mixed at 2 tsp per gallon for topoff and weekly 10-15% waterchanges.

So how much have you dosed since Monday and how big was the water change?

What's the plan going forward for water changes and dosing?

 

[Carlo]

He has posted the information I mentioned in the forums at RC to answer people's questions and also has it here.

You should reframe yourself again as if I don't know who Randy is, have not read his articles or do not know what RC is. I have reviewed many of Randy's articles before there were published. I'm quite aware of what Randy means by his posts and articles and his intent. So there is no need to type lots of gibberish when I'm quite aware of it as you should know. I don't need lesson in chemistry from you..sorry. Just answer specific question without all the gibberish, it is not needed.

It is needed Boomer. If your saying one thing but Randy publishes another and answers/agrees with posts that say different then there is a conflict. You're saying he says one thing but his own published work and answers to people's questions say something else at times. I don't disagree with you understanding of his philosophy only what he has said and published at times. That is a difference.

He is not saying that at all you are again reading into it. He wants people to be in some acceptable range of NSW. He does not give what those lower Ca++ levels are. As I have said and he has said corals do not grow more at Ca++ higher than 360.

But he did say that. You can spin it all you want but when his caveat says to keep calcium at 400-450 as it MAY help, that is on the high side. Could be for any number of reasons, doesn't matter, it's on the high side.

I don't need an explanation of why he said what he said. I just showed you what he published that backed up my original comment when running with a lower pH you said was false. You objected to my comment that had to do with lower Ph, higher alk & calcium levels.

This has actually come up a few times here in our forum. So while Randy might not have wanted it coming off sounding like running higher Ca & Alk with lower pH is what he meant, it is the way it has been interpreted by numerous people.

water temp for most of the year is mid 70F at ***8 ft - 20 ft**. where most of this stuff is collected.

Those are NOT SST temps

Never said they were SST temps, our corals don't come from the surface.
You said you wouldn't believe what I mentioned Walt said unless I showed it to you. He clearly says mid 70s for normal months with bleaching at 88-92. I'm not saying it's fact or fiction but you wanted "proof" of what he said so I gave it to you.

And that is what Walt is giving, 8-20 ft not SST.

See he mentions "where the water temp for most of the year is mid 70’s at 8 ft – 20 ft. where most of this stuff is collected" but that defiantly goes against the NOAA temps.

Show me a NOAA plot at 89-20 ft and I'll will shut-up :

The graph I posted was from temperature records at about 10 meters. Sorry it's not within the 8-20ft range but it's not surface either. Is it ideal depth, nope but better then surface temps. Even at 30' Walt's temps don't come close.

"This highly accurate sea water temperature graph is derived from data gathered as part of a NAI'A special project with researchers at the University of the South Pacific. We set and monitor six temperature recorders throughout Fiji waters, accurate to 0.05 degrees Celsius, which measure the seawater temperature every hour.

You can use this temperature graph to decide which wetsuit(s) to bring to Fiji. Notice that the temperature can vary by about three degrees for a certain time of year, but the current year trend will give you a good idea of what to expect."

"The records monitor the temperature at thirty feet."

The pdf gives a bleaching threshold of 29.5 to 30 C and NOOA is lower @ 29.1/ ~84 F. If you are using NOAA for ref for your Fiji tank, which you have stated, then you are going against your own ref..temp for bleaching

I disagree and haven't had one bit of issue. Neither has anyone else I know or work with on the temp thing. Remember the chart was used to help baseline the temps, not directly control them. There are caps in place.

Here are some SST plots and bleaching for Fiji. Other reefs may be different but taken note that even at 84 F bleaching has occurred. You also state that those temps are for months. Your own posts graphs my pdf and these links all disagree, with those temps with you claimed for bleaching in the Fiji's. You also stated these high temps are for months and your own post and graph plots, to include mine, say other wise, with those high for like ~ 2 moths. It is not Walt in error but you that is in error. . The avg mean is more like ~ 82 F and it is that temp you should be looking for with maybe some swings up to 84 F. Meaning your cap should be 82 .F But it is your tank.

http://coralreefwatch.noaa.gov/satellite/current/sst_series_fijibeqa_cur.html

http://coralreefwatch.noaa.gov/satellite/archive/sst_series_fijibeqa_path.html

Please don't confuse what I said with my quote from Walt. I never said it was for months. Now you use surface temp charts to show bleaching events??? I thought you only were interested in 8-20' measurements??? I'm confused why you can use SSTs but want me to show you 8-20 measurements?

I never said high temps for months. You actually said that "As far as running the temps up to 84, in 2000 large portions of the Fiji's exceeded their MMM : 83.3 F for five months, remained above 84 for 3.5 months and peaked at 86-87 in March and early April."

I think you threw out Walter's name because some how I should accept what he has said and I don't. I also have his book.

This is getting crazy Boomer. I didn't bring up Walt, you did "I have not seen a pH profile of the Fiji's and if I was to ask someone it would only be Walt Smith".

I replied I don't have that much faith in stuff from Walt unless there is backup proof. I mentioned about the temps for example and you didn't want to believe it without proof and I had to show it to you. So I did.

I think you came to the same conclusion I already had come to and don't accept what he said.

Think about it. It's no different the Calcium.......O2.........While it surely wouldn't be a bad idea, the question really is, is it needed? ..

Well, good glad you see it that way and the same for high, Ca++, Alk, PH and temp.

As long as you are providing the tank with enough O2, are higher levels needed?

It depends on what one calls acceptable. As I stated some reefs are actually hypoxic at night. That does not mean we need to go there. As long as one has good circulation and good skimming it is my opinion things should be Ok. The issue is if one losses power are those lower levels going to make. 1 ppm is al lot and may tanks are 1 ppm lower than sat.

Actually I made the comment about the reefs being hypoxit at night. You said "Most tanks by far are below sat and most of the time and reef are always 100% sat."

If this is how you feel about it then why did you bring it up in the first place with the "I have to chuckle" comment?

I agree we don't need to go there. This has been my point all along. If you loose power granted it can be devastating. The difference in your O2 level may or may not make a difference without backup power and it really comes down to how long you are without power.

But again it's your opinion as many others on the RC are pushing higher temps like me and doing fine. The consensus between us is that bleaching isn't happening until 87/88+s are hit with our subtropic corals. This is fact, in our tanks. Obviously maybe not for others.

But there is not reason to push it, it is nonsense to do so. Temp is one of the most dangerous things in this hobby other than ammonia.

Ahh back to something that is purely opinion. Refreshing. Maybe we should chill and talk stuff like this more!

There are many reason to push the rate. Faster growth is one and why some of the aquaculture facilities do it.

But here is my take. What I like to try and do is create an environment that is as close as possible to the natural reef within reason in my tank. Granted it's never going to be like the reef itself but that's besides the point. I have my system configured to run temps from 78F to 84F changing slightly day by day throughout the year. I used the chart we've already seen that I've explained how I arrived at the numbers with caps in place on temps. I then shifted the months so the Fiji Graph matches our seasons here in NJ. I think it was a 4 month shift. So basically I'm running 78 in Jan and 84 in Aug or Sept (don't remember off the top of my head). I figured this also helps save on electricity.

Now the reason I do this is because I feel it's healthy for the corals to go through this cycle. I've read studies where they show cross-section cuts of corals and you can see the growth rings. It's clear you can see faster growth in the warmer temps and less in the colder temps. What was also interesting is that the growth in colder temps was denser. As some of us know if you keep the corals running only at high temps they can collapse from their own weight. Same observations on the reef. They grow to fragile in this environment. By cycling the temps I find I get fast growth in the warmer temps and denser growth in the colder temps. Or put maybe another way the colder temps allow the coral to "bulk up" and get stronger. To me it just makes for a healthier coral overall.

Carlo

 

[Carlo]

2 NaHCO3 -> Na2CO3 + H2O + CO2

More or less baking will only alter the pH rise on addition to the aquarium"

That must be a typo on Randy's part and not the first. Even in this thread your seemed to have missed it as you posted

The baking drives some of the carbon dioxide out of the baking soda, and raises its pH as well as its alkalinity."

I didn't say that either, it was a quote of Randy's.

When Na2CO3 hits the water

Na2CO3 ----> 2 NA+ + 2 CO3-- and that my friend is 2 Alk units. Randy recommends it use when one has both low pH and low Alk. Otherwise if it is just low Alk then BS and for pH Kalk. If you have any doubt about then use of SA just dump some in some water and measure the Alk or just go play with jdieck reef chemistry calculator and compare BS vs SA in raisng the Alk

Well, you have dug yourself a hole here that my formula is wrong so to speak. I used the term Dick & Jane and it is not the first time in this thread

I didn't dig myself a hole, Randy did. They were his quotes not mine.
I understand the 2 Alk units and all and we already covered what happens when it hits the water and we agreed.

Just because Dick or Jane

I'm sure you are old enough to know who Dick & Jane are and if you do your post and reply is that of a knothead.......sorry. Your own equation is also no more than a Dick & Jane and is way off. Meaning the actually equation has no real merit, it is a term often used ......Dick & Jane. The last equation you posted is also way off but closer and you say you know that, but I highly doubt it. It is a FW equation and has no salinity figured in and is not adjusted to seawater pK1 and pK2

I'm quite aware it's a FW formula boomer but it's at least closer for a Dick & Jane formula. Your formula was way off. You multiplied instead of dividing. You were so eager to try and correct me on something that was only semantically wrong and had nothing to do with the post in the first place. The numbers you gave for examples didn't even come close to working with the formula you gave. It was a case of the "cure is worse then the decease". To say my reply is that of a knothead? Come on. I find it funny that you would say the formula I gave for FW has no real merit but is at least correct. The Dick & Jane formula you used is the same exact thing had you typed it correctly without the log function in it. pK1 and pK2, blah, blah, blah, nobody here really cares as it had nothing to do with anything.

I didn't quote the rest. Boomer I have read much of your stuff on RC and your Buch-Park equations although not really called that. I'm not commenting on them as I haven't had the need to run through them but they looked perfectly fine from casual observation. I never challenged you in the least on any of that.

I just feel you're trying to make issues out of stuff that makes no difference in the long run and your taking stuff I didn't even say and trying to make it look like I'm the one saying it. IE Walt, Randy.

Either Dick and Jane or Randy & I are wrong. Me think D&J need a new chemistry book.

You don't use FW equations in seawater :lol: A common error made my many so I'll add you to the list
[/quote]
But then you would have to add yourself to the list too lol since you yourself were giving a simplified FW equation which was wrong to boot. Funny how wise cracks come back to haunt us isn't it?

Me think you do not know what you are talking about here which is quite obvious. And try to reframe yourself from comparing yourself to Randy on this issue. Randy would fall right out of his chair in laugher, especially since it is me you are talking to on this issue.....sorry. You may want to go get yourself a seawater textbook before you try this stunt again.

Nice spin Boomer. Randy for one would never go on the attack like you did and he wouldn't jump all over the place throwing tons of stuff everywhere. Randy never tries to intimidate (which can't be done to me) anyone and just shows patience and tries to educate people. Quite a difference. I seriously doubt he would fall out of his chair in laughter unless it was at some of your blatently wrong answers.

At 35 ppt at a temp of 25C/77F the saturation is 6.9
At 35 ppt at a temp of 30C/86F the saturation is 6.4

This is from Eric article you mentioned

Well, Eric's is wrong. Did I say his article was 100 % accurate. I use known std used and developed by chemical oceanographers. There are crap loads of them on the net. Didn't you look before you posted......ssseh. Here let me help you

You haven't been here that long Boomer and you are saying a lot of experts are wrong on stuff. Maybe true, maybe not but you're lacking tact in your posts especially being on the attack.

But when somebody tells me I'm wrong about something well you know how that goes.

Well, you have been wrong lots of times but are not willing to admit to it. That is your big problem, if Carlo says so it is so, all must agree with you. All you do is rant with mile long posts hoping people will assume you are correct. It is called 'confusing the reader', an old trick. Another Rant now on Eric. What did I say in my last post on O2 and reefs or did you just ****deliberately leave that out**** ? More of your spin. Her let me help you again.

I admit when I'm wrong but you're confusing a lot of things in recent posts as if I'm saying them instead of taking them as quoted from somebody else. You say I'm confusing the reader an old trick, but you skip write over corrections to your own post I make that are correct as if nothing has happened. Yet if you can latch on to one tiny tidbit that I didn't explain fully or just mention in passing using layman terms (which aren't always absolute) you jump on it. You ask for information I mentioned I've seen and I post it even when I've said I don't agree with it, but then you want to argue with me on the info. What's up with that? You asked, I gave. I'm not going to argue for someone else.

Many reef tanks are 1 ppm below sat. ***Even in the ocean O2*** can drop to half its day time level or only ****50% sat or lower***. And some tanks, not reef tanks, have gone as low a 15 % sat at night and that is 1 ppm O2. So lowering the temp can make a diffence bewteen life and death. I prefer to keep temps in the mid 70's

OK I missed that so I was wrong. I hadn't noticed you said 50% sat. See I can say I'm wrong. But I still take issue to the temp can make a big difference comment. There is hardly any difference in the sat level at what we would call normal reef tank temps (78-84).

This also happens to go along with my own findings using a PINPOINT II Oxygen Monitor and previously with a Oxyguard Dissolved Oxygen Probe

Are you sure. Can it be calibrated to seawater and altitude ? Nothing about Seawater on their website. That means your O2 values are off. Check those O2 links I gave. Type in 0 ppt vs 35 ppt.

http://www.marinedepot.com/ps_Aquar...rine_pinpoint_oxygen_monitor_information.html

Yep positive, it's designed for salt water use. Same as the other system by Neptune. The Aquacontrollers are mostly used on salt water reef tanks. I had called and verified both before purchase because I know it's one of those things you have to watch out for.

I think the point here is totally lost and a simple question and its relatively simple short term answer has been lost with scaring off the ability for new people to ask questions.

I agree and I for one am not trying to rant on like Carlo. He has dumped crap loads of stuff on this thread that is not need in regards to me answering his questions. He seems to think I need lesson of well know facts I have posted on hundreds of times. Ranting is just to offset one and is quite common on boards when someone disagree with a certain type of person. Post all the not need gibberish you can to confuse. And ranting does not make one correct. I have tried to keep mine short but it is hard when there is crap loads of rant to sift through.
[/quote]
Not true at all Boomer. First you start by trying to pick apart one of my posts. So I explain. Then in another with the "I have to chuckle" you again (I took it as) poked fun at me thinking I didn't know what I was talking about. Then you take stuff I quote from others clearly stating that and reply back to me as if it's wrong. Most of what you said was wrong came from Abey, Eric, Walt & Randy and not from me. It's a case of shooting the messenger. You want proof something is said by somebody (Walt) and when I provided it, you go off in a different direction on bleaching etc. Maybe I'm wrong but it appeared you had an agenda from the start to try and discredit me or something. This forum isn't about who knows the most chemistry, or the best equipment, or fill in the blank, it's about helping people. It doesn't matter is every word is 100% chemically accurate in it's use. What matters is if the person you are trying to help understands what you are talking about and get's the help they need. End of story.

The merit or credibility of a post/reply can be found within its contents. Those reading this can decide for themselves. This will be my last post on this thread. I'm sure Carlo will have more ranting now for the final word

Of course, but not attacking you, only defending myself which I don't this is out of line.

My last post here too.

Carlo

 

[RichT]

 

[Carlo]

Hey Rich. Now that was funny.

Good one. Mind if I borrow that?

Carlo

 

[RichT]

Mind if I borrow that?

Hurry up....it's coming down soon.

 

[blange3]

Although I'm the last one that wants to curtail discussion, this thread has gotten way off track.

I am not speaking about the amount of detail or length of posts, we created this forum to allow those that like to take a discussion to the nth degree to do so.

But this thread is no longer validating concepts and theories about managing ALK levels, it has become a contest. We are just rehashing quotes at this point that have already been posted.

We are very fortunate to have Boomer sharing his time with us, lets keep that time focused on sharing knowledge that we might otherwise not have access to.

 

[Carlo]

Rich, Got the pic

Thanks,
Carlo

 

[debfife]

If post information from another source (other than your own experience) why not just quote the source, give credit where it belongs. I think that way this going back an fourth could have been advoided.

 

[RichT]

I'll take it one step further. Why not post your personal experiences related to the topic and then post links to the relevant information. That way, the user can make their own determinations, ask specific questions about something they don't understand, and the "spin" (for lack of a better term) by the responding poster can be avoided. Unless the opinion is asked for, in alot of situations, only the facts pertaining to the question is what is required/desired/necessary. Another point, and I know I should practice what I'm preaching, debates detracting from the original intent of the question, flames, accusations, and insults are better left to PM's of which the P = "PRIVATE" and should be left that way or reported to the moderator as provided by the forum software. And yes, I realize the mere fact I've made this post goes against my last statement. But due to the direction this thread has taken, I believe it to be relevant. I am going to suggest to everyone, myself included, that we either let this thread get back to the original intent of the question, or let it fade away.


***Stepping off the soapbox trying not to be tripped by my own words.******

 

[Carlo]

This thread is so far off it's original subject I don't think it matters (here) to much at this point so IMHO you're not breaking your own rule/statement Rich.

From this thread, I've got a taste of what I've done at times to others (including you Rich) even though it wasn't intentional. One thing I've learned here is to watch very closely the difference between stating a fact and personal opinion especially on touchy subjects where it's not concrete and open for interpretation.

I think all your points are valid Rich and I'm in. Just thought I'd answer since I was one of the "offenders".

Carlo

 

[Jcurry@wesketch]

Personally I find these types of threads quite interesting. Not only is there good information about reef keeping (albeit over my head most of the time)it gives people some insight into the people posting.
I don't like to see any thread closed unless they are just personal attacks (and even those are fun to read sometimes).

Things I learned from this thread:
No need to exceed 360 ppm for Ca++, unless for a lazy reefer safty factor.
Higher Alk is better when you have higher Ph values.
Every mineral concentration is only as important as it relates to other mineral concentrations and Temp.

 

[chase33]

Personally I find these types of threads quite interesting. Not only is there good information about reef keeping (albeit over my head most of the time)it gives people some insight into the people posting.
I don't like to see any thread closed unless they are just personal attacks (and even those are fun to read sometimes).

Agreed

 

[Boomer]

Carlo

PINPOINT II Oxygen Monitor

Yep positive, it's designed for salt water use. Same as the other system by Neptune

Well you are were mislead it does not work correctly, it can't and was not designed for SW, it will read close to ~1.5 mg / l to high. Even Lou Dell has made a grave mistake. I just got done with some e-mails to him. He thoguht it is off .3 mg / l and it is of more like 1.3 mg /. I explained to him how and why it is off so far and how he might go about getting a more accurate reading when used in seawater. Fell free at you own leaser to call any O2 DO meter expert and they will all tell you the same. I can give a list of phone numbers if uou wish.? I knew when you posted that you were wrong but wanted to gave Lou a chance to explain himself. I'm surprised you have not found some of my posts on this issue on RC, there are a number of them to include O2 equations. An O2 meter has to have the ability to adjust for seawater and his meter can not do that. On most meters you just dial in the salinity.

I'm quite aware it's a FW formula boomer but it's at least closer for a Dick & Jane formula.

I have explained this once already so don't' be making it an issue. You know for fact that only I have brought up Buch-Park equations on RC. You got all that info from my posts RC and only me. You also know for fact what I meant by Dick & Jane. You have read my posts so no for fact it was a useless example, my intent, for the soul reason of not posting such long elaborate equations that would confuse people and 99% of them one do not care to see them. It is the same thing as saying if you know the CO2 and ALk you can calculate the pH, but it is not really that easy either, so that also is Dick & Jane. If one asks or wants I'll post them...THE END. So I would advise to drop it. You are post hole digging again. You think others do not see that.

From this thread, I've got a taste of what I've done at times to others (including you Rich) even though it wasn't intentional

My whole intention on this thread and these posts. How do you like it? Now you know how you have made others feel. Maybe now you will change your ways. Believe Carlo, I know where you are and coming from I have been or was there years ago.

Jcurry

No need to exceed 360 ppm for Ca++, unless for a lazy reefer safty factor.
Higher Alk is better when you have higher Ph values

Let me expand on these a tad.

Although that is true I don't want anyone keeping Ca++ that low as it is a corals threshold. At least 400 is a good target but if dropped to below that there is no reason for excitement, unless this was follwed by low pH and Alk.

The same for the higher Alk, it depends on what one is looking at. Higher Alk is also better at lower pH as the pH will not fall at the same rate if the Alk was lower. The #1 issue for the higher Alk at higher pH is supply CO2 that may be need by some plants and usually these are the unwanted plants. A lower Alk and high pH is better if you are trying to control things like Dino's or Bryo's, which like CO2

 

[Carlo]

Carlo

PINPOINT II Oxygen Monitor

Yep positive, it's designed for salt water use. Same as the other system by Neptune

Well you are were mislead it does not work correctly, it can't and was not designed for SW, it will read close to ~1.5 mg / l to high. Even Lou Dell has made a grave mistake. I just got done with some e-mails to him. He thoguht it is off .3 mg / l and it is of more like 1.3 mg /. I explained to him how and why it is off so far and how he might go about getting a more accurate reading when used in seawater. Fell free at you own leaser to call any O2 DO meter expert and they will all tell you the same. I can give a list of phone numbers if uou wish.? I knew when you posted that you were wrong but wanted to gave Lou a chance to explain himself. I'm surprised you have not found some of my posts on this issue on RC, there are a number of them to include O2 equations. An O2 meter has to have the ability to adjust for seawater and his meter can not do that. On most meters you just dial in the salinity.

Well that sucks big time since I went out of my way to call TWICE and ask them about this before the purchase because I didn't think it would be good for salt water or would have to much error. Luckily, I only use it as a reference and it's not an important device in the setup, more like a toy but it still sucks to put out that much money on something like this when it doesn't work as you are told.

Thanks for the heads up on this!

I'm quite aware it's a FW formula boomer but it's at least closer for a Dick & Jane formula.

I have explained this once already so don't' be making it an issue. You know for fact that only I have brought up Buch-Park equations on RC. You got all that info from my posts RC and only me. You also know for fact what I meant by Dick & Jane. You have read my posts so no for fact it was a useless example, my intent, for the soul reason of not posting such long elaborate equations that would confuse people and 99% of them one do not care to see them. It is the same thing as saying if you know the CO2 and ALk you can calculate the pH, but it is not really that easy either, so that also is Dick & Jane. If one asks or wants I'll post them...THE END. So I would advise to drop it. You are post hole digging again. You think others do not see that.

Boomer I never said I have any issue with "your" Buch-Park equations. I simply said I've seen them on RC but never really read the threads or used them. Basically no comment on them at all. Nothing more, nothing less.

I personally don't have a need to use them and if I did, I know where to look them up.

No I did not get the formula I posted from anything of yours, it's pretty widely used in the FW world.

What you clearly missed was the fact that I was poking fun at you because you were in such a hurry to prove me wrong you posted a bad formula and/or data which didn't fit the formula. When I posted something closer but even commented it was closer but still not correct you wanted to add me to the list of people who don't know the difference between SW/FW equations. Do you see the irony here?

My point was that since I was only correcting your error with a formula that at least worked, you would also need to add yourself to the list. If you don't get what I'm saying don't worry about it as it doesn't matter, it's not important and it's water under the bridge.

From this thread, I've got a taste of what I've done at times to others (including you Rich) even though it wasn't intentional

My whole intention on this thread and these posts. How do you like it? Now you know how you have made others feel. Maybe now you will change your ways. Believe Carlo, I know where you are and coming from I have been or was there years ago.

Really, I never would have thought you had an agenda?

Yes it worked but for a different reason then you would probably assume. Since you were so abrupt with wanting to say that here in public instead of via PM, I'll respond to it. This is my opinion and my opinion only so it can't be argued with or debated. After seeing all the gross errors you made from trying to correct me and from not reading what I actually wrote (or you would not have pulled stuff out of context or from "quoted" experts and tried to argue with me about it), from stating your own opinion as fact when it's just that an opinion, from the multiple disagreements you have with other authors/expert opinions, from posting wrong Omega values or not giving the whole picture, from putting a spin on things to sidestepping issues/answers with no acknowledgement as if it was never said, etc... I got tired of arguing/debating with you as there was apparently no end in site and it seemed you wanted to argue regardless of what was said (an agenda). That got me thinking, I sometimes voice my opinion as fact instead of making sure it comes across as my opinion only and also making sure my opinion is even called for in the first place (IE is it even warranted). I've been much better lately (even before this thread) and continue to work on it. Sometimes habits are hard to break. I do get a lot of PMs and calls thanking me for advice, which is good, but that doesn't mean others need to get offended in the process as it defeats the purpose of being here in the first place (to help and learn).

So if that was your mission/agenda it worked, but it was not from intimidation or proving me wrong. Funny how things work out.

I'm done with this and the issues involved in this thread unless it's on a friendly tone. I'm done with the arguing.

No need to exceed 360 ppm for Ca++, unless for a lazy reefer safety factor.
Higher Alk is better when you have higher Ph values

Let me expand on these a tad.

Although that is true I don't want anyone keeping Ca++ that low as it is a corals threshold. At least 400 is a good target but if dropped to below that there is no reason for excitement, unless this was follwed by low pH and Alk.

The same for the higher Alk, it depends on what one is looking at. Higher Alk is also better at lower pH as the pH will not fall at the same rate if the Alk was lower. The #1 issue for the higher Alk at higher pH is supply CO2 that may be need by some plants and usually these are the unwanted plants. A lower Alk and high pH is better if you are trying to control things like Dino's or Bryo's, which like CO2

I would agree with that on the calcium and alk part for what ever that's worth but I think he knew that and was just saying the reason we go higher then 360 is to make sure we have enough in the tank to have some room to play. If not, I'm sure he get's it now.

Carlo

 

[Boomer]

What you clearly missed was the fact that I was poking fun

You were not poking fun at all, so too trying to fool people. ssehee all one has to do is read this last posts of yours. You just keep contradicting you own posts.

My point was that since I was only correcting your error with a formula that at least worked

You we not correcting any error who do you think you are fooling. Do I need to repeat myself again. You are quite aware of WHO posted those equations on RC. YOU have a bad habit of taking my post from RC and others copy/pasting them and dropping them here as if they were your own. Would you like to see some examples of your plagiarism ? Why would I post wrong equations that I know more about than anybody on RC, if it was not for the purpose of being meaningless and applying the term Dick & Jane. I have used thee same Dick & Jane on other forums. Carlo you THINK you have me hear on somethin and you don't. You are grasping for straws hoping some how you may come out on something on this thread. It is about all you have.

I never said I have any issue with "your" Buch-Park equations

How could you have issue on something you know nothing of. And how coold you ahve issue when these eqautions appear in almost any chemcial oceanography book ? Quite pretending to try and fool others. By the way the Buch-Park equation are a series of equation there are 5 of them. I only posted the CO2 equation on RC. If you saw them on RC then you know it was me posting them.


After seeing all the gross errors you made from trying to correct me

That is you that has made all the gross errors, you were corrected. Do you want me to make up a list.


from the multiple disagreements you have with other authors/expert opinions

Then post them

Go back and read where I POROVED those were errors. The are not disagreements it is FACT they are wrong, simple and pure. You posted stuff form Randy and Eric assuming I wold not disagree with them. They were in error and I proved it. Do I need to refresh your memory ? And the reason you call it a disagreement is because you do not under the issue or facts at hand. You post other peoples work and DO NOT understand it and is why you get yourself in trouble. Them when I correct it, in the end, your excuse is I posted what they said. Then the next next line down you try to make people think I'm so bad for correcting Randy or Eric. Your are trying to convice people I should not do that, but is fine for you to do that with Walt Smith. Where I had to point out where you were in error. You can't even read a simple post correctly without missing what is actually said. Why don't you come to MACNA next year and I will introduce you to Walt Smith and then you and tell him to his face he does not know what he is talking about. How's that ! Guess I don't fit that double std of yours. Sure is funny how it is OK, for me in your mind, to say Lou Dell is wrong but not Randy or Eric. Or do you just pick and choose what suits you ? And if Eric or Randy where here they would agree with their error not disagree. And when I pointed out the Randy's error, you completely missed his next remark which I had to point out to you, which obviously showed it was an error. You missed your own quote where the error was right there in front of your face. It is called understand the facts at hand and has nothing to do with opinions or disagreements and you do not see the facts when they are right in front of your face on your own posts. I have to point them out.

And I don't side steep anything it is obvious who does that. And as far that Omega value goes what did I say or are you deliberately leaving out what I said AGAIN to fool people. You are not fooling anyone.

I'm done with this and the issues involved in this thread unless it's on a friendly tone. I'm done with the arguing.

Well, your tone in this post was not freindly so either was mine.

 

[Carlo]

What you clearly missed was the fact that I was poking fun

You were not poking fun at all, so too trying to fool people. ssehee all one has to do is read this last posts of yours. You just keep contradicting you own posts.

Haven't contradicted anything almighty Boomer. Get over yourself man. Other people know and understand things too you know.

My point was that since I was only correcting your error with a formula that at least worked

You we not correcting any error who do you think you are fooling. Do I need to repeat myself again. You are quite aware of WHO posted those equations on RC. YOU have a bad habit of taking my post from RC and others copy/pasting them and dropping them here as if they were your own. Would you like to see some examples of your plagiarism ? Why would I post wrong equations that I know more about than anybody on RC, if it was not for the purpose of being meaningless and applying the term Dick & Jane. I have used thee same Dick & Jane on other forums. Carlo you THINK you have me hear on somethin and you don't. You are grasping for straws hoping some how you may come out on something on this thread. It is about all you have.

OK Smart guy please explain how your Dick & Jane formula pH = Alk x CO2 fits the example you gave:

My calculator says pH = 1.025 not pH = 8.3
pH = 8.3
Alk = 2.5 meq/ l
CO2 = 0.41 ppm

My calculator says pH = 1.5 not pH = 8.3
pH = 8.3
Alk = 3.0 meq/ l
CO2 = 0.50 ppm

My calculator says pH = 2.64 not pH = 8.3
pH = 8.3
Alk = 4 meq/ l
CO2 = 0.66 ppm

With your formula pH = Alk x CO2 the higher the CO2 level is the higher the pH will be. Are you really sure you want to stick to your argument here Boomer or do you want to admit your wrong?

The irony I mentioned again if you don't get it is that you wrote pH = Alk x CO2 and I in turn corrected you by writing pH=Alk/CO2 and then through in the same formula with the log function. I just fixed your formula but you then wanted to add me to your list of people who don't get the difference between SW/FW formulas. You posted the FW thing first. That is why I said you would need to add yourself to the list also.

Now do you get the irony? Or are you trying to be hard headed and completely missing the obvious?

You tried to confuse the issue of soda ash addition in the first place with the talk of CO2. While some people don't know the difference between alkalinity and buffer and how they are the both related and different I do, and tried to point out you were dealing with alk with your explanation when I was clearly talking nothing more then a buffer addition to the tank and wasn't giving a chemistry lesson. It was a "note" in passing in trying to help somebody and was made before you even signed up here.

You very next item was the Omega of 6. I corrected you nicely by framing it as a question to you but stated it should have been 4.2 which you agreed with "Yes, that is correct it is more like ~4.2 meq/ in a Aragonite forming environment. But can be shifted lower buy low Mg++ and with his parameters maybe more like ~ 4." then you through in the calcite/aragonite spin but with his pH you choose the wrong Omega in the first place. You later agreed the Omega is only a rough guess at best because I/he/she says so. It's not concrete, it's a guess at best, but the way you presented it in the beginning made it sound like it was concrete. What was the purpose of bringing up a "guess" in the first place. What was the purpose of even bringing it up. You wanted to try and show you knew more then me but I called you on it, with the wrong Omega value in this instance.

You yourself typed "Randy likes higher levels not because they are needed but to act as buffer for lazy people so to speak" but when somebody else later quoted you and said the same thing you then correct it or should I say felt compelled to expand on it. But here you are saying Randy likes higher levels (for whatever reason insert here) but take offense when I say the same thing with a "MAY" in there and you argue with me about it.

I agree with the lazy factor and type "But he has numerous times said that running calcium and alkalinity on the high side when pH is low MAY help calcification. So while he doesn't say it DOES he seems to indicate it can." He being Randy of course. You say no, so I quote stuff from his article where he clearly says exactly what I said he did and YET you try and insist he didn't mean it that way. MAYBE HE DID! Pure BS argument. Anyone who reads what I quoted can clearly see it seems he INDICATES IT CAN as I said and MAY help.

I asked your opinion on pH around reefs in response to Anthony's article. You reply "I have not seen a pH profile of the Fiji's and if I was to ask someone it would only be Walt Smith". I mention I don't have that much faith is stuff he says and you in turn want proof. So I point you to the post and you know damn well Fiji reefs aren't in the mid 70s like he said. I had already posted a temp chart for Fiji with several years of data. No where does it ever get that low. Matter of fact the depth of the monitoring equipment was at 30 feet which would most likely mean the temps recorded are even slightly colder then at 8-20 foot. Hence the reef most likely is warmer if anything then the data shows.

You bring up in the same post "As far as running the temps up to 84, in 2000 large portions of the Fiji's exceeded their MMM : 83.3 F for five months, remained above 84 for 3.5 months and peaked at 86-87 in March and early April." Later you question me why I said this. You lost track of your own damn argument and ended up arguing with yourself. It's too funny.

You brought up in your chuckle remark "Well, I often chuckle ( don't take this wrong) ) when I hear this as many assume their tanks are at saturation with respect to O2, because "I have greate circulation" and 95 % of them never are, accept maybe for a brief moment. Most tanks by far are below sat and most of the time and reef are always 100% sat. And you need a really good O2 kit to prove this, like a HACH digital titrator, which meaures to 0.02 ppm. I gave it to Randy. After years of arguing this I was backed up by Eric's well done article on O2. And I'm not an Eric fan so to speak"

I go through Eric's article and quote the results which are pretty close to saturation and surely not far from saturation as you implied.

You took objection to "oxygen concentration itself that is important but rather the EXCHANGE rate of oxygen" and said "You have been misled again. That is almost shear nonsense." Funny how Walter Adey (btw, for those of you who don't know him, he is the person responsible for turf zones and what we commonly call a refugium today among other things and the guy who runs many of the tanks at the Smithsonian) and Eric say the same thing. Eric based his work on Adey and gave him credit for it. Eric was brought up because you liked that piece and didn't like Adey's. It was based off Adey's work and there is no confict at all. Eric quotes Adey. Many biologist at leading universities like Robert Tooney (hawaii.edu) use his work and it's still regarded as the most respected work ever done on the subject. That's not me saying it but everyone who references his work. He basically WROTE THE BOOK on it. These are Ph.D. guys who use his work. People running research institutions. I'd think they would choose other work to follow if Adey's is so misled and full of nonsense. But I'm sure you know more then these guys who dedicate their lives to these specific subject matters right?

You kept trying to defend arguments on temps and bleaching which you spinned into the conversation by saying you want temps maps from 8 to 20 to prove Walt's post as wrong. You didn't want surface temps. I did one better only you didn't grasp it by giving you 30' down. If anything these temps would be cooler thus making the reef temps warmer at 8 to 20 feet proving my point that much more but you didn't get it.

I write "Keeping it capped at 84 leaves a pretty large amount of "buffer temp". This was in regards to the data I already showed and where your man Walt says bleaching happens at 88 and up in Fiji. That's a huge buffer on my system. Remember it was my system we were talking about. You reply "Well, you are flat out wrong, that is a 1 F degree buffer and your meter can be off that much. There is again NO reason to keep it that high other then you saying so. It is potentially dangerous and has no meaning. You have to explain what benefit there is being at 84 or even 83 F. My recommended limit it 82 F and Randy goes to 83 F. And samll daily temp ****s are fine."

How can I be wrong about what I choose to run my system at? You may not agree with it but it's my opinion and I can't be wrong on MY OWN OPINION. It's purely your opinion but you state it as fact. It's also BS. Look at the thread that was just started and read some of these expert guys posts http://www.njreefers.org/joomla/index.php?option=com_smf&Itemid=26&topic=5680.0 where you post in that thread "There are probably crap loads, posts, of them on RC or RF. You might also want to check Bomber's forum The Reef Tank. I'm not into temp' s really at all. I do not know of any articles other than those mentioned. You may want to do a search on Reefkeeping, Advancedaquarist or the files on reefs.org."

So if you're not into temps really at all, why the hell are you arguing with me on my own system's buffer zone. Do you know I have to run 2000 watts of heaters to keep my temps at 84 in August? Do you know my system setup? On my system it's a LARGE buffer zone.