How do I raise my Alk levels

[Boomer]

Ok, but that is just too far a departure for my tastes. pH = TA/TCO2 as a model suggests to me the general manner in which they covary. pH = TA x TCO2 just gives my brain fits

For your taste, Randy's, Habib's or a chemists yes, I would agree. If you were asking the questions you would have gotten the real deal I was not trying to drop a so called working model. For example for CO2 in FW I use this......... CO2 (in PPM) = 3xKH x 10(7-pH). Such is as you know is much more difficult in seawater. I did not want to mess with peoples minds by posting this CO2 = CA *pH / pK1 [1 +2pK2/pH], was my soul reason and nothing else.

the only thing I'll say is that pHNBS probably doesn't make sense for sea water

That is what Miller says also. Most base the pHnbs on seawater from Lyman's Ph.D dissertation. If one goes on pHsws, it is usually pHt as you have stated. With that said using straight pHnbs vs pHt, you know that your pHnbs is to high by ~ .15 pH units. At pHt, or pHt = pHnbs + log.709 ( @ SSTP) and the pK1 and pk2 shift to lower values of the pHnbs of pH. 6 and pH 9.1. If I take the pHnbs making no pH corrections, which is pHnbs and not needed and plug in CA vs taking pHsws, the new Millero pK1 and pK2 and corrected for the "real" pH (pHt) of seawater which is brought about by the "salt effect error" the difference in CO2 is .01 ppm at SSTP, which to me is not worth the effort to reprograming my calculator with two more eqautions. When the qeustion on fourms like this are "so how CO2 do I really have ". I just give the value, no eqaution unless asked. Calculating pK1 and pK2 from Millero is a reallllly long equation, so I just use those pK tables that are pHnbsd in most books, to include Pilson or Riley & Chester ( but old).

Tell me you aren't still doing those calculations by hand

Yon remind me of Millero when he first came out with is first edt. and asked me If I was doing them by hand and at that time I said yes He craped his pants I could not figure out why I was getting the wrong answer. Millero had typo errors in his book

Now I use a very rare calculator a Casio fx-5000F. You would crap you pants if you saw what this thing does. Notice the full alpabet both English and Greek, small and cap, sub or supers with letters or numbers. I can write in those Buch-Park equation as is pretty much. Type in pH, CA, pK21 and pK2 and poof CO2. You can write in 12 of you own formulas. Mine is pretty much this for CO2;

C = A*10^-p / K1 [1 +K2/10^-p]


http://www.voidware.com/calcs/fx5000f.htm

For sea water I like m-cresol purple and a good spec

Yes, my favorite and only AS/Instant Oceans using this in a test kit form in this hobby and for almost 2 decades The best pH test kit there is to this day.

For my own work I use an Orion pH meter w/ a ROSS electrode for in situ measurements

Have you seen or used Millero's Trisma buffer pH for seawater calibrations with pH meters ? I think it is crazy he goes to .001 pH. If you breathed on the sample the pH would change

 

[Boomer]

I would not disagree with Walt per se, but I would suggest that he is somewhat mistaken

Fare enough but have you monitored temps at those depths / what Walt says. Yes, I know the shallow water mixing often gives much more of a constant temp. I do have some faith, in that one who has been diving those reefs for almost 20 years and do no think it can be dismissed that easily, especially when he in a professional journal pdf on the bleaching, authored by 12 researchers in the Fiji's, as a ref.. I'll dig it up if you want.

When the water hits 29.5 or 30 C for weeks, things go bad...

Yes, I also posted those as the "bleaching threshold" as shown on the links I gave ~ 29.1 C. My reasoning for not letting temp get over 82 F. If one wants to push that threshold there are on their own. I see not reason to push the bleaching threshold is my point ~ 84 F, it is not worth it.


Thanks again for stopping by.

 

[Boomer]

Ifogot

For calculating things co2sys by Ernie Lewis and Doug Wallace.

Yes that is the program I mentioned on this thead

Also have you looked into ?

CO2 in Seawater: Equilbrium, Kinetics, Isotopes by Zeebe and Wolf-Gladdrow

 

[Chris Jury]

For your taste, Randy's, Habib's or a chemists yes, I would agree. If you were asking the questions you would have gotten the real deal I was not trying to drop a so called working model. For example for CO2 in FW I use this......... CO2 (in PPM) = 3xKH x 10(7-pH). Such is as you know is much more difficult in seawater. I did not want to mess with peoples minds by posting this CO2 = CA *pH / pK1 [1 +2pK2/pH], was my soul reason and nothing else.

Ok, fair enough, but that equation still makes me cross-eyed if I look at it

That is what Miller says also. Most base the pHnbs on seawater from Lyman's Ph.D dissertation. If one goes on pHsws, it is usually pHt as you have stated. With that said using straight pHnbs vs pHt, you know that your pHnbs is to high by ~ .15 pH units. At pHt, or pHt = pHnbs + log.709 ( @ SSTP) and the pK1 and pk2 shift to lower values of the pHnbs of pH. 6 and pH 9.1. If I take the pHnbs making no pH corrections, which is pHnbs and not needed and plug in CA vs taking pHsws, the new Millero pK1 and pK2 and corrected for the "real" pH (pHt) of seawater which is brought about by the "salt effect error" the difference in CO2 is .01 ppm at SSTP, which to me is not worth the effort to reprograming my calculator with two more eqautions. When the qeustion on fourms like this are "so how CO2 do I really have ". I just give the value, no eqaution unless asked. Calculating pK1 and pK2 from Millero is a reallllly long equation, so I just use those pK tables that are pHnbsd in most books, to include Pilson or Riley & Chester ( but old).

Yeah. I mean, if we want to redefine seawater pH based on activity I guess that's fine, but to me pHsws and pHT scales seem a better alternative. Also, pHsws is the pHT ([H+] + [HSO4-]) plus [HF]. That's a small term, so they're nearly identical, but they do definitely come out differently (pHT is about 0.01 higher at stp).

Yon remind me of Millero when he first came out with is first edt. and asked me If I was doing them by hand and at that time I said yes He craped his pants I could not figure out why I was getting the wrong answer. Millero had typo errors in his book

Now I use a very rare calculator a Casio fx-5000F. You would crap you pants if you saw what this thing does. Notice the full alpabet both English and Greek, small and cap, sub or supers with letters or numbers. I can write in those Buch-Park equation as is pretty much. Type in pH, CA, pK21 and pK2 and poof CO2. You can write in 12 of you own formulas. Mine is pretty much this for CO2;

C = A*10^-p / K1 [1 +K2/10^-p]


http://www.voidware.com/calcs/fx5000f.htm

I'd like to introduce a couple of good friends of mine. Spread and sheet, this is Boomer, Boomer meet spread and sheet. Now I saw their sister excel around here somewhere...

Yes, my favorite and only AS/Instant Oceans using this in a test kit form in this hobby and for almost 2 decades The best pH test kit there is to this day.

Yup, m-cp and ideally a decent spec is the way to go Man, on those NOAA cruises they can get an accuracy of +/-0.0003 and a precision of 0.0004. That's just crazy good. Show me an electrode that can do that

Have you seen or used Millero's Trisma buffer pH for seawater calibrations with pH meters ? I think it is crazy he goes to .001 pH. If you breathed on the sample the pH would change

Yeah, we've got a whole stack of Millero's pH buffer recipes in a notebook in the lab (my advisor was at Rosenstiel with him for quite a long time--he was the pH/electrode/alkalinity titration go-to guy, for obvious reasons). I was going to make up a series of buffers to calibrate my electrode, but ended up deciding it wasn't worth going to the trouble and spending the money on uber-good reagents (really good TRIS can get pricey). All I need the pH meter for is delta pH over the course of a few hours. I therefore care about precision, but really could care less about accuracy given that I know my method with m-cp is quite accurate. Surely enough the electrode is pretty precise for up to a couple of days, though I'm glad I'm not relying on it to be accurate... Dr. Millero has a lot more confidence in electrodes than I do, but he can afford to toss anything less than le creme de le creme. If the slope of the electrode varies from the theoretical Nernst value of 59.16 by more than a small amoung, he tosses it.

Fare enough but have you monitored temps at those depths / what Walt says. Yes, I know the shallow water mixing often gives much more of a constant temp. I do have some faith, in that one who has been diving those reefs for almost 20 years and do no think it can be dismissed that easily, especially when he in a professional journal pdf on the bleaching, authored by 12 researchers in the Fiji's, as a ref.. I'll dig it up if you want.

I'll say this: from NOAA I can get raw data. I can interpret this myself and there is little if any room for bias. From Walt I've heard testimony. No matter how expert testimony given might be, I have to side with raw data over testimony.

Yes, I also posted those as the "bleaching threshold" as shown on the links I gave ~ 29.1 C. My reasoning for not letting temp get over 82 F. If one wants to push that threshold there are on their own. I see not reason to push the bleaching threshold is my point ~ 84 F, it is not worth it.

But 84 F just isn't high enough to do any harm in normal corals. If it were, almost every coral on the planet would bleach every year. Most corals see 84 F or even higher for months on end. I certainly wouldn't advocate running a tank nonstop at 86/87 F, even though reefs in the Philippines (for example) might see that temp for 3 months or so, but a temp of up to (that is, ideally not to exceed) 84 F is harmless. Like I said, for most of us closer to 81/82 is probably a better target. If we ever want to be able to get reproduction out of a lot of reef animals, especially a lot of corals, we're going to need to go up to at least 83 if not 84/85 F to get them to develop gametes properly and spawn. While not something every hobbyist should be doing, I definitely think some of us SHOULD be working on getting sexual reproduction in captivity. Brooding corals are probably the easiest things to start with (besides fish like clownfish or Bangaii cardinals) and most brooders stop reproducing when the water temp drops much below 82 F.

Thanks again for stopping by.

No worries

Ifogot

For calculating things co2sys by Ernie Lewis and Doug Wallace.

Yes that is the program I mentioned on this thead

Also have you looked into ?

CO2 in Seawater: Equilbrium, Kinetics, Isotopes by Zeebe and Wolf-Gladdrow

Must've missed your mention of the program. I've been meaning to get through Zeebe and Wolf-Gladrow, but haven't had a chance. Too much else to do...

cj

 

[Phyl]

I'll start this question by saying that I'm completely out of my league in this thread! But I have a burning question that I can't help but ask, having looked over the PH formulas above (Dick & Jane be darned).

If my PH rides naturally around 8.05 (using a highly inaccurate, industry common probe calibrated once in a dark blue moon, probe) and my Alk is typically in the 10.8-11.2 range does my system have too much CO2 or too little? I assumed too much and keep an open window in the room with a fan blowing over a turbulent sump. What are the other widgets in the sump that would suppress the PH?

 

[JohnS_323]

I'll start this question by saying that I'm completely out of my league in this thread!

Really?!? This is just some light reading, like the stuff we went through in grammar school. . . . NOT!

I'd really be interested in seeing if there is a response that the AVERAGE reader could understand.

I hope you're wearing your Kevlar glasses Phyl. Venturing into this thread seems to be a risky manuever!

 

[GregW]

Way over my head with all the formulas and and abbreviations (what the hell is TC02?). It would be nice if someone could explain how to balance pH, alk, and calcium without having to weed through the BS sarcastic comments.

 

[Carlo]

You most certainly did you said Walt Smith does not know what he is talking about

No Boomer, that is not what I said. I've basically said I have to take what Walt says with a grain of salt because much of what I've seen him say is off from other data on the same matter. Often by quite a bit. I've also said I take his info and research it. He is surely a wonderful resource to the hobby but that doesn't mean I need to take it at verbatim.

I can go through the whole damn thread like this if you like?
OH I hope you do

Boomer I really don't want to but can. Chris has now also shown/corrected some of the misconceptions or models you're writing here. I'm not trying to fight with you per say, I'm just defending myself since you went on the attack on me.

.Buch-Park.......First of all, you have no idea of my knowledge.

I don't need to you do not know who they are or you would have posted something.

You're talking here like you are responsible for the equations in question. Where do I see the name "Boomer" in "Buch-Park

You are really grasping for hope and straws now Carlo. And yes I named them that and you already know that and why this remark is so silly.

No I didn't know that Boomer. I told you a few times I've only lightly saw them there but haven't read them. If I read them I guess I would have known that. So I apologize.

You threw that in as spin control when you realized you f-ed up the Dick & Jane formula to cloud the issue.

Not at all any you know it for fact and are just unwilling to admit it. It has been explained ah about 3 or 4 times, so no need to repeat myself again. More or your grasping for straws, you are getting desperate.

Not at all. You still haven't conceded you made a big error on the formula you posted in the very first message. The whole argument you made in the first post to "correct" me on a laymans type post is full of error in almost every part. You were trying to "take me to the next level" but instead either showed you:
1. have an understanding of the chemistry we're talking about, but not a truly complete one
2. aren't explaining you self well and making a ton of assumptions along the way
3. picking and choosing chemistry equations to suit you need at the time without taking into consideration the environment
4. combination of all the above
In a very friendly manner Chris has now pretty much covered/corrected ever thing you mentioned in your first couple of posts which is what I've been saying all along.

I chopped out he said/she said type stuff. Readers can read the post and decide for themselves who said what.

It is getting funner by the minute. I only proved Randy wrong due to typo error and Eric wrong as he has the wrong values. I told you it can be proved, Fell free to call any expert on O2 in water or seawater, such as YSI , search the net on O2 in seawater. Go back to the links I gave and all will give you the same answer, which are not what Eric gives. How come Lou Dell agrees with now that I have given proof. You are the one denying FACTS found in almost any seawater manual or on the net so who is wrong here Carlo. It is in error it is as simple as that. We all make errors.

You're latching on to phrases you take issue with instead of what they are saying as a whole at more then not. Much of your "proof" is personal opinion and nothing more. I haven't argued the point on the pinpoint O2 monitor with you have I? However, the problem appears to not be as big a deal as you made it out to be. It still works but you need to use a different reference solution.

I think we know who tables are tipped on and why your posts are such Rants. Knowbody is suppose to disagree with Carlo is what your post say and your attitude on may of your post toward others. I guess it is OK for you to do. You don't like and can't handle my challenges with out a rant and carpet bombing of post to try to confuse readers.

No it's not OK to do and if you read back some posts ago I've said this. I also said I haven't done it on purpose but you are doing this on purpose. Quite a difference. You're doing it with intention and I did not. Also when I've done it, hopefully, it was based on fact that is well known and studied with lots of data to back it up. I usually won't get into a discussion with somebody unless I'm 100% sure of the outcome.

I can handle your challenges Boomer. But you need to be accurate in your responses and not tell only part of the "story" or pull chemistry equations that fit your need but have no bearing on the material at hand or the environment in which we're talking.

"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."

More misleading this only has to do with an error made by Randy and Eric. Different Ca++, Mg++ or alk are all much of an opinion and has nothing to do with fact to a point.

I wasn't talking about just the quotes. I was talking about the way you voiced your opinion on many of the issues you brought up. To make your case besides just being wrong on a number of things you "skewed" the "chemistry lessons" to suit you when they had little bearing on the case at hand.

I asked Chris to post a few comments/observations on some things and I think, he has cleared up many of these issues quite nicely in a way that can't be refuted.

No not at all. If it's wrong, it's wrong. But when I mention Randy has said blah blah and you argue with that then it's different. That is what that was about, I mentioned what Randy said not that it was my opinion. You're missing this. And the simple fact of the matter is that having higher calcium in lower pH environments MAY be beneficial. You may think it's not beneficial while others may think it is. You are sharing your OPINION not FACT on the matter

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.

I don't need to. I'm not compelled to prove he is wrong. I look at the NOAA charts for 7 years of data and can see it with my own eyes

You are still lost on this as Bomber has pointed out on your won link .sssheeish. Your are still saying Walt Smith does not know what he is talking about. I posted a link to NOAA plots, did you even look at them. I see you have no comment

Chris has now also pretty much said the same thing as I in regards to all the temp issues.

 

[Carlo]

First you shouldn't speak for someone else but only for yourself. Secondly Randy could just as well come in here and say that running calcium at higher levels like 400-450 MAY (get that word boomer) MAY MAY MAY help. Just as he has written in his articles and in posts to people on RC.

I would not disagree with that. And I have not seen in any reef tank evidence where that MAY do that. It is like the argument on Sr. There are allot of MAYS in this hobby. And Chris recent post sheds allot more light on it, where elevated Ca++ May really appear to help at least in the lab tests. Are you happy now ? I believe in data not MAY or hearsay.

Well that's fine. None of us know anything. This was my point with commenting what Randy would say in different situations. You were basing it on your own opinion or understanding and calling things a typo or error. He very well might have meant "may" when he writes it as such. He might not agree or have read other studies on calcification rates but thinks there "may" be something to it especially at lower pH levels. This is why it's dangerous to comment on what other people might say.

Hmm, no comment on my remark of you copying/ pasting others people posts/work and claiming as if they are your own. How come ?

I think I covered these in the different posts as I went along. I did it throughout the thread on purpose. If I missed giving a quote or reference somewhere it was by accident not by intention. I was trying to show what experts in the field think, not what I thought (of course the selection itself shows my opinion ). I wanted to show where the data came from not take personal credit for it.

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.

Again go back and read the thread.

I don't' need to I have done it so may times already and pointed out on this thread so many times.

I MUST be missing something here. I still don't know what you are referring to regarding Walt. I do not put much faith in Walt's comments so I'm surely not going to defend his data. I've already showed with a doubt his mid 70s comment is way off.

OK I was wrong about the Pinpoint monitor working in salt water BIG DEAL. I did say I called them and had checked with them 2 times because I didn't think it was correct

I'm not not "picking" on you for that at all, you were mislead, many others have been to. So knock off the rant on the PinPoint.

Didn't think I was ranting on it at all. I said you were correct and thanked you for that information, but just commented that there was a solution.
[quote

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.

"No clue what you are referring to. Please elaborate if you like."

The quote you gave from Randy that said "SA" would more than likely only raise the pH. Your next quote from Randy "SA" will raise both the Alk and pH.
[/quote]
Oh I get what you are saying now. Yep a bit of a contradiction there if read at face value but not in the context of the article, as it makes sense. Explained below.

You missed that, which shows Randy made an error. How could SA not effect Alk ? If that was the case Randy or I would be recommending it to rise the pH and maybe not Kalk. Why would Randy or I recomemd SA if both the Alk and Ph are low . If it had not effect on Alk whb would we say that ? I said it is easy to prove with a glass of water or go to jdiecks Reef Chemistry calculator. ~ 1 tsp of SA will raise the Alk ~ 1.6 higher than BS. SA has 2 Alk units and not 1 Alk unit like BS. You yourself then seemed to agreed with that. So it is obvious to me that you agree Randy was in error. How come is it through out this thread it is OK for you to disagree with known people but haven forbid if I do. Called a double std.

He didn't make an error. The baking of the baking soda doesn't change the amount of alkalinity adjustment for the volume at hand if completed dosed. It just shifts the form of the carbs. There will of course be less total weight of the baked baking soda (soda ash) when done baking as the water and CO2 are driven off. Based on the total volume (non-baked versus baked) the alkalinity affect will be the same (if total volume is dosed) but the direct pH change at dosing time will be different. This is what I was saying in the first place when you tried to correct me. The tank will reach equilibrium in time and the pH will adjust back to "normal".

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.

"Point them out? "

I already have in this post again. Randy's, Eric's' error and you misreading Walt Smith and Bomber.

Nope, your stating your understanding or interpretation of the material and as we are seeing isn't always correct.

If you had read the few posts before this one you'd have seen I was already chilling. But then you had to go and post the "in your face" post which simply p*issed me off so I responded in kind.

Chilling yes but still a rant, you could not let it go. So I decided not to either.

(other's here know this as fact because I had PMed them saying what you were doing)

You PM them what I was doing ? I posted what I was doing. I said it was my intent do to treat you the way have treated others here. I guess it is OK for Carlo to do it. Again a double std.

Yes, I'm talking back at post 1 or 2 count of yours. Not at the time of the 4th page where you said what you were doing.

Crap you even posted on it and confessing, you had not treated people so good but it was not your intent. And since you want to bring up PM's that one you sent me after I was here less than 5 min with no post p*issed me off. So lets not be waving the flag. Your attitude here on this forum, from what I have seen, is YOU think you are the all high and mighty. That is how you come across.

I'm not disagreeing that some people might feel that way. Others don't. Doesn't matter. As I've already mentioned I don't want it to come across that way. It's very hard not to however when you have a very broad solid foundation of knowledge. I'm trying to watch what and how it's said. This is quite different in almost every respect from your intention here.

I'm sure a "welcome, glad to see you here" message did p*ss you off. It was so obvious your intention right from the start I couldn't resist. But in all honesty it is nice to have you hear but please leave the knit-picking out unless it's fundamentally important and leave opinion out of things unless you state them as opinions just as I am striving to do.

This whole thing really rose for the post on Walt Smith and then went way out of line. We are now both talking like a couple of jerks/knotheads which is obvious, not to mention talking circle's. I'm final no more post at least to you on this thread at all. You can feel free to say what you want. I don't know about you, but I don't' hold grudges par one person and that is not you by a long shot. All of my harshness of mine only stems from this thead an no others here.

I wasn't trying to be a jerk or knothead. I was simply trying to explain/correct the twisted logic you were using to "correct" me. Chris did it better then I.

To the rest of the paragraph: Most excellent Boomer. I'm not a grudge person either and I've tried to be "civil" here as best I could under the circumstances.

Carlo

 

[Carlo]

Nice to see you Chris. And sorry for all this arguing nonsense we have created.

I looked up and read that pdf abstract a nice piece. Don't know why I have not seen it before or others for that manner.

pH = Alk x CO2 makes no sense to me as a conceptual model

Of course it makes no sense that is why I called it Dick & Jane, as most don't want me to elaborate on it. In short if you know the Alk and CO2 you can calculate the pH. It is a function of, CA, Salinity, temp., pK1 and pK2. I could have said pH = CO2 + Alk or pH = CO2/ Alk. It is obvious you can't get pH from these. Carlo has you on a wild goose chase for nothing and I'm sorry for it. I have many posts on the CO2 carbonate system on RC on the chem forum and elsewhere. So sorry you were dragged in to this.

If it makes no sense, then why did you bring it up? What you posted didn't make sense at all. I don't have him on a wild goose chase. You're stating things as fact but they are completely wrong and not even applicable to the situation.

What you have posted I have posted similar may times.

You cannot possibly calculate these parameters from these equations

And I never said you could. You are being grossly mislead. I have explained this to Carlo many time here on what I meant and he knows it, so sorry again.

What you might have meant and what you posted are two different things I guess. I can't debate/dispute what you meant, only what you write.

And yes you can calculate these parameters if you know various parmeters. This is shown in most seawater chemistry books. Look it up in Millero. There is even a program out on it that many have used on the chem forum on RC which I have posted and got from Craig Bingman long ago. Program or not you get the same answers I give below. I have also had phone conversations on this issue with Millero, the worlds leading authority on this subject.

Here is an example on CO2 calculation. Since pH can easily measured as Alk and CO2, CO3- and HCO3- can not so many calculate it. It is a big part of Millero's book and his research, especially calculating CO2. pK1 and pK2 talbes are found in most seawater chems books. And these equation are very accurate and is why they are used. One can also argue should we be going by pHnbs or pHsws

CO2 = CA *pH / pK1 [1 +2pK2/pH]

One for HCO3-

HCO3- = CA / 1 + 2pK2/pH]

And CA = TAlk - Borate Alk

And if you pull out the pH on the right side of the equation and put it on the left side of the equation you can calculate pH. The issue with seawater is you can not measure CO2 with any normal means other than a pCO2 probe. Millero, Randy or Habib themselves will tell you you can do this we have had discusion on it may times.


These are found in most chem books.

I have posted results of such equations on this thread. Did you miss them

pH = 8.3
Alk = 2.5 meq/ l

CO2 = 0.41 ppm

pH = 8.3
Alk = 3.0 meq/ l

CO2 = 0.50 ppm

pH = 8.3
Alk = 4 meq/ l

CO2 = 0.66 ppm

Maybe they work for the equations you have programmed into your calculator but they didn't come close to working with what you posted here. Again, this is what I have to work with, what you posted.

To make it easier for some I have a posted this on RC and elsewhere a few times.
Ratio pCO2 For NSW


Total Alkalinity (AT)
(mEq/l) . . . 2.0 .. 2.5 .. 2.6 .. 3.0 .. 3.5 .. 4.0 .. 4.5 .. 5.0 ...5.5 ...6.0
(dKH) . . . ...5.6 .. 7.0 .. 7.3 .. 8.4 .. 9.8 . 11.2 . 12.4 . 14.0 . 15.4 . 16.8
pH __________________________________________________ _________
7.7----------3.0.... 3.7 .. 3.9 .. 4.5 .. 5.3 .. 6.0 .. 6.8 ...7.5 ...8.3 ...9.1
7.8----------2.3.. ..2.9 .. 3.0 .. 3.5 .. 4.1 .. 4.7 .. 5.3 ...5.8 ...6.4 ...7.O
7.9----------1.8.... 2.2 .. 2.3 .. 2.7 .. 3.1 .. 3.6 .. 4.0 ...4.5 ...5.0 ...5.4
8.0----------1.3.... 1.7 .. 1.8 .. 2.0 .. 2.4 .. 2.7 .. 3.1 ...3.4 ...3.8 ...4.1
8.1----------1.0.... 1.3 .. 1.3 .. 1.6 .. 1.8 .. 2.1 .. 2.3 ...2.6 ...2.9 ...3.1
8.2----------0.8.... 1.0 .. 1.0 .. 1.2 .. 1.4 .. 1.7 .. 1.8 ...2.0 ...2.2 ...2.4
8.3----------0.6.... 0.7 .. 0.7 .. 0.7 .. 1.0 .. 1.2 .. 1.3 ...1.5 ...1.6 ...1.8
8.4----------0.4.... 0.5 .. 0.5 .. O.6 .. 0.7 .. 0.9 .. 1.0 ...1.1 ...1.2 ...1.3
8.5----------0.3.. ..O.4 .. 0.4 .. 0.5 .. 0.5 .. 0.6 .. 0.7 ...0.8 ...0.9 ...0.9
8.6----------0.2 ....0.3 .. 0.3 ...0.3 ...0.4 ...0.4 .. 0.5....0.6 ...0.6 ...0.7

~ CO2 ppm = pCO2 x 0.56

And this is not the Dick & Jane stuff above. Dick & Jane meaning, a comment with no real meaning, which has also been explained to Carlo more than once, so sorry again you got draggged into this.

I clearly got the reference to Dick & Jane Boomer. You were trying to layout a "concept" model. But the concept model you gave was wrong as well as most of the rest of the post in general that was supposed to take me to the next level.

There are issues with the above also, as Chris has mentioned.

Carlo

 

[RichT]

Any chance we can wrap this ridiculous thread up anytime soon? It has long since past any usefulness to the majority of our members. I seriously doubt many if any will read through the never ending gibberish strun throughout the thread. I for one feel it's becoming an embarrassment not only for the club but for those involved. It has gone from informative, to entertaining, to now ludicrous.

I am going to suggest the major contributors to this thread post their final (short) thoughts and comments without regards to what the others may have posted (read "no quotes" or direct responses) and whom may get the last word. It's ok to agree to disagree. You have all posted your thought and understanding of the issues too many times to count and further posting is basically useless if not vindictive at this point.

As it would be a monumental task to edit out the personal attacks and egotistical garbage so that the reader could walk away even slightly educated, not to mention the fact that most of the information is above the heads of most of those(us) who would be inclined to edit it, I fear the entire threads removal may be eminent.

Thank you to all the contributors. I'm sure most will agree this has been beaten to death and has gone on long enough.

Thank you all in advance for your anticipated cooperation.

 

[chase33]

It would be nice if someone could explain how to balance pH, alk, and calcium without having to weed through the BS sarcastic comments.

I agree and I think that was the intent of the thread. It seems now it's turned into a See how much I know contest" instead of providing help or information that most users reading can use.

 

[Chris Jury]

Jeez guys, it's just a little bit of physical chemistry...what could be hard about that? : Anyone that ever took p-chem is laughing their butts off right now ;D

I'll start this question by saying that I'm completely out of my league in this thread! But I have a burning question that I can't help but ask, having looked over the PH formulas above (Dick & Jane be darned).

If my PH rides naturally around 8.05 (using a highly inaccurate, industry common probe calibrated once in a dark blue moon, probe) and my Alk is typically in the 10.8-11.2 range does my system have too much CO2 or too little? I assumed too much and keep an open window in the room with a fan blowing over a turbulent sump. What are the other widgets in the sump that would suppress the PH?

I would say that there are two things to understand to understand this problem, and luckily they aren't terribly complicated and you don't need to know any equations to understand the concept (just need equations to calculate actual concentrations).

Very simply these are: 1) adding CO2 will lower pH. Taking away CO2 will raise pH. 2) adding alkalinity will raise pH. Taking away alkalinity will lower pH.

With a bit more explanation, there are 4 different kinds of inorganic carbon in water: CO2/H2CO3, HCO3-, CO3--. If there are more H+ in the water (low pH) then there will be more carbonic acid (H2CO3). If there are few H+ (high pH) there will be more carbonate (CO3--). If the pH is somewhere in the middle you'll get a mix of all of these, but it will be a mix heavy in bicarbonate (HCO3-). Adding more CO2 makes more carbonic acid (H2CO3) and pushes things toward CO2/H2CO3 and away from CO3--, lowering the pH. Taking away CO2 pushes things toward CO3-- and away from CO2/H2CO3, raising pH.

Alkalinity is the concentration of bases in seawater minus the concentration of acids. Adding bases makes the water more basic (= higher pH) and pushes the equilbrium toward CO3-- and away from CO2/H2CO3. Taking away bases (or adding acids) makes the water more acidic (= lower pH) and pushes the equilibrium toward more CO2/H2CO3 and away from CO3--.

The pH of sea water is the result of the opposing effects of total alkalinity (raises pH) and the total amount of inorganic carbon (lowers pH). We can think of this latter parameter as the amount of CO2, but strictly speaking this isn't very accurate. Less than 1% of the carbon is really in the form CO2. Since all these carbon species are related to CO2, but we don't necessarily mean to say that we are actually measuring CO2, we use the term TCO2 (total CO2) to mean the concentration of CO2 + H2CO3 + HCO3- + CO3--. The TCO2 is the concentration of all of them combined.

So, if 8.05 is close to an accurate pH measurment (I'd recalibrate the probe, but it is probably close enough for our purposes--at least after calibration)and the alkalinity is high, we see that the TCO2 must also be high. The TCO2 is so high, in fact, that even the elevated alkalinity can't make up for it and our pH is low. This is uber common though, so don't feel too bad. Actually, a pH around 8.0 - 8.1 is really not bad for a lot of captive systems. In order to raise pH we need to either get rid of CO2 or raise alkalinity. Since alkalinity probably shouldn't go too much higher, it is probably best to work on getting ric of CO2.

Way over my head with all the formulas and and abbreviations (what the hell is TC02?). It would be nice if someone could explain how to balance pH, alk, and calcium without having to weed through the BS sarcastic comments.

TCO2 = [CO2](aq) + [H2CO3] + [HCO3-] + [CO3--]. In words that is: total CO2 equals the concentration of dissolved CO2 plus the concentration of carbonic acid plus the concentration of bicarbonate plus the concentration of carbonate. Since there are 4 forms ("species") that CO2 can take when dissolved in water, and we often want to know much there is of all of them, we refer to this as "total CO2" or TCO2. This is also written as SIGMA CO2 (using the actual Greek symbol) and means the same: the sum of the concentration of all kinds of CO2. You'll also see DIC which is "dissolved inorganic carbon." Again, it's the same thing.

I hope this is understandable. Since everything interacts with everything else, it can be complicated to conceptualize at first, but it isn't impossible, I promise

Bare bones the thing to remember: raising alkalinity will raise pH, lowering alkalinity will lower pH. Raising CO2 will lower pH, lowering CO2 will raise pH. The alkalinity and CO2 work oppositely and the pH represents the balance of the two.

If there are further questions I'd be happy to address them. Afterall, I'm at least half responsible for making the last several posts too complicated to understand by non-chemists :

Chris

 

[Chris Jury]

Also, my intent was to answer questions that were raised, though admittedly I did get a bit too far "out there" to be useful with some of what I posted. My appologies if this was not useful. As I said, I'd be happy to answer any questions.

cj

 

[Phyl]

So what then would you do to eliminate MORE TCO2 from the system? Seems to me that an outside air source is being provided, a skimmer which it hopefully off-gassing some and the drop from the 1st floor to the basement that creates its share of turbulance in the sump.

Since it seems that I'm getting rid of as much as I can in those manners, my only other option is to add less CO2 to the system (via Ca reactor) and use Kalk drip to make up the difference on the other end. Is there something about the Kalk process that rids the system of CO2 or is it simply by adding less of it that the numbers are better balanced to favor a PH of 8.2?

I have to say that when this thread steers clear of nit picking and rather centers around intellectual discussion there's plenty to be learned.

 

[Carlo]

I'll start this question by saying that I'm completely out of my league in this thread!

Really?!? This is just some light reading, like the stuff we went through in grammar school. . . . NOT!

I'd really be interested in seeing if there is a response that the AVERAGE reader could understand.

I hope you're wearing your Kevlar glasses Phyl. Venturing into this thread seems to be a risky manuever!

Here's a commentary so the AVERAGE reader can understand what just took place (sometimes in no particular order of events, due to the nature of the posts).

In Boomer's first post in this thread he objected to my use of "no CO2" in the sentense and said "For each eq of HCO3- you add 1 eq of Alk and 1 eq of CO2. When it is CO3-- you also add one eq of CO2 but 2 eq of Alk. When ever you raise the Alk there is ALWAYS and increase in CO2."

The first part of Chris's post basically said there are 4 species of inorganic carbon that occur in water, gave the types, told what they are collectively called (SIGMA CO2, or TCO2) and then mentioned "At sea water pH only a tiny portion of this occurs as CO2, however (< 1%)." There isn't always an increase in CO2 in the way boomer presented it and the alk and CO2 work against each other ending in a pH value. He basically showed it's kind of a meaningless to non-factual statement to make.

Chris goes on to say the formula pH = Alk x CO2 makes no sense at all since it suggest that pH varies positively with alkalinity AND TCO2, which it does not, and is a conceptual model at best. He then shows the same concept model I had used pH=Alk/CO2 but modifies it to be pH=Alk/TCO2. TCO2 instead of CO2 for the same reason as above, since the CO2 form is less then 1% at sea water pH. He points out they are concept models at best.

Chris explains that coral calcification isn't saturated at 360 ppm and that some studies have shown that some species aren't saturated until well above NSW levels and that none of them saturate at 360 ppm or thereabouts. Much of that was paraphased. This clearly indicates that calcium levels higher then NSW are better for our tanks which is a misconception you could get from Boomer's post.

Chris explains that precipitation is an ongoing process and that there is no threshold above which we dare not tred. This pretty much diffuses the Omega formula or it's use entirely and indirectly answers the question I asked Boomer about how/why many people can exceed the Omega by such a large margin without problems, contrary to what Boomer eluded to.

Chris goes on to show that SST (sea surface temps) ARE a good indication of temps down to 30m and talks about how they are taken by both buoys and direct sampling. He goes on to say that
a mean temp of 80-82F is a good range to shoot for in his opinion and higher temps like 84/85 could be very useful for someone wanting to get reproduction in reef animals like I'm trying to do which Boomer has objected to.

Chris mentions the concept model still gives him fits..."too many boxed models" and goes on to show Boomer that some of the equations he is using isn't "ideal" for sea water and not what he should be using. In regards to the Buch-Park models.

Boomer asks if Chris has seen his equations on RC and Chris answers "Ha, no My thesis deals with the effect of ocean acidification on coral calcification, so these are equations for which I am intimately acquainted...perhaps too intimately". To say he knows his stuff is well an understatement. Tis why I asked him to comment on the thread.

Little chit chat going on. Boomer asks asks Chris about what we had talked about earlier on Walt/Bomber and the issue on SST and mentions "And some SST can even go much lower than 50 M." That's a direct flip from his expression of this when earlier talking to me as he said they weren't accurate.

Chris answers "I would not disagree with Walt per se, but I would suggest that he is somewhat mistaken." and "I'd disagree with Bomber. SST are useful for questions like these precisely because they give a accurate temp." which are for anyone reading the thread what I've been saying.

Concerning the pdf on bleaching authored by 12 authors Chis responds "I'll say this: from NOAA I can get raw data. I can interpret this myself and there is little if any room for bias. From Walt I've heard testimony. No matter how expert testimony given might be, I have to side with raw data over testimony." Again exactly what I've been saying and why I take some things Walt says with a "grain of salt".

Concerning the issue 84 temp issue that was brought up numerous times where Boomer says things like "I see not reason to push the bleaching threshold is my point ~ 84 F, it is not worth it." and Chris responds "But 84 F just isn't high enough to do any harm in normal corals. If it were, almost every coral on the planet would bleach every year. Most corals see 84 F or even higher for months on end. I certainly wouldn't advocate running a tank nonstop at 86/87 F, even though reefs in the Philippines (for example) might see that temp for 3 months or so, but a temp of up to (that is, ideally not to exceed) 84 F is harmless..." Goes along with what I've been saying.

Carlo



Edited by Phyl per Carlo's request

 

[Chris Jury]

So what then would you do to eliminate MORE TCO2 from the system? Seems to me that an outside air source is being provided, a skimmer which it hopefully off-gassing some and the drop from the 1st floor to the basement that creates its share of turbulance in the sump.

Since it seems that I'm getting rid of as much as I can in those manners, my only other option is to add less CO2 to the system (via Ca reactor) and use Kalk drip to make up the difference on the other end. Is there something about the Kalk process that rids the system of CO2 or is it simply by adding less of it that the numbers are better balanced to favor a PH of 8.2?

There are a couple of ways to reduce the TCO2 of the tank water (or otherwise alter the alk:TCO2 ratio).

First, aeration with air that has a substantially lower partial pressure of CO2 (pCO2) can be effective for some folks. Using a calcium reactor usually results in pretty high TCO2 in the tank water. If the air in the house has a much lower pCO2 than the tank water, just aeration with indoor air can help. Most of us, however, have elevated levels of CO2 in our houses. Aerating with air that has a high pCO2 won't lower the TCO2 of the tank--it's just more of the same. In that case, aerating heavily with outdoor air can help. How much this helps depends on the amount of aeration. This works great for some folks, and not well for others, depending on what they are able to do. Aeration will have no significant effect on alkalinity. For sake of completeness, aeration will cause evaporation which will concentrate everything dissolved in the water, including those things that yield alkalinity. Hence, evaporation increases alkalinity, but the effect is so small it's not worth considering in this context.

Second, photosynthesis in the tank will lower the TCO2 and will not affect alkalinity. Using something like a lit refugium to increase the amount of photosynthesis going on can be very effective.

Last, using kalkwasser will add alkalinity, but won't raise TCO2. You don't need to raise the alkalinty:TCO2 ratio that much to bring the pH to where you want it, so it doesn't take much kalk to do this. Of course, adding kalkwasser on top of a calcium reactor may end up raising alkalinity and calcium over the long term if the calcium reactor isn't adjusted. Like I said though, not a whole lot of kalk is needed to get the balance back, so you may not notice any increase in alkalinity/calcium after starting to dose kalk. If that is the case it is because the calcifiers are simply calcifying very slightly faster, which is expected for most of them at higher pH.

cj

 

[Carlo]

There's been much talk of pH. What is pH?
Depending on who you ask you'll get a different answer but they all pretty much agree. Some may be easier to understand so I clipped a few sources:

The Simple Definition
pH is a logarithmic measure of hydrogen ion concentration, originally defined by Danish biochemist Søren Peter Lauritz Sørensen in 1909 [1].

pH = -log[H+]
where log is a base-10 logarithm and [H+] is the concentration of hydrogen ions in moles per liter of solution. According to the Compact Oxford English Dictionary, the "p" stands for the German word for "power", potenz, so pH is an abbreviation for "power of hydrogen" [2]. Also referred to as "potential of hydrogen"

The pH scale was defined because the enormous range of hydrogen ion concentrations found in aqueous solutions make using H+ molarity awkward. For example, in a typical acid-base titration, [H+] may vary from about 0.01 M to 0.0000000000001 M. It is easier to write "the pH varies from 2 to 13".

pH is often used to compare solution acidities. For example, a solution of pH 1 is said to be 10 times as acidic as a solution of pH 2, because the hydrogen ion concentration at pH 1 is ten times the hydrogen ion concentration at pH 2. This is correct as long as the solutions being compared both use the same solvent. You can't use pH to compare the acidities in different solvents because the neutral pH is different for each solvent.

The Theoretical Definition
pH has been more accurately defined as

pH = -log aH+

where aH+ is the hydrogen ion activity. In solutions that contain other ions, activity and concentration are not the same. The activity is an effective concentration of hydrogen ions, rather than the true concentration; it accounts for the fact that other ions surrounding the hydrogen ions will shield them and affect their ability to participate in chemical reactions. These other ions effectively change the hydrogen ion concentration in any process that involves H+.

In practice, Sørenson's original definition can still be used, because the instrument used to make the measurement can be calibrated with solutions of known [H+], with the concentration of background ions carefully controlled.
taken from http://antoine.frostburg.edu/chem/senese/101/acidbase/faq/what-is-pH.shtml

---
(from potential of Hydrogen) the logarithm of the reciprocal of hydrogen-ion concentration in gram atoms per liter; provides a measure on a scale from 0 to 14 of the acidity or alkalinity of a solution (where 7 is neutral and greater than 7 is more basic and less than 7 is more acidic);
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
---
A measure of acidity and alkalinity of a solution that is a number on a scale on which a value of 7 represents neutrality, lower numbers indicate increasing acidity, and higher numbers indicate increasing alkalinity. Each unit of change represents a tenfold change in acidity or alkalinity and is the negative logarithm of the effective hydrogen-ion concentration or hydrogen-ion activity in gram equivalents per liter of the solution.
www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/water/dwg/OpCert/HTML/glossary.htm
---
In simpler terms, the number arises from a measure of the activity of hydrogen ions in the solution. The pH scale is a reverse logarithmic representation of relative hydrogen proton (H+) concentration. Unlike linear scales that progress in a smooth, incremental manner, a shift in value on the pH scale represents a tenfold difference in H+ concentration. For example, a shift in pH from 2 to 3 represents a 10-fold decrease in H+ concentration, and a shift from 2 to 4 represents a one-hundred (10 × 10)-fold decrease in H+ concentration.
from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PH

In the article above from wiki there is a section on "Seawater" that talks about the problems of measurement and the different scales use. For "hobby" purposes and understanding what pH is it doesn't matter and only complicates things.

Carlo

 

[Boomer]

Something for Chris to comment on that I'm right on this issue.


Something for Chris to comment on that I'm right on this issue.


Carlo states in his lat post
Based on the total volume (non-baked versus baked) the alkalinity affect will be the same (if total volume is dosed) but the direct pH change at dosing time will be different. This is what I was saying in the first place when you tried to correct me. The tank will reach equilibrium in time and the pH will adjust back to "normal".

This is my reply but to you
No it will not be the same Alk. Although the pH will adjust in time to pCO2 the pH may be higher and the Allk will be higher. If you take 100 L of seawater with a Alk 2.00 meq / l and add 4.2 grams of BS the Alk will rise to 2.5 meq/ l.. If you do the same with Soda Ash it will only take 2.6 grams to reach the same Alk of 2.5

If go by vol, and Carlo said vol., so in teaspoons, and with each teaspoon equal by vol. and raise the Alk with 1 teaspoon of BS it will raise the Alk to 2.6 meq / l and 1 teaspoon of SA will rise it to. 2.9 meq / l. How is that the same Carlo. Even if the pH shifts in either direction, for the sake of argument, the ratios at that pH the CO2:HCO3-:CO3 will be the same but the Alk will be higher.

If you maintain the same pH and raise the Alk the ratio of Sigma CO2 will be the same but there will more Sigma CO2. There is % at a pH of Sigam CO2 and the amount of it, Alk. That is not the same. It is why you can raise the Alk up to higher levels and still have the same pH but the CO2 must also go up in "equal" proportion to keep that same pH. You can have a higher pH with more CO2 than a lower pH, it is a function of the Alk. And you can have a low Alk, low CO2 at 8.3 and a high CO2, and Alk at 8.3

pH = 8.3

Alk = 4 meq / l l (lets assume no Borate for the sense of easiness)

CO2 = .667 ppm pHnnbs

pH = 8.1

Alk = 1.5

CO2 = .437 ppm

In most cases and not not all cases, as I eluded to, when one is adding most buffers such as CO3-- or HCO3- and there is a rise in the Alk but not the pH there has to be a rise in CO2 to keep that pH. It is a balance issue. So yes, not always is there a rise in CO2. So in short most cases when they jack up their Alk they have more not less CO2.


Carlo
I'm sure a "welcome, glad to see you here" message did p*ss you off.

Since you brought it up. That did not at all, it was your belittling of the members and this forum right off the bat, which was not called for or needed. I have never seen anyone with a PM like that. Why not go ahead and post the whole PM ? They can judge for themselves. How's that. ?


Buch-Park
If it makes no sense, then why did you bring it up? What you posted didn't make sense at all. I don't have him on a wild goose chase. You're stating things as fact but they are completely wrong and not even applicable to the situation..............I clearly got the reference to Dick & Jane Boomer. You were trying to layout a "concept" model. But the concept model you gave was wrong as well as most of the rest of the post in general that was supposed to take me to the next level.


For the 10th time or more in this thread, form when you first brought it up pH = CO2 x Alk. I said it was a meaningless, GET CARLO meaningless equation. Where did I say it was fact Carlo please point that out. Many times in these last posts you have brought this up a number of times. When will you GET IT Carlo. I was not trying to lay out a concept model. It was not meant to be a working model, I never said it was, I stated it was useless when you asked, what more can I say and how many time do I have to repeat myself. It is quite obvious it is not real, it is quite obvious I know what the real working models are but you continue to rant about it. I could have typed in pH = CO2 + Ak, also a useless equation. You will more than likely rant about it some more. You are beating dead horse.

Your next level as you said was this and my posts


Chris
Granted to a point but that later can be days if it is SA, as it also raises the Alk higher than BS ( a least the way most do it by not looking a weight or Mol values. Even if we go by mol values there is a difference ( see below). A higher Alk will lower the effect of pH drop with CO2 addition or increase ( do not confuse this with "CO2 has no effect on Alk or vise versa"). This is why we try to tell people to stay away from straight SA unless there is both a low pH and Alk issue. So, it in real terms, it does make a difference which one is added.


From Randy
Supplement Initial pH....... 24 hour pH......120 hour pH (5 days)
none................8.10......... 8.11...........8.21
0.5 meq/L HCO3-.8.06......... 8.15...........8.33
0.5 meq/L CO3--..8.44..........8.28...........8.34
0.5 meq/L OH-....8.76..........8.47...........8.33
0.5 meq/L H+.....6.91..........7.91...........8.15


You brought it up in your post If you dose washing soda into the tank the pH rises very quickly because there is no CO2.

This is not knit picking. I tried to bring you to the next level. There is CO2 unless the pH is above 9.1, with a normal Alk. At pH 9.1 it is ~ 50/50 HCO3 - and CO3-- and at pH 6.0 it is ~50/50 CO2/H2CO3 and HCO3- based on pHnsw

wouldn't it take the Alk to 4.2 ish meq

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. It also depends on whether it is Calcite or Aragonite forming. Aragonite could care less about Mg++. Something Randy and I were going to look into but never did. What is that precip Aragonite or Calcite ? Aragonite forms at higher pH's than Calcite. Omega values are based on pure mathematics or in a controlled environment something a reef is not so I like to keep it lower. And temp also plays a roll as do ion-pairs. It is me lowering the level so one does not push things to that more real level. I do not want to be telling people yeah, go to 4.2 meq / l cause the math says so and why I posted a "scare tactic" of 3 meq/l

There was not munch more an then the temp posts started and I later added

 

[Boomer]

Lets look a this for std seawater @ SSTP based on your equation

Alk =2.25 meq / l

CO2 = 0.35

pH = ~8.15 and you should be 8.3 (actually you are off 0.18 pH units for seawater.)

You are getting into one of my pet areas in chemistry the "CO2 -Carbonate System" . I might add I have 2 text book that only deal with this issue in seawater. I have posted and explained the real equation on RC and elsewhere a number of times. Try took up Buch-Park equations by me. Where do you think I got this from on the other post. My calculator is programmed for it. Even the one I posted on RC is linked to only std seawater parameters @ SSTP. You change the temp or salinity and it changes. Then there is the issue is the equation going to be in terms of pHnbs or pHsws


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


pH = 8.3
Alk = 2.5 meq/ l

CO2 = 0.41 ppm

pH = 8.3
Alk = 3.0 meq/ l

CO2 = 0.50 ppm

pH = 8.3
Alk = 4 meq/ l

CO2 = 0.66 ppm



To make it easier for some I have a posted this on RC and elsewhere a few times.

Ratio pCO2 For NSW


Total Alkalinity (AT)
(mEq/l) . . . 2.0 .. 2.5 .. 2.6 .. 3.0 .. 3.5 .. 4.0 .. 4.5 .. 5.0 ...5.5 ...6.0
(dKH) . . . . 5.6 .. 7.0 .. 7.3 .. 8.4 .. 9.8 . 11.2 . 12.4 . 14.0 . 15.4 . 16.8
pH __________________________________________________ _________
7.7----------3.0.... 3.7 .. 3.9 .. 4.5 .. 5.3 .. 6.0 .. 6.8 ...7.5 ...8.3 ...9.1
7.8----------2.3.. ..2.9 .. 3.0 .. 3.5 .. 4.1 .. 4.7 .. 5.3 ...5.8 ...6.4 ...7.O
7.9----------1.8.... 2.2 .. 2.3 .. 2.7 .. 3.1 .. 3.6 .. 4.0 ...4.5 ...5.0 ...5.4
8.0----------1.3.... 1.7 .. 1.8 .. 2.0 .. 2.4 .. 2.7 .. 3.1 ...3.4 ...3.8 ...4.1
8.1----------1.0.... 1.3 .. 1.3 .. 1.6 .. 1.8 .. 2.1 .. 2.3 ...2.6 ...2.9 ...3.1
8.2----------0.8.... 1.0 .. 1.0 .. 1.2 .. 1.4 .. 1.7 .. 1.8 ...2.0 ...2.2 ...2.4
8.3----------0.6.... 0.7 .. 0.7 .. 0.7 .. 1.0 .. 1.2 .. 1.3 ...1.5 ...1.6 ...1.8
8.4----------0.4.... 0.5 .. 0.5 .. O.6 .. 0.7 .. 0.9 .. 1.0 ...1.1 ...1.2 ...1.3
8.5----------0.3.. ..O.4 .. 0.4 .. 0.5 .. 0.5 .. 0.6 .. 0.7 ...0.8 ...0.9 ...0.9
8.6----------0.2 ....0.3 .. 0.3 ...0.3 ...0.4 ...0.4 .. 0.5....0.6 ...0.6 ...0.7

~ CO2 ppm = pCO2 x 0.56

Please show me Carlo where any of this is wrong. ? Or Chris can.


Carlo & Chris
You just claimed you are 100 % correct on all theses issue be it SST or chemistryso it seems Carlo


Chris explains that precipitation is an ongoing process and that there is no threshold above which we dare not tred. This pretty much diffuses the Omega formula or it's use entirely and indirectly answers the question I asked Boomer about how/why many people can exceed the Omega by such a large margin without problems, contrary to what Boomer eluded to.

Chris is talking about corals and not abitoic precip in a tank, so you're off. You claim I can't get the facts straight you can't either on many issues. You complely misread what he was saying. Why not ask him about abiotic preicp and see what he says if Omegas is meaningless. I also said in that post that some can go above the Omega value but others can not and that for some unknown reason some even below that level get biotic, so lets not be leaving out what I said. There fore one should not psuh them.

This is what is meant by these Omega values Chris from Randy

Omega = 1 (risky: dissolution of aragonite begins here)pH = 7.7 pH = 8.2
Calcium = 410 ppm Calcium = 340 ppm
Alkalinity = 2.5 meq/L Alkalinity = 1.0 meq/L


Omega = 3 (typical of normal seawater)pH = 8.2 pH = 8.0 pH = 8.4
Calcium = 410 ppm Calcium = 410 ppm Calcium = 260 ppm
Alkalinity = 2.5 meq/L Alkalinity = 4.0 meq/L Alkalinity = 2.5 meq/L


Omega = 6 (non-biological precipitation is more likely)pH = 8.2 pH = 8.2
Calcium = 410 ppm Calcium = 820 ppm
Alkalinity = 5.0 meq/L Alkalinity = 2.5 meq/L

pH = 8.0 pH = 8.7
Calcium = 410 ppm Calcium = 410 ppm
Alkalinity = 8.0 meq/L Alkalinity = 2.5 meq/L

pH = 8.45
Calcium = 410 ppm
Alkalinity = 4.2 meq/L


Chris explains that coral calcification isn't saturated at 360 ppm and that some studies have shown that some species aren't saturated until well above NSW levels and that none of them saturate at 360 ppm or thereabouts. Much of that was paraphased. This clearly indicates that calcium levels higher then NSW are better for our tanks which is a misconception you could get from Boomer's post.

I see you conveniently left out my remarks to Chris on this issue, Why is that.? From what he has posted was contrary to my remarks. At least I show a correction and thanked him for the article. I also said corals do not need anymore than 360 ppm to grow.


Carlo
Boomer asks if Chris has seen his equations on RC and Chris answers "Ha, no

No I did not I said on this thread hear go back and read it. I never mentioned RC

The first part of Chris's post basically said there are 4 species of inorganic carbon that occur in water, gave the types, told what they are collectively called (SIGMA CO2, or TCO2) and then mentioned "At sea water pH only a tiny portion of this occurs as CO2, however (< 1%)."

And I believe I brought up about the same, there is an exact ratio of of these at any given pH, even if the alk is low or high. CO2:HCO3-:CO2 and ratio does not equal concentration.

For each eq of HCO3- you add 1 eq of Alk and 1 eq of CO2. When it is CO3-- you also add one eq of CO2 but 2 eq of Alk.

This is a true statement it is not me just posting it. And you seem to be disputing it. Ask Chris


Yah I know we keep saying last post and it never seems to end. If you look at this entire thread Carlo we both have made a numbers of errors.