Brightwell Salt.

[eggiel]

Thats a good point but I dont think that will be on this salt cause he claims 150 gallones mixed at 1.025 you wont put to much salt to get to 1.026 like less or 1/2 cup
Not like IO or Oceanic 200 gallon mix at 1.023 according to there specs youll know thats a big diffrence mix at 1.026

 

[eggiel]

I know the lable says all values at 1.024, which I also can't understand why they would right that, since very few people run there salinity that low anymore, ecspecially on reef tanks (that I am aware of).

There are more in the TOTM sections running at 1.025 FYI

 

[Boomer]

I think boomer discussed this before and calcium will change 20 ppms in .001


BA salt will be a 4 % increase or ~16 ppm. But 20 is close enough.

Ca++...increase 4 % to 1.026 from 1.025 goes up 16 ppm Ca++

413 @1.025

413 / 25 = 16.25


16.25 / 1 %₀ and 16.52 x 26 = ***429.52ppm Ca++ @ 1.026





Mg++...increase 4 % to 1.026 from 1.025 goes up 52 ppm Mg++


1,288 @1.025

1288 / 25 = 51.52
*
51.52 / 1 %₀ and 51.52 x 26 = **1339.52 ppm Mg++@ 1.026







Alk...increase 4 % to 1.026 from 1.025 goes up 0.3 dkH

7.5 dkH @1.025

7.5 / 25 = 0.3

0.3 / 1 %₀ and 0.3 x 26 = ***7.8 dKH @ 1.026



Thats a good point but I dont think that will be on this salt cause he claims 150 gallones mixed at 1.025 you wont put to much salt to get to 1.026 like less or 1/2 cup

How in the world did you come up with that ?


BA instuctions for NeoMarine:

1/2 half a cup, of salt mix in each gallon of purified water to obtain a target specific gravity between 1.021 "“ 1.024 g/cm3

It is 1/2 cup/ gal to get to an ~ avg 1.023. That is 75 cups / 150 gal. 75 / 23 = **3.26 cup to raise it .001 in 150 gal. **not <1/2 cup for 150 gal.. You are off ** >6.5 x to low. 1/2 cup in 150 gals will not even move the "needle"

 

[Billybeau1]

Well, as I said earlier, 9 cups in 18 gallons of ro/di yielded about 1.030 for me. I had to cut it down for my testing.

I do not make these numbers up guys. Just reporting what I see.

I'll start a poll and lets just see what the majority of reefers run their tanks at.

 

[Boomer]

There are more in the TOTM sections running at 1.025 FYI

True

~41 % @ 25 and ~34 % @ 26 and ~15 % @ 24 and the other 10 % are @ 22, 23, 27 and 28 Sigma Sg.

 

[luther1200]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15618919#post15618919 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by eggiel
I know the lable says all values at 1.024, which I also can't understand why they would right that, since very few people run there salinity that low anymore, ecspecially on reef tanks (that I am aware of).

There are more in the TOTM sections running at 1.025 FYI

Even so, Obviosly they have beautiful tanks to be TOTM, but overall they still represent a very very small percent of total reefers. Maybe 1% or 2% IDK, exactly but I doubt its a very high percentage.

 

[eggiel]

Boomer my bad i was just thinking in 5 gallones
I wasnt speaking of the hole batch

Even so, Obviosly they have beautiful tanks to be TOTM, but overall they still represent a very very small percent of total reefers. Maybe 1% or 2% IDK, exactly but I doubt its a very high percentage.

41% as boomer says is more than people at 26

I think they keep more at 1.025 just to have better parameters on the low and not high side

 

[luther1200]

Yes but that is just TOTM stats. Not every reefer. And the percentage of TOTM Vs. everyone else is probably only 1%< I mean there is only 12 a year. There is thousands of other reefers.

 

[Billybeau1]

Just vote on my poll and we'll put this to rest in a week or so.

 

[eggiel]

Like i said its all going to depend on the salt brand as
Boomer says there is more IO or RC users.
User mixing at 1.026 just beacuase thats what everybody thinks is best and were there salt mixes well
But it doesnt mean nothing to me it just were you want to see the great 3 if you like them high mix it a a higher salinty if you whant them low then mix at a lower salinity

And I think were getting out of the context here so the title says Brightwells salt and if he says he mix and guaranted Calcium,Alk and Mag being there at 1.025 then he is right there is no need to mix the salt higher than that unless you want to; even do the rest of the label is BS

I wonder how boomer got that percent so fast :rolleye1:

 

[Billybeau1]

Mixing salt to satisfy a certain number of the big three is ridiculous. There are many, many minor trace elements that are important as well.

Mixing to 1.0264 or 35 ppt is simply the best way to ensure your reef is getting all that it needs.

Not that 1.025 is any worse, but we all seem to get hung up in these exact numbers. They do not mean squat.

If your tank looks good, it probably is. Numbers or no numbers.

And by the way, Boomer got his numbers by doing something called "old fashioned research".

 

[eggiel]

Billy

What if the salt is prepared to give you those minor trace elements at that salinity just like if you mix an other salt at 1.026

Does mixing at 1.026 will mean something

That a good one on the old fasioned way

 

[luther1200]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15620651#post15620651 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by eggiel


And I think were getting out of the context here so the title says Brightwells salt and if he says he mix and guaranted Calcium,Alk and Mag being there at 1.025 then he is right there is no need to mix the salt higher than that unless you want to; even do the rest of the label is BS

:

Its totally in context. If we are trying to evaluate the correct value's of parameters we all need to be on the same page as far as salinity. As you already know different salinities can vary our parameters greatly. And I for 1 wouldn't even consider changing my salinity after 3 years so all my parameters are in check, and I think its a topic that should be considered.

 

[Billybeau1]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15620801#post15620801 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by eggiel
Billy

What if the salt is prepared to give you those minor trace elements at that salinity just like if you mix an other salt at 1.026

Does mixing at 1.026 will mean something

Minor trace elements are called that because they are a small % of the total mix itself.

We do not even have the means to measure the difference in most trace elements, let alone know what the difference would be between 1.025 or 1.026

 

[eggiel]

Ok so then why change salt if your ok with what you got
I wouldnt be looking if i was ok with my salt and geeting good results
just my .02 cents

I know Iam using a good salt at 1.025 and my corals look good Im happy and Iam not changing even if Boomer says its expensive

 

[Billybeau1]

Who said anything about changing salt

How your tank looks is the most important thing. I don't care what numbers you are running.

Boomer is not paying for your salt, you are. If you are fine with that then lets move on.

 

[eggiel]

Its totally in context. If we are trying to evaluate the correct value's of parameters we all need to be on the same page as far as salinity. As you already know different salinities can vary our parameters greatly. And I for 1 wouldn't even consider changing my salinity after 3 years so all my parameters are in check, and I think its a topic that should be considered.

Ok so then why change salt if your ok with what you got
I wouldnt be looking if i was ok with my salt and geeting good results
just my .02 cents

I know Iam using a good salt at 1.025 and my corals look good Im happy and Iam not changing even if Boomer says its expensive


Who said anything about changing salt How your tank looks is the most important thing. I don't care what numbers you are running. Boomer is not paying for your salt, you are. If you are fine with that then lets move on.


My bad I shouldev use the bolds i was talking to luther1200
when posting my post came under yours

 

[Boomer]

And by the way, Boomer got his numbers by doing something called "old fashioned research".

Billy

You should not use terms like that as most do not know what you are talking about

I am not changing even if Boomer says its expensive

Well, I do not need a Ferrari either to go to the grocery store, so why have one for that purpose The 53 Chevy gets me there just fine. A Chrysler 300C would be much better, I may get one but I still do not see a Ferrari, as it's a waste of money for that purpose.

As I have said before and Billy more or less repeated, I do not care what salt you or anybody has, it is a choice, just like the car you choose to go to grocery store with. But do not be eluding to the fact if the salt is more expensive = "Means Better" reef success or if it has better numbers = "Better Success" , as that is nonsense.

 

[eggiel]

Boomer no one said it was better at least for me it is this is my opinion
and 300C is only the poor mans Bently so keep the chevy

And Im pretty sure the ferrari will pick up more ladies or have more people looking at you driving to the grocery store

 

[luther1200]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15621029#post15621029 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by eggiel
Ok so then why change salt if your ok with what you got
I wouldnt be looking if i was ok with my salt and geeting good results
just my .02 cents

I know Iam using a good salt at 1.025 and my corals look good Im happy and Iam not changing even if Boomer says its expensive

I never said I was changing salt. I said I wouldn't change my salinity(know matter what salt it was) to get my parameters in order.

And I am not even going to dignify the rest of your comment with a response.