I have been using DD and Reef Crystals for a while as far as my salt goes, but have been using only the Brightwell supps for quite a while now with pretty good results and from what I can tell the products are seriously consistant and very well made. So now after saying I wish that they made salt for a while now I find out they do. Has anyone used this yet, and if so what are the opinions on it? I have not been able to find any test results on it, but have gone ahead and ordered a bucket to try out anyway. The way I see it is if the products I have used so far are any guideline to what it will be like, then it should be an outstanding product also.
Brightwell Salt.
- Thread starter popeye20
- Start date
HighlandReefer
Team RC
It would be nice to know what parameters this salt has once you test it. In order to compare it to others you will need to mix a small batch to a salinity of 1.0264 using a properly calibrated refractometer. The major interests will be the alk., calcium and magnesium levels.
Also any additional information as to what else they may add to their salt mix such as vitamins. In other salt mixes the micro-nutrients are already much higher than what is found in marine water.
These are the parameters that Billy has found:
D-D H2Ocean: 450, 10, 1380
New Reef Crystals parameters:
490 ppm calcium
13 dkh
1440 ppm magnesium
Also any additional information as to what else they may add to their salt mix such as vitamins. In other salt mixes the micro-nutrients are already much higher than what is found in marine water.
These are the parameters that Billy has found:
D-D H2Ocean: 450, 10, 1380
New Reef Crystals parameters:
490 ppm calcium
13 dkh
1440 ppm magnesium
jcovercash
New member
Jeremy at Premium Aquatics tested Brightwells salt with pretty good results IMO.
http://reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1661502
http://reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1661502
Popeye.
Because the components that are used to make sea salts have to many impurities that always off-set the final value, i.e. when you buy CaCl2 it always has some Mg++, even baking soda has a tad in it. And all of these components, to include the main component do not always have the same exact number of ions / weight batch / batch, as the raw product itself does not. Finally, seawater has a range of salinity through out the ocean and that salinity changes some with season. So, all we can do is get a close to what we like to call std NSW Salinity
Because the components that are used to make sea salts have to many impurities that always off-set the final value, i.e. when you buy CaCl2 it always has some Mg++, even baking soda has a tad in it. And all of these components, to include the main component do not always have the same exact number of ions / weight batch / batch, as the raw product itself does not. Finally, seawater has a range of salinity through out the ocean and that salinity changes some with season. So, all we can do is get a close to what we like to call std NSW Salinity
iFisch
New member
About to make the switch to DD, but I have always liked Brightwell products, and talking with Chris via e-mail can be fun. I like talking to the owner of such a large company via e-mail.
I will wait for actual owners/lab(s) to post results. I think CB had/has good intentions in this hobby, but since releasing a salt, that says a lot. I hope this product lives up to the hype.
But then again, how many products actually live up to the hype in this industry?
Seachem is also coming out with a new salt - "Salinity". Each batch is supposed to include "guaranteed analysis".
On the left is the "results".
http://aquavitro.com/
Cat, that is what we call a "initial pH" and means about nothing. In short time that pH will drop as it equilibrates with the atm. Many salts have a high initial pH, some are in the 9's. This is only an issue if one is doing huge WC, like 90 %. Here is an old example, by Dr. Craig Bingman.
http://web.archive.org/web/20010309...om/fish2/aqfm/1999/mar/features/1/photo10.asp
http://web.archive.org/web/20010309...om/fish2/aqfm/1999/mar/features/1/photo10.asp
stratos21ss
Premium Member
I am working it in to my change water for last two weeks. Looks good to me. I won't even post any numbers because I don't want to get involved in the politics.
I will say that i am really happy to have a domestic salt choice that does not try to put my Ca at 550 and my dKH at <7 while running a probiotic system.
I will say that i am really happy to have a domestic salt choice that does not try to put my Ca at 550 and my dKH at <7 while running a probiotic system.
Ca at 550 and my dKH at <7
There are a few that do that.
No one is saying it is not a good salt. The issue is that if it was tested at a certified seawater testing lab you CANNOT get to read NSW Sr of 7.625 ppm. They are saying it is exactly the same as the NSW sample. That is within zero 1/1,000 ppm Sr. of NSW. Same for the other ions.
More than likely that is some kind of big typo error but they should have caught it and nobody is correcting it. They do say they are using USP or ACS grade which is a big plus and will give a more consistent batch for batch blend. However, USPS or ACS does not mean it is better. Where is the data sheet on other ions, especially HM. If you look at SeaChems new salt it looks really nice till you see the HM numbers, which are higher than any other salt.
Let's pretend those numbers are just what their salt tested to and forget the NSW comparison. That is still bogus. Each batch can not test out to Sr 7.625 ppm or K 398.8. And that is their so called claim. Even Ultra Pure Grade will not do that. Maybe that is what there first batch tested out to, which by no means, means all batches will be that. They should have listed the Sr @ 8 ppm and the K @ 400 ppm and or given a range. All salts made have a range even from bag to bag. Even the best testing equipment has testing "error factors", i.e, +/- .002 ppm or .01 ppm etc. All salt manufactures are guilty of this. And even those that test salts with test kits. Meaning, IO will not always test out to say 355 ppm. It has a range , say 340 -360 and at times a bag maybe higher or lower than even those. So, what most are giving is an avg.
There are a few that do that.
No one is saying it is not a good salt. The issue is that if it was tested at a certified seawater testing lab you CANNOT get to read NSW Sr of 7.625 ppm. They are saying it is exactly the same as the NSW sample. That is within zero 1/1,000 ppm Sr. of NSW. Same for the other ions.
More than likely that is some kind of big typo error but they should have caught it and nobody is correcting it. They do say they are using USP or ACS grade which is a big plus and will give a more consistent batch for batch blend. However, USPS or ACS does not mean it is better. Where is the data sheet on other ions, especially HM. If you look at SeaChems new salt it looks really nice till you see the HM numbers, which are higher than any other salt.
Let's pretend those numbers are just what their salt tested to and forget the NSW comparison. That is still bogus. Each batch can not test out to Sr 7.625 ppm or K 398.8. And that is their so called claim. Even Ultra Pure Grade will not do that. Maybe that is what there first batch tested out to, which by no means, means all batches will be that. They should have listed the Sr @ 8 ppm and the K @ 400 ppm and or given a range. All salts made have a range even from bag to bag. Even the best testing equipment has testing "error factors", i.e, +/- .002 ppm or .01 ppm etc. All salt manufactures are guilty of this. And even those that test salts with test kits. Meaning, IO will not always test out to say 355 ppm. It has a range , say 340 -360 and at times a bag maybe higher or lower than even those. So, what most are giving is an avg.
stratos21ss
Premium Member
Yeah, they don't really need all those decimal points. I will have to check the bucket's label to see if that is how it is stated on the it. I understand your point for sure in that it is difficult to get that kind of precision.
I think it may be worth the cost of a bucket to find out, and as far as DD stuff goes it is a great product but I am on an ever tightening budget due to being laid off, so if I can save 25 bucks or so a bucket I need to do so. I am using a mix of DD and Reef Crystals at present to cut costs since I had a bucket of RC left over before going to DD, and if the Brightwell is near as good as the claims and less than DD I will be pretty happy, if not then I'll continue to do my mix then switch back to pure DD when the money situation gets back on track.
stratos21ss
Premium Member
Says the numbers are "Average ionic composition.." So that probably implies there is a range involved.
iFisch
New member
I am still intrigued by this. However I wish I knew more about how one achieves results like that.
I hope others share their experiences with this salt. It'd be costly as hell, initially, for my 14g.
But can I buy salt in bulk? I mean will it last 6 months in that bucket, as long as I reseal it after each use? If not, looks like it's the 6.6kg DD buckets for me.
I hope others share their experiences with this salt. It'd be costly as hell, initially, for my 14g.
But can I buy salt in bulk? I mean will it last 6 months in that bucket, as long as I reseal it after each use? If not, looks like it's the 6.6kg DD buckets for me.
Having that on the bottle is even sicker :lol:
You can't have results like that. It is gibberish nonsense. I do not know who they are trying to full with that crap. They are saying their avg is still spot on with NSW. If they want to have avg on the bottle fine but how dare they put it right next to what they are calling avg NSW. And if you look at real data for NSW, Mg++ is not ~1,290 but ~1,350, despite most think it is ~1,290. And all that ???.000 zero stuff is more crap. As if it tested to ???.000 exactly.
What is also funny is on the bottle is.......
specific gravity of 1.025 g/cm<sup>3</sup>
That is density and not Sg. SG has no unit value. ie., 1.025 not 1.025 g/cm<sup>3</sup>. Sg DOES NOT = D. Density in seawater at 25C with that Density is 37.3 ppt and NSW is 35 ppt. A D = 1.025 g/cm<sup>3</sup> = 1.028 SG. So, what is it really on the bottle D or Sg :lol:
I think CB **HAD**/has good intentions in this hobby[/b
You can't have results like that. It is gibberish nonsense. I do not know who they are trying to full with that crap. They are saying their avg is still spot on with NSW. If they want to have avg on the bottle fine but how dare they put it right next to what they are calling avg NSW. And if you look at real data for NSW, Mg++ is not ~1,290 but ~1,350, despite most think it is ~1,290. And all that ???.000 zero stuff is more crap. As if it tested to ???.000 exactly.
What is also funny is on the bottle is.......
specific gravity of 1.025 g/cm<sup>3</sup>
That is density and not Sg. SG has no unit value. ie., 1.025 not 1.025 g/cm<sup>3</sup>. Sg DOES NOT = D. Density in seawater at 25C with that Density is 37.3 ppt and NSW is 35 ppt. A D = 1.025 g/cm<sup>3</sup> = 1.028 SG. So, what is it really on the bottle D or Sg :lol:
I think CB **HAD**/has good intentions in this hobby[/b
Last edited:
