Carbon users, I have a Question...
- Thread starter kdblove_99
- Start date
Justin74
New member
Your absolutely right! :/ I'll fix that as soon as Im done cooking my chicken. Speaking of.. So early to leave? You make such a stink, you dont back up anything you say, yet demand scientific data to back up my opinion or bow to your ridicule? So being called out I attempt to ablige yet you get out while the gettins good I see. Nice way to discuss or debate. Very safe to make your jabs and run, kudos to you senior :thumbsup:
-Justin
-Justin
Justin74
New member
http://web.archive.org/web/20000918...om/fish2/aqfm/1998/may/features/1/default.asp
Thats the one I wanted you to read, but if you dont like to read you can skim down to the conclusion
Ill fix the others in a bit.
-Justin
Thats the one I wanted you to read, but if you dont like to read you can skim down to the conclusion
Ill fix the others in a bit.
-Justin
Justin74
New member
and more importantly in reference to this discussion, part deux:
http://web.archive.org/web/20000918...m/fish2/aqfm/1998/june/features/1/default.asp
-Justin
http://web.archive.org/web/20000918...m/fish2/aqfm/1998/june/features/1/default.asp
-Justin
Jeff
Premium Member
Oh my God, you are still going...This is just too easy...
I completely read both of the articles that you posted and neither one of them discussed the topic of length of time GAC is effective in an aquarium...neither one.
The reason I am even interested at this point is watching your change your "opinion" that yesterday you felt was fact. You have since posted 7 links that do not support your opinion or fact.
Please post some scientific facts that support your claims that GAC only lasts three days. Yesterday you proclaimed to your fellow club members that activated carbon is spent in 3 days. Now you are saying that you really didnt mean it and you posted links that do not support your ideas. Your ideas based on a guy named "serioussnaps" lol.
It is not wise to participate in a public forum and bring mis-information to it without bringing facts at the same time. It is only a matter of time before people call you out. Shiveley asked you to bring some facts and from the private messages I got from 2 of your club members and a moderator, they do to. My facts and opinions are based on manufacturers recommended instructions. In my mind they are the experts until someone else can step up and show me/us some facts that say otherwise.
By the way, did you ever find the weapons of mass destrucion in Iraq yet?
Jeff
I completely read both of the articles that you posted and neither one of them discussed the topic of length of time GAC is effective in an aquarium...neither one.
The reason I am even interested at this point is watching your change your "opinion" that yesterday you felt was fact. You have since posted 7 links that do not support your opinion or fact.
Please post some scientific facts that support your claims that GAC only lasts three days. Yesterday you proclaimed to your fellow club members that activated carbon is spent in 3 days. Now you are saying that you really didnt mean it and you posted links that do not support your ideas. Your ideas based on a guy named "serioussnaps" lol.
It is not wise to participate in a public forum and bring mis-information to it without bringing facts at the same time. It is only a matter of time before people call you out. Shiveley asked you to bring some facts and from the private messages I got from 2 of your club members and a moderator, they do to. My facts and opinions are based on manufacturers recommended instructions. In my mind they are the experts until someone else can step up and show me/us some facts that say otherwise.
By the way, did you ever find the weapons of mass destrucion in Iraq yet?
Jeff
Last edited:
shiveley
Active member
I don't think this debate can be easily resolved, there are just too many factors that impact the ultimate length of carbon's effective "lifespan".
http://www.hallman.org/filter/gac.html
interesting topic though, thanks Justin. didn't mean to come off argumentative, if i did. being a researcher, i'm just a stickler for stats, so...force of habit i guess.
this quote, taken from one of the articles you linked to, does appear to substantiate your claims, to a degree. Though more in relation to the efficacy of carbon, and not its ultimate exhaustion.
Carbon removes color and other large organic molecules from water through adsorption. Adsorption is the chemical bonding of the target molecules to the carbon (Moe 1989). Carbon is most effective when it is dry. It is most “attractive†to these molecules at this stage. As Spotte (1992) explains, “Adsorption rate is a mass transfer process, limited by factors that control diffusion...The greatest adsorption rate takes place immediately after ’wetting’ because the concentration gradient is steepest.†Spotte, quoting Morris and Weber (1964) writes, “The quantity of dissolved organics removed by activated carbon is not a linear function with time...absorption involves the rapid formation of an equalibrium interfacial concentration followed by slow diffusion.†(Spotte 1970) In other words, carbon is most effective when first put in the tank and gradually becomes less effective as it does its job. Carbon, whether used actively or passively, is most useful at the start of its use. Extended use of carbon suffers from diminishing returns. Passive use of carbon works to some degree, but will not eliminate yellowing compounds. It is no replacement for active “flow-through†use of carbon.
http://www.hallman.org/filter/gac.html
interesting topic though, thanks Justin. didn't mean to come off argumentative, if i did. being a researcher, i'm just a stickler for stats, so...force of habit i guess.
this quote, taken from one of the articles you linked to, does appear to substantiate your claims, to a degree. Though more in relation to the efficacy of carbon, and not its ultimate exhaustion.
Carbon removes color and other large organic molecules from water through adsorption. Adsorption is the chemical bonding of the target molecules to the carbon (Moe 1989). Carbon is most effective when it is dry. It is most “attractive†to these molecules at this stage. As Spotte (1992) explains, “Adsorption rate is a mass transfer process, limited by factors that control diffusion...The greatest adsorption rate takes place immediately after ’wetting’ because the concentration gradient is steepest.†Spotte, quoting Morris and Weber (1964) writes, “The quantity of dissolved organics removed by activated carbon is not a linear function with time...absorption involves the rapid formation of an equalibrium interfacial concentration followed by slow diffusion.†(Spotte 1970) In other words, carbon is most effective when first put in the tank and gradually becomes less effective as it does its job. Carbon, whether used actively or passively, is most useful at the start of its use. Extended use of carbon suffers from diminishing returns. Passive use of carbon works to some degree, but will not eliminate yellowing compounds. It is no replacement for active “flow-through†use of carbon.
Last edited:
Justin74
New member
2 members and a mod?
http://web.archive.org/web/20010212...om/fish2/aqfm/1998/june/features/1/f1fig1.asp
Did you really read the articles? What from the conclusion and this picture do you not understand? These are a picture of both passive and active methods of use, ya thats 40hrs at the end. Otherwise shy of 2 days. Pretty supportive of my opinion, and quite evident you didnt read squat.
The information Ive gathered and the experts that Ive talked to by the way none of which were named "seriossnapps" like you insist for the sake of your hollow argurment nor were they named "chicago" for that matter! Regardless, Ive been given enough information to state what I beleive to be true. Just as you have. Yet because I dont rely on the manufactures suggested use and state as such, now Im George Bush looking for WOMD? You really show your intellectual limitations by slinging personal insults.
Your right, it is easy to sling insults, especially if that's all you have. But please take your mouth and tone to the chem forum as well as those you have chosen to champion for and see what answers you gain. But I can see that you subscribe to the mentality of "ignorance is bliss". By all means, live your life by the label.
What happend to friendly debates and discussions? One cant speak there mind without being publically flamed and ridiculed ? Ive supported my statements, even though I initially never intended to do so, nor did I think it my job, clearly you would disagree with that as well.
"You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.."
-Justin
http://web.archive.org/web/20010212...om/fish2/aqfm/1998/june/features/1/f1fig1.asp
Did you really read the articles? What from the conclusion and this picture do you not understand? These are a picture of both passive and active methods of use, ya thats 40hrs at the end. Otherwise shy of 2 days. Pretty supportive of my opinion, and quite evident you didnt read squat.
The information Ive gathered and the experts that Ive talked to by the way none of which were named "seriossnapps" like you insist for the sake of your hollow argurment nor were they named "chicago" for that matter! Regardless, Ive been given enough information to state what I beleive to be true. Just as you have. Yet because I dont rely on the manufactures suggested use and state as such, now Im George Bush looking for WOMD? You really show your intellectual limitations by slinging personal insults.
Your right, it is easy to sling insults, especially if that's all you have. But please take your mouth and tone to the chem forum as well as those you have chosen to champion for and see what answers you gain. But I can see that you subscribe to the mentality of "ignorance is bliss". By all means, live your life by the label.
What happend to friendly debates and discussions? One cant speak there mind without being publically flamed and ridiculed ? Ive supported my statements, even though I initially never intended to do so, nor did I think it my job, clearly you would disagree with that as well.
"You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.."
-Justin
shiveley
Active member
to be fair, the article and graph that you referenced is merely a comparison between the passive usage of carbon as a filtration medium, versus active usage. the 40 hours referenced relates to the period in which carbon was used to eliminate yellowing in water; as such, the graph illustrates that active usage was much more efficient and effective than passive usage within the fore mentioned time frame.
the article even goes on to state that, "Because the same quantity of carbon eliminated the color in tank 1, it is unlikely that the carbon in tank 2 was exhausted." This seems to emphasize that the results exhibited during the 40 hour test period did not indicate carbon exhaustion, but rather that the active usage of carbon was more effective, within the tests parameters, than passive usage.
again, i'm not trying to be argumentative, i'm supporting a healthy debate on an, IMO, interesting topic.
the article even goes on to state that, "Because the same quantity of carbon eliminated the color in tank 1, it is unlikely that the carbon in tank 2 was exhausted." This seems to emphasize that the results exhibited during the 40 hour test period did not indicate carbon exhaustion, but rather that the active usage of carbon was more effective, within the tests parameters, than passive usage.
again, i'm not trying to be argumentative, i'm supporting a healthy debate on an, IMO, interesting topic.
Justin74
New member
Your right it states the passive tank was not exhausted, but it also states that it is ineffective at removing yellowing compounds.
And the preferred method is active filtering, in which, completed it's intended use almost within 5 hours.
The point you asserted today is very true also. We will be unable to ever reach a difinitive answer as all tanks are different, as well as bioloads being managed. Another point I never shyed away from.
I also appreciate your assertions Shively and dont take it as argumentative at all. Just dont call me George W. and we can still be friends
-Justin
And the preferred method is active filtering, in which, completed it's intended use almost within 5 hours.
The point you asserted today is very true also. We will be unable to ever reach a difinitive answer as all tanks are different, as well as bioloads being managed. Another point I never shyed away from.
I also appreciate your assertions Shively and dont take it as argumentative at all. Just dont call me George W. and we can still be friends
-Justin
MrMikeB
New member
Woo HOO! I am going to grab some popcorn... This is great! debate, 'facts', passion, experience, opinions - all wrapped up into a single thread. Hell most people pay good money to see entertainment like this.
Without jumping completely into the fray, from my own limited research and experience, I think a lot of when carbon is spent or beyond practical use depends on pore size, available surface area, concentration and volume of carbon for the tank, organic compounds in the water, etc. Obviously not all carbon is created equal. To put it in extreme terms - a TSP of carbon in a 300 gallon tank with a large bio load will probably be used up relatively quickly - say versus 1 cu.ft. in the same system. The point I am making, is that I do not think you can state universally when carbon expires given these many variables between systems.
I have been working with the gurus of carbon in NA - NORIT Americas. These folks supply much of the carbon distribution in NA and have hundreds of types of carbon - they know their carbon. Whats even more, is that they have spec sheets on just about all the GAC we see repackaged in our hobby.
One particularly interesting article (albeit potentially a little off topic) comparing bituminous vs lignite carbon was of particular interest to me given I was on a mission to find the 'best' carbon for the cost on the market.
http://www.norit-americas.com/pdf/AWWA_ Journal_01-05.pdf
Without jumping completely into the fray, from my own limited research and experience, I think a lot of when carbon is spent or beyond practical use depends on pore size, available surface area, concentration and volume of carbon for the tank, organic compounds in the water, etc. Obviously not all carbon is created equal. To put it in extreme terms - a TSP of carbon in a 300 gallon tank with a large bio load will probably be used up relatively quickly - say versus 1 cu.ft. in the same system. The point I am making, is that I do not think you can state universally when carbon expires given these many variables between systems.
I have been working with the gurus of carbon in NA - NORIT Americas. These folks supply much of the carbon distribution in NA and have hundreds of types of carbon - they know their carbon. Whats even more, is that they have spec sheets on just about all the GAC we see repackaged in our hobby.
One particularly interesting article (albeit potentially a little off topic) comparing bituminous vs lignite carbon was of particular interest to me given I was on a mission to find the 'best' carbon for the cost on the market.
http://www.norit-americas.com/pdf/AWWA_ Journal_01-05.pdf
Justin74
New member
Those guys do know there carbon 
Especially since they are one of only two manufacturing companies for the US. And it is repackaged by a multitude of distributors, just like GFO, packaged by Two part sollution, Two little Fishies, etc.
Your absolutely right the ultimate useage expectancy depends on a plethera of variables which you mentioned.
A difinitive measure of your carbons life can be evaluated, however, it is not possible for most of us as it requires Methalyne Blue to execute, which is no longer available to just anyone apparently. But by placeing the carbon in a glass with RO and dropping some blue in there; if the blue stays, your carbon is exhausted, if the blue dissapates the carbon is still active and working through adsorption.
I personally use smaller amounts and change more frequently. On my 50 I use 1/4 cup and try and swap out every week. So far, my water quality is just as clear if not more consistantly so. With no ill effects nor do I feel like Im not using enough. Basically this is the same by volume as the recommended 1 cup per 50g every 4 weeks.
However, Boomer the carbon guru in the chem forums suggest beyond a 2-4 week period to do a rinsing and breaking up the GAC for full use of an intended 4-8 week period.
Btw, pass the popcorn already!:lol:
-Justin
Especially since they are one of only two manufacturing companies for the US. And it is repackaged by a multitude of distributors, just like GFO, packaged by Two part sollution, Two little Fishies, etc.Your absolutely right the ultimate useage expectancy depends on a plethera of variables which you mentioned.
A difinitive measure of your carbons life can be evaluated, however, it is not possible for most of us as it requires Methalyne Blue to execute, which is no longer available to just anyone apparently. But by placeing the carbon in a glass with RO and dropping some blue in there; if the blue stays, your carbon is exhausted, if the blue dissapates the carbon is still active and working through adsorption.
I personally use smaller amounts and change more frequently. On my 50 I use 1/4 cup and try and swap out every week. So far, my water quality is just as clear if not more consistantly so. With no ill effects nor do I feel like Im not using enough. Basically this is the same by volume as the recommended 1 cup per 50g every 4 weeks.
However, Boomer the carbon guru in the chem forums suggest beyond a 2-4 week period to do a rinsing and breaking up the GAC for full use of an intended 4-8 week period.
Btw, pass the popcorn already!:lol:
-Justin
MrMikeB
New member
Breaking up the carbon and rinsing? Wow, I have seen my reactor chambers when I have not changed out the carbon in a while - not too sure I would risk mixing up that crazy stuff. I would be afraid of the baddies leeching back into the water. Especially at the prices you can get if you buy the good stuff bulk, why bother?
The good folks at NORIT are sending me a couple samples to play with of their HYDRODARCO lignite line - some nifty carbon from the spec sheets. From my research (I am not sure I should say that out loud - My name is MrMikeB, and I research carbon for fun and have no life) the pore size, 'activeness', weight, vs. costs are just right for my particular application.
Now if I can get them to not have to sell me a pallet of the stuff, it would be spectacular (heh, I would literally a 'ton' of carbon
).
The good folks at NORIT are sending me a couple samples to play with of their HYDRODARCO lignite line - some nifty carbon from the spec sheets. From my research (I am not sure I should say that out loud - My name is MrMikeB, and I research carbon for fun and have no life) the pore size, 'activeness', weight, vs. costs are just right for my particular application.
Now if I can get them to not have to sell me a pallet of the stuff, it would be spectacular (heh, I would literally a 'ton' of carbon
).
Justin74
New member
I was a pretty apprehensive when I heard that too, for the same reasons. But you have to take it out to do that, and then rinse any particulates with either tap or RO. He said he was able to suck another month out of it. Will I try it? No, again, laziness
But this is a guy who calls carbon his other hobby, so your not in the closet alone
-Justin
But this is a guy who calls carbon his other hobby, so your not in the closet alone
-Justin
robertloop
Member
Wow.. I went on vacation and this thread exploded!! lol
Lots of good reading there. From what I can see... carbon's ability to remove color drops rather sharpley the first few days and slowly tapers off. All of the articles seem to be focused on the EFFECTIVNES on cabon. There's not really any black and white text describing the "Time to complete exhaustion". However you can see in the graphs how rapidly color is removed at first and then tapers down significantly.
Lots of good reading there. From what I can see... carbon's ability to remove color drops rather sharpley the first few days and slowly tapers off. All of the articles seem to be focused on the EFFECTIVNES on cabon. There's not really any black and white text describing the "Time to complete exhaustion". However you can see in the graphs how rapidly color is removed at first and then tapers down significantly.
Brian Prestwood
Premium Member
I have a garden reef with, among other things, zoos and SPSs. In a 200 gallon system, swap out about a cup of GAC once a week. If I had a species dominated tank (e.g. mostly SPS) I would probaby just treat for a day every couple weeks.
