aguila88psi
Zoa Addict
I was asleep 83% of my chemistry class @ USF, too this day some of my best naps that I've taken 
Completely Puzzled....?
- Thread starter MrHarvard
- Start date
CrazyEyes
New member
Well, Anthony, Pedro and the few others that have put in their advice I definitely appreciate it. I think the source was overfeeding on such a young system. I'm just going to continue feeding every 3 days, dosing MB7 and Nopox and keep with the water changes. I can already tell the nitrates are going down. Corals are starting to look much happier i.e my duncan is open almost twice as big as it ever has. Thanks again.
Ted_C
Active member
Also a chemistry major (secondary education - chemistry) from Edinboro University and Penn State University and 6 years of lab experience.
Commercially, NO is produced by the oxidation of ammonia at 750 °C to 900 °C (normally at 850 °C) with platinum as catalyst:
4 NH3 + 5 O2 → 4 NO + 6 H2O
I dont think those were the droids you were looking for
I shorthanded the ammonia cycle / nitrogen cycle in my earlier posts to only state begginnings and endings.
What are Mike's other water parameters? is his Carbonate hardness (dkh) low? He could have accidently gotten into a eutrophication system...
I'm at the 6 month mark as well (so I tell myself) started Dec 5th. After changing out almost 100% of my water over the course of a month or so - my Alk was really low (allthough so were my nitrates) but my Ca and Mg were on target.
From Geoff and another forum:
Commercially, NO is produced by the oxidation of ammonia at 750 °C to 900 °C (normally at 850 °C) with platinum as catalyst:
4 NH3 + 5 O2 → 4 NO + 6 H2O
I dont think those were the droids you were looking for
I shorthanded the ammonia cycle / nitrogen cycle in my earlier posts to only state begginnings and endings.
What are Mike's other water parameters? is his Carbonate hardness (dkh) low? He could have accidently gotten into a eutrophication system...
I'm at the 6 month mark as well (so I tell myself) started Dec 5th. After changing out almost 100% of my water over the course of a month or so - my Alk was really low (allthough so were my nitrates) but my Ca and Mg were on target.
From Geoff and another forum:
jaynigz
New member
Also a chemistry major (secondary education - chemistry) from Edinboro University and Penn State University and 6 years of lab experience.
Commercially, NO is produced by the oxidation of ammonia at 750 °C to 900 °C (normally at 850 °C) with platinum as catalyst:
4 NH3 + 5 O2 → 4 NO + 6 H2O
I dont think those were the droids you were looking for
:
I knew I wasn't off from my first equation! John got me second guessing my own knowledge. lol
Where I may ask did you do your lab work?
anyways, glad the problem was figured out.
Ted_C
Active member
It's not a chemistry question at this point. Its a microbiology question.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrifying_bacteria
Last edited:
jaynigz
New member
salinity a tad low or do you prefer to keep it at 1.021? Don't do what I did when I first found out how low my salinity level was. I poured a cup of salt onto my previous display tank. My coral started to fuzz out.....
jaynigz
New member
It's not a chemistry question at this point. Its a microbiology question.
sorry brah, everything's chemistry regardless of what link you send me. Everything has an equation. Everything has a bond. Everything can be mathematically deduce.... :thumbsup:
BlueCoast
New member
I would double check the salinity, 1.021 is a little low for a reef tank.
Sounds like you are on the right track otherwise.
Ted_C
Active member
I did my lab work at a place called RJ Lee group in Monroeville Pennsylvania. I started off using an electron microprobe to analyze sulfate problems in concrete samples from California. I moved onto Industrial Hygiene Analysis (Organics / Inorganics)
I mostly got that job because we had a small research project in Penn State to produce semi-conducting voltaic fuel cells and had to analyze the surface of the partially reduced TiO2 with an electron microscope.
I mostly got that job because we had a small research project in Penn State to produce semi-conducting voltaic fuel cells and had to analyze the surface of the partially reduced TiO2 with an electron microscope.
CrazyEyes
New member
I've been using a hydrometer since day one because I was cheap and didn't want to buy a refractometer, and when I got into the hobby I had zero intentions on ever keeping coral. So my hydrometer has always read 1.026 so I took it as correct. I haven even tried to adjust the salinity though. Honestly, even though the place may use a refractometer what's to say they have it calibrated correctly, once I get my own and I know 100% that it's calibrated I will then raise my salinity gradually. Last thing I want is to raise my salinity to 1.031 so it may be low, it may not be low, I'll know when I can know for sure.
CrazyEyes
New member
What does Ted and Jay's continuous ****ing match between each other have to do with the original thread? I'm not trying to be a jerkoff but, can't you two maybe call one another on the phone and have a conversation that way? It has become completely irrelevant to the original thread.
Ted_C
Active member
I only sent that because our tanks will rarely reach 800 degrees (I hope). In this case - with the abscensce of 800 degrees of energy to work with and a platinum catalyst, the bacteria become the catalyst so it becomes a biological process more than a chemical process.
I have to say - this has been one of the most fun threads I have ever participated in!
Rbs07fxstc
New member
Hydrometers aren't too bad really. You can have a store or friend check it against a refractometer. My hydrometer I bought when I started was off @ 1.023 against my refractometer @ 1.026. They're more stable than my apex probe.
ichthyman
Active member
Gone to Lowes for a few hours and so much to catch up on.
Didn't mean to get you questioning how the universe works or state the equation or progression was wrong. The oversimplification of the Nitrogen Cycle is a pet peeve of mine. I've been an avid hobbyist since early childhood and that circular diagram was preached as gospel even then. My eyes opened the day a similar dynamic representation was slapped up on the overhead projector by my first Oceanography professor, Hayward Matthews. It gave me insight on why so many tanks failed. Hayward also jokingly warned me that "œbiological models, as a whole, are never as neat as chemists like to present". My point was to show that not all Nitrogen is cycled neatly into Nitrogen gas as the simplistic diagram would have you believe. If all N was this tightly cycled, eutrophication via N would never occur in our tanks or nature. The bottom line is, more energy is added to our tanks than we could ever possibly hope to cycle, ie Crazyeye's current issue.
Exactly!
Correct. The problem is often figuring out variables the biologics are throwing into the mix. As displayed, they can turn the "œnormal" progression completely around or sideways.
Shame. IMO, the most relevant information and the solution to your problem has been made by these two. I would especially heed the advice of Ted because has been spot-on so far.
Correct"¦"¦"¦.UNTIL the sinks (rocks/substrate/sediment) of Nitrogen empty back into the bulk water column. You will initially, briefly, see a decrease in N values but then they'll rise again as the nitrogen sinks empty. Only after the sinks are near empty will the numbers go down and stay reduced. The problem is to limit the introduction of N to the point it becomes tightly cycled and not deposit into a sink.
Export, export, export!
Didn't mean to get you questioning how the universe works or state the equation or progression was wrong. The oversimplification of the Nitrogen Cycle is a pet peeve of mine. I've been an avid hobbyist since early childhood and that circular diagram was preached as gospel even then. My eyes opened the day a similar dynamic representation was slapped up on the overhead projector by my first Oceanography professor, Hayward Matthews. It gave me insight on why so many tanks failed. Hayward also jokingly warned me that "œbiological models, as a whole, are never as neat as chemists like to present". My point was to show that not all Nitrogen is cycled neatly into Nitrogen gas as the simplistic diagram would have you believe. If all N was this tightly cycled, eutrophication via N would never occur in our tanks or nature. The bottom line is, more energy is added to our tanks than we could ever possibly hope to cycle, ie Crazyeye's current issue.
Exactly!
Correct. The problem is often figuring out variables the biologics are throwing into the mix. As displayed, they can turn the "œnormal" progression completely around or sideways.
Shame. IMO, the most relevant information and the solution to your problem has been made by these two. I would especially heed the advice of Ted because has been spot-on so far.
Correct"¦"¦"¦.UNTIL the sinks (rocks/substrate/sediment) of Nitrogen empty back into the bulk water column. You will initially, briefly, see a decrease in N values but then they'll rise again as the nitrogen sinks empty. Only after the sinks are near empty will the numbers go down and stay reduced. The problem is to limit the introduction of N to the point it becomes tightly cycled and not deposit into a sink.
Export, export, export!
