Newbie Corner Feedback Thread

[Aquarist007]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13706519#post13706519 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by WaterKeeper
Update-

Water
Tank Selection
Lighting
Sumps
Completing The Set-up
Natural Filtration I
Natural Filtration II
Natural Filtration III
Water Testing

Hey folks! If you have any ideas for an article for Reefkeeping then post them here or, if you have an article of your own, PM Melev, our editor. After all, I'm not

Mr. Know-It-All

Althought some would disagree.

Most would agree you are definetly a wise a** er owl

A wise old owl

just about lived at RC

the more he saw

the less he spoke;

the less he spoke

the more he heard.

Why can't we all be

like that wise old bird



reef keeping safety 101-----I've been on that one ever since I almost lost my hand and or arm.:eek2:

 

[WaterKeeper]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13706589#post13706589 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Phillybean
Hey Tom,

I'm curious to know the math on how to "determine magnesium by subtracting out the calcium determined in the calcium test"

Does this tell you the magnesium in the tank with-out using a magnesium test?

Man, the article has been up for less than 12 hours and already someone asks. OK, stay with me cause it is somewhat complicated (the main reason I didn't explain it in the article itself).

Usually, total hardness is measured in ppm of Hardness as CaCO₃. That is somewhat of a convention as the main reason people measure hardness is in water softening. It includes mainly calcium and magnesium but can also include other divalent cations. In seawater, calcium and magnesium are the two main hardness ions and we can get a pretty clear determination of their total content with this test.

When you run the test on typical seawater you get a reading of around 6630 ppm of hardness as calcium carbonate. Fine and dandy but it doesn't differentiate between what is calcium and what is magnesium. Now we need to do a little math.

Say we test for calcium and get a reading of 440 ppm as Ca. Well if we multiple that number by 2.5 we convert Ca as Ca to Ca as CaCO₃. Here, 440 ppm as Ca as Ca x 2.5=1000 ppm as CaCO₃. To find magnesium we first subtract the Ca as CaCO₃ from our total hardness measurement. Let's say it was 6630 ppm. That means we have 6630 ppm - 1000 ppm = 5630 ppm of Mg as CaCO₃. We're still not there yet as we want to know Mg as Mg. We then divide the Mg as CaCO₃ by 4.17 ( the conversion factor for changing Mg as CaCO₃ to Mg as Mg). This gives us 1350 ppm and that is our true magnesium content of the water sample.

In a nutshell

Find the Total hardness
Find the calcium with a calcium test kit and multiply by 2.5
Subtract that value form the total hardness
Divide that remainder by 4.17
The answer it the Magnesium content of the sample.

Have Fun!

 

[Paul B]

OK so now I have a headache.
I usually do it a little differently, once in a while, like every few months, I dump in a container of Epsom Salts.
I never was real good at math.
OK so Tom's method is a little better.

 

[WaterKeeper]

:lol:

Wanton use of magnesium sulfate in my book.

 

[Aquarist007]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13707248#post13707248 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by WaterKeeper
Man, the article has been up for less than 12 hours and already someone asks. OK, stay with me cause it is somewhat complicated (the main reason I didn't explain it in the article itself).

Usually, total hardness is measured in ppm of Hardness as CaCO₃. That is somewhat of a convention as the main reason people measure hardness is in water softening. It includes mainly calcium and magnesium but can also include other divalent cations. In seawater, calcium and magnesium are the two main hardness ions and we can get a pretty clear determination of their total content with this test.

When you run the test on typical seawater you get a reading of around 6630 ppm of hardness as calcium carbonate. Fine and dandy but it doesn't differentiate between what is calcium and what is magnesium. Now we need to do a little math.

Say we test for calcium and get a reading of 440 ppm as Ca. Well if we multiple that number by 2.5 we convert Ca as Ca to Ca as CaCO₃. Here, 440 ppm as Ca as Ca x 2.5=1000 ppm as CaCO₃. To find magnesium we first subtract the Ca as CaCO₃ from our total hardness measurement. Let's say it was 6630 ppm. That means we have 6630 ppm - 1000 ppm = 5630 ppm of Mg as CaCO₃. We're still not there yet as we want to know Mg as Mg. We then divide the Mg as CaCO₃ by 4.17 ( the conversion factor for changing Mg as CaCO₃ to Mg as Mg). This gives us 1350 ppm and that is our true magnesium content of the water sample.

In a nutshell

Find the Total hardness
Find the calcium with a calcium test kit and multiply by 2.5
Subtract that value form the total hardness
Divide that remainder by 4.17
The answer it the Magnesium content of the sample.

Have Fun!

I love analytic chemistry:smokin:
but I still prefer my Salifert Magnesium test kit to get a reading of magnesium

 

[EnglishRebel]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13707073#post13707073 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by capn_hylinur
I would think that would be reserved for a very experienced reefer, not for someone new to reef keeping.

Actually my questions came about through ignorance (don't they all ) I assumed (wrongly of course as pointed out in yours and WaterKeepers answers) that I was only to be concerned about things like worms and other inverts that one wouldn't want in the DT. I hadn't considered pathogens and other micro biological "stuff". If these weren't of concern then recirculating water from the DT with a physical barrier to prevent aforementioned pests from getting into the DT would be an easier route than a self contained QT.
Thanks for pointing that out.

 

[Aquarist007]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13717010#post13717010 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by EnglishRebel
Actually my questions came about through ignorance (don't they all ) I assumed (wrongly of course as pointed out in yours and WaterKeepers answers) that I was only to be concerned about things like worms and other inverts that one wouldn't want in the DT. I hadn't considered pathogens and other micro biological "stuff". If these weren't of concern then recirculating water from the DT with a physical barrier to prevent aforementioned pests from getting into the DT would be an easier route than a self contained QT.
Thanks for pointing that out.

no apologies necessary---please ask and continue to ask questions--no one here looks at them as ignorant.

the norm of reefers is to have a separate qt that is setup for the duration of the observation and or treatment and then is taken down and rinsed out before the next use of it.

 

[WaterKeeper]

Chiming in.

We really don't have a good handle on bacterial pathogens in fish and practically nothing about viruses. The usual predators we face are protozoa and they, thank goodness are fairly large. Barrier filter can and do catch these threats and will eliminate them in almost every stage of their life process. The smallest bacteria are only about 0.22 microns whereas the protists are almost always over a full micron. Using a canister with a 1 micron filter will eliminate all and at 5 microns most.

 

[Aquarist007]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13718296#post13718296 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by WaterKeeper
Chiming in.

We really don't have a good handle on bacterial pathogens in fish and practically nothing about viruses. The usual predators we face are protozoa and they, thank goodness are fairly large. Barrier filter can and do catch these threats and will eliminate them in almost every stage of their life process. The smallest bacteria are only about 0.22 microns whereas the protists are almost always over a full micron. Using a canister with a 1 micron filter will eliminate all and at 5 microns most.

So are you saying it is okay then to hook up a qt to a display tank water column

 

[WaterKeeper]

If you have some sort of a barrier to prevent the movement of the pathogens between the two tanks. Something like a UV or a micron polishing filter should isolate the two.

 

[Paul B]

So are you saying it is okay then to hook up a qt to a display tank water column

I don't know about that but sinse it is Veterans Day I won't get involved.

Happy Veterans Day

 

[Aquarist007]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13723384#post13723384 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Paul B
I don't know about that but sinse it is Veterans Day I won't get involved.

Happy Veterans Day

It's Remembrance Day here---so Happy Remembrance Day Paul

I hope tomorrow its back with your involvement

 

[Paul B]

If you have some sort of a barrier to prevent the movement of the pathogens between the two tanks. Something like a UV or a micron polishing filter should isolate the two.

No I can't leave, I just have to get into this but it breaks my heart.
Waterkeeper old man, you are correct (almost). But I personally would not risk it. Although a micron filter like a diatom filter will remove particles as small as a bacteria (so it says) I doubt that 100% of the water actually flows through the powder.
That bag that the powder sticks to is a real bad design with too many places where there are large holes which the powder will not adhere to and raw water would by pass the thing. I re designed mine with a better system. If you leave a diatom, UV or whatever on a tank long enough Iwould imagine that eventually all of the water would get at least one pass through the filtering agent but I would also imagine (in one of my imagining modes) that if we were going to let water pass this filter once from the quarantine tank to the main tank, we would let a hell of a lot of "stuff" into our main tank that we don't want there.
Those filters just have too much leakage.
But besides this, Waterkeeper is the Man.
I usually send the stuff that gets through my diatom filter to Tom to put in his tank as a test. :smokin:

 

[EnglishRebel]

Okay that settles it -- I will do a standalone QT tank to stop this infighting amongst you experts. Don't want anyone to get hurt (physically or egotistically).

 

[Paul B]

stop this infighting amongst you experts.

I'm just a retired electrician, you must be talking about
Waterpollluter. :smokin:

 

[WaterKeeper]

stop this infighting amongst you experts.

Experts? Where are they? You may consider going to the Advanced Topic Forum as they may linger there.

Paul, I do agree, it is risky at best, to connect multiple tanks in the home. Pet stores do it but I'm not so sure they take the proper precautions to avoid widespread contamination. After all, they keep the livestock for only as week or so.

Happy V-day, althought we don't finish what we start anymore.

 

[Paul B]

Pet stores do it but I'm not so sure they take the proper precautions to avoid widespread contamination. After all, they keep the livestock for only as week or so.

Yes Tom Pet stores do it but "experts" like us generally know that just about all fish in pet stores have ich (and God know what else, maybe even social diseases) As soon as you remove a fish from their copper laden tanks, POW ich appears all over the place. Of course in our "expert" tanks that is not a problem but for you noobs that have tanks less than 20 years old, you may be in trouble. :hmm2:

There is a large LFS around the block from me and they can't keep coral for a week. When I buy from them I get it from the shipping container, after it goes in their tank, I don't want it. I do get some good deals on half dead corals that I sometimes bring back to life. :smokin:

 

[Alaska_Phil]

Tom
Just read your chemistry 101 article and have a question on the calcium testing. You say to stop at the first sign of blue, even if it reverts back to pink. With my Salifert test kit, pretty early on I'll see a flash of blue on the surface that disappears back to pink in a second. Is that were I stop, or do I keep going till the entire vile turns blue for a few seconds?

Thanks.

Phil

 

[Aquarist007]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13727265#post13727265 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Alaska_Phil
Tom
Just read your chemistry 101 article and have a question on the calcium testing. You say to stop at the first sign of blue, even if it reverts back to pink. With my Salifert test kit, pretty early on I'll see a flash of blue on the surface that disappears back to pink in a second. Is that were I stop, or do I keep going till the entire vile turns blue for a few seconds?

Thanks.

Phil

make sure you are shaking the vial and you keep adding drops until the blue colour is permanent

 

[Aquarist007]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13725623#post13725623 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by EnglishRebel
Okay that settles it -- I will do a standalone QT tank to stop this infighting amongst you experts. Don't want anyone to get hurt (physically or egotistically).

fight no--discuss and enlighten yes

This is why I consider these two guys my mentors on RC:thumbsup:

but I am surprised they could be serious with each other for more than two posts:lol: