Test Results

[Fantastic Derek]

Hi

I've bought three different ammonia tests. Crazy, I know. I'm doing a
fishless cycle on a new larger tank that I have bought.

Anyway, I tested my older, smaller tank today and I got three
different results! The test I have had the longest and the one I have
used the most (API liquid) gave me a reading of 0ppm. The other liquid
one (TetraTest) gave me 0.25ppm0 while the tablet one I've got
(EasyTest) gave me 0.1ppm. Which one do I believe?

[Rocco Moretti]

Fantastic Derek wrote:
> Hi
>
> I've bought three different ammonia tests. Crazy, I know. I'm doing a
> fishless cycle on a new larger tank that I have bought.
>
> Anyway, I tested my older, smaller tank today and I got three
> different results! The test I have had the longest and the one I have
> used the most (API liquid) gave me a reading of 0ppm. The other liquid
> one (TetraTest) gave me 0.25ppm0 while the tablet one I've got
> (EasyTest) gave me 0.1ppm. Which one do I believe?

One thing to remember about tests is that they have different resolutions.

e.g. (all numbers theoretical)

Tetra has levels of 0, 0.25, 0.50, 1.0, 1.5, etc.
EasyTest has levels of 0, 0.1, 0.25, 0.5, 1, etc.
API has levels of 0, 0.5, 1, 1.5, 3, etc.

Now if your water has a true ammonia level of 0.15 ppm, we can read off
the closest category:

Tetra - 0.25 ppm
EasyTest -0.1 ppm
API - 0 ppm

All of the tests give accurate readings to the best of their ability,
but give vastly different absolute numbers.

When you use hobbyst grade tests, the best you can do is say that the
level is "around 0.1 ppm" or "between 0 and 0.25". The numbers aren't
absolute, especially given the subtle color differences that some want
you to distinguish.

P.S. IIRC, there are two different ammonia tests, and differ in their
ability to distinguish between free ammonia/ammonium and "bound" ammonia
(e.g. from AmmoLock type products).

[Fantastic Derek]

Well, I'd considered that myself, but the API one has a better
resolution than the Tetratest one so that doesn't follow
unfortunately.

On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 12:51:35 -0500, Rocco Moretti
> wrote:

>Fantastic Derek wrote:
>> Hi
>>
>> I've bought three different ammonia tests. Crazy, I know. I'm doing a
>> fishless cycle on a new larger tank that I have bought.
>>
>> Anyway, I tested my older, smaller tank today and I got three
>> different results! The test I have had the longest and the one I have
>> used the most (API liquid) gave me a reading of 0ppm. The other liquid
>> one (TetraTest) gave me 0.25ppm0 while the tablet one I've got
>> (EasyTest) gave me 0.1ppm. Which one do I believe?
>
>One thing to remember about tests is that they have different resolutions.
>
>e.g. (all numbers theoretical)
>
>Tetra has levels of 0, 0.25, 0.50, 1.0, 1.5, etc.
>EasyTest has levels of 0, 0.1, 0.25, 0.5, 1, etc.
>API has levels of 0, 0.5, 1, 1.5, 3, etc.
>
>Now if your water has a true ammonia level of 0.15 ppm, we can read off
>the closest category:
>
>Tetra - 0.25 ppm
>EasyTest -0.1 ppm
>API - 0 ppm
>
>All of the tests give accurate readings to the best of their ability,
>but give vastly different absolute numbers.
>
>When you use hobbyst grade tests, the best you can do is say that the
>level is "around 0.1 ppm" or "between 0 and 0.25". The numbers aren't
>absolute, especially given the subtle color differences that some want
>you to distinguish.
>
>P.S. IIRC, there are two different ammonia tests, and differ in their
>ability to distinguish between free ammonia/ammonium and "bound" ammonia
>(e.g. from AmmoLock type products).

[David Zopf]

"Fantastic Derek" > wrote in message
...
> Well, I'd considered that myself, but the API one has a better
> resolution than the Tetratest one so that doesn't follow
> unfortunately.
>
Please share, then. What are the resolutions of each of the tests in
their respective instructions? Are they all three using the same testing
basis (nessler for freshwater, salicate for salt/freshwater)? Also, you
were testing the same water sample with each kit, right? (ie not going back
to the tank for a different water sample for each kit)
Regardless of the accuracy of each kit, given their ranges (0 to 5 ppm, or
0 to 7 ppm) you're definitely at the bottom end of each kit's ability to
measure anything at all, and thus there's probably little value in trying to
find a statistically significant difference in the accuracy between the
three (with the results you've obtained). Inaccurate things tend to happen
at the extreme limits of any test range, regardless of the system of
measurement.
If you want to do more to discern relative accuracy, you'll need more
results from across the range of each kit, and a greater number of data
points at each point of collection... Since you've bought them, maybe you
could track your results simultaneously with each kit. When you've run
twenty or so measurements, you might have enough data to say which was more
accurate, overall. (The other way to measure accuracy is to compare to a
known standard). It could give a direction to your future purchases... but
then, I'd (fairly safely) guess in advance that they're all going to turn
out to be "more-or-less accurate enough" for the purpose of the hobby.

Regards,
DaveZ
Atom Weaver

[Fantastic Derek]

Wow. To be honest, I'm just trying to ascertain as to whether there is
any ammonia in my water rather than carry out a full scientific
consumer test. I'm not a chemist.

However, the resolutions are as follows:

API (Liquid) 0 0.25 0.50 1.0 2.0 4.0
8.0
Tetratest (Liquid) 0 0.25 1.5 3.0 5.0
Easytest (Tablet) 0 0.1 0.4 0.8 1.2 2.0
4.0

All of the samples were taken within 10 minutes of each other.
Obviously I understand that unless they were all taken at the same
time then there is no scientific coparison available.


On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 18:55:54 GMT, "David Zopf" >
wrote:

>
>"Fantastic Derek" > wrote in message
...
>> Well, I'd considered that myself, but the API one has a better
>> resolution than the Tetratest one so that doesn't follow
>> unfortunately.
>>
> Please share, then. What are the resolutions of each of the tests in
>their respective instructions? Are they all three using the same testing
>basis (nessler for freshwater, salicate for salt/freshwater)? Also, you
>were testing the same water sample with each kit, right? (ie not going back
>to the tank for a different water sample for each kit)
> Regardless of the accuracy of each kit, given their ranges (0 to 5 ppm, or
>0 to 7 ppm) you're definitely at the bottom end of each kit's ability to
>measure anything at all, and thus there's probably little value in trying to
>find a statistically significant difference in the accuracy between the
>three (with the results you've obtained). Inaccurate things tend to happen
>at the extreme limits of any test range, regardless of the system of
>measurement.
> If you want to do more to discern relative accuracy, you'll need more
>results from across the range of each kit, and a greater number of data
>points at each point of collection... Since you've bought them, maybe you
>could track your results simultaneously with each kit. When you've run
>twenty or so measurements, you might have enough data to say which was more
>accurate, overall. (The other way to measure accuracy is to compare to a
>known standard). It could give a direction to your future purchases... but
>then, I'd (fairly safely) guess in advance that they're all going to turn
>out to be "more-or-less accurate enough" for the purpose of the hobby.
>
>Regards,
>DaveZ
>Atom Weaver
>

[Alpha]

"Fantastic Derek" > wrote in message
...
> Wow. To be honest, I'm just trying to ascertain as to whether there is
> any ammonia in my water rather than carry out a full scientific
> consumer test. I'm not a chemist.

That much is certain.

These reponses are excellent....why can't you understand them?

[Rocco Moretti]

Fantastic Derek wrote:
> Wow. To be honest, I'm just trying to ascertain as to whether there is
> any ammonia in my water rather than carry out a full scientific
> consumer test. I'm not a chemist.
>
> However, the resolutions are as follows:
>
> API (Liquid) 0 0.25 0.50
> Tetratest (Liquid) 0 0.25 1.5
> Easytest (Tablet) 0 0.1 0.4

The obtained values were:

API: 0 ppm
Tetratest: 0.25 ppm
EasyTest: 0.1 ppm

Notice that the values are either zero, or the lowest increment above zero.

Unless you can gauge whether & where the color is "between" the points
given, I'd say that your ammonia level is somewhere between 0 and 0.25
ppm, probably somewhere in the middle of that range. More accurate than
that you'll need a different test.

If you want a blunt answer, yes, you have a small amount of ammonia. Is
that going to be an issue for fish? Probably not - it's close to
undetectable. A much better concern at that level is what the ammonia
is/has been doing over time. rising? falling? staying constant? Also, do
you have a nitrIte test? What's happening to those levels? How about
nitrAte, if you have it?

If you're just starting your fishless cycle, it doesn't matter where the
ammonia level falls in the 0-0.25 ppm range - it's not enough. Netmax
reccomends 5-7 ppm. (http://www.netmax.tk/ under Basics:Water->AVOIDING
NEW TANK SYNDROME)

P.S. More useful that liquid vs. tablet is the chemistry behind the
test. It might not say "Nessler" or "Salicylate" on the box, but one
way to tell them appart is by the colors in the color change. (Don't
recall which is which, though.)

[NetMax]

"Fantastic Derek" > wrote in message
...
> Hi
>
> I've bought three different ammonia tests. Crazy, I know. I'm doing a
> fishless cycle on a new larger tank that I have bought.
>
> Anyway, I tested my older, smaller tank today and I got three
> different results! The test I have had the longest and the one I have
> used the most (API liquid) gave me a reading of 0ppm. The other liquid
> one (TetraTest) gave me 0.25ppm0 while the tablet one I've got
> (EasyTest) gave me 0.1ppm. Which one do I believe?


All three levels are relatively low, so you should repeat the tests twice
a day for a few days to look for a trend. Note that these tests are not
accurate in the sense of the absolute number (or you would be paying much
more for lab-grade equipment), but rather they count on relative accuracy
(if the number goes up or down). Depending on the re-agent used, some
react quicker/slower to low levels near their threshold, and you may also
be comparing NH3 with NH4 as some kits do both, while others only do one
(iirc). hth
--
www.NetMax.tk

[Elaine T]

Rocco Moretti wrote:
> Fantastic Derek wrote:
>
>> Wow. To be honest, I'm just trying to ascertain as to whether there is
>> any ammonia in my water rather than carry out a full scientific
>> consumer test. I'm not a chemist.
>> However, the resolutions are as follows:
>>
>> API (Liquid) 0 0.25 0.50
>> Tetratest (Liquid) 0 0.25 1.5
>> Easytest (Tablet) 0 0.1 0.4
>
>
> The obtained values were:
>
> API: 0 ppm
> Tetratest: 0.25 ppm
> EasyTest: 0.1 ppm
>
> Notice that the values are either zero, or the lowest increment above zero.
>
> Unless you can gauge whether & where the color is "between" the points
> given, I'd say that your ammonia level is somewhere between 0 and 0.25
> ppm, probably somewhere in the middle of that range. More accurate than
> that you'll need a different test.
>
> If you want a blunt answer, yes, you have a small amount of ammonia. Is
> that going to be an issue for fish? Probably not - it's close to
> undetectable. A much better concern at that level is what the ammonia
> is/has been doing over time. rising? falling? staying constant? Also, do
> you have a nitrIte test? What's happening to those levels? How about
> nitrAte, if you have it?
>
> If you're just starting your fishless cycle, it doesn't matter where the
> ammonia level falls in the 0-0.25 ppm range - it's not enough. Netmax
> reccomends 5-7 ppm. (http://www.netmax.tk/ under Basics:Water->AVOIDING
> NEW TANK SYNDROME)
>
> P.S. More useful that liquid vs. tablet is the chemistry behind the
> test. It might not say "Nessler" or "Salicylate" on the box, but one
> way to tell them appart is by the colors in the color change. (Don't
> recall which is which, though.)

Salicylate is yellow to greeen, and Nessler is clear to yellow or
yellow-orange. Nessler kits measure all ammonia, whether or not it's
bound by Ammo-Lock, AmQuel, or other chloramine removers.

BTW, I consider anything above 0.1 ppm ammonia bad and 0.25 ppm a very
serious issue for fish in my pH 7.8 water. It's not an issue around pH
7.0. (Or in a fishless cycle, of course.)

--
Elaine T __
http://eethomp.com/fish.html <'__><
rec.aquaria.* FAQ http://faq.thekrib.com

[Fantastic Derek]

Sorry, I should have made this clearer. The readings I mentioned come
from my existing, stocked tank. Everywhere I have read states that any
ammonia at all is damaging to fish in the long run. However, as Rocco
mentioned it probably means there is a very small amount of ammonia in
the water so I will continue to monitor closely espcially as my water
has a high pH. There appears to be no nitrite in the water.

All the kits are yellow to green.


On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 23:26:43 GMT, Elaine T >
wrote:

>Rocco Moretti wrote:
>> Fantastic Derek wrote:
>>
>>> Wow. To be honest, I'm just trying to ascertain as to whether there is
>>> any ammonia in my water rather than carry out a full scientific
>>> consumer test. I'm not a chemist.
>>> However, the resolutions are as follows:
>>>
>>> API (Liquid) 0 0.25 0.50
>>> Tetratest (Liquid) 0 0.25 1.5
>>> Easytest (Tablet) 0 0.1 0.4
>>
>>
>> The obtained values were:
>>
>> API: 0 ppm
>> Tetratest: 0.25 ppm
>> EasyTest: 0.1 ppm
>>
>> Notice that the values are either zero, or the lowest increment above zero.
>>
>> Unless you can gauge whether & where the color is "between" the points
>> given, I'd say that your ammonia level is somewhere between 0 and 0.25
>> ppm, probably somewhere in the middle of that range. More accurate than
>> that you'll need a different test.
>>
>> If you want a blunt answer, yes, you have a small amount of ammonia. Is
>> that going to be an issue for fish? Probably not - it's close to
>> undetectable. A much better concern at that level is what the ammonia
>> is/has been doing over time. rising? falling? staying constant? Also, do
>> you have a nitrIte test? What's happening to those levels? How about
>> nitrAte, if you have it?
>>
>> If you're just starting your fishless cycle, it doesn't matter where the
>> ammonia level falls in the 0-0.25 ppm range - it's not enough. Netmax
>> reccomends 5-7 ppm. (http://www.netmax.tk/ under Basics:Water->AVOIDING
>> NEW TANK SYNDROME)
>>
>> P.S. More useful that liquid vs. tablet is the chemistry behind the
>> test. It might not say "Nessler" or "Salicylate" on the box, but one
>> way to tell them appart is by the colors in the color change. (Don't
>> recall which is which, though.)
>
>Salicylate is yellow to greeen, and Nessler is clear to yellow or
>yellow-orange. Nessler kits measure all ammonia, whether or not it's
>bound by Ammo-Lock, AmQuel, or other chloramine removers.
>
>BTW, I consider anything above 0.1 ppm ammonia bad and 0.25 ppm a very
>serious issue for fish in my pH 7.8 water. It's not an issue around pH
>7.0. (Or in a fishless cycle, of course.)

[Fantastic Derek]

I can understand them - they are giving three different responses.
That's the problem.


On Thu, 1 Sep 2005 15:12:57 -0700, "Alpha" > wrote:

>
>"Fantastic Derek" > wrote in message
...
>> Wow. To be honest, I'm just trying to ascertain as to whether there is
>> any ammonia in my water rather than carry out a full scientific
>> consumer test. I'm not a chemist.
>
>That much is certain.
>
>These reponses are excellent....why can't you understand them?
>
>

[Fantastic Derek]

Thanks. I will continue to test. With which kit though?? :)

On Thu, 1 Sep 2005 18:41:26 -0400, "NetMax"
> wrote:

>"Fantastic Derek" > wrote in message
...
>> Hi
>>
>> I've bought three different ammonia tests. Crazy, I know. I'm doing a
>> fishless cycle on a new larger tank that I have bought.
>>
>> Anyway, I tested my older, smaller tank today and I got three
>> different results! The test I have had the longest and the one I have
>> used the most (API liquid) gave me a reading of 0ppm. The other liquid
>> one (TetraTest) gave me 0.25ppm0 while the tablet one I've got
>> (EasyTest) gave me 0.1ppm. Which one do I believe?
>
>
>All three levels are relatively low, so you should repeat the tests twice
>a day for a few days to look for a trend. Note that these tests are not
>accurate in the sense of the absolute number (or you would be paying much
>more for lab-grade equipment), but rather they count on relative accuracy
>(if the number goes up or down). Depending on the re-agent used, some
>react quicker/slower to low levels near their threshold, and you may also
>be comparing NH3 with NH4 as some kits do both, while others only do one
>(iirc). hth

[Rocco Moretti]

Fantastic Derek wrote:
> Thanks. I will continue to test. With which kit though?? :)

Is there a problem with doing all three? (At least until you get things
figured out.)

[David Zopf]

"Fantastic Derek" > wrote in message
...
> Wow. To be honest, I'm just trying to ascertain as to whether there is
> any ammonia in my water rather than carry out a full scientific
> consumer test. I'm not a chemist.
>
OK. I'm just trying to give you a basis for understanding what the tests
are able to tell to you...

> However, the resolutions are as follows:
>
Thanks for this...

> API (Liquid) 0 0.25 0.50 1.0 2.0 4.0
> 8.0
> Tetratest (Liquid) 0 0.25 1.5 3.0 5.0

Note, these two have the same resolution, in the range in which you're
measuring (0 to 0.25).

> Easytest (Tablet) 0 0.1 0.4 0.8 1.2 2.0
> 4.0
>
> All of the samples were taken within 10 minutes of each other.

Right, but you're tank is stocked... An aquarium is not a homogeneous
container of water. Depending upon water flow and location of sampling, you
could have picked up some waste stream recently generated by a fish. That
possibility could skew results of one sample to another (no waste ammonia in
the API test, zero result...Waste in the others, non-zero test result). If
you're wanting to find out which kit is best, take a single larger sample,
and test it with all three kits (three times with each kit). As NetMax
said, too, you're looking for an upward or downward trend to tell you if any
action is needed with the tank, so do this at least twice before deciding
which kit is best for you.

With color reading results, (working off of the same water sample) you
should assume that each point result is more like the test telling you a
range from the middle of the lower point to the middle of the upper. So, a
result of 0.25 on the API test should say to you; "the ammonia is somewhere
between 0.125 and 0.375". The same result on the Tetratest says "the
ammonia is somewhere between 0.125 and 0.875". Your 0.1 on the Easytest
should say to you "the ammonia is somewhere between 0.05 and 0.25". Thats
about the extent to which you can claim any accuracy from these kinds of
tests... Assessing the color gradation to one side or another of the data
point itself may give you a rough extra inclination as to where in the range
the result may actually be falling.

> Obviously I understand that unless they were all taken at the same
> time then there is no scientific coparison available.
>
Right. I'd guess you should stick with the Easytest, then. Since (after
reading your exchange with Elaine) you are concerned about even the lowest
levels of ammonia, it stands to reason you would use the kit claiming the
best low-level resolution (0 to 0.1 to 0.4). Ideally, if you want even
better resolution, you would upgrade to a wet-chemical method, (and you
don't need to be a chemist to use those... :-)

Regards,
DaveZ
Atom Weaver

[Gill Passman]

"Fantastic Derek" <fd@> wrote in message
...
> Sorry, I should have made this clearer. The readings I mentioned come
> from my existing, stocked tank. Everywhere I have read states that any
> ammonia at all is damaging to fish in the long run. However, as Rocco
> mentioned it probably means there is a very small amount of ammonia in
> the water so I will continue to monitor closely espcially as my water
> has a high pH. There appears to be no nitrite in the water.
>
> All the kits are yellow to green.
>
>
> On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 23:26:43 GMT, Elaine T >
> wrote:
>
> >Rocco Moretti wrote:
> >> Fantastic Derek wrote:
> >>
> >>> Wow. To be honest, I'm just trying to ascertain as to whether there is
> >>> any ammonia in my water rather than carry out a full scientific
> >>> consumer test. I'm not a chemist.
> >>> However, the resolutions are as follows:
> >>>
> >>> API (Liquid) 0 0.25 0.50
> >>> Tetratest (Liquid) 0 0.25 1.5
> >>> Easytest (Tablet) 0 0.1 0.4
> >>
> >>
> >> The obtained values were:
> >>
> >> API: 0 ppm
> >> Tetratest: 0.25 ppm
> >> EasyTest: 0.1 ppm
> >>
> >> Notice that the values are either zero, or the lowest increment above
zero.
> >>
> >> Unless you can gauge whether & where the color is "between" the points
> >> given, I'd say that your ammonia level is somewhere between 0 and 0.25
> >> ppm, probably somewhere in the middle of that range. More accurate than
> >> that you'll need a different test.
> >>
> >> If you want a blunt answer, yes, you have a small amount of ammonia. Is
> >> that going to be an issue for fish? Probably not - it's close to
> >> undetectable. A much better concern at that level is what the ammonia
> >> is/has been doing over time. rising? falling? staying constant? Also,
do
> >> you have a nitrIte test? What's happening to those levels? How about
> >> nitrAte, if you have it?
> >>
> >> If you're just starting your fishless cycle, it doesn't matter where
the
> >> ammonia level falls in the 0-0.25 ppm range - it's not enough. Netmax
> >> reccomends 5-7 ppm. (http://www.netmax.tk/ under Basics:Water->AVOIDING
> >> NEW TANK SYNDROME)
> >>
> >> P.S. More useful that liquid vs. tablet is the chemistry behind the
> >> test. It might not say "Nessler" or "Salicylate" on the box, but one
> >> way to tell them appart is by the colors in the color change. (Don't
> >> recall which is which, though.)
> >
> >Salicylate is yellow to greeen, and Nessler is clear to yellow or
> >yellow-orange. Nessler kits measure all ammonia, whether or not it's
> >bound by Ammo-Lock, AmQuel, or other chloramine removers.
> >
> >BTW, I consider anything above 0.1 ppm ammonia bad and 0.25 ppm a very
> >serious issue for fish in my pH 7.8 water. It's not an issue around pH
> >7.0. (Or in a fishless cycle, of course.)

Quick question. Do you have driftwood in the tank? My tanks with driftwood
colour the water so even before I put the reagent in it looks as if there is
a positive ammonia reading when I check the colour chart. I now check the
colouration of the water following the test with water taken at the sametime
before checking the against the chart.

Gill

[Fantastic Derek]

That seems like good advice. Thank you.

Can you tell me what "wet-chemical method" is?

Thanks



On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 14:37:06 GMT, "David Zopf" >
wrote:

>
>"Fantastic Derek" > wrote in message
...
>> Wow. To be honest, I'm just trying to ascertain as to whether there is
>> any ammonia in my water rather than carry out a full scientific
>> consumer test. I'm not a chemist.
>>
>OK. I'm just trying to give you a basis for understanding what the tests
>are able to tell to you...
>
>> However, the resolutions are as follows:
>>
>Thanks for this...
>
>> API (Liquid) 0 0.25 0.50 1.0 2.0 4.0
>> 8.0
>> Tetratest (Liquid) 0 0.25 1.5 3.0 5.0
>
>Note, these two have the same resolution, in the range in which you're
>measuring (0 to 0.25).
>
>> Easytest (Tablet) 0 0.1 0.4 0.8 1.2 2.0
>> 4.0
>>
>> All of the samples were taken within 10 minutes of each other.
>
>Right, but you're tank is stocked... An aquarium is not a homogeneous
>container of water. Depending upon water flow and location of sampling, you
>could have picked up some waste stream recently generated by a fish. That
>possibility could skew results of one sample to another (no waste ammonia in
>the API test, zero result...Waste in the others, non-zero test result). If
>you're wanting to find out which kit is best, take a single larger sample,
>and test it with all three kits (three times with each kit). As NetMax
>said, too, you're looking for an upward or downward trend to tell you if any
>action is needed with the tank, so do this at least twice before deciding
>which kit is best for you.
>
> With color reading results, (working off of the same water sample) you
>should assume that each point result is more like the test telling you a
>range from the middle of the lower point to the middle of the upper. So, a
>result of 0.25 on the API test should say to you; "the ammonia is somewhere
>between 0.125 and 0.375". The same result on the Tetratest says "the
>ammonia is somewhere between 0.125 and 0.875". Your 0.1 on the Easytest
>should say to you "the ammonia is somewhere between 0.05 and 0.25". Thats
>about the extent to which you can claim any accuracy from these kinds of
>tests... Assessing the color gradation to one side or another of the data
>point itself may give you a rough extra inclination as to where in the range
>the result may actually be falling.
>
>> Obviously I understand that unless they were all taken at the same
>> time then there is no scientific coparison available.
>>
> Right. I'd guess you should stick with the Easytest, then. Since (after
>reading your exchange with Elaine) you are concerned about even the lowest
>levels of ammonia, it stands to reason you would use the kit claiming the
>best low-level resolution (0 to 0.1 to 0.4). Ideally, if you want even
>better resolution, you would upgrade to a wet-chemical method, (and you
>don't need to be a chemist to use those... :-)
>
>Regards,
>DaveZ
>Atom Weaver
>
>

[Fantastic Derek]

No, not really. Apart from the extra effort.:)

I'll try that - I might get to the bottom of the mystery that way
anyway.

On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 09:05:20 -0500, Rocco Moretti
> wrote:

>Fantastic Derek wrote:
>> Thanks. I will continue to test. With which kit though?? :)
>
>Is there a problem with doing all three? (At least until you get things
>figured out.)

[Fantastic Derek]

Hi Gill

I do have some wood in the tank but it doesn't seem to discolour the
water any.

Cheers

On Fri, 2 Sep 2005 16:35:47 +0100, "Gill Passman"
<gillspamattaylorpassmanspam.co.uk> wrote:

>
>"Fantastic Derek" <fd@> wrote in message
...
>> Sorry, I should have made this clearer. The readings I mentioned come
>> from my existing, stocked tank. Everywhere I have read states that any
>> ammonia at all is damaging to fish in the long run. However, as Rocco
>> mentioned it probably means there is a very small amount of ammonia in
>> the water so I will continue to monitor closely espcially as my water
>> has a high pH. There appears to be no nitrite in the water.
>>
>> All the kits are yellow to green.
>>
>>
>> On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 23:26:43 GMT, Elaine T >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Rocco Moretti wrote:
>> >> Fantastic Derek wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Wow. To be honest, I'm just trying to ascertain as to whether there is
>> >>> any ammonia in my water rather than carry out a full scientific
>> >>> consumer test. I'm not a chemist.
>> >>> However, the resolutions are as follows:
>> >>>
>> >>> API (Liquid) 0 0.25 0.50
>> >>> Tetratest (Liquid) 0 0.25 1.5
>> >>> Easytest (Tablet) 0 0.1 0.4
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> The obtained values were:
>> >>
>> >> API: 0 ppm
>> >> Tetratest: 0.25 ppm
>> >> EasyTest: 0.1 ppm
>> >>
>> >> Notice that the values are either zero, or the lowest increment above
>zero.
>> >>
>> >> Unless you can gauge whether & where the color is "between" the points
>> >> given, I'd say that your ammonia level is somewhere between 0 and 0.25
>> >> ppm, probably somewhere in the middle of that range. More accurate than
>> >> that you'll need a different test.
>> >>
>> >> If you want a blunt answer, yes, you have a small amount of ammonia. Is
>> >> that going to be an issue for fish? Probably not - it's close to
>> >> undetectable. A much better concern at that level is what the ammonia
>> >> is/has been doing over time. rising? falling? staying constant? Also,
>do
>> >> you have a nitrIte test? What's happening to those levels? How about
>> >> nitrAte, if you have it?
>> >>
>> >> If you're just starting your fishless cycle, it doesn't matter where
>the
>> >> ammonia level falls in the 0-0.25 ppm range - it's not enough. Netmax
>> >> reccomends 5-7 ppm. (http://www.netmax.tk/ under Basics:Water->AVOIDING
>> >> NEW TANK SYNDROME)
>> >>
>> >> P.S. More useful that liquid vs. tablet is the chemistry behind the
>> >> test. It might not say "Nessler" or "Salicylate" on the box, but one
>> >> way to tell them appart is by the colors in the color change. (Don't
>> >> recall which is which, though.)
>> >
>> >Salicylate is yellow to greeen, and Nessler is clear to yellow or
>> >yellow-orange. Nessler kits measure all ammonia, whether or not it's
>> >bound by Ammo-Lock, AmQuel, or other chloramine removers.
>> >
>> >BTW, I consider anything above 0.1 ppm ammonia bad and 0.25 ppm a very
>> >serious issue for fish in my pH 7.8 water. It's not an issue around pH
>> >7.0. (Or in a fishless cycle, of course.)
>
>Quick question. Do you have driftwood in the tank? My tanks with driftwood
>colour the water so even before I put the reagent in it looks as if there is
>a positive ammonia reading when I check the colour chart. I now check the
>colouration of the water following the test with water taken at the sametime
>before checking the against the chart.
>
>Gill
>

[David Zopf]

"Fantastic Derek" <fd@> wrote in message
...
> That seems like good advice. Thank you.
>
> Can you tell me what "wet-chemical method" is?
>
By that, I meant a good 'ol buret stand and an Erlenmeyer flask, with
magnetic stir bar and common benchtop chemicals. Titrating ammonia with
dilute standard HCl and an endpoint indicator, just like in high school
chemistry class...

BTW, I did some more nosing, and found an ammonia test kit which measures in
the low range of interest to you:

http://www.marinedepot.com/md_viewItem.asp?idproduct=TZ6117

The product measures over a range of 0.04 to 1.0 mg/L (ppm). But you've got
three kits to burn through before you're going to buy another, I bet :-)

Regards,
DaveZ
Atom Weaver

[Elaine T]

Fantastic Derek wrote:

> Sorry, I should have made this clearer. The readings I mentioned come
> from my existing, stocked tank. Everywhere I have read states that any
> ammonia at all is damaging to fish in the long run. However, as Rocco
> mentioned it probably means there is a very small amount of ammonia in
> the water so I will continue to monitor closely espcially as my water
> has a high pH. There appears to be no nitrite in the water.
>
> All the kits are yellow to green.

If I were you, I'd add a dose of AmQuel, Ammo Lock, or your ammonia
detoxifier of choice. IMO, two out of three salicylate tests showing a
low reading means that there is most likely a small amount of ammonia.

I agree with you that even a low level of ammonia in the long term is
bad, especially in high pH tanks. Once you've detoxified the ammonia to
address the short-term needs of fish, you need to think about why the
ammonia was there. First, did you clean the tank and filter too well?
Or are both tank and filter dirty? Could the filter be clogged? Are
there too many fish? Any of these can cause low levels of ammonia.

--
Elaine T __
http://eethomp.com/fish.html <'__><
rec.aquaria.* FAQ http://faq.thekrib.com

[Fantastic Derek]

OK. So I tried all three these evening and now have a majority vote so
to speak. The API and the EasyTest one both said 0 while the TetraTest
said 0.25ppm again. SoI thought I'd try the TetraTest on my tap water
and lo and behold it comes up the same colour! Surely I don't have
ammonia in my tap water, do I?

On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 17:02:47 +0100, Fantastic Derek <fd@> wrote:

>No, not really. Apart from the extra effort.:)
>
>I'll try that - I might get to the bottom of the mystery that way
>anyway.
>
>On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 09:05:20 -0500, Rocco Moretti
> wrote:
>
>>Fantastic Derek wrote:
>>> Thanks. I will continue to test. With which kit though?? :)
>>
>>Is there a problem with doing all three? (At least until you get things
>>figured out.)

[Fantastic Derek]

I've read bad things about AmmoLock etc it being supposedly better to
allow the filter to do its job as these products starve the bacteria
and you can end up relying on them. What are your thoughts?

I've tested tonight and two of the tests now say there is no ammonia
so I am not overly concerned now.

On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 18:22:21 GMT, Elaine T >
wrote:

>Fantastic Derek wrote:
>
>> Sorry, I should have made this clearer. The readings I mentioned come
>> from my existing, stocked tank. Everywhere I have read states that any
>> ammonia at all is damaging to fish in the long run. However, as Rocco
>> mentioned it probably means there is a very small amount of ammonia in
>> the water so I will continue to monitor closely espcially as my water
>> has a high pH. There appears to be no nitrite in the water.
>>
>> All the kits are yellow to green.
>
>If I were you, I'd add a dose of AmQuel, Ammo Lock, or your ammonia
>detoxifier of choice. IMO, two out of three salicylate tests showing a
>low reading means that there is most likely a small amount of ammonia.
>
>I agree with you that even a low level of ammonia in the long term is
>bad, especially in high pH tanks. Once you've detoxified the ammonia to
>address the short-term needs of fish, you need to think about why the
>ammonia was there. First, did you clean the tank and filter too well?
>Or are both tank and filter dirty? Could the filter be clogged? Are
>there too many fish? Any of these can cause low levels of ammonia.

[Fantastic Derek]

Actually, I'm going through them at a fine rate, what with all this
constant testing and checking of tests etc. Plus I'm a shocking
spendthrift! The thing is I can't open this link - what's the product
called?

On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 17:52:20 GMT, "David Zopf" >
wrote:

>
>"Fantastic Derek" <fd@> wrote in message
...
>> That seems like good advice. Thank you.
>>
>> Can you tell me what "wet-chemical method" is?
>>
> By that, I meant a good 'ol buret stand and an Erlenmeyer flask, with
>magnetic stir bar and common benchtop chemicals. Titrating ammonia with
>dilute standard HCl and an endpoint indicator, just like in high school
>chemistry class...
>
>BTW, I did some more nosing, and found an ammonia test kit which measures in
>the low range of interest to you:
>
>http://www.marinedepot.com/md_viewItem.asp?idproduct=TZ6117
>
>The product measures over a range of 0.04 to 1.0 mg/L (ppm). But you've got
>three kits to burn through before you're going to buy another, I bet :-)
>
>Regards,
>DaveZ
>Atom Weaver
>
>
>

[Rocco Moretti]

Fantastic Derek wrote:
> OK. So I tried all three these evening and now have a majority vote so
> to speak. The API and the EasyTest one both said 0 while the TetraTest
> said 0.25ppm again. SoI thought I'd try the TetraTest on my tap water
> and lo and behold it comes up the same colour! Surely I don't have
> ammonia in my tap water, do I?

You might. If your city uses chloramines in the tap water, you'll have a
small amount of ammonia (attached to the chlorine). I'm not sure if
Salicylate recognizes ammonia in the chloramine form, but there is
always a chance that Tetra adds something to the test reagents that
frees chloramine ammonia. Note that most dechlors will rip the chlorine
off the chloramine, leaving free ammonia.

If you have distilled water lying around, you might want to see what the
TetraTest gives on that.

[Fantastic Derek]

What about bottled mineral water?

On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 14:05:06 -0500, Rocco Moretti
> wrote:

>Fantastic Derek wrote:
>> OK. So I tried all three these evening and now have a majority vote so
>> to speak. The API and the EasyTest one both said 0 while the TetraTest
>> said 0.25ppm again. SoI thought I'd try the TetraTest on my tap water
>> and lo and behold it comes up the same colour! Surely I don't have
>> ammonia in my tap water, do I?
>
>You might. If your city uses chloramines in the tap water, you'll have a
>small amount of ammonia (attached to the chlorine). I'm not sure if
>Salicylate recognizes ammonia in the chloramine form, but there is
>always a chance that Tetra adds something to the test reagents that
>frees chloramine ammonia. Note that most dechlors will rip the chlorine
>off the chloramine, leaving free ammonia.
>
>If you have distilled water lying around, you might want to see what the
>TetraTest gives on that.

[David Zopf]

"Fantastic Derek" > wrote in message
...
> Actually, I'm going through them at a fine rate, what with all this
> constant testing and checking of tests etc. Plus I'm a shocking
> spendthrift! The thing is I can't open this link - what's the product
> called?
>
Huh. Marine Depot has a wierd website 'feature' which redirects you to
their homepage. How useless.

The product is:
TZ6117 TUNZE AMMONIA MEASURING BOX 7017/2

the splash page lists a range of 0.2 to 0.7 (probably wrong, if only because
thats not a particularly useful range), but the product detail lists 0.04 to
1.0 mg/L.

DaveZ
Atom Weaver

> On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 17:52:20 GMT, "David Zopf" >
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Fantastic Derek" <fd@> wrote in message
...
>>> That seems like good advice. Thank you.
>>>
>>> Can you tell me what "wet-chemical method" is?
>>>
>> By that, I meant a good 'ol buret stand and an Erlenmeyer flask, with
>>magnetic stir bar and common benchtop chemicals. Titrating ammonia with
>>dilute standard HCl and an endpoint indicator, just like in high school
>>chemistry class...
>>
>>BTW, I did some more nosing, and found an ammonia test kit which measures
>>in
>>the low range of interest to you:
>>
>>http://www.marinedepot.com/md_viewItem.asp?idproduct=TZ6117
>>
>>The product measures over a range of 0.04 to 1.0 mg/L (ppm). But you've
>>got
>>three kits to burn through before you're going to buy another, I bet :-)
>>
>>Regards,
>>DaveZ
>>Atom Weaver
>>
>>
>>

[Elaine T]

Fantastic Derek wrote:
> I've read bad things about AmmoLock etc it being supposedly better to
> allow the filter to do its job as these products starve the bacteria
> and you can end up relying on them. What are your thoughts?
>
> I've tested tonight and two of the tests now say there is no ammonia
> so I am not overly concerned now.

Kordon specifically states that AmQuel leaves ammonia available to
bacteria. I've never had a problem using it. I don't know as much
about Ammo Lock but it's a similar chemical.

--
Elaine T __
http://eethomp.com/fish.html <'__><
rec.aquaria.* FAQ http://faq.thekrib.com

[Gill Passman]

"Fantastic Derek" > wrote in message
...
> OK. So I tried all three these evening and now have a majority vote so
> to speak. The API and the EasyTest one both said 0 while the TetraTest
> said 0.25ppm again. SoI thought I'd try the TetraTest on my tap water
> and lo and behold it comes up the same colour! Surely I don't have
> ammonia in my tap water, do I?
>
> On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 17:02:47 +0100, Fantastic Derek <fd@> wrote:
>
> >No, not really. Apart from the extra effort.:)
> >
> >I'll try that - I might get to the bottom of the mystery that way
> >anyway.
> >
> >On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 09:05:20 -0500, Rocco Moretti
> > wrote:
> >
> >>Fantastic Derek wrote:
> >>> Thanks. I will continue to test. With which kit though?? :)
> >>
> >>Is there a problem with doing all three? (At least until you get things
> >>figured out.)

Not in Caversham - I have no ammonia in mine and I guess we are on the same
supply...

Gill

[Gill Passman]

"Fantastic Derek" > wrote in message
...
> What about bottled mineral water?
>
> On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 14:05:06 -0500, Rocco Moretti
> > wrote:
>
> >Fantastic Derek wrote:
> >> OK. So I tried all three these evening and now have a majority vote so
> >> to speak. The API and the EasyTest one both said 0 while the TetraTest
> >> said 0.25ppm again. SoI thought I'd try the TetraTest on my tap water
> >> and lo and behold it comes up the same colour! Surely I don't have
> >> ammonia in my tap water, do I?
> >
> >You might. If your city uses chloramines in the tap water, you'll have a
> >small amount of ammonia (attached to the chlorine). I'm not sure if
> >Salicylate recognizes ammonia in the chloramine form, but there is
> >always a chance that Tetra adds something to the test reagents that
> >frees chloramine ammonia. Note that most dechlors will rip the chlorine
> >off the chloramine, leaving free ammonia.
> >
> >If you have distilled water lying around, you might want to see what the
> >TetraTest gives on that.

Yep, as long as you don't add it to the tank it should be OK to use to test
the accuracy of the test kit. As I said in a recent post if your water
supply is the same as mine, which it should be, then there is no ammonia in
our water.

Gill

[NetMax]

"Gill Passman" <gillspamattaylorpassmanspam.co.uk> wrote in message
.. .
>
> "Fantastic Derek" > wrote in message
> ...
>> OK. So I tried all three these evening and now have a majority vote so
>> to speak. The API and the EasyTest one both said 0 while the TetraTest
>> said 0.25ppm again. SoI thought I'd try the TetraTest on my tap water
>> and lo and behold it comes up the same colour! Surely I don't have
>> ammonia in my tap water, do I?
>>
>> On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 17:02:47 +0100, Fantastic Derek <fd@> wrote:
>>
>> >No, not really. Apart from the extra effort.:)
>> >
>> >I'll try that - I might get to the bottom of the mystery that way
>> >anyway.
>> >
>> >On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 09:05:20 -0500, Rocco Moretti
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >>Fantastic Derek wrote:
>> >>> Thanks. I will continue to test. With which kit though?? :)
>> >>
>> >>Is there a problem with doing all three? (At least until you get
>> >>things
>> >>figured out.)
>
> Not in Caversham - I have no ammonia in mine and I guess we are on the
> same
> supply...
>
> Gill


Playing devil's advocate, but I would expect many (most?) municipalities
to use multiple water sources. For river sources, this is easier for
distribution through a city, and for well sources, this is prudent as
their quantity and quality will often vary by season.

As well, the amount of chlorine/chloramine is not constant, as they use
more of these disinfectants when there is any work being done (adding,
cleaning or repairing pipes).

As a last point, the concentration can vary according to proximity to the
municipal treatment centre (closer = higher and with spikes if not
automated).

I've heard about neighbours across the street from each other having
different water conditions (unusual, but grids have boundaries as new
housing developments get added in later years).
--
www.NetMax.tk

[NetMax]

"Elaine T" > wrote in message
...
> Fantastic Derek wrote:
>> I've read bad things about AmmoLock etc it being supposedly better to
>> allow the filter to do its job as these products starve the bacteria
>> and you can end up relying on them. What are your thoughts?
>>
>> I've tested tonight and two of the tests now say there is no ammonia
>> so I am not overly concerned now.
>
> Kordon specifically states that AmQuel leaves ammonia available to
> bacteria. I've never had a problem using it. I don't know as much
> about Ammo Lock but it's a similar chemical.
>
> --
> Elaine T

Personally, I don't think AmQuel or Ammo-lock belong in your average
hobbyist's home collection. They both have a shaded history of messing
with the nitrogen cycle. They are extremely useful chemicals for
specific applications which should normally never be allowed to occur in
a home set-up. ymmv
--
www.NetMax.tk

[Elaine T]

NetMax wrote:
> "Elaine T" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Fantastic Derek wrote:
>>
>>>I've read bad things about AmmoLock etc it being supposedly better to
>>>allow the filter to do its job as these products starve the bacteria
>>>and you can end up relying on them. What are your thoughts?
>>>
>>>I've tested tonight and two of the tests now say there is no ammonia
>>>so I am not overly concerned now.
>>
>>Kordon specifically states that AmQuel leaves ammonia available to
>>bacteria. I've never had a problem using it. I don't know as much
>>about Ammo Lock but it's a similar chemical.
>>
>>--
>>Elaine T
>
>
> Personally, I don't think AmQuel or Ammo-lock belong in your average
> hobbyist's home collection. They both have a shaded history of messing
> with the nitrogen cycle. They are extremely useful chemicals for
> specific applications which should normally never be allowed to occur in
> a home set-up. ymmv

What do you recommend for municipal water with high amounts of
chloramine, then? I use AmQuel to treat my tap water for water changes.
My understanding is that straight thiosulfate releases significant
amounts of ammonia from chloramine. The numbers from Chuck Gadd's
website are that the EPA max of 4 ppm chlorine is equivalent to 5.8 ppm
chloramine - 4 ppm chlorine and 1.8 ppm ammonia. The EPA requires 2 ppm
chlorine so the least I'll ever see is 0.9 ppm ammonia.

http://www.csd.net/~cgadd/aqua/art_chlorine.htm

I use a Python to change water so pretreating it with zeolite or a
biofilter is hard. Also rather space and time-consuming and my house is
tiny. If I don't use AmQuel or something similar, I subject my fish to
a pulse of at least 0.5 ppm of ammonia at pH 7.8 with a large water
change. This is right around the toxicity threshold and doesn't strike
me as a good idea.

--
Elaine T __
http://eethomp.com/fish.html <'__><
rec.aquaria.* FAQ http://faq.thekrib.com

[NetMax]

"Elaine T" > wrote in message
. ..
> NetMax wrote:
>> "Elaine T" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>Fantastic Derek wrote:
>>>
>>>>I've read bad things about AmmoLock etc it being supposedly better to
>>>>allow the filter to do its job as these products starve the bacteria
>>>>and you can end up relying on them. What are your thoughts?
>>>>
>>>>I've tested tonight and two of the tests now say there is no ammonia
>>>>so I am not overly concerned now.
>>>
>>>Kordon specifically states that AmQuel leaves ammonia available to
>>>bacteria. I've never had a problem using it. I don't know as much
>>>about Ammo Lock but it's a similar chemical.
>>>
>>>--
>>>Elaine T
>>
>>
>> Personally, I don't think AmQuel or Ammo-lock belong in your average
>> hobbyist's home collection. They both have a shaded history of
>> messing with the nitrogen cycle. They are extremely useful chemicals
>> for specific applications which should normally never be allowed to
>> occur in a home set-up. ymmv
>
> What do you recommend for municipal water with high amounts of
> chloramine, then? I use AmQuel to treat my tap water for water
> changes. My understanding is that straight thiosulfate releases
> significant amounts of ammonia from chloramine. The numbers from Chuck
> Gadd's website are that the EPA max of 4 ppm chlorine is equivalent to
> 5.8 ppm chloramine - 4 ppm chlorine and 1.8 ppm ammonia. The EPA
> requires 2 ppm chlorine so the least I'll ever see is 0.9 ppm ammonia.
>
> http://www.csd.net/~cgadd/aqua/art_chlorine.htm
>
> I use a Python to change water so pretreating it with zeolite or a
> biofilter is hard. Also rather space and time-consuming and my house
> is tiny. If I don't use AmQuel or something similar, I subject my fish
> to a pulse of at least 0.5 ppm of ammonia at pH 7.8 with a large water
> change. This is right around the toxicity threshold and doesn't strike
> me as a good idea.
>
> --
> Elaine T

Quite right. My comments were in reference to using ammonia locking
chemicals during cycling, or to compensate for inadequate filtration (or
whatever the OP's root cause was). This is where I see problems.

In the case you described, where you want to minimize the NH3 hit (high
pH, high chlor. concentrations and large water changes), then
Amquel/Ammolock/Prime etc becomes a regular part of your routine, but
used like this I don't see the same potential for trouble. I should have
been more specific.

As a regular water treatment, you are treating a finite amount of
chloramine from a controlled amount of water, and the filters have a week
to clean that small amount of pseudo-NH4 up. In cycling, the amount
being produced and converted is not under control, and the pseudo-NH4 has
an opportunity to mess things up.

If you really didn't want to use ammonia locking chemicals, then you
would need a bigger house ;~). Seriously, if you can stand the plumbing
mods, a trickle or automatic water changer would solve this.
Trickle/pulse feed through a carbon filter and the resulting ammonia
might be less than what you get from one of your fish ;~). I wouldn't go
to the trouble just to not use the ammonia locking chemicals though.
--
www.NetMax.tk

[Fantastic Derek]

Hi (sorry for the delay - was away this weekend).

I'm not sure if Gill has the same water supply as myself, although I
would think so as we do seem to live pretty close to each other.

Anyway, I used the TetraTest on a sample of Evian and it showed
0.25ppm! Surely there's no ammonia in Evian??!!


On Fri, 2 Sep 2005 20:48:26 -0400, "NetMax"
> wrote:

>"Gill Passman" <gillspamattaylorpassmanspam.co.uk> wrote in message
.. .
>>
>> "Fantastic Derek" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> OK. So I tried all three these evening and now have a majority vote so
>>> to speak. The API and the EasyTest one both said 0 while the TetraTest
>>> said 0.25ppm again. SoI thought I'd try the TetraTest on my tap water
>>> and lo and behold it comes up the same colour! Surely I don't have
>>> ammonia in my tap water, do I?
>>>
>>> On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 17:02:47 +0100, Fantastic Derek <fd@> wrote:
>>>
>>> >No, not really. Apart from the extra effort.:)
>>> >
>>> >I'll try that - I might get to the bottom of the mystery that way
>>> >anyway.
>>> >
>>> >On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 09:05:20 -0500, Rocco Moretti
>>> > wrote:
>>> >
>>> >>Fantastic Derek wrote:
>>> >>> Thanks. I will continue to test. With which kit though?? :)
>>> >>
>>> >>Is there a problem with doing all three? (At least until you get
>>> >>things
>>> >>figured out.)
>>
>> Not in Caversham - I have no ammonia in mine and I guess we are on the
>> same
>> supply...
>>
>> Gill
>
>
>Playing devil's advocate, but I would expect many (most?) municipalities
>to use multiple water sources. For river sources, this is easier for
>distribution through a city, and for well sources, this is prudent as
>their quantity and quality will often vary by season.
>
>As well, the amount of chlorine/chloramine is not constant, as they use
>more of these disinfectants when there is any work being done (adding,
>cleaning or repairing pipes).
>
>As a last point, the concentration can vary according to proximity to the
>municipal treatment centre (closer = higher and with spikes if not
>automated).
>
>I've heard about neighbours across the street from each other having
>different water conditions (unusual, but grids have boundaries as new
>housing developments get added in later years).

[Gill Passman]

Fantastic Derek wrote:
> Hi (sorry for the delay - was away this weekend).
>
> I'm not sure if Gill has the same water supply as myself, although I
> would think so as we do seem to live pretty close to each other.
>
> Anyway, I used the TetraTest on a sample of Evian and it showed
> 0.25ppm! Surely there's no ammonia in Evian??!!
>
>
> On Fri, 2 Sep 2005 20:48:26 -0400, "NetMax"
> > wrote:
>
>
>>"Gill Passman" <gillspamattaylorpassmanspam.co.uk> wrote in message
.. .
>>
>>>"Fantastic Derek" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>>OK. So I tried all three these evening and now have a majority vote so
>>>>to speak. The API and the EasyTest one both said 0 while the TetraTest
>>>>said 0.25ppm again. SoI thought I'd try the TetraTest on my tap water
>>>>and lo and behold it comes up the same colour! Surely I don't have
>>>>ammonia in my tap water, do I?
>>>>
>>>>On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 17:02:47 +0100, Fantastic Derek <fd@> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>No, not really. Apart from the extra effort.:)
>>>>>
>>>>>I'll try that - I might get to the bottom of the mystery that way
>>>>>anyway.
>>>>>
>>>>>On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 09:05:20 -0500, Rocco Moretti
> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Fantastic Derek wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Thanks. I will continue to test. With which kit though?? :)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Is there a problem with doing all three? (At least until you get
>>>>>>things
>>>>>>figured out.)
>>>
>>>Not in Caversham - I have no ammonia in mine and I guess we are on the
>>>same
>>>supply...
>>>
>>>Gill
>>
>>
>>Playing devil's advocate, but I would expect many (most?) municipalities
>>to use multiple water sources. For river sources, this is easier for
>>distribution through a city, and for well sources, this is prudent as
>>their quantity and quality will often vary by season.
>>
>>As well, the amount of chlorine/chloramine is not constant, as they use
>>more of these disinfectants when there is any work being done (adding,
>>cleaning or repairing pipes).
>>
>>As a last point, the concentration can vary according to proximity to the
>>municipal treatment centre (closer = higher and with spikes if not
>>automated).
>>
>>I've heard about neighbours across the street from each other having
>>different water conditions (unusual, but grids have boundaries as new
>>housing developments get added in later years).


I'll test the tap water tomorrow and post the results....if you do the
same (or post the results if you haven't tested already) then we can do
a comparison....I'll test pH, Ammonia, Nitrite and Nitrate

Cheers
Gill

[Fantastic Derek]

Hi Gill

Using my API test kit I've got:

Ammonia 0ppm (0.25ppm from the TetraTest)
Nitrites 0ppm
pH 7.8 (I'd say)
Nitrates 20ppm (I think - it's actually quite difficult with the
colours on the chart)

Let me know what you think.

On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 23:37:12 +0100, Gill Passman
> wrote:

>Fantastic Derek wrote:
>> Hi (sorry for the delay - was away this weekend).
>>
>> I'm not sure if Gill has the same water supply as myself, although I
>> would think so as we do seem to live pretty close to each other.
>>
>> Anyway, I used the TetraTest on a sample of Evian and it showed
>> 0.25ppm! Surely there's no ammonia in Evian??!!
>>
>>
>> On Fri, 2 Sep 2005 20:48:26 -0400, "NetMax"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Gill Passman" <gillspamattaylorpassmanspam.co.uk> wrote in message
.. .
>>>
>>>>"Fantastic Derek" > wrote in message
...
>>>>
>>>>>OK. So I tried all three these evening and now have a majority vote so
>>>>>to speak. The API and the EasyTest one both said 0 while the TetraTest
>>>>>said 0.25ppm again. SoI thought I'd try the TetraTest on my tap water
>>>>>and lo and behold it comes up the same colour! Surely I don't have
>>>>>ammonia in my tap water, do I?
>>>>>
>>>>>On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 17:02:47 +0100, Fantastic Derek <fd@> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>No, not really. Apart from the extra effort.:)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I'll try that - I might get to the bottom of the mystery that way
>>>>>>anyway.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 09:05:20 -0500, Rocco Moretti
> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Fantastic Derek wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Thanks. I will continue to test. With which kit though?? :)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Is there a problem with doing all three? (At least until you get
>>>>>>>things
>>>>>>>figured out.)
>>>>
>>>>Not in Caversham - I have no ammonia in mine and I guess we are on the
>>>>same
>>>>supply...
>>>>
>>>>Gill
>>>
>>>
>>>Playing devil's advocate, but I would expect many (most?) municipalities
>>>to use multiple water sources. For river sources, this is easier for
>>>distribution through a city, and for well sources, this is prudent as
>>>their quantity and quality will often vary by season.
>>>
>>>As well, the amount of chlorine/chloramine is not constant, as they use
>>>more of these disinfectants when there is any work being done (adding,
>>>cleaning or repairing pipes).
>>>
>>>As a last point, the concentration can vary according to proximity to the
>>>municipal treatment centre (closer = higher and with spikes if not
>>>automated).
>>>
>>>I've heard about neighbours across the street from each other having
>>>different water conditions (unusual, but grids have boundaries as new
>>>housing developments get added in later years).
>
>
>I'll test the tap water tomorrow and post the results....if you do the
>same (or post the results if you haven't tested already) then we can do
>a comparison....I'll test pH, Ammonia, Nitrite and Nitrate
>
>Cheers
>Gill

[Fantastic Derek]

Wow. On this, I tested my large tank tonight and something interesting
happened. It was pointed out to me by soemone very sensible that
different water samples taken at the same time can vary, especially if
a fish has just passed through. I'm in the habbit of rinsing my test
tubes through with the tank water. Whenever I stick my hand in the
water all my fish swarm round it to have a nibble/ mooch about. So i
took the sample at this stage and got 0.5ppm which I found very
surprising. And then I thought about what I'd been advised and took
another sample from the middle of the tank away from where the fish
were at that time. Lo and beohld I got a 0ppm reading!

Just goes to show really, they must be constantly craeting waste.
Either that or they wait until I put my hand in before they take a
slash!


On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 23:01:17 +0100, Fantastic Derek >
wrote:

>Hi Gill
>
>Using my API test kit I've got:
>
>Ammonia 0ppm (0.25ppm from the TetraTest)
>Nitrites 0ppm
>pH 7.8 (I'd say)
>Nitrates 20ppm (I think - it's actually quite difficult with the
>colours on the chart)
>
>Let me know what you think.
>
>On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 23:37:12 +0100, Gill Passman
> wrote:
>
>>Fantastic Derek wrote:
>>> Hi (sorry for the delay - was away this weekend).
>>>
>>> I'm not sure if Gill has the same water supply as myself, although I
>>> would think so as we do seem to live pretty close to each other.
>>>
>>> Anyway, I used the TetraTest on a sample of Evian and it showed
>>> 0.25ppm! Surely there's no ammonia in Evian??!!
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, 2 Sep 2005 20:48:26 -0400, "NetMax"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Gill Passman" <gillspamattaylorpassmanspam.co.uk> wrote in message
.. .
>>>>
>>>>>"Fantastic Derek" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>
>>>>>>OK. So I tried all three these evening and now have a majority vote so
>>>>>>to speak. The API and the EasyTest one both said 0 while the TetraTest
>>>>>>said 0.25ppm again. SoI thought I'd try the TetraTest on my tap water
>>>>>>and lo and behold it comes up the same colour! Surely I don't have
>>>>>>ammonia in my tap water, do I?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 17:02:47 +0100, Fantastic Derek <fd@> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>No, not really. Apart from the extra effort.:)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I'll try that - I might get to the bottom of the mystery that way
>>>>>>>anyway.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 09:05:20 -0500, Rocco Moretti
> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Fantastic Derek wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Thanks. I will continue to test. With which kit though?? :)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Is there a problem with doing all three? (At least until you get
>>>>>>>>things
>>>>>>>>figured out.)
>>>>>
>>>>>Not in Caversham - I have no ammonia in mine and I guess we are on the
>>>>>same
>>>>>supply...
>>>>>
>>>>>Gill
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Playing devil's advocate, but I would expect many (most?) municipalities
>>>>to use multiple water sources. For river sources, this is easier for
>>>>distribution through a city, and for well sources, this is prudent as
>>>>their quantity and quality will often vary by season.
>>>>
>>>>As well, the amount of chlorine/chloramine is not constant, as they use
>>>>more of these disinfectants when there is any work being done (adding,
>>>>cleaning or repairing pipes).
>>>>
>>>>As a last point, the concentration can vary according to proximity to the
>>>>municipal treatment centre (closer = higher and with spikes if not
>>>>automated).
>>>>
>>>>I've heard about neighbours across the street from each other having
>>>>different water conditions (unusual, but grids have boundaries as new
>>>>housing developments get added in later years).
>>
>>
>>I'll test the tap water tomorrow and post the results....if you do the
>>same (or post the results if you haven't tested already) then we can do
>>a comparison....I'll test pH, Ammonia, Nitrite and Nitrate
>>
>>Cheers
>>Gill

[Fantastic Derek]

Erm. G Road. If you know it :)

I've defeinitely got a fair amount of nitrates in my water and I think
I've got a higher pH. I'm suer there's no ammonia or nitrites in there
though, which is the main thing.

On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 23:35:09 +0100, Gill Passman
> wrote:

>Fantastic Derek wrote:
>> Wow. On this, I tested my large tank tonight and something interesting
>> happened. It was pointed out to me by soemone very sensible that
>> different water samples taken at the same time can vary, especially if
>> a fish has just passed through. I'm in the habbit of rinsing my test
>> tubes through with the tank water. Whenever I stick my hand in the
>> water all my fish swarm round it to have a nibble/ mooch about. So i
>> took the sample at this stage and got 0.5ppm which I found very
>> surprising. And then I thought about what I'd been advised and took
>> another sample from the middle of the tank away from where the fish
>> were at that time. Lo and beohld I got a 0ppm reading!
>>
>> Just goes to show really, they must be constantly craeting waste.
>> Either that or they wait until I put my hand in before they take a
>> slash!
>>
>>
>> On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 23:01:17 +0100, Fantastic Derek >
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Hi Gill
>>>
>>>Using my API test kit I've got:
>>>
>>>Ammonia 0ppm (0.25ppm from the TetraTest)
>>>Nitrites 0ppm
>>>pH 7.8 (I'd say)
>>>Nitrates 20ppm (I think - it's actually quite difficult with the
>>>colours on the chart)
>>>
>>>Let me know what you think.
>>>
>>>On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 23:37:12 +0100, Gill Passman
> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Fantastic Derek wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Hi (sorry for the delay - was away this weekend).
>>>>>
>>>>>I'm not sure if Gill has the same water supply as myself, although I
>>>>>would think so as we do seem to live pretty close to each other.
>>>>>
>>>>>Anyway, I used the TetraTest on a sample of Evian and it showed
>>>>>0.25ppm! Surely there's no ammonia in Evian??!!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>On Fri, 2 Sep 2005 20:48:26 -0400, "NetMax"
> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>"Gill Passman" <gillspamattaylorpassmanspam.co.uk> wrote in message
.. .
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"Fantastic Derek" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>OK. So I tried all three these evening and now have a majority vote so
>>>>>>>>to speak. The API and the EasyTest one both said 0 while the TetraTest
>>>>>>>>said 0.25ppm again. SoI thought I'd try the TetraTest on my tap water
>>>>>>>>and lo and behold it comes up the same colour! Surely I don't have
>>>>>>>>ammonia in my tap water, do I?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 17:02:47 +0100, Fantastic Derek <fd@> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>No, not really. Apart from the extra effort.:)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>I'll try that - I might get to the bottom of the mystery that way
>>>>>>>>>anyway.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 09:05:20 -0500, Rocco Moretti
> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Fantastic Derek wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Thanks. I will continue to test. With which kit though?? :)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Is there a problem with doing all three? (At least until you get
>>>>>>>>>>things
>>>>>>>>>>figured out.)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Not in Caversham - I have no ammonia in mine and I guess we are on the
>>>>>>>same
>>>>>>>supply...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Gill
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Playing devil's advocate, but I would expect many (most?) municipalities
>>>>>>to use multiple water sources. For river sources, this is easier for
>>>>>>distribution through a city, and for well sources, this is prudent as
>>>>>>their quantity and quality will often vary by season.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>As well, the amount of chlorine/chloramine is not constant, as they use
>>>>>>more of these disinfectants when there is any work being done (adding,
>>>>>>cleaning or repairing pipes).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>As a last point, the concentration can vary according to proximity to the
>>>>>>municipal treatment centre (closer = higher and with spikes if not
>>>>>>automated).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I've heard about neighbours across the street from each other having
>>>>>>different water conditions (unusual, but grids have boundaries as new
>>>>>>housing developments get added in later years).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I'll test the tap water tomorrow and post the results....if you do the
>>>>same (or post the results if you haven't tested already) then we can do
>>>>a comparison....I'll test pH, Ammonia, Nitrite and Nitrate
>>>>
>>>>Cheers
>>>>Gill
>
>
>Ok...using a Nutrafin Test Kit on my tap water I get:-
>
>pH 7.5
>Nitrate 0
>Nitrite 0
>Ammonia 0
>
>I use the pipette to take the water samples from the middle of my
>tanks...and then compare the water colour if there is bogwood prior to
>doing the ammonia testing....
>
>As far as I am aware my water supply comes from the Emmer Green water
>tower (but I might be wrong) I am in H road (the one with the school
>with the dodgy admission policy that has been in the news). I will ask
>my sister-in-law who lives in IM Way to test her tap water which must be
>the same source as yours as you are in Lower Caversham and see if it
>differs significantly from mine - she also uses the same test kit as me
>
>Gill

[Gill Passman]

Fantastic Derek wrote:
> Wow. On this, I tested my large tank tonight and something interesting
> happened. It was pointed out to me by soemone very sensible that
> different water samples taken at the same time can vary, especially if
> a fish has just passed through. I'm in the habbit of rinsing my test
> tubes through with the tank water. Whenever I stick my hand in the
> water all my fish swarm round it to have a nibble/ mooch about. So i
> took the sample at this stage and got 0.5ppm which I found very
> surprising. And then I thought about what I'd been advised and took
> another sample from the middle of the tank away from where the fish
> were at that time. Lo and beohld I got a 0ppm reading!
>
> Just goes to show really, they must be constantly craeting waste.
> Either that or they wait until I put my hand in before they take a
> slash!
>
>
> On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 23:01:17 +0100, Fantastic Derek >
> wrote:
>
>
>>Hi Gill
>>
>>Using my API test kit I've got:
>>
>>Ammonia 0ppm (0.25ppm from the TetraTest)
>>Nitrites 0ppm
>>pH 7.8 (I'd say)
>>Nitrates 20ppm (I think - it's actually quite difficult with the
>>colours on the chart)
>>
>>Let me know what you think.
>>
>>On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 23:37:12 +0100, Gill Passman
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Fantastic Derek wrote:
>>>
>>>>Hi (sorry for the delay - was away this weekend).
>>>>
>>>>I'm not sure if Gill has the same water supply as myself, although I
>>>>would think so as we do seem to live pretty close to each other.
>>>>
>>>>Anyway, I used the TetraTest on a sample of Evian and it showed
>>>>0.25ppm! Surely there's no ammonia in Evian??!!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>On Fri, 2 Sep 2005 20:48:26 -0400, "NetMax"
> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Gill Passman" <gillspamattaylorpassmanspam.co.uk> wrote in message
.. .
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>"Fantastic Derek" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>OK. So I tried all three these evening and now have a majority vote so
>>>>>>>to speak. The API and the EasyTest one both said 0 while the TetraTest
>>>>>>>said 0.25ppm again. SoI thought I'd try the TetraTest on my tap water
>>>>>>>and lo and behold it comes up the same colour! Surely I don't have
>>>>>>>ammonia in my tap water, do I?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 17:02:47 +0100, Fantastic Derek <fd@> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>No, not really. Apart from the extra effort.:)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I'll try that - I might get to the bottom of the mystery that way
>>>>>>>>anyway.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 09:05:20 -0500, Rocco Moretti
> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Fantastic Derek wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Thanks. I will continue to test. With which kit though?? :)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Is there a problem with doing all three? (At least until you get
>>>>>>>>>things
>>>>>>>>>figured out.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Not in Caversham - I have no ammonia in mine and I guess we are on the
>>>>>>same
>>>>>>supply...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Gill
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Playing devil's advocate, but I would expect many (most?) municipalities
>>>>>to use multiple water sources. For river sources, this is easier for
>>>>>distribution through a city, and for well sources, this is prudent as
>>>>>their quantity and quality will often vary by season.
>>>>>
>>>>>As well, the amount of chlorine/chloramine is not constant, as they use
>>>>>more of these disinfectants when there is any work being done (adding,
>>>>>cleaning or repairing pipes).
>>>>>
>>>>>As a last point, the concentration can vary according to proximity to the
>>>>>municipal treatment centre (closer = higher and with spikes if not
>>>>>automated).
>>>>>
>>>>>I've heard about neighbours across the street from each other having
>>>>>different water conditions (unusual, but grids have boundaries as new
>>>>>housing developments get added in later years).
>>>
>>>
>>>I'll test the tap water tomorrow and post the results....if you do the
>>>same (or post the results if you haven't tested already) then we can do
>>>a comparison....I'll test pH, Ammonia, Nitrite and Nitrate
>>>
>>>Cheers
>>>Gill


Ok...using a Nutrafin Test Kit on my tap water I get:-

pH 7.5
Nitrate 0
Nitrite 0
Ammonia 0

I use the pipette to take the water samples from the middle of my
tanks...and then compare the water colour if there is bogwood prior to
doing the ammonia testing....

As far as I am aware my water supply comes from the Emmer Green water
tower (but I might be wrong) I am in H road (the one with the school
with the dodgy admission policy that has been in the news). I will ask
my sister-in-law who lives in IM Way to test her tap water which must be
the same source as yours as you are in Lower Caversham and see if it
differs significantly from mine - she also uses the same test kit as me

Gill

[Gill Passman]

Fantastic Derek wrote:
> Erm. G Road. If you know it :)
>
> I've defeinitely got a fair amount of nitrates in my water and I think
> I've got a higher pH. I'm suer there's no ammonia or nitrites in there
> though, which is the main thing.
>
> On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 23:35:09 +0100, Gill Passman
> > wrote:
>
>
>>Fantastic Derek wrote:
>>
>>>Wow. On this, I tested my large tank tonight and something interesting
>>>happened. It was pointed out to me by soemone very sensible that
>>>different water samples taken at the same time can vary, especially if
>>>a fish has just passed through. I'm in the habbit of rinsing my test
>>>tubes through with the tank water. Whenever I stick my hand in the
>>>water all my fish swarm round it to have a nibble/ mooch about. So i
>>>took the sample at this stage and got 0.5ppm which I found very
>>>surprising. And then I thought about what I'd been advised and took
>>>another sample from the middle of the tank away from where the fish
>>>were at that time. Lo and beohld I got a 0ppm reading!
>>>
>>>Just goes to show really, they must be constantly craeting waste.
>>>Either that or they wait until I put my hand in before they take a
>>>slash!
>>>
>>>
>>>On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 23:01:17 +0100, Fantastic Derek >
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Hi Gill
>>>>
>>>>Using my API test kit I've got:
>>>>
>>>>Ammonia 0ppm (0.25ppm from the TetraTest)
>>>>Nitrites 0ppm
>>>>pH 7.8 (I'd say)
>>>>Nitrates 20ppm (I think - it's actually quite difficult with the
>>>>colours on the chart)
>>>>
>>>>Let me know what you think.
>>>>
>>>>On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 23:37:12 +0100, Gill Passman
> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Fantastic Derek wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Hi (sorry for the delay - was away this weekend).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I'm not sure if Gill has the same water supply as myself, although I
>>>>>>would think so as we do seem to live pretty close to each other.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Anyway, I used the TetraTest on a sample of Evian and it showed
>>>>>>0.25ppm! Surely there's no ammonia in Evian??!!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>On Fri, 2 Sep 2005 20:48:26 -0400, "NetMax"
> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"Gill Passman" <gillspamattaylorpassmanspam.co.uk> wrote in message
.. .
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"Fantastic Derek" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>OK. So I tried all three these evening and now have a majority vote so
>>>>>>>>>to speak. The API and the EasyTest one both said 0 while the TetraTest
>>>>>>>>>said 0.25ppm again. SoI thought I'd try the TetraTest on my tap water
>>>>>>>>>and lo and behold it comes up the same colour! Surely I don't have
>>>>>>>>>ammonia in my tap water, do I?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 17:02:47 +0100, Fantastic Derek <fd@> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>No, not really. Apart from the extra effort.:)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>I'll try that - I might get to the bottom of the mystery that way
>>>>>>>>>>anyway.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 09:05:20 -0500, Rocco Moretti
> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Fantastic Derek wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Thanks. I will continue to test. With which kit though?? :)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Is there a problem with doing all three? (At least until you get
>>>>>>>>>>>things
>>>>>>>>>>>figured out.)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Not in Caversham - I have no ammonia in mine and I guess we are on the
>>>>>>>>same
>>>>>>>>supply...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Gill
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Playing devil's advocate, but I would expect many (most?) municipalities
>>>>>>>to use multiple water sources. For river sources, this is easier for
>>>>>>>distribution through a city, and for well sources, this is prudent as
>>>>>>>their quantity and quality will often vary by season.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>As well, the amount of chlorine/chloramine is not constant, as they use
>>>>>>>more of these disinfectants when there is any work being done (adding,
>>>>>>>cleaning or repairing pipes).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>As a last point, the concentration can vary according to proximity to the
>>>>>>>municipal treatment centre (closer = higher and with spikes if not
>>>>>>>automated).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I've heard about neighbours across the street from each other having
>>>>>>>different water conditions (unusual, but grids have boundaries as new
>>>>>>>housing developments get added in later years).
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I'll test the tap water tomorrow and post the results....if you do the
>>>>>same (or post the results if you haven't tested already) then we can do
>>>>>a comparison....I'll test pH, Ammonia, Nitrite and Nitrate
>>>>>
>>>>>Cheers
>>>>>Gill
>>
>>
>>Ok...using a Nutrafin Test Kit on my tap water I get:-
>>
>>pH 7.5
>>Nitrate 0
>>Nitrite 0
>>Ammonia 0
>>
>>I use the pipette to take the water samples from the middle of my
>>tanks...and then compare the water colour if there is bogwood prior to
>>doing the ammonia testing....
>>
>>As far as I am aware my water supply comes from the Emmer Green water
>>tower (but I might be wrong) I am in H road (the one with the school
>>with the dodgy admission policy that has been in the news). I will ask
>>my sister-in-law who lives in IM Way to test her tap water which must be
>>the same source as yours as you are in Lower Caversham and see if it
>>differs significantly from mine - she also uses the same test kit as me
>>
>>Gill

Ok...I take it you mean G Road going through Lower Cav. IM Way will be
the same as your water supply being a few hundred yards so I'll ask the
sister-in-law to check hers - although I am suprised that it differs
from mine being such a small area. I'll get the sister in law to do the
tests as well. BTW used to live on St John's Rd so know G Rd very well...:-)

gill


BTW for the benefit of everyone else Caversham is a small suburb of
Reading, UK - it is only a few miles in size although quite distinct
areas...it would take me 5 mins max to walk to Derek's house. Possibly
our water supply is slightly different however my sister-in-law is less
than a minute or two walk away so that might be a better comparison

[Daniel Morrow]

Mid posted.


"Fantastic Derek" > wrote in message
...
> Wow. On this, I tested my large tank tonight and something interesting
> happened. It was pointed out to me by soemone very sensible that
> different water samples taken at the same time can vary, especially if
> a fish has just passed through. I'm in the habbit of rinsing my test
> tubes through with the tank water.

Just in case I thought I would say that no none should ever get any of the
testing chemicals in the tank water, not sure if you meant you did but be
sure not to get any of those chemicals in your tanks such as by submersing
the test tubes into the tanks water. Good luck and later!

Whenever I stick my hand in the
> water all my fish swarm round it to have a nibble/ mooch about. So i
> took the sample at this stage and got 0.5ppm which I found very
> surprising. And then I thought about what I'd been advised and took
> another sample from the middle of the tank away from where the fish
> were at that time. Lo and beohld I got a 0ppm reading!
>
> Just goes to show really, they must be constantly craeting waste.
> Either that or they wait until I put my hand in before they take a
> slash!
>
>

[Fantastic Derek]

No - I see why you ask though. The test tubes are completely clean
when I put them in, but the instructions tell me to re-rinse them in
tank water to be sure of the results.

Thanks for making sure though.


On Thu, 8 Sep 2005 23:15:17 -0700, "Daniel Morrow"
> wrote:

>Mid posted.
>
>
>"Fantastic Derek" > wrote in message
...
>> Wow. On this, I tested my large tank tonight and something interesting
>> happened. It was pointed out to me by soemone very sensible that
>> different water samples taken at the same time can vary, especially if
>> a fish has just passed through. I'm in the habbit of rinsing my test
>> tubes through with the tank water.
>
>Just in case I thought I would say that no none should ever get any of the
>testing chemicals in the tank water, not sure if you meant you did but be
>sure not to get any of those chemicals in your tanks such as by submersing
>the test tubes into the tanks water. Good luck and later!
>
>Whenever I stick my hand in the
>> water all my fish swarm round it to have a nibble/ mooch about. So i
>> took the sample at this stage and got 0.5ppm which I found very
>> surprising. And then I thought about what I'd been advised and took
>> another sample from the middle of the tank away from where the fish
>> were at that time. Lo and beohld I got a 0ppm reading!
>>
>> Just goes to show really, they must be constantly craeting waste.
>> Either that or they wait until I put my hand in before they take a
>> slash!
>>
>>
>

[Gill Passman]

Gill Passman wrote:
> Fantastic Derek wrote:
>
>> Erm. G Road. If you know it :)
>>
>> I've defeinitely got a fair amount of nitrates in my water and I think
>> I've got a higher pH. I'm suer there's no ammonia or nitrites in there
>> though, which is the main thing.
>> On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 23:35:09 +0100, Gill Passman
>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Fantastic Derek wrote:
>>>
>>>> Wow. On this, I tested my large tank tonight and something interesting
>>>> happened. It was pointed out to me by soemone very sensible that
>>>> different water samples taken at the same time can vary, especially if
>>>> a fish has just passed through. I'm in the habbit of rinsing my test
>>>> tubes through with the tank water. Whenever I stick my hand in the
>>>> water all my fish swarm round it to have a nibble/ mooch about. So i
>>>> took the sample at this stage and got 0.5ppm which I found very
>>>> surprising. And then I thought about what I'd been advised and took
>>>> another sample from the middle of the tank away from where the fish
>>>> were at that time. Lo and beohld I got a 0ppm reading!
>>>>
>>>> Just goes to show really, they must be constantly craeting waste.
>>>> Either that or they wait until I put my hand in before they take a
>>>> slash!
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 23:01:17 +0100, Fantastic Derek >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Gill
>>>>>
>>>>> Using my API test kit I've got:
>>>>>
>>>>> Ammonia 0ppm (0.25ppm from the TetraTest)
>>>>> Nitrites 0ppm
>>>>> pH 7.8 (I'd say)
>>>>> Nitrates 20ppm (I think - it's actually quite difficult with the
>>>>> colours on the chart)
>>>>>
>>>>> Let me know what you think.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 23:37:12 +0100, Gill Passman
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Fantastic Derek wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi (sorry for the delay - was away this weekend).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm not sure if Gill has the same water supply as myself, although I
>>>>>>> would think so as we do seem to live pretty close to each other.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Anyway, I used the TetraTest on a sample of Evian and it showed
>>>>>>> 0.25ppm! Surely there's no ammonia in Evian??!!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, 2 Sep 2005 20:48:26 -0400, "NetMax"
>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Gill Passman" <gillspamattaylorpassmanspam.co.uk> wrote in
>>>>>>>> message .. .
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Fantastic Derek" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> OK. So I tried all three these evening and now have a majority
>>>>>>>>>> vote so
>>>>>>>>>> to speak. The API and the EasyTest one both said 0 while the
>>>>>>>>>> TetraTest
>>>>>>>>>> said 0.25ppm again. SoI thought I'd try the TetraTest on my
>>>>>>>>>> tap water
>>>>>>>>>> and lo and behold it comes up the same colour! Surely I don't
>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>> ammonia in my tap water, do I?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 17:02:47 +0100, Fantastic Derek <fd@> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> No, not really. Apart from the extra effort.:)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I'll try that - I might get to the bottom of the mystery that
>>>>>>>>>>> way
>>>>>>>>>>> anyway.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 09:05:20 -0500, Rocco Moretti
>>>>>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Fantastic Derek wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks. I will continue to test. With which kit though?? :)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Is there a problem with doing all three? (At least until you
>>>>>>>>>>>> get things
>>>>>>>>>>>> figured out.)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Not in Caversham - I have no ammonia in mine and I guess we are
>>>>>>>>> on the same
>>>>>>>>> supply...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Gill
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Playing devil's advocate, but I would expect many (most?)
>>>>>>>> municipalities to use multiple water sources. For river
>>>>>>>> sources, this is easier for distribution through a city, and for
>>>>>>>> well sources, this is prudent as their quantity and quality will
>>>>>>>> often vary by season.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As well, the amount of chlorine/chloramine is not constant, as
>>>>>>>> they use more of these disinfectants when there is any work
>>>>>>>> being done (adding, cleaning or repairing pipes).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As a last point, the concentration can vary according to
>>>>>>>> proximity to the municipal treatment centre (closer = higher and
>>>>>>>> with spikes if not automated).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I've heard about neighbours across the street from each other
>>>>>>>> having different water conditions (unusual, but grids have
>>>>>>>> boundaries as new housing developments get added in later years).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'll test the tap water tomorrow and post the results....if you do
>>>>>> the same (or post the results if you haven't tested already) then
>>>>>> we can do a comparison....I'll test pH, Ammonia, Nitrite and Nitrate
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers
>>>>>> Gill
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Ok...using a Nutrafin Test Kit on my tap water I get:-
>>>
>>> pH 7.5
>>> Nitrate 0
>>> Nitrite 0
>>> Ammonia 0
>>>
>>> I use the pipette to take the water samples from the middle of my
>>> tanks...and then compare the water colour if there is bogwood prior
>>> to doing the ammonia testing....
>>>
>>> As far as I am aware my water supply comes from the Emmer Green water
>>> tower (but I might be wrong) I am in H road (the one with the school
>>> with the dodgy admission policy that has been in the news). I will
>>> ask my sister-in-law who lives in IM Way to test her tap water which
>>> must be the same source as yours as you are in Lower Caversham and
>>> see if it differs significantly from mine - she also uses the same
>>> test kit as me
>>>
>>> Gill
>
>
> Ok...I take it you mean G Road going through Lower Cav. IM Way will be
> the same as your water supply being a few hundred yards so I'll ask the
> sister-in-law to check hers - although I am suprised that it differs
> from mine being such a small area. I'll get the sister in law to do the
> tests as well. BTW used to live on St John's Rd so know G Rd very
> well...:-)
>
> gill
>
>
> BTW for the benefit of everyone else Caversham is a small suburb of
> Reading, UK - it is only a few miles in size although quite distinct
> areas...it would take me 5 mins max to walk to Derek's house. Possibly
> our water supply is slightly different however my sister-in-law is less
> than a minute or two walk away so that might be a better comparison


Got the test results from IM way....Nitrites, Nitrates and Ammonia all
zero - no pH test done.....so, hmmm, I would say IM way is the same
supply as G Road even if I'm not so it looks like there is something
strange going on with your water or your test kits. Short of checking
your neighbour's water I'm not sure what other comparisons we can do.
So I'm just curious as to what might cause the nitrates in your water
other than the piping being older than that in IM way or here....

Gill

BTW how are your Rams doing? Henley have got a whole new batch in...been
gazing longingly at them today - if yours do OK in our water I might
just be tempted in a week or two :-)

[Fantastic Derek]

Both of my neighbours are on the same stopcock as me so I am not sure
testing their water would achieve much. I might ask though. I think
I'll see if I can pick up another nitrate test kit at some point this
week.

The rams are doing fine - much better aside from one of the males was
dominant and hassling the other one so I took him back (the dominant
one as my wife felt sorry for the other one) and swapped him for a
female. The only thing is the female she wanted was one of those gold
ones so now we have two completely different rams!






On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 20:49:52 +0100, Gill Passman
> wrote:

>Gill Passman wrote:
>> Fantastic Derek wrote:
>>
>>> Erm. G Road. If you know it :)
>>>
>>> I've defeinitely got a fair amount of nitrates in my water and I think
>>> I've got a higher pH. I'm suer there's no ammonia or nitrites in there
>>> though, which is the main thing.
>>> On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 23:35:09 +0100, Gill Passman
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Fantastic Derek wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Wow. On this, I tested my large tank tonight and something interesting
>>>>> happened. It was pointed out to me by soemone very sensible that
>>>>> different water samples taken at the same time can vary, especially if
>>>>> a fish has just passed through. I'm in the habbit of rinsing my test
>>>>> tubes through with the tank water. Whenever I stick my hand in the
>>>>> water all my fish swarm round it to have a nibble/ mooch about. So i
>>>>> took the sample at this stage and got 0.5ppm which I found very
>>>>> surprising. And then I thought about what I'd been advised and took
>>>>> another sample from the middle of the tank away from where the fish
>>>>> were at that time. Lo and beohld I got a 0ppm reading!
>>>>>
>>>>> Just goes to show really, they must be constantly craeting waste.
>>>>> Either that or they wait until I put my hand in before they take a
>>>>> slash!
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 23:01:17 +0100, Fantastic Derek >
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Gill
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Using my API test kit I've got:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ammonia 0ppm (0.25ppm from the TetraTest)
>>>>>> Nitrites 0ppm
>>>>>> pH 7.8 (I'd say)
>>>>>> Nitrates 20ppm (I think - it's actually quite difficult with the
>>>>>> colours on the chart)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Let me know what you think.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 23:37:12 +0100, Gill Passman
>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Fantastic Derek wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi (sorry for the delay - was away this weekend).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm not sure if Gill has the same water supply as myself, although I
>>>>>>>> would think so as we do seem to live pretty close to each other.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Anyway, I used the TetraTest on a sample of Evian and it showed
>>>>>>>> 0.25ppm! Surely there's no ammonia in Evian??!!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Fri, 2 Sep 2005 20:48:26 -0400, "NetMax"
>>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Gill Passman" <gillspamattaylorpassmanspam.co.uk> wrote in
>>>>>>>>> message .. .
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "Fantastic Derek" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> OK. So I tried all three these evening and now have a majority
>>>>>>>>>>> vote so
>>>>>>>>>>> to speak. The API and the EasyTest one both said 0 while the
>>>>>>>>>>> TetraTest
>>>>>>>>>>> said 0.25ppm again. SoI thought I'd try the TetraTest on my
>>>>>>>>>>> tap water
>>>>>>>>>>> and lo and behold it comes up the same colour! Surely I don't
>>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>> ammonia in my tap water, do I?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 17:02:47 +0100, Fantastic Derek <fd@> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> No, not really. Apart from the extra effort.:)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I'll try that - I might get to the bottom of the mystery that
>>>>>>>>>>>> way
>>>>>>>>>>>> anyway.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 09:05:20 -0500, Rocco Moretti
>>>>>>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Fantastic Derek wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks. I will continue to test. With which kit though?? :)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is there a problem with doing all three? (At least until you
>>>>>>>>>>>>> get things
>>>>>>>>>>>>> figured out.)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Not in Caversham - I have no ammonia in mine and I guess we are
>>>>>>>>>> on the same
>>>>>>>>>> supply...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Gill
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Playing devil's advocate, but I would expect many (most?)
>>>>>>>>> municipalities to use multiple water sources. For river
>>>>>>>>> sources, this is easier for distribution through a city, and for
>>>>>>>>> well sources, this is prudent as their quantity and quality will
>>>>>>>>> often vary by season.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> As well, the amount of chlorine/chloramine is not constant, as
>>>>>>>>> they use more of these disinfectants when there is any work
>>>>>>>>> being done (adding, cleaning or repairing pipes).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> As a last point, the concentration can vary according to
>>>>>>>>> proximity to the municipal treatment centre (closer = higher and
>>>>>>>>> with spikes if not automated).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I've heard about neighbours across the street from each other
>>>>>>>>> having different water conditions (unusual, but grids have
>>>>>>>>> boundaries as new housing developments get added in later years).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'll test the tap water tomorrow and post the results....if you do
>>>>>>> the same (or post the results if you haven't tested already) then
>>>>>>> we can do a comparison....I'll test pH, Ammonia, Nitrite and Nitrate
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cheers
>>>>>>> Gill
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ok...using a Nutrafin Test Kit on my tap water I get:-
>>>>
>>>> pH 7.5
>>>> Nitrate 0
>>>> Nitrite 0
>>>> Ammonia 0
>>>>
>>>> I use the pipette to take the water samples from the middle of my
>>>> tanks...and then compare the water colour if there is bogwood prior
>>>> to doing the ammonia testing....
>>>>
>>>> As far as I am aware my water supply comes from the Emmer Green water
>>>> tower (but I might be wrong) I am in H road (the one with the school
>>>> with the dodgy admission policy that has been in the news). I will
>>>> ask my sister-in-law who lives in IM Way to test her tap water which
>>>> must be the same source as yours as you are in Lower Caversham and
>>>> see if it differs significantly from mine - she also uses the same
>>>> test kit as me
>>>>
>>>> Gill
>>
>>
>> Ok...I take it you mean G Road going through Lower Cav. IM Way will be
>> the same as your water supply being a few hundred yards so I'll ask the
>> sister-in-law to check hers - although I am suprised that it differs
>> from mine being such a small area. I'll get the sister in law to do the
>> tests as well. BTW used to live on St John's Rd so know G Rd very
>> well...:-)
>>
>> gill
>>
>>
>> BTW for the benefit of everyone else Caversham is a small suburb of
>> Reading, UK - it is only a few miles in size although quite distinct
>> areas...it would take me 5 mins max to walk to Derek's house. Possibly
>> our water supply is slightly different however my sister-in-law is less
>> than a minute or two walk away so that might be a better comparison
>
>
>Got the test results from IM way....Nitrites, Nitrates and Ammonia all
>zero - no pH test done.....so, hmmm, I would say IM way is the same
>supply as G Road even if I'm not so it looks like there is something
>strange going on with your water or your test kits. Short of checking
>your neighbour's water I'm not sure what other comparisons we can do.
>So I'm just curious as to what might cause the nitrates in your water
>other than the piping being older than that in IM way or here....
>
>Gill
>
>BTW how are your Rams doing? Henley have got a whole new batch in...been
>gazing longingly at them today - if yours do OK in our water I might
>just be tempted in a week or two :-)
>