Cycle sped up by heat?

[RedForeman ©®]

Setting up the new 55g, I filled it, put in heater, connected canister
filter with stock media, let it run for a few days to clear the flourite
cloud. When it was clear, I continued to stir up the bottom a bit to keep
it from worsening later... 5 days later, heater was tested, turned on,
raised the temp up to 70F, let it for a few days, then I started to seed it.
I took the filter media from several other tanks and 'cleaned' them in the
water, making it very murky for a day... next I turned up the heater a
couple degrees each day... After 5 days, the tank was HOT.. it as 84, and I
turned it back down now that it had passed it's test... so to speak.

After the tank returned to 70-72F, I did a water test, with these parameters
pH 7.0 dead on
Ammonia - 0
Nitrite - 0
gH - 4
kH - 2

No lights, no fish, nothing.... a total of 13 days. from the time I seeded
it, to the time I tested it... I think I'm cycled... I want to be cycled...
but I don't want to put any fish in until I KNOW.... I've done this once
before, but it was a 10g, and it took 12 days.... Can I be done already? Did
the heat push the cycle ahead full steam???

--
RedForeman ©®
....Red (head hung low) Foreman

[Paul]

RedForeman ©® wrote in message >...
>Setting up the new 55g, I filled it, put in heater, connected canister
>filter with stock media, let it run for a few days to clear the flourite
>cloud. When it was clear, I continued to stir up the bottom a bit to keep
>it from worsening later... 5 days later, heater was tested, turned on,
>raised the temp up to 70F, let it for a few days, then I started to seed
it.
>I took the filter media from several other tanks and 'cleaned' them in the
>water, making it very murky for a day... next I turned up the heater a
>couple degrees each day... After 5 days, the tank was HOT.. it as 84, and I
>turned it back down now that it had passed it's test... so to speak.
>
>After the tank returned to 70-72F, I did a water test, with these
parameters
>pH 7.0 dead on
>Ammonia - 0
>Nitrite - 0
>gH - 4
>kH - 2
>
>No lights, no fish, nothing.... a total of 13 days. from the time I seeded
>it, to the time I tested it... I think I'm cycled... I want to be
cycled...
>but I don't want to put any fish in until I KNOW.... I've done this once
>before, but it was a 10g, and it took 12 days.... Can I be done already?
Did
>the heat push the cycle ahead full steam???
>
am I missing something something here Red? you didn't mention that you
added any source of ammonia.. how can your tank cycle if it doesn't have
anything to cycle with?

[Eric Schreiber]

"RedForeman ©®" > wrote:

>Did the heat push the cycle ahead full steam???

Heat will help speed a cycle. When I did fishless cycling, I actually
ran the tank temp at about 90F.

However, I think in your case the reason you're seeing zero ammonia is
that you haven't ever had any ammonia in the tank. A tank is cycled
when it has an established population of bacteria. You've added
bacteria with the material from other tanks, but unless it's had
ammonia to process, it isn't established.


--
www.ericschreiber.com

[ThangFish]

Paul wrote:

> am I missing something something here Red? you didn't mention that
> you added any source of ammonia.. how can your tank cycle if it
> doesn't have anything to cycle with?

I caught that too, but thought that he *surely* just neglected to mention
it.

--
TF

Put my handle in front of the domain name to email.

[Eric Schreiber]

"ThangFish" > wrote:

>I caught that too, but thought that he *surely* just neglected to mention
>it.

I hope so - Red surely ain't no newbie :)


--
www.ericschreiber.com

[NetMax]

"Eric Schreiber" > wrote in message
...
> "RedForeman ©®" > wrote:
>
> >Did the heat push the cycle ahead full steam???
>
> Heat will help speed a cycle. When I did fishless cycling, I actually
> ran the tank temp at about 90F.
>
> However, I think in your case the reason you're seeing zero ammonia is
> that you haven't ever had any ammonia in the tank. A tank is cycled
> when it has an established population of bacteria. You've added
> bacteria with the material from other tanks, but unless it's had
> ammonia to process, it isn't established.
>
>
> --
> www.ericschreiber.com

Notwithstanding the source of ammonia, I picked this off a site on the
reproduction of nitrifying bacteria:

optimum growth: 77-86F
growth decreases by 50% @ 64F
growth decreased by 75% @ 46-50F
no activity at 39F
death at <32F or >120F

Note that there are many species (?) of bacteria, so it would stand to
reason that the type which reproduces the most in your tank will be to
match your parameters, so if your cycling parameters are very different
from your normal parameters, you might have a die-off as the bacteria
adjust themselves.. at least in theory ;~)

As an example, I wouldn't cycle at above 90F, as it would promote a
higher temperature-tolerant bacteria, who might not prefer your normal
77F.

NetMax

[RedForeman ©®]

Paul > typed:
> RedForeman ©® wrote in message
>> Setting up the new 55g, I filled it, put in heater, connected
>> canister filter with stock media, let it run for a few days to clear
>> the flourite cloud. When it was clear, I continued to stir up the
>> bottom a bit to keep it from worsening later... 5 days later, heater
>> was tested, turned on, raised the temp up to 70F, let it for a few
>> days, then I started to seed it. I took the filter media from
>> several other tanks and 'cleaned' them in the water, making it very
>> murky for a day... next I turned up the heater a couple degrees each
>> day... After 5 days, the tank was HOT.. it as 84, and I turned it
>> back down now that it had passed it's test... so to speak.
>>
>> After the tank returned to 70-72F, I did a water test, with these
>> parameters pH 7.0 dead on
>> Ammonia - 0
>> Nitrite - 0
>> gH - 4
>> kH - 2
>>
>> No lights, no fish, nothing.... a total of 13 days. from the time I
>> seeded it, to the time I tested it... I think I'm cycled... I want
>> to be cycled... but I don't want to put any fish in until I KNOW....
>> I've done this once before, but it was a 10g, and it took 12
>> days.... Can I be done already? Did the heat push the cycle ahead
>> full steam???
>>
> am I missing something something here Red? you didn't mention that
> you added any source of ammonia.. how can your tank cycle if it
> doesn't have anything to cycle with?

I promise, I'm as much of a newbie as any of you... I'm only learning...
Every day you guys teach me something, and once in a while I get to help
someone else, that's all...

Well, I actually was trying a non-ammonia, fishless cycling, using filter
cartridges alone, which has worked in the past.... but on a much smaller
scale....10g

All I read about the fishless ammonia cycling just freaks me out... the idea
of using ammonia, albeit proven time and time again, just freaks me out,
thus, I'm using established tanks, filter cartridges, and some waste water
from a 29g where those residents will eventually reside in the new 55g...

--
RedForeman ©®
....Red (head hung low) Foreman

[RedForeman ©®]

NetMax > typed:
> "Eric Schreiber" > wrote in message
>> "RedForeman ©®" > wrote:
>>
>>> Did the heat push the cycle ahead full steam???
>>
>> Heat will help speed a cycle. When I did fishless cycling, I actually
>> ran the tank temp at about 90F.
>>
>> However, I think in your case the reason you're seeing zero ammonia
>> is that you haven't ever had any ammonia in the tank. A tank is
>> cycled when it has an established population of bacteria. You've
>> added bacteria with the material from other tanks, but unless it's
>> had ammonia to process, it isn't established.

Ok, so if in a couple days, my seedings don't show any ammonia, I'll pull up
the info and start that process... I was hoping my gunked up cartridges
would dump enough 'stuff' that it would get a jumpstart, I'll recheck the
readings tonite...

> Notwithstanding the source of ammonia, I picked this off a site on the
> reproduction of nitrifying bacteria:
>
> optimum growth: 77-86F
> growth decreases by 50% @ 64F
> growth decreased by 75% @ 46-50F
> no activity at 39F
> death at <32F or >120F
>
> Note that there are many species (?) of bacteria, so it would stand to
> reason that the type which reproduces the most in your tank will be to
> match your parameters, so if your cycling parameters are very
> different from your normal parameters, you might have a die-off as
> the bacteria adjust themselves.. at least in theory ;~)
>
> As an example, I wouldn't cycle at above 90F, as it would promote a
> higher temperature-tolerant bacteria, who might not prefer your normal
> 77F.
>
> NetMax

Another good point to be noted... cycle at the temp the tank will run, not a
bad idea....

--
RedForeman ©®
....Red (head hung low) Foreman

[Eric Schreiber]

"NetMax" > wrote:

>Note that there are many species (?) of bacteria, so it would stand to
>reason that the type which reproduces the most in your tank will be to
>match your parameters, so if your cycling parameters are very different
>from your normal parameters, you might have a die-off as the bacteria
>adjust themselves.. at least in theory ;~)

I certainly didn't do enough research on the subject (nor enough
critical thinking), but I was impatient. It was all I could stand just
to do fishless cycling - what I really wanted was to put way too many
fish in the tank immediately.

Patience has never been my strong suit.

--
www.ericschreiber.com

[Eric Schreiber]

"RedForeman ©®" > wrote:

>All I read about the fishless ammonia cycling just freaks me out... the idea
>of using ammonia, albeit proven time and time again, just freaks me out,

The only part that worried me was finding clear ammonia without any
additives, which was more difficult than I would have guessed. But
I've got enough now to last the rest of my life.


--
www.ericschreiber.com

[RedForeman ©®]

"Eric Schreiber" > wrote in message
> "RedForeman ©®" > wrote:
>
> >All I read about the fishless ammonia cycling just freaks me out... the
idea
> >of using ammonia, albeit proven time and time again, just freaks me out,
>
> The only part that worried me was finding clear ammonia without any
> additives, which was more difficult than I would have guessed. But
> I've got enough now to last the rest of my life.


I found some, that has some agents in it.... I passed on it... I'll look
more for pure ammonia

--
RedForeman ©®
....Red (head hung low) Foreman

[ThangFish]

RedForeman ©® wrote:
>
> Ok, so if in a couple days, my seedings don't show any ammonia, I'll
> pull up the info and start that process... I was hoping my gunked up
> cartridges would dump enough 'stuff' that it would get a jumpstart,
> I'll recheck the readings tonite...
>

Ok, so now I see that you didn't just neglect to mention it...

So, if you don't mind, just what is your source of ammonia?

You seed the tank using old filter material from an established tank, that
should contain the bacteria you want, but without an ammonia source for the
bacteria to "eat", they start to die off. You need ammonia from either fish
waste,
decomposing food, or just by adding ammonia.

--
TF

Put my handle in front of the domain name to email.

[RedForeman ©®]

"ThangFish" > wrote in message
...
> RedForeman ©® wrote:
> >
> > Ok, so if in a couple days, my seedings don't show any ammonia, I'll
> > pull up the info and start that process... I was hoping my gunked up
> > cartridges would dump enough 'stuff' that it would get a jumpstart,
> > I'll recheck the readings tonite...
>
> Ok, so now I see that you didn't just neglect to mention it...
>
> So, if you don't mind, just what is your source of ammonia?
>
> You seed the tank using old filter material from an established tank, that
> should contain the bacteria you want, but without an ammonia source for
the
> bacteria to "eat", they start to die off. You need ammonia from either
fish
> waste,
> decomposing food, or just by adding ammonia.

After seeding it, I did add waste water from other tanks, including the
pl*co strings, some uneaten food, and another filter media... I was hoping
that would be enough.... I've done it on smaller tanks, but nothing as big
as a 55g...

If all else fails, the cories will come out in a day or so, and I'll add
the ammonia...

[NetMax]

"Eric Schreiber" > wrote in message
...
> "NetMax" > wrote:
>
> >Note that there are many species (?) of bacteria, so it would stand to
> >reason that the type which reproduces the most in your tank will be to
> >match your parameters, so if your cycling parameters are very
different
> >from your normal parameters, you might have a die-off as the bacteria
> >adjust themselves.. at least in theory ;~)
>
> I certainly didn't do enough research on the subject (nor enough
> critical thinking), but I was impatient. It was all I could stand just
> to do fishless cycling - what I really wanted was to put way too many
> fish in the tank immediately.
>
> Patience has never been my strong suit.
>
> --
> www.ericschreiber.com

I know what you mean. I have no patience for fishless cycling tanks.
The last fishless cycle I did was on a 'filter' rather than the tank. I
was building a tank into a wall (60g), so when I thought I was about 4
weeks from completion, I set-up a 20g in the basement, dumped ammonia in
it, and connected one of the canister filters I was going to use for the
60g. After a month, I just moved the filter upstairs. I hate looking at
an empty aquarium, it's like a framed blank canvas.

NetMax

[ThangFish]

NetMax wrote:

> I know what you mean. I have no patience for fishless cycling tanks.
> The last fishless cycle I did was on a 'filter' rather than the tank.
> I was building a tank into a wall (60g), so when I thought I was
> about 4 weeks from completion, I set-up a 20g in the basement, dumped
> ammonia in it, and connected one of the canister filters I was going
> to use for the 60g. After a month, I just moved the filter upstairs.
> I hate looking at an empty aquarium, it's like a framed blank canvas.
>
> NetMax

Where do you guys get the ammonia? All the cheap stuff I can find around
here
has surfactants and/or scent added. Even the REAL cheap stuff.

Someone here mentioned that they used ammonium bicarbonate... never heard of
it.
I looked it up and it seems to be a somewhat obsolete leavening agent for
cookies.
So obsolete, in fact, that it appears to be free from
http://advance-scientific.com/clearance.htm
I haven't called them yet, but I bet it would be enough to supply *several*
lifetime's worth.


--
TF

Put my handle in front of the domain name to email.

[Eric Schreiber]

"ThangFish" > wrote:

>Where do you guys get the ammonia? All the cheap stuff I can find around
>here has surfactants and/or scent added. Even the REAL cheap stuff.

It is hard to find the unsullied variety, no doubt. I went to several
local grocery stores to find my bottle.


--
www.ericschreiber.com

[kev]

On 18 Feb 2004, the world was enlightened by ThangFish's opinion
about...

> NetMax wrote:
>
>> I know what you mean. I have no patience for fishless cycling
tanks.
>> The last fishless cycle I did was on a 'filter' rather than
the tank.
>> I was building a tank into a wall (60g), so when I thought I
was
>> about 4 weeks from completion, I set-up a 20g in the basement,
dumped
>> ammonia in it, and connected one of the canister filters I was
going
>> to use for the 60g. After a month, I just moved the filter
upstairs.
>> I hate looking at an empty aquarium, it's like a framed blank
canvas.
>>
>> NetMax
>
> Where do you guys get the ammonia? All the cheap stuff I can
find
> around here
> has surfactants and/or scent added. Even the REAL cheap stuff.
>

Walmart


kev

--
Civilization.

An organized system of alternatives to the stone age - CJCherryh

[NetMax]

"kev" > wrote in message
...
> On 18 Feb 2004, the world was enlightened by ThangFish's opinion
> about...
>
> > NetMax wrote:
> >
> >> I know what you mean. I have no patience for fishless cycling
> tanks.
> >> The last fishless cycle I did was on a 'filter' rather than
> the tank.
> >> I was building a tank into a wall (60g), so when I thought I
> was
> >> about 4 weeks from completion, I set-up a 20g in the basement,
> dumped
> >> ammonia in it, and connected one of the canister filters I was
> going
> >> to use for the 60g. After a month, I just moved the filter
> upstairs.
> >> I hate looking at an empty aquarium, it's like a framed blank
> canvas.
> >>
> >> NetMax
> >
> > Where do you guys get the ammonia? All the cheap stuff I can
> find
> > around here
> > has surfactants and/or scent added. Even the REAL cheap stuff.
> >
>
> Walmart
>
>
> kev

Yup, Wal-mart, it was called Amex clear ammonia. Now what do I do with
the remaining 99.5% of the bottle? ;~)

NetMax

[Eric Schreiber]

"NetMax" > wrote:

>Yup, Wal-mart, it was called Amex clear ammonia. Now what do I do with
>the remaining 99.5% of the bottle? ;~)

Hair rinse?


--
www.ericschreiber.com

[Geezer From Freezer]

If you have another tank, gravel vac some fish pooh and throw that in.
If not, throw some fish food in and let it rot. I have done this recently
and was seeing 0.25ppm nitrites after four days in a 12.5 gallon tank.
I had the temp upto 86oF. I am now adding pooh, and have added a filter
from my 63 gallon to seed it.

[Ads]

I have noticed that a lot of people seem to be having problems
sourcing Ammonia to use for fishless cycling, I had the same problem
until I rang up my local independant pharmacy. They can supply you
Ammonium Chloride (NH4CL), they normally have to order it in but it is
cheap. I got 500g for about £5.00.

Of course this is a white powder that needs to be diluted first and
the tiny amounts that are needed to start the cycling are very
difficult to weigh on all but laboratory scales, so after a few
minutes thought while staring at an empty tank the answer came to me.
I added 1 lvl tsp, about 5grams to 500ml of water (an empty soft drink
bottle was handy, also means you can seal it and use later) therefore
1gram = 100ml, and in my case I needed to add 0.33grams = 33 ml.

There is also no need to worry about the Chloride, as soon as the
Ammonium Chloride is added to the water it disassociates into Ammonia
and Chloride, if u have treated your water with any Chlorine remover
then this will immediately absorb the Chloride, alternatively the
Chloride ions will bind with other ions such as Sodium and be rendered
harmless, additionally aeration of your water will remove any excess
Chloride in a few hours. But as there are no fish present I doubt it
is a problem anyway :P

Ammonium Chloride is actually better to use than Ammonium Hydroxide
for fishless cycling because when Ammonium Hydroxide is added to the
water it disassociates and the OH binds to alkaline metals, these
metals are naturally in the aquarium as alkalinity (Calcium Carbonate,
Magnesium Carbonate etc...). Carbon dioxide will be produced, forming
carbonic acid which will acidify the water. Therefore Ammonium
Chloride will keep the PH relatively stable.

Hope this helps.

Adam

[NetMax]

"Ads" > wrote in message
m...
> I have noticed that a lot of people seem to be having problems
> sourcing Ammonia to use for fishless cycling, I had the same problem
> until I rang up my local independant pharmacy. They can supply you
> Ammonium Chloride (NH4CL), they normally have to order it in but it is
> cheap. I got 500g for about £5.00.
>
> Of course this is a white powder that needs to be diluted first and
> the tiny amounts that are needed to start the cycling are very
> difficult to weigh on all but laboratory scales, so after a few
> minutes thought while staring at an empty tank the answer came to me.
> I added 1 lvl tsp, about 5grams to 500ml of water (an empty soft drink
> bottle was handy, also means you can seal it and use later) therefore
> 1gram = 100ml, and in my case I needed to add 0.33grams = 33 ml.
>
> There is also no need to worry about the Chloride, as soon as the
> Ammonium Chloride is added to the water it disassociates into Ammonia
> and Chloride, if u have treated your water with any Chlorine remover
> then this will immediately absorb the Chloride, alternatively the
> Chloride ions will bind with other ions such as Sodium and be rendered
> harmless, additionally aeration of your water will remove any excess
> Chloride in a few hours. But as there are no fish present I doubt it
> is a problem anyway :P
>
> Ammonium Chloride is actually better to use than Ammonium Hydroxide
> for fishless cycling because when Ammonium Hydroxide is added to the
> water it disassociates and the OH binds to alkaline metals, these
> metals are naturally in the aquarium as alkalinity (Calcium Carbonate,
> Magnesium Carbonate etc...). Carbon dioxide will be produced, forming
> carbonic acid which will acidify the water. Therefore Ammonium
> Chloride will keep the PH relatively stable.
>
> Hope this helps.
>
> Adam

So if I follow this, bottled ammonia is Ammonium Hydroxide, which reacts
with the alkalinity resulting in CO2 gas causing the pH to drop. As the
excess CO2 would have harmlessly dissipated long before the fishless
cycle was completed, does Ammonium Hydroxide leave behind any permanent
changes (binding with the alkaline metals causing a drop in kH and pH).
At the completion of a fishless cycle, a 100% water change is typically
done, so these are just points of interest.

Does the ammonia from fish (liquid wastes) have the same reaction with
alkaline metals? I understand that fish waste drops pH, but I've never
read the detailed mechanisms to understand the conditions which they
would be most prevalent and of a concern. I would assume, the tank at
most risk would be running a low kH (ie: 2-3 dkH), so unplanted with good
filtration causes the ammonia to convert to nitrites quickly, negating
the acidifying effect (yes?), and well planted tanks have the ammonia
quickly converted to plant growth, also negating the effects (yes?), so
the main concern with a low kH tank would be unplanted and underfiltered,
further complicated by an accumulation of solid wastes (yes?).

At the mention of chemistry, my eyes usually glaze over and I go into a
stupor, but if it involves aquariums, I perk up and ask all sorts of
questions (probably very basic annoying questions, so please bear with
me).

NetMax

[RedForeman ©®]

and I thought this was a simple question.... Geesh guys, I wanted to learn,
but not go back to chemistry class... hahahaa!!!

All I can find is ammonia hydroxide or something like that... Walmart hasn't
been visited yet...

--
RedForeman ©®
Thank you, for your support...


"NetMax" >

> "Ads" > wrote in message
> > I have noticed that a lot of people seem to be having problems
> > sourcing Ammonia to use for fishless cycling, I had the same problem
> > until I rang up my local independant pharmacy. They can supply you
> > Ammonium Chloride (NH4CL), they normally have to order it in but it is
> > cheap. I got 500g for about £5.00.
> >
> > Of course this is a white powder that needs to be diluted first and
> > the tiny amounts that are needed to start the cycling are very
> > difficult to weigh on all but laboratory scales, so after a few
> > minutes thought while staring at an empty tank the answer came to me.
> > I added 1 lvl tsp, about 5grams to 500ml of water (an empty soft drink
> > bottle was handy, also means you can seal it and use later) therefore
> > 1gram = 100ml, and in my case I needed to add 0.33grams = 33 ml.
> >
> > There is also no need to worry about the Chloride, as soon as the
> > Ammonium Chloride is added to the water it disassociates into Ammonia
> > and Chloride, if u have treated your water with any Chlorine remover
> > then this will immediately absorb the Chloride, alternatively the
> > Chloride ions will bind with other ions such as Sodium and be rendered
> > harmless, additionally aeration of your water will remove any excess
> > Chloride in a few hours. But as there are no fish present I doubt it
> > is a problem anyway :P
> >
> > Ammonium Chloride is actually better to use than Ammonium Hydroxide
> > for fishless cycling because when Ammonium Hydroxide is added to the
> > water it disassociates and the OH binds to alkaline metals, these
> > metals are naturally in the aquarium as alkalinity (Calcium Carbonate,
> > Magnesium Carbonate etc...). Carbon dioxide will be produced, forming
> > carbonic acid which will acidify the water. Therefore Ammonium
> > Chloride will keep the PH relatively stable.
> >
> > Hope this helps.
> >
> > Adam
>
> So if I follow this, bottled ammonia is Ammonium Hydroxide, which reacts
> with the alkalinity resulting in CO2 gas causing the pH to drop. As the
> excess CO2 would have harmlessly dissipated long before the fishless
> cycle was completed, does Ammonium Hydroxide leave behind any permanent
> changes (binding with the alkaline metals causing a drop in kH and pH).
> At the completion of a fishless cycle, a 100% water change is typically
> done, so these are just points of interest.
>
> Does the ammonia from fish (liquid wastes) have the same reaction with
> alkaline metals? I understand that fish waste drops pH, but I've never
> read the detailed mechanisms to understand the conditions which they
> would be most prevalent and of a concern. I would assume, the tank at
> most risk would be running a low kH (ie: 2-3 dkH), so unplanted with good
> filtration causes the ammonia to convert to nitrites quickly, negating
> the acidifying effect (yes?), and well planted tanks have the ammonia
> quickly converted to plant growth, also negating the effects (yes?), so
> the main concern with a low kH tank would be unplanted and underfiltered,
> further complicated by an accumulation of solid wastes (yes?).
>
> At the mention of chemistry, my eyes usually glaze over and I go into a
> stupor, but if it involves aquariums, I perk up and ask all sorts of
> questions (probably very basic annoying questions, so please bear with
> me).
>
> NetMax
>
>

[coelacanth]

NetMax wrote:
>
> Yup, Wal-mart, it was called Amex clear ammonia. Now what do
> I do with the remaining 99.5% of the bottle? ;~)
>
Why, put it in little 4 oz bottles, label them as Mother
NetMax's Old Fashioned Aquarium Ammonia and sell
them for $15 each on the 'net and in your store ;)

-coelacanth

[ThangFish]

Ads wrote:

<snip>
>
> Hope this helps.
>
> Adam

Yes indeed!
thanks

--
TF

Put my handle in front of the domain name to email.

[NetMax]

"coelacanth" > wrote in message
om...
> NetMax wrote:
> >
> > Yup, Wal-mart, it was called Amex clear ammonia. Now what do
> > I do with the remaining 99.5% of the bottle? ;~)
> >
> Why, put it in little 4 oz bottles, label them as Mother
> NetMax's Old Fashioned Aquarium Ammonia and sell
> them for $15 each on the 'net and in your store ;)
>
> -coelacanth

I have to admit that I don't encourage fishless cycling when I'm at work.
The average person who starts a new aquarium does not have the interest
or motivation to look at an empty tank for a month. It can intimidate
people when I take newbies too deep into the bowels of the nitrogen cycle
and what they will need to do. I offer to do water tests for free,
anytime they bring me a water sample. I will mention that the fish are
only an ammonia source and the same thing could be accomplished with
liquid ammonia. I show them a colour graph of the ammonia & nitrite
spikes which will occur, and I explain why and what they will need to do
about it. I sell them feeder goldfish or zebra danios, stocking to a
level of about 30%, and sent them away with instructions on how much to
feed and when to return with a water sample. After the tank is cycled, I
give them a full credit refund for the zebra danios (or I just throw the
feeders back into the feeder tank). This combination is (I think)
already way beyond what the average LFS does.

If they exhibit the slightest interest in science, chemistry or just
exploring alternatives, then I explain fishless cycling, and if they want
to pursue it, then I pour them 10cc of ammonia (on the house) and send
them on their way. It happens very rarely. Do not confuse the average
level of intellectual curiosity and respect for live creatures which you
see here in the newsgroups, with the reality of the average public who
wants instant gratification. As a rule, I need to limit fish sales to
new tanks, and it's only by sounding like I know what I am talking about,
that I can prevent people from putting 10 neons in a bowl, or 10 goldfish
in their 10g. These people come around later, to tell me that they had
no idea the hobby was so intricate and fascinating, and _then_ they start
soaking up information, but most start as raw newbies, only knowing that
they need water & some fish food to go with their fish.

NetMax

[Marakani Srikant]

On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 11:03:27 -0600, Eric Schreiber
> wrote:
> "RedForeman ©®" > wrote:
>
>>All I read about the fishless ammonia cycling just freaks me out... the idea
>>of using ammonia, albeit proven time and time again, just freaks me out,
>
> The only part that worried me was finding clear ammonia without any
> additives, which was more difficult than I would have guessed. But
> I've got enough now to last the rest of my life.

Ace Hardware ammonia worked very well for me (it is rather strong so I
overfed the tank initially). And yes, I still have 99.5% of it left
over.

Srikant

[Ads]

<SNIP>

> > Ammonium Chloride is actually better to use than Ammonium Hydroxide
> > for fishless cycling because when Ammonium Hydroxide is added to the
> > water it disassociates and the OH binds to alkaline metals, these
> > metals are naturally in the aquarium as alkalinity (Calcium Carbonate,
> > Magnesium Carbonate etc...). Carbon dioxide will be produced, forming
> > carbonic acid which will acidify the water. Therefore Ammonium
> > Chloride will keep the PH relatively stable.

<SNIP>

> > So if I follow this, bottled ammonia is Ammonium Hydroxide, which reacts
> > with the alkalinity resulting in CO2 gas causing the pH to drop. As the
> > excess CO2 would have harmlessly dissipated long before the fishless
> > cycle was completed, does Ammonium Hydroxide leave behind any permanent
> > changes (binding with the alkaline metals causing a drop in kH and pH).
> > At the completion of a fishless cycle, a 100% water change is typically
> > done, so these are just points of interest.


Actually yes, I forgot to take one thing into account (must remember
to write posts when fully awake :P) The OH from Ammonia Hydroxide can
react with the metal Ions in the water forming compounds such as
Sodium Hydroxide (Oven Cleaner) These are strongly alkali and can
raise the Ph. (I have explained a bit about OH ions further down)
And yes you are correct the CO2 would have long since dissipated and
any trace carbonic acid will have been easily buffered. Carbonic Acid
is not particularly strong.
As to a Hardness change it may slightly decrease hardness but not to
much of a degree when we are talking many hundreds of ppm hardness
compared to just a few ppm ammonia hydroxide.


<SNIP>

> > Does the ammonia from fish (liquid wastes) have the same reaction with
> > alkaline metals? I understand that fish waste drops pH, but I've never
> > read the detailed mechanisms to understand the conditions which they
> > would be most prevalent and of a concern. I would assume, the tank at
> > most risk would be running a low kH (ie: 2-3 dkH), so unplanted with good
> > filtration causes the ammonia to convert to nitrites quickly, negating
> > the acidifying effect (yes?), and well planted tanks have the ammonia
> > quickly converted to plant growth, also negating the effects (yes?), so
> > the main concern with a low kH tank would be unplanted and underfiltered,
> > further complicated by an accumulation of solid wastes (yes?).

This does sound perfectly reasonable.
A quick intro to Buffers may be of help to explain why the level of
hardness affects the strength of a buffer and hence why low hardness
tanks are more at risk of Ph fluctuations.

The term used to differentiate between buffers is Ionic Strength.
Basically Acids are H+ ions and Alkali's are OH- Ions, without going
into complexities we can assume that the buffer is set at the Ph of
your tapwater. When either type of Ion is added to a buffer a chemical
reaction occurs and basically the Ions are 'Eaten' by the buffer and
have no effect on Ph. However as soon as the capacity of a buffer to
'eat' one or other of these ions is exceeded a drastic change in Ph is
normally seen (commonly called Ph Spikes). This quantity of Ions the
buffer can 'eat' is referred to as it's Ionic Strength.

The chemical components that comprise a buffer solution are normally a
weak acid and a salt of that acid. (eg. Acetic Acid + Sodium Acetate)
The differing quantites and strengths of these two components
determine the buffer Ph and strength. Therefore the more salts present
in the water (hardness) the greater the capacity of the buffer and
therefore the greater the Ionic Strength.

All domestic water supplies some Ionic Strength.
This might be simplified by some diagrams here goes.


Strong Buffer (High Ionic Strength) (Hard Water)

|-----------------|||||buffer|||||-----------------|
Ph1 |------7-------| Ph14



Weak Buffer (Low Ionic Strength) (Soft Water)

|-----------------|buffer|-----------------|
Ph1 |--7---| Ph14


Not sure if this helps much. But you did mention hardness and Ph in
the same paragraph :)


<SNIP>

> > At the mention of chemistry, my eyes usually glaze over and I go into a
> > stupor, but if it involves aquariums, I perk up and ask all sorts of
> > questions (probably very basic annoying questions, so please bear with
> > me).

> > NetMax

Not at all - I am happy to help, the chemical reations i have
described above I have done my best to reduce into comprehensible
English, they can be quite complex subjects. I apologise now if I have
confused everybody or it makes no sense :)

Adam

[NetMax]

"Ads" > wrote in message
m...
> <SNIP>
>
> > > Ammonium Chloride is actually better to use than Ammonium Hydroxide
> > > for fishless cycling because when Ammonium Hydroxide is added to
the
> > > water it disassociates and the OH binds to alkaline metals, these
> > > metals are naturally in the aquarium as alkalinity (Calcium
Carbonate,
> > > Magnesium Carbonate etc...). Carbon dioxide will be produced,
forming
> > > carbonic acid which will acidify the water. Therefore Ammonium
> > > Chloride will keep the PH relatively stable.
>
> <SNIP>
>
> > > So if I follow this, bottled ammonia is Ammonium Hydroxide, which
reacts
> > > with the alkalinity resulting in CO2 gas causing the pH to drop.
As the
> > > excess CO2 would have harmlessly dissipated long before the
fishless
> > > cycle was completed, does Ammonium Hydroxide leave behind any
permanent
> > > changes (binding with the alkaline metals causing a drop in kH and
pH).
> > > At the completion of a fishless cycle, a 100% water change is
typically
> > > done, so these are just points of interest.
>
>
> Actually yes, I forgot to take one thing into account (must remember
> to write posts when fully awake :P) The OH from Ammonia Hydroxide can
> react with the metal Ions in the water forming compounds such as
> Sodium Hydroxide (Oven Cleaner) These are strongly alkali and can
> raise the Ph. (I have explained a bit about OH ions further down)
> And yes you are correct the CO2 would have long since dissipated and
> any trace carbonic acid will have been easily buffered. Carbonic Acid
> is not particularly strong.
> As to a Hardness change it may slightly decrease hardness but not to
> much of a degree when we are talking many hundreds of ppm hardness
> compared to just a few ppm ammonia hydroxide.
>
>
> <SNIP>
>
> > > Does the ammonia from fish (liquid wastes) have the same reaction
with
> > > alkaline metals? I understand that fish waste drops pH, but I've
never
> > > read the detailed mechanisms to understand the conditions which
they
> > > would be most prevalent and of a concern. I would assume, the tank
at
> > > most risk would be running a low kH (ie: 2-3 dkH), so unplanted
with good
> > > filtration causes the ammonia to convert to nitrites quickly,
negating
> > > the acidifying effect (yes?), and well planted tanks have the
ammonia
> > > quickly converted to plant growth, also negating the effects
(yes?), so
> > > the main concern with a low kH tank would be unplanted and
underfiltered,
> > > further complicated by an accumulation of solid wastes (yes?).
>
> This does sound perfectly reasonable.
> A quick intro to Buffers may be of help to explain why the level of
> hardness affects the strength of a buffer and hence why low hardness
> tanks are more at risk of Ph fluctuations.
>
> The term used to differentiate between buffers is Ionic Strength.
> Basically Acids are H+ ions and Alkali's are OH- Ions, without going
> into complexities we can assume that the buffer is set at the Ph of
> your tapwater. When either type of Ion is added to a buffer a chemical
> reaction occurs and basically the Ions are 'Eaten' by the buffer and
> have no effect on Ph. However as soon as the capacity of a buffer to
> 'eat' one or other of these ions is exceeded a drastic change in Ph is
> normally seen (commonly called Ph Spikes). This quantity of Ions the
> buffer can 'eat' is referred to as it's Ionic Strength.
>
> The chemical components that comprise a buffer solution are normally a
> weak acid and a salt of that acid. (eg. Acetic Acid + Sodium Acetate)
> The differing quantites and strengths of these two components
> determine the buffer Ph and strength. Therefore the more salts present
> in the water (hardness) the greater the capacity of the buffer and
> therefore the greater the Ionic Strength.
>
> All domestic water supplies some Ionic Strength.
> This might be simplified by some diagrams here goes.
>
>
> Strong Buffer (High Ionic Strength) (Hard Water)
>
> |-----------------|||||buffer|||||-----------------|
> Ph1 |------7-------| Ph14
>
>
>
> Weak Buffer (Low Ionic Strength) (Soft Water)
>
> |-----------------|buffer|-----------------|
> Ph1 |--7---| Ph14
>
>
> Not sure if this helps much. But you did mention hardness and Ph in
> the same paragraph :)
>
>
> <SNIP>
>
> > > At the mention of chemistry, my eyes usually glaze over and I go
into a
> > > stupor, but if it involves aquariums, I perk up and ask all sorts
of
> > > questions (probably very basic annoying questions, so please bear
with
> > > me).
>
> > > NetMax
>
> Not at all - I am happy to help, the chemical reations i have
> described above I have done my best to reduce into comprehensible
> English, they can be quite complex subjects. I apologise now if I have
> confused everybody or it makes no sense :)
>
> Adam

I think you've done an excellent job of dumbing it down to a laymen level
more suitable for hobbyist's interests. I understand many of the
relationships and cautions, but it's only when chemists explain it in
English that it falls together a bit better. You are not the first to
explain it to me, but each time, I retain a bit more ;~) My work tap
water is soft (3dgH and 3dkH) river water but alkaline (7.7pH) due to the
caustic soda added by the treatment plants (actually over 9.0pH at the
plant, but below 8.0 by the time it reaches the tap).

I understand that there are several types of buffers, and they settle at
different pH levels (ie: 7.0, 7.4, 8.2, 8.4). I'd like to reduce my
7.7pH, but the low kH does not allow me to conveniently do so using
acids. I would also like to raise my kH, to reduce the likelihood of pH
crashes.

In some tanks, I use CO2 injection, but this is not a long term or
permanent solution. I wonder if I could be adding more of a buffer which
settles at a lower pH, or would the presence of the caustic soda defeat
this? I've considered adding baking soda to prop up the kH, but my rate
of water changes is quite aggressive, so the effects might be too quickly
diluted. I'm even thinking of using crushed coral in my sof****er tanks,
on the premise that it would boost the kH and not cause the pH to rise
further (partially due to the water change rate of about 20% a day).

Ideally, I need a mineral (or minerals) which would 1) leech enough
carbonates to raise the kH into a safer zone, 2) counteract the salts
from the caustic soda and 3) adds it's own salts so the buffer would
settle at a lower pH (7.2-7.4). I'm not certain if any minerals exist to
do any of these things. Maybe I should be talking to a geologist instead
of a chemist ;~)

NetMax

[Ads]

"NetMax" > wrote in message >...

> I think you've done an excellent job of dumbing it down to a laymen level
> more suitable for hobbyist's interests. I understand many of the
> relationships and cautions, but it's only when chemists explain it in
> English that it falls together a bit better. You are not the first to
> explain it to me, but each time, I retain a bit more ;~) My work tap
> water is soft (3dgH and 3dkH) river water but alkaline (7.7pH) due to the
> caustic soda added by the treatment plants (actually over 9.0pH at the
> plant, but below 8.0 by the time it reaches the tap).
>
> I understand that there are several types of buffers, and they settle at
> different pH levels (ie: 7.0, 7.4, 8.2, 8.4). I'd like to reduce my
> 7.7pH, but the low kH does not allow me to conveniently do so using
> acids. I would also like to raise my kH, to reduce the likelihood of pH
> crashes.
>
> In some tanks, I use CO2 injection, but this is not a long term or
> permanent solution. I wonder if I could be adding more of a buffer which
> settles at a lower pH, or would the presence of the caustic soda defeat
> this? I've considered adding baking soda to prop up the kH, but my rate
> of water changes is quite aggressive, so the effects might be too quickly
> diluted. I'm even thinking of using crushed coral in my sof****er tanks,
> on the premise that it would boost the kH and not cause the pH to rise
> further (partially due to the water change rate of about 20% a day).
>
> Ideally, I need a mineral (or minerals) which would 1) leech enough
> carbonates to raise the kH into a safer zone, 2) counteract the salts
> from the caustic soda and 3) adds it's own salts so the buffer would
> settle at a lower pH (7.2-7.4). I'm not certain if any minerals exist to
> do any of these things. Maybe I should be talking to a geologist instead
> of a chemist ;~)
>
> NetMax


I am glad you are interested in this, most of my knowledge is based
around Organic Chemistry but I can still remember a fair amount of
Physical Chemistry so I might be able to offer some tips.

Calcium Carbonate is only one (but normally primary)of the sources of
hardness in water. Most hard water supplies have dissolved Calcium
Carbonate (Chalk) as their main hardness component. Now depending on
what effect you are trying to achieve the solubility of chalk in water
is either a good or a bad thing, but basically chalk is pretty much
insoluble in pure distilled water. (If chalk were readily soluble then
the 'White Cliffs of Dover' would have long since disappeared)

For Chalk to dissolve readily into water requires acidic conditions
(rain is slightly acidic hence the fact that tap water can be hard).
This can lead to a problem, if the water is already alkali, and you
wish to increase the hardness will adding chalk have any effect? the
answer is yes, but not much, and with most readily available testing
kits the change would be almost undetectable.

I have been using the term Calcium Carbonate a lot here but I think
that some clarification is necessary. When Calcium Carbonate is added
to water nothing happens, it cannot dissolve basically. It has to
undergo a slight chemical change, that is CaCO3 reacts with acid
(normally carbonic in rainwater) to produce Ca(HCO3)2 or Calcium
Bicarbonate - very similiar to Sodium Bicarbonate (Baking Soda)

If memory serves coral is comprised mainly of calcium carbonate
(chalk). So therefore adding this to the tank will have little effect
unless you have other solutes that can chemically react with the CaCO3
and liberate the CO3 or you can acidify the water.

Couple all these factors with your regular water changes and I don't
think that CaCO3 is really viable.

This is an interesting piece of trivia that people aren't always aware
of - When testing for Carbonate Hardness you are usually testing for
Hydrogen Carbonate Hardness. Therefore to modify the Carbonate
Hardness you need to add Hydrogen Carbonates.

This brings us back to Baking Soda :) A great chemical, Sodium
Hydrogen Carbonate. With one drawback - it is alkali. An example is
the easiest way to illustrate the effect of Baking Soda in pure
distilled water.

1gram Baking Soda + 1 Litre Water (Ph 7.0) ->
Sodium (274ppm) + Carbonates (714 ppm) Water + (Ph+ 7.35
to 8.35)

Now we enter into a misnomer - The Carbonate Hardness test which
mentioned above refers to Hydrogen Carbonate Hardness is not actually
a measure of how hard water is. Bear with me :) It is actually a
measure of alkalinity again :)
Using the example above a carbonate hardness test would give a reading
of 236 or ~13dKh. Without going into Carbonic Species and other such
superfluities, in this sense Alkalinity = Buffer Capacity = Resistance
to Acidification.

Hope this makes sense so far :)

At this stage General Hardness can be mentioned I think - this is easy
:)
Basically the other half of the chemicals in the water, the other Ions
basically, Calcium, Sodium, Magnesium etc... = General Hardness.
Therefore you cannot increase one without the other, fortunately this
is normally desirable.

There is one other aspect of water hardness that fortunately is not
really relevant here but can play a part in certain water treatments.
Carbonate Hardness is generally termed 'Temporary Hardness'. It is
temporary because it is easily removed from water (by boiling).
'Permanent Hardness' is the second factor. This is provided by
Sulphates. Fortunately Sulphates are reasonably unimportant in this
context as they have only limited buffering capacity which is a shame
because they are easy to get hold of, and are more readily soluble
than carbonates. These are not removed by boiling.

I hope that you are still with me :)

Time for some clarification:

* Hardness and Alkalinity are not Ions, but are measures of water
'quality' that are related to the presence of certain Ions.

* Hardness comes from Magnesium and Calcium Content. (Ignore the
Magnesium)

* Alkalinity comes from the Carbonic Species (Carbonic Acid, Dissolved
CO2, Carbonate and BiCarbonate)

* Alkalinity is related to pH but not a direct measure of it

* Alkalinity is a direct measure of the buffering capacity of the
solution.

* Buffering Capacity = Resistance to changes in pH

* Two solutions can have identical pH but differing Alkalinity.

In conclusion then - depending on the existing buffering capacity of
your solution you may find Baking Soda beneficial however you will
probably require a lot of it :)

The easiest way to set a stable specific pH value is to purchase (or
make) a buffering solution of the correct pH and add this in the
necessary quantity to reach the desired pH level. This has the benefit
of still being resistant to pH changes and you will probably only need
to add it occasionally. With the fairly low hardness of your water you
may find you need less than you expect.

In theory you could always try this experiment (no guarantees or
responsibility implied :) add some pH down solution to a suitable
glass container. pH down is normally phosphoric acid at about 30%, add
some coral or chalk to the acid, wait for the fizzing to stop (this
will depend on many things and may be a few bubbles to a alka-seltzer
type fizz) Add this to the fish tank = instant hardness.
Alternatively you could try a slightly more natural method and use
carbonic acid instead of phosphoric acid. This is available as soda
water, This reaction may be very slow, once again no guarantees.
Both these reactions can be sped up by heating the acid before using,
but be careful. Hot phosphoric acid even at 30% dilution can cause
severe damage to eyes and skin if not careful and DO NOT breathe the
vapour. This reaction also gives off hydrogen gas so it is advisable
not to smoke near it, ventilation is a must.

Apologies for rambling.

Adam

[NetMax]

"Ads" > wrote in message
m...
> "NetMax" > wrote in message
>...
>
> > I think you've done an excellent job of dumbing it down to a laymen
level
> > more suitable for hobbyist's interests. I understand many of the
> > relationships and cautions, but it's only when chemists explain it in
> > English that it falls together a bit better. You are not the first
to
> > explain it to me, but each time, I retain a bit more ;~) My work tap
> > water is soft (3dgH and 3dkH) river water but alkaline (7.7pH) due to
the
> > caustic soda added by the treatment plants (actually over 9.0pH at
the
> > plant, but below 8.0 by the time it reaches the tap).
> >
> > I understand that there are several types of buffers, and they settle
at
> > different pH levels (ie: 7.0, 7.4, 8.2, 8.4). I'd like to reduce my
> > 7.7pH, but the low kH does not allow me to conveniently do so using
> > acids. I would also like to raise my kH, to reduce the likelihood of
pH
> > crashes.
> >
> > In some tanks, I use CO2 injection, but this is not a long term or
> > permanent solution. I wonder if I could be adding more of a buffer
which
> > settles at a lower pH, or would the presence of the caustic soda
defeat
> > this? I've considered adding baking soda to prop up the kH, but my
rate
> > of water changes is quite aggressive, so the effects might be too
quickly
> > diluted. I'm even thinking of using crushed coral in my sof****er
tanks,
> > on the premise that it would boost the kH and not cause the pH to
rise
> > further (partially due to the water change rate of about 20% a day).
> >
> > Ideally, I need a mineral (or minerals) which would 1) leech enough
> > carbonates to raise the kH into a safer zone, 2) counteract the salts
> > from the caustic soda and 3) adds it's own salts so the buffer would
> > settle at a lower pH (7.2-7.4). I'm not certain if any minerals
exist to
> > do any of these things. Maybe I should be talking to a geologist
instead
> > of a chemist ;~)
> >
> > NetMax
>
>
> I am glad you are interested in this, most of my knowledge is based
> around Organic Chemistry but I can still remember a fair amount of
> Physical Chemistry so I might be able to offer some tips.
>
> Calcium Carbonate is only one (but normally primary)of the sources of
> hardness in water. Most hard water supplies have dissolved Calcium
> Carbonate (Chalk) as their main hardness component. Now depending on
> what effect you are trying to achieve the solubility of chalk in water
> is either a good or a bad thing, but basically chalk is pretty much
> insoluble in pure distilled water. (If chalk were readily soluble then
> the 'White Cliffs of Dover' would have long since disappeared)
>
> For Chalk to dissolve readily into water requires acidic conditions
> (rain is slightly acidic hence the fact that tap water can be hard).
> This can lead to a problem, if the water is already alkali, and you
> wish to increase the hardness will adding chalk have any effect? the
> answer is yes, but not much, and with most readily available testing
> kits the change would be almost undetectable.
>
> I have been using the term Calcium Carbonate a lot here but I think
> that some clarification is necessary. When Calcium Carbonate is added
> to water nothing happens, it cannot dissolve basically. It has to
> undergo a slight chemical change, that is CaCO3 reacts with acid
> (normally carbonic in rainwater) to produce Ca(HCO3)2 or Calcium
> Bicarbonate - very similiar to Sodium Bicarbonate (Baking Soda)
>
> If memory serves coral is comprised mainly of calcium carbonate
> (chalk). So therefore adding this to the tank will have little effect
> unless you have other solutes that can chemically react with the CaCO3
> and liberate the CO3 or you can acidify the water.

Now that's interesting, as crushed coral is often used to increase
alkalinity, hardness and pH.

> Couple all these factors with your regular water changes and I don't
> think that CaCO3 is really viable.
>
> This is an interesting piece of trivia that people aren't always aware
> of - When testing for Carbonate Hardness you are usually testing for
> Hydrogen Carbonate Hardness. Therefore to modify the Carbonate
> Hardness you need to add Hydrogen Carbonates.

I'll let that one percolate for a few days.

> This brings us back to Baking Soda :) A great chemical, Sodium
> Hydrogen Carbonate. With one drawback - it is alkali. An example is
> the easiest way to illustrate the effect of Baking Soda in pure
> distilled water.
>
> 1gram Baking Soda + 1 Litre Water (Ph 7.0) ->
> Sodium (274ppm) + Carbonates (714 ppm) Water + (Ph+ 7.35
> to 8.35)
>
> Now we enter into a misnomer - The Carbonate Hardness test which
> mentioned above refers to Hydrogen Carbonate Hardness is not actually
> a measure of how hard water is. Bear with me :) It is actually a
> measure of alkalinity again :)
> Using the example above a carbonate hardness test would give a reading
> of 236 or ~13dKh. Without going into Carbonic Species and other such
> superfluities, in this sense Alkalinity = Buffer Capacity = Resistance
> to Acidification.
>
> Hope this makes sense so far :)

Still with you.

> At this stage General Hardness can be mentioned I think - this is easy
> :)
> Basically the other half of the chemicals in the water, the other Ions
> basically, Calcium, Sodium, Magnesium etc... = General Hardness.
> Therefore you cannot increase one without the other, fortunately this
> is normally desirable.
>
> There is one other aspect of water hardness that fortunately is not
> really relevant here but can play a part in certain water treatments.
> Carbonate Hardness is generally termed 'Temporary Hardness'. It is
> temporary because it is easily removed from water (by boiling).
> 'Permanent Hardness' is the second factor. This is provided by
> Sulphates. Fortunately Sulphates are reasonably unimportant in this
> context as they have only limited buffering capacity which is a shame
> because they are easy to get hold of, and are more readily soluble
> than carbonates. These are not removed by boiling.
>
> I hope that you are still with me :)

Yup, (I think), so boiling affects kH before gH? That does help me
anyways, but it's new information.

> Time for some clarification:
>
> * Hardness and Alkalinity are not Ions, but are measures of water
> 'quality' that are related to the presence of certain Ions.
>
> * Hardness comes from Magnesium and Calcium Content. (Ignore the
> Magnesium)
>
> * Alkalinity comes from the Carbonic Species (Carbonic Acid, Dissolved
> CO2, Carbonate and BiCarbonate)
>
> * Alkalinity is related to pH but not a direct measure of it
>
> * Alkalinity is a direct measure of the buffering capacity of the
> solution.
>
> * Buffering Capacity = Resistance to changes in pH
>
> * Two solutions can have identical pH but differing Alkalinity.

Fortunately, nothing too new in there for me to understand.

> In conclusion then - depending on the existing buffering capacity of
> your solution you may find Baking Soda beneficial however you will
> probably require a lot of it :)
>
> The easiest way to set a stable specific pH value is to purchase (or
> make) a buffering solution of the correct pH and add this in the
> necessary quantity to reach the desired pH level. This has the benefit
> of still being resistant to pH changes and you will probably only need
> to add it occasionally. With the fairly low hardness of your water you
> may find you need less than you expect.
>
> In theory you could always try this experiment (no guarantees or
> responsibility implied :) add some pH down solution to a suitable
> glass container. pH down is normally phosphoric acid at about 30%, add
> some coral or chalk to the acid, wait for the fizzing to stop (this
> will depend on many things and may be a few bubbles to a alka-seltzer
> type fizz) Add this to the fish tank = instant hardness.
> Alternatively you could try a slightly more natural method and use
> carbonic acid instead of phosphoric acid. This is available as soda
> water, This reaction may be very slow, once again no guarantees.
> Both these reactions can be sped up by heating the acid before using,
> but be careful. Hot phosphoric acid even at 30% dilution can cause
> severe damage to eyes and skin if not careful and DO NOT breathe the
> vapour. This reaction also gives off hydrogen gas so it is advisable
> not to smoke near it, ventilation is a must.

Thanks for the info. Soda water eh? Some more research &
experimentation is the order of the day.

NetMax

> Apologies for rambling.
>
> Adam

[Hank Barta]

Ads > wrote:
>
> I am glad you are interested in this, most of my knowledge is based
> around Organic Chemistry but I can still remember a fair amount of
> Physical Chemistry so I might be able to offer some tips.