Salt tests

"~Roy~" wrote in message ...
I know as well as you do, that algae has to have a source of nutrients
to thrive, and also that a new tank can have algae initially. I
assume you have checked your source of water for any "hitch hiker"
sources of nutrition in the line of phosphates and nitrates, right?

Miskairal has no reason for searching phosphate sources in his
water if he used the same water for two salt mixes and one is not
detecting phosphates but other does. Conclusion is quite simple:
salt mix contains phosphates...

Unless the water used in both tests is different, of course.

If yu have actinics separate from the other bulbs, place the actinic
bulb closest to the glass and its been proven to help keep algae under
control......as the nm rateng of actinics will not promote algae
growth, and sort of block any outside light to some degree from
infiltrating the tank.

????
Could you please expand little more on the above ?

First: algae uses red and blue rays of light for photosyntesis.
Actinics look like a perfect source of high energy for algae.

Second: how do you imagine shining on the glass with a light
source could block the other light sources from entering the tank ?

My understanding of physics in not good enough to relate to your story ;-)

Ok, I attended a Reef club meeting one day in ATlanta. Their topic was
algae growth and how to eliminate or reduce it. They stated actinics
wave lengths do not support the growth of algae (green type) and by
placing the actinic bulb closest tot he front will reduce its growth,
and in regards to light shining in the tank from outside, the
wavelengths produced by actinics is enough to counter or dilute its
direct affect...that is unless its direct sunlight. I sure am not a
physics guru by any means, but to me and the others it all sounded
logical. Even the local LFS here all place their actinics closest to
the front glass,.....It has something to do with the wavelength and
color produced by actinics in regards to supporting green growth.,
Actinics do not do very well if used in a light over a fuge.....nor in
freshwater planted tanks, even the 50/50 do not do all that great as
compared to a 6500 or 10k light when it comes to green stuff.

Wavelength / is critical from what I understand to proper or improper
growth, and as bulbs age they can create problems, and a old bulb even
though it may appear bright and good to the naked eye can readily
promote algae.

On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 16:32:12 -0600, "Pszemol"
wrote:
"~Roy~" wrote in message ...
I know as well as you do, that algae has to have a source of nutrients
to thrive, and also that a new tank can have algae initially. I
assume you have checked your source of water for any "hitch hiker"
sources of nutrition in the line of phosphates and nitrates, right?

Miskairal has no reason for searching phosphate sources in his
water if he used the same water for two salt mixes and one is not
detecting phosphates but other does. Conclusion is quite simple:
salt mix contains phosphates...

Unless the water used in both tests is different, of course.

If yu have actinics separate from the other bulbs, place the actinic
bulb closest to the glass and its been proven to help keep algae under
control......as the nm rateng of actinics will not promote algae
growth, and sort of block any outside light to some degree from
infiltrating the tank.

????
Could you please expand little more on the above ?

First: algae uses red and blue rays of light for photosyntesis.
Actinics look like a perfect source of high energy for algae.

Second: how do you imagine shining on the glass with a light
source could block the other light sources from entering the tank ?

My understanding of physics in not good enough to relate to your story ;-)

--
\\\|///
( @ @ )
-----------oOOo(_)oOOo---------------


oooO
---------( )----Oooo----------------
\ ( ( )
\_) ) /
(_/
The original frugal ponder ! Koi-ahoi mates....

Pszemol wrote:

Unless the water used in both tests is different, of course.

He said he's using RO generated from creek water. The creek water at least will
be different from day to day and maybe from hour to hour. If somebody fertilized
upstream on that day, the RO filter will have to work real hard to get all the
phosphates out.

Anytime you make a claim about phosphates or nitrates, you HAVE to test the
source water before mixing in the salt. If you don't, your tests are inconclusive.

George Patterson
Coffee is only a way of stealing time that should by rights belong to
your slightly older self.

"George Patterson" wrote in message news:6JPIf.37126$Eq.22423@trnddc02...
He said he's using RO generated from creek water. The creek water at least will
be different from day to day and maybe from hour to hour. If somebody fertilized
upstream on that day, the RO filter will have to work real hard to get all the
phosphates out.

That is true.

Anytime you make a claim about phosphates or nitrates, you HAVE to test the
source water before mixing in the salt. If you don't, your tests are inconclusive.

Or, just use the same bucket of water and split it between two salt mixes.

"He" is a "she", ok )

The RO water was all out of the same batch and the creek water only gets
pumped up to the tank about once a week. I fill 2 containers holding
about 90 litres in all with RO water and keep it on hand in case I need
it in an emergency because all our house water runs on pressure pumps
but as I discovered AFTER puchasing the RO unit, the RO won't pull
enough water to cause the pressure pump to come on very often which
means it makes only about 25 litres a day unless I use a lot of water
elsewhere in the house and garden (sigh). In a real emergency I'd just
have to use rainwater but the pH of that is only about 6.2 I think
whereas the creek water is about 7.5. I do have another 90 litres of
salt water made up and available in my q tank which I swap out at water
change time but when I next get new fish that won't be available.

I have previously tested the RO water for phosphates and nitrates but
didn't this time b/c it's always 0 and the unit is only 4 months old. My
main idea was to compare the made up salt mixes using the exact same
source water for each. For all we know my test kits may be useless but
we still have a comparison between salts.

Pszemol wrote:
"George Patterson" wrote in message
news:6JPIf.37126$Eq.22423@trnddc02...

He said he's using RO generated from creek water. The creek water at
least will be different from day to day and maybe from hour to hour.
If somebody fertilized upstream on that day, the RO filter will have
to work real hard to get all the phosphates out.


That is true.

Anytime you make a claim about phosphates or nitrates, you HAVE to
test the source water before mixing in the salt. If you don't, your
tests are inconclusive.


Or, just use the same bucket of water and split it between two salt mixes.

"miskairal" wrote in message u...
"He" is a "she", ok )

We had no idea - sorry ;-)

have to use rainwater but the pH of that is only about 6.2 I think
whereas the creek water is about 7.5.

This is normal and pH of rainwater is low because it lacks of buffers
which could neutralize CO2 dissolved in it. You should not be worried with
pH of rainwater and do not even measure it - same for pH of RO water...
What is important, is pH of sal****er, after mixing it and before putting
it to the tank.

My main idea was to compare the made up salt mixes using the exact same
source water for each.

See... I knew you would not do meaningless test with different batch of water.
So you prooved only one salt mix does not contain phosphates and use this one.

Pszemol wrote:
"miskairal" wrote in message
u...

"He" is a "she", ok )


We had no idea - sorry ;-)

That's ok, gives me a giggle

have to use rainwater but the pH of that is only about 6.2 I think
whereas the creek water is about 7.5.


This is normal and pH of rainwater is low because it lacks of buffers
which could neutralize CO2 dissolved in it. You should not be worried with
pH of rainwater and do not even measure it - same for pH of RO water...
What is important, is pH of sal****er, after mixing it and before putting
it to the tank.

But wouldn't making my salt water mix out of the rain water cause the pH
to be lower than using the creek water? I have freshwater fish as well
which is why I know the pH of those waters.

My main idea was to compare the made up salt mixes using the exact
same source water for each.


See... I knew you would not do meaningless test with different batch of
water.
So you prooved only one salt mix does not contain phosphates and use
this one.

Yep and I will just have to buy more coral to soak up the calcium (after
I replace the MH tubes).

"miskairal" wrote in message u...
This is normal and pH of rainwater is low because it lacks of buffers
which could neutralize CO2 dissolved in it. You should not be worried with
pH of rainwater and do not even measure it - same for pH of RO water...
What is important, is pH of sal****er, after mixing it and before putting
it to the tank.

But wouldn't making my salt water mix out of the rain water cause the pH
to be lower than using the creek water? I have freshwater fish as well
which is why I know the pH of those waters.

Are we talking about creek water directly or after reverse osmosis filter ?
First one would have more buffers, so pH might be slightly higher than
if rainwater was used. Second would be almost the same, since RO
filtration removes almost all buffers, like evaporation does for rainwater.
Think of rainwater as demineralized water, similar to distilled and deionized.

So you prooved only one salt mix does not contain phosphates and use
this one.

Yep and I will just have to buy more coral to soak up the calcium
(after I replace the MH tubes).

Good idea :-)

On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 07:13:49 +1000, miskairal
wrote:

"miskairal" wrote in message
u...

"He" is a "she", ok )

SNIP


I knew that.....of course I visited her Goat website! ;-)
--
\\\|///
( @ @ )
-----------oOOo(_)oOOo---------------


oooO
---------( )----Oooo----------------
\ ( ( )
\_) ) /
(_/
The original frugal ponder ! Koi-ahoi mates....