What's the best SALT?

"Jaime R-S" wrote in message ...
As an aquarist, I am a newbie.

Oh come on... I think you are too hard on yourself. L0L! :-))

Months ago, you claimed here you are an expert aquarist!
From your first post here you were trying to mesmerize
everyone with your successful experiments with reef tanks
and no maintenance required, magical filters etc!

Do You Remember ? If not, the Google archive will remind you:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...e1c4abd0?hl=en
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...3cd368a9?hl=en

You were even ready to patent the system, comparing your
invention (in your own, very humble way) to a light bulb and
calling advanced aquarists here per your "son", suggesting
we need to learn from you because you ... :-)

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...ce1cfae8?hl=en
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...77f9095e?hl=en

And now, you claim to be a newbie ? Oh come on... give me a break!

Hi All,
A few facts regarding Instant Ocean I thought might interest
you.
I recently contacted Aquarium Systems technical dept.(the
manufacturer of IO) and asked for a full analysis with quantity's in
ppm, required for an ongoing survey into salt mixes.
I got a prompt reply in the form of a list titled 'Typical
Composition of Instant Ocean Salt'. It listed 13 Ion's with exact
numbers, a further 15 with a 'less than' number, most of which were a
great deal higher than natural sea water, up to ten times higher, it
also listed Nitrate and Phosphate as zero.
I replied to this and pointed out that this list was less than
half the number of Ion's present in natural sea water.
They replied and I quote "The ions shown are the ones we have
had analysed or have info on from our raw material suppliers. This is
the only information we can provide."
I leave you to draw your own conclusions!!!???
regards,
unclenorm.











Wayne Sallee wrote:
Well this thread has been typical of "best salt" threads.
They are always loooong.

Wayne Sallee
Wayne's Pets



Peter Pan wrote on 1/21/2006 1:25 PM:
I've been using Instant Ocean since I set up my 75 Gal. FOWLR tank in 2002
and never had a problem. I've read that its not really a good idea to change
salt, but if you were to change it, it was a very lengthy process with
mixing your current salt with the new stuff until your completly changed
over.( the process should take several months.

My local LFS said that KENT was better for my tank then using Instant Ocean.
What im wondering is; Is it better for his profits or is it really a better
product for my tank?

Thanks

Yes what you recieved sounds like a normal analysis. I
have recieved several over the years from different
manufactures.

But the statement "The ions shown are the ones we have had
analysed or have info on from our raw material suppliers.
This is the only information we can provide.", I find very
interesting, and not to my satisfaction. That's
disapointing that a salt manufacture would only rely on
what they are being told by their suppliers. I'll have to
e-mail one of the higher-ups at IO, and see what responce
I get.

Wayne Sallee
Wayne's Pets



unclenorm wrote on 1/27/2006 12:37 AM:
Hi All,
A few facts regarding Instant Ocean I thought might interest
you.
I recently contacted Aquarium Systems technical dept.(the
manufacturer of IO) and asked for a full analysis with quantity's in
ppm, required for an ongoing survey into salt mixes.
I got a prompt reply in the form of a list titled 'Typical
Composition of Instant Ocean Salt'. It listed 13 Ion's with exact
numbers, a further 15 with a 'less than' number, most of which were a
great deal higher than natural sea water, up to ten times higher, it
also listed Nitrate and Phosphate as zero.
I replied to this and pointed out that this list was less than
half the number of Ion's present in natural sea water.
They replied and I quote "The ions shown are the ones we have
had analysed or have info on from our raw material suppliers. This is
the only information we can provide."
I leave you to draw your own conclusions!!!???
regards,
unclenorm.











Wayne Sallee wrote:

Well this thread has been typical of "best salt" threads.
They are always loooong.

Wayne Sallee
Wayne's Pets



Peter Pan wrote on 1/21/2006 1:25 PM:

I've been using Instant Ocean since I set up my 75 Gal. FOWLR tank in 2002
and never had a problem. I've read that its not really a good idea to change
salt, but if you were to change it, it was a very lengthy process with
mixing your current salt with the new stuff until your completly changed
over.( the process should take several months.

My local LFS said that KENT was better for my tank then using Instant Ocean.
What im wondering is; Is it better for his profits or is it really a better
product for my tank?

Thanks

Bob Studt, who sent you the analysis, said those are
results of actual tests on the finished product. So they
are indeed testing the final product, not just going by
what their suppliers are telling them.

Wayne Sallee
Wayne's Pets



Wayne Sallee wrote on 1/27/2006 10:12 AM:
Yes what you recieved sounds like a normal analysis. I have recieved
several over the years from different manufactures.

But the statement "The ions shown are the ones we have had analysed or
have info on from our raw material suppliers. This is the only
information we can provide.", I find very interesting, and not to my
satisfaction. That's disapointing that a salt manufacture would only
rely on what they are being told by their suppliers. I'll have to e-mail
one of the higher-ups at IO, and see what responce I get.

Wayne Sallee
Wayne's Pets



unclenorm wrote on 1/27/2006 12:37 AM:

Hi All,
A few facts regarding Instant Ocean I thought might interest
you.
I recently contacted Aquarium Systems technical dept.(the
manufacturer of IO) and asked for a full analysis with quantity's in
ppm, required for an ongoing survey into salt mixes.
I got a prompt reply in the form of a list titled 'Typical
Composition of Instant Ocean Salt'. It listed 13 Ion's with exact
numbers, a further 15 with a 'less than' number, most of which were a
great deal higher than natural sea water, up to ten times higher, it
also listed Nitrate and Phosphate as zero.
I replied to this and pointed out that this list was less than
half the number of Ion's present in natural sea water.
They replied and I quote "The ions shown are the ones we have
had analysed or have info on from our raw material suppliers. This is
the only information we can provide."
I leave you to draw your own conclusions!!!???
regards,
unclenorm.











Wayne Sallee wrote:

Well this thread has been typical of "best salt" threads.
They are always loooong.

Wayne Sallee
Wayne's Pets



Peter Pan wrote on 1/21/2006 1:25 PM:

I've been using Instant Ocean since I set up my 75 Gal. FOWLR tank
in 2002
and never had a problem. I've read that its not really a good idea
to change
salt, but if you were to change it, it was a very lengthy process with
mixing your current salt with the new stuff until your completly
changed
over.( the process should take several months.

My local LFS said that KENT was better for my tank then using
Instant Ocean.
What im wondering is; Is it better for his profits or is it really a
better
product for my tank?

Thanks

"unclenorm" wrote on 26 Jan 2006 21:3:
I got a prompt reply in the form of a list titled 'Typical
Composition of Instant Ocean Salt'. It listed 13 Ion's with exact
numbers, a further 15 with a 'less than' number
I replied to this and pointed out that this list was less than
half the number of Ion's present in natural sea water.

So 30 ions is "less than half" of the number of ions in natural sea water?

You think there are 60-70 ions in NSW? Where did you get your list?

As I understand it, there are trace particles of pretty much EVERY (naturally
occurring) element in NSW. Of course, some of the more rare elements are
very, very dilute.

But lets see ... we've got 100+ elements in the periodic table, plus atomic
variants (different numbers of neutrons) of each. Plus some might be missing
an electron or two, making an ion.

But that's just single atoms. There are also lots of molecules (starting with
H2O) in seawater. And ions of some of those.

Even just counting inorganic items, surely there are hundreds or thousands of
distinct "things" in natural sea water. You start counting organic molecules
too and no doubt you'll be in the millions and billions and trillions.

But none of this really matters, right? All we care about are whether our
ornamental creatures in our aquaria require some particular
element/ion/molecule to survive.

Given that the full biology of most creatures is not well understood, can you
really tell me for certain that they DON'T need any one of the trillions of
different things found in natural sea water?

Or perhaps we can all agree that, with artificial salt mix, we're just
approximating the most important elements, needed by (and sufficient for) the
vast majority of life that we try to keep. In that case, who is to say that
30 such things is "not enough" to measure, but 100 of them would be "all we
need".

Why is the line you drew (between what you measure, and what you ignore) any
better than the reply you got from Instant Ocean? Aside from the obvious fact
that you'd like to measure a superset of what they told you, so of course it
ought to be slightly better. But no matter how many you pick, you'll still be
leaving out the vast majority of trace components.

-- Don
__________________________________________________ _____________________________
Don Geddis http://reef.geddis.org/

Hey! I did say I was a newbie aquarist, but that doesn't mean I am not a
marine bio with more than 15 years of experience in coastal systems...

As for my experiment, well, I remember you even made fun of it. Well, it
has been seven months now without the need of a single water change with
twice the species...

All I said then and repeat now is that you aquarists should read more
science and less magazines. You are expending too much money on something
very simple...

Yes, I am a newbie aquarist, I only had a tank for 7 months, my first, lol

jrs
"Pszemol" wrote in message
...
"Jaime R-S" wrote in message
...
As an aquarist, I am a newbie.

Oh come on... I think you are too hard on yourself. L0L! :-))

Months ago, you claimed here you are an expert aquarist!
From your first post here you were trying to mesmerize
everyone with your successful experiments with reef tanks
and no maintenance required, magical filters etc!

Do You Remember ? If not, the Google archive will remind you:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...e1c4abd0?hl=en
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...3cd368a9?hl=en

You were even ready to patent the system, comparing your
invention (in your own, very humble way) to a light bulb and
calling advanced aquarists here per your "son", suggesting
we need to learn from you because you ... :-)

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...ce1cfae8?hl=en
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...77f9095e?hl=en

And now, you claim to be a newbie ? Oh come on... give me a break!

Hi Wayne,
As you say it was Bob Studt that replied to me but his
reply to you is somewhat different to his reply to me which I quoted
word for word in my post. As I said the 13 ion's given precise numbers
were reasonable in the most part, 2or 3 on the high side, but the 15
given 'less than' numbers would have be considerably 'Less than' to get
any ware near natural sea water. I would also point out that these
results were about 2.5 years old, testing of a product that can be as
inconsistent as a salt mix should be done on a frequent schedule.
regards,
unclenorm.

PS to answer Don Geddis there are about 70 elements and trace elements
regarded as important to the marine hobby.

"unclenorm" wrote on 28 Jan 2006 02:0:
PS to answer Don Geddis there are about 70 elements and trace elements
regarded as important to the marine hobby.

You assert this, but can you provide backup? What is the list of 70?
"Regarded as important" by who? I've been doing this (home reef tank)
for a few years, read a lot of books, and haven't ever seen such a list.

The common ones that you see in all the reefkeeping books -- for example
the nitrogen cycle, salinity, pH, phosphates -- probably numbers 10-15
molecules.

I'm really curious where you get your list of 70. And, more specifically, what
they are.

-- Don
__________________________________________________ _____________________________
Don Geddis http://reef.geddis.org/
I have to get home quickly. I think something terrible may have happened
to my Uncle Owen and Aunt Beru.

"Don Geddis" wrote in message ...
"unclenorm" wrote on 28 Jan 2006 02:0:
PS to answer Don Geddis there are about 70 elements and trace elements
regarded as important to the marine hobby.

You assert this, but can you provide backup? What is the list of 70?
"Regarded as important" by who? I've been doing this (home reef tank)
for a few years, read a lot of books, and haven't ever seen such a list.

The common ones that you see in all the reefkeeping books -- for example
the nitrogen cycle, salinity, pH, phosphates -- probably numbers 10-15
molecules.

I'm really curious where you get your list of 70. And, more specifically, what
they are.

I did a quick search and found this (note: number 70 mentioned):

http://saltaquarium.about.com/librar.../aa012003d.htm
http://saltaquarium.about.com/cs/sea.../aa090503b.htm

Here is some data to have some fun with :-)



Sea Water Anylisis 1968

Clorine 19,000
Sodium 10,500
Magnesium 1,350
Sulfur 8885
Calium 400
Potassium 65
Carbon 28
Strotium 8
Boron 4.6
Silicon 3
Florine 1.3
Argon .6
Nitrogen .5
Lithium 1.7
Rubidium 1.2
Phosphorus .07
Iodine .06
Barium .03
Idium .02
Iron .01
Molybdenum .01
Zinc .01
Aluminum .01
Selenium .004
Copper .003
Tin .003
Uranium .003
Arcenic .003
Vanadium .002
Nickel .002
Manganese .002
Titanium .001
Antimony .0005
Cesium .0005
Cobalt .0005
Cerium .0004
Yttrium .0003
Silver .0003
Krypton .0003
Lanthanum .0003
Neon .0001
Xenon .0001
Tungsten .0001
Gadmium .0001
Germanium .00007
Thorium .00005
Chromium .00005
Scandium .00004
Mercury .00003
Lead .00003
Gallium .00003
Bismuth .00002
Niobium .00001
Thallium .00001
Helium .000005
Gold .000004
Pratactinium .000002
Radium .0000001
Radon .0000000000006






Instant Ocean 34ppt salinity 1994
Chloride 19251
Sodium 10757
Sulfate 2669
Magnesium 1317
Potassium 402
Calcium 398
Carbonate/Bicarbonate 192
Strotium 8.6
Boron 5.6
Bromide 2.3
Iodide .22
Lithium .18
Copper .03
Iron .03
Nickle .04
Zinc .02
Manganese .01
Molybdenum .01
Cobalt .05
Vanadium .04
Selenium Trace
Florine .05
Lead .005
Arsenic .0002
Cadmium .02
Chroium .0006
Aluminum .04
Tin Trace
Atimony Trace
Rubidum Trace
Barium .05
Mercury None
Nitrate None
Phosphate None

Wayne Sallee
Wayne's Pets


Wayne Sallee wrote on 1/27/2006 11:05 AM:
Bob Studt, who sent you the analysis, said those are results of actual
tests on the finished product. So they are indeed testing the final
product, not just going by what their suppliers are telling them.

Wayne Sallee
Wayne's Pets



Wayne Sallee wrote on 1/27/2006 10:12 AM:

Yes what you recieved sounds like a normal analysis. I have recieved
several over the years from different manufactures.

But the statement "The ions shown are the ones we have had analysed or
have info on from our raw material suppliers. This is the only
information we can provide.", I find very interesting, and not to my
satisfaction. That's disapointing that a salt manufacture would only
rely on what they are being told by their suppliers. I'll have to
e-mail one of the higher-ups at IO, and see what responce I get.

Wayne Sallee
Wayne's Pets



unclenorm wrote on 1/27/2006 12:37 AM:

Hi All,
A few facts regarding Instant Ocean I thought might interest
you.
I recently contacted Aquarium Systems technical dept.(the
manufacturer of IO) and asked for a full analysis with quantity's in
ppm, required for an ongoing survey into salt mixes.
I got a prompt reply in the form of a list titled 'Typical
Composition of Instant Ocean Salt'. It listed 13 Ion's with exact
numbers, a further 15 with a 'less than' number, most of which were a
great deal higher than natural sea water, up to ten times higher, it
also listed Nitrate and Phosphate as zero.
I replied to this and pointed out that this list was less than
half the number of Ion's present in natural sea water.
They replied and I quote "The ions shown are the ones we have
had analysed or have info on from our raw material suppliers. This is
the only information we can provide."
I leave you to draw your own conclusions!!!???
regards,
unclenorm.











Wayne Sallee wrote:

Well this thread has been typical of "best salt" threads.
They are always loooong.

Wayne Sallee
Wayne's Pets



Peter Pan wrote on 1/21/2006 1:25 PM:

I've been using Instant Ocean since I set up my 75 Gal. FOWLR tank
in 2002
and never had a problem. I've read that its not really a good idea
to change
salt, but if you were to change it, it was a very lengthy process with
mixing your current salt with the new stuff until your completly
changed
over.( the process should take several months.

My local LFS said that KENT was better for my tank then using
Instant Ocean.
What im wondering is; Is it better for his profits or is it really
a better
product for my tank?

Thanks