Fatman
Fatman
I have found Randy Holmes-Farley only to be contradictory once (about iodine usage)
Where please show me.
I need show you nothing, as there is nothing to prove or disdparove. It is only taht at one time he made one recommendatioan as as time went on he changes his recommendations. call it growth or contradiction, whaat ever, it is adifference. Or opinions often change as I expect do his.
and can only remember finding fault in one small thing he wrote once and that was the statement that aragonite and crushed coral are both calcium carbonate and that calcium carbonate dissolved in marine water at a such and such pH.
Where you must have misunderstood what he said. Crushed coral is Aragonite. Thereis no misunderstanding. His aregument was that aragonite sand in a marine system does not dissolve at a lower ph than crushed coral. Crushed coral is very seldom aragonite. Crushed coral is nearly always undergone a change to calcite so its geometric structure is different causing it to dissolve at a lower pH.
Where as aragonite and calcium carbonate (crushed coral) dissolve at different marine water pH's
Different Aragonite, with different porosity, can dissolve at slightly different rates. i.e., aragonitic sand vs crushed coral etc..
Different aragonite with different amounts of different chemicals that accompany the aragonite, and might very well dissolve at different rates due to different accompanying. Porousity is not an issue, nor is the grasping at straws in relation to particle size. Given all things being the same except one being aragonite in its own unique geometric form and the other, calcite in it more stable geometric form or final form, as all aragonite will eventaully become aragonite as all allegedly become their most stable form eventually, the aragonite will dissolve at a lower pH.
But then there is the long argument that aragonite is a form of calcium carbonate, yes as is halite.
Halite !!! That is NaCl, Sodium Chloride .
Admittedly it was quite late and I wrote halite instead of Calcite, so whip me with a spagetti noodle.
What ! There is no argument at all anywhere on thisCalcite is CaCO3 and Aragonite is CaCO3 just different crystallographic morphs. There is also Hi-Mg Calcite and Low-Mg Calcite.
That is a laughable opinion that there is no argument. I dummied up what I previously wrote as most people do not know what a crystallographic morph is, sio I instead wrote different geometric structure or arrangement. The argument is still the same, as the two different calcium carbonates dissolve at different a different pH.
Well graphite and a diamond are both carbon, no one claims they dissolve in the same marine water pH or are of equal hardness. It is most typical for a chemical compound that has differing geometric arrangements in its structure but the same chemical formulas to have different physical properties and because of that dissolve at different pH's or have vastly different hardnesses or melting points etc. Not that any of this or that matters.
Yes that is true.
When I have difficulties believing something Randy writes I can generally go to a chemistry reference book or even a text book or two or three.
Maybe you do not understand what he is saying
Once again I need prove or show you nothing in regard to what I think about what or how Randy writes. I believe him the finest contributer in the aquatic chemistry field in the way of his posting of material for themarine hobbiest, but as I only have a minor in chemisrtry some times I must go back to the books to dispell some disbelief or misunderstanding I might have in something I read. Is that wrong? I do not believe so!!!! As far as participating at RC. No thank you I read from the site, but have no desire to participate in the mannerisms of that site.
I agree on the WC issue with you. There are many people that do very large water changes with little or no effect on corals , even sps's. Don W was doing ~ 100 % changes on his reef tanks and I use to do monthly 75 - 90 % changes for 20 years.
The calcium issue has been very misleading over the years, Chris Jury, a reefer and grad student, who's dissertation is on this very subject has come to the conclusion from his studies that Calcium levels over ~360 ppm does squat for coral growth and is controlled by pH and Alk, not Ca++ levels or other limiting factors. Meaning, if all *could be the same and one raised the Ca++ only from 360 ppm to 400 or 500 the corals growth rate would not change.
Calc levels . . .
- Thread starter BigAl07
- Start date
Boomer
Reef Sanctuary's Mr. Wizard
Porousity is not an issue, nor is the grasping at straws in relation to particle size. Given all things being the same except one being aragonite in its own unique geometric form and the other, calcite in it more stable geometric form or final form
Porosity is an issue but small. A solid with no proe stucture will dissolve slower than one full of holes, even if both have the same amount to total mass. As far as particle size it most certainly is to a degree. Large particles dissolve easier and faster than smaller ones but it too is often not that big of an issue. You will also get faster dissolution on "struts and points". There is also "flash dissolution" that takes place at times with very, very fine particles.
as all aragonite will eventaully become aragonite as all allegedly become their most stable form eventually
What do you mean all Aragonite becomes Aragonite. How can it do that if it is already Aragonite I think you are confusing ACT, Aragonite ---> Calcite Transition and it is always not complete. Aragonite does not always turn into Calcite.
The argument is still the same, as the two different calcium carbonates dissolve at different a different pH
True.
We all make errors in posts.
That is a laughable opinion that there is no argument. I dummied up what I previously wrote
I kinda figured you dumbed up We all do it at times.
Once again I need prove or show you nothing in regard to what I think about what or how Randy writes
Well, you are making claims that he did, so it is why I ask. If you have no comments to back it up them don't be posting as such. Thus your remarks are just hear-say and mean nothing. If I brought Randy here he would ask you the same , "where"
I believe him the finest contributer in the aquatic chemistry field
We agree here for sure as far as this hobby goes. Randy is not a aquatic chemist but a "drug " chemist, with many patents. Two of his are quite famous and have saved lives. One being Renagel and the other CholestaGelÆ.
Reef Central Online Community - Who is Randy and what is the Reef Chemistry Forum?
As far as participating at RC. No thank you
That is true of much of RC but is NOT so on Randy's Chem forum. Randy is the most polite person I know. Anbd I rarely ever venture elsewhere on RC unless Randy asks me to.
to the books to dispell some disbelief or misunderstanding I might have in something I read.
We agree here also and is why I have like 30 chem books. 15 on just water chem. Often we may not understrand the subject matter as Randy does. Also, not all in books or articles is right either. There are many chem books out with many gross errors in them. All one has to do is look at some the their reviews.
I mighty add Fatman, you are a very good poster with a vey good amount of knowledge and I'm glad to see you here.
Porosity is an issue but small. A solid with no proe stucture will dissolve slower than one full of holes, even if both have the same amount to total mass. As far as particle size it most certainly is to a degree. Large particles dissolve easier and faster than smaller ones but it too is often not that big of an issue. You will also get faster dissolution on "struts and points". There is also "flash dissolution" that takes place at times with very, very fine particles.
as all aragonite will eventaully become aragonite as all allegedly become their most stable form eventually
What do you mean all Aragonite becomes Aragonite. How can it do that if it is already Aragonite
I think you are confusing ACT, Aragonite ---> Calcite Transition and it is always not complete. Aragonite does not always turn into Calcite. The argument is still the same, as the two different calcium carbonates dissolve at different a different pH
True.
We all make errors in posts.
That is a laughable opinion that there is no argument. I dummied up what I previously wrote
I kinda figured you dumbed up
We all do it at times.Once again I need prove or show you nothing in regard to what I think about what or how Randy writes
Well, you are making claims that he did, so it is why I ask. If you have no comments to back it up them don't be posting as such. Thus your remarks are just hear-say and mean nothing. If I brought Randy here he would ask you the same , "where"
I believe him the finest contributer in the aquatic chemistry field
We agree here for sure as far as this hobby goes. Randy is not a aquatic chemist but a "drug " chemist, with many patents. Two of his are quite famous and have saved lives. One being Renagel and the other CholestaGelÆ.
Reef Central Online Community - Who is Randy and what is the Reef Chemistry Forum?
As far as participating at RC. No thank you
That is true of much of RC but is NOT so on Randy's Chem forum. Randy is the most polite person I know. Anbd I rarely ever venture elsewhere on RC unless Randy asks me to.
to the books to dispell some disbelief or misunderstanding I might have in something I read.
We agree here also and is why I have like 30 chem books. 15 on just water chem. Often we may not understrand the subject matter as Randy does. Also, not all in books or articles is right either. There are many chem books out with many gross errors in them. All one has to do is look at some the their reviews.
I mighty add Fatman, you are a very good poster with a vey good amount of knowledge and I'm glad to see you here.
bluespotjawfish
Well-Known Member
Larger water change = less salt used to get to the same end result (just my opinion, not a professional)
Less salt used = $$$$ saved (ok you have me on a budget, so I have some knowledge of this, however, you got free salt, so now I don't know again)
How's that for a dummy (*me*)
Of course you will prepare it properly and let it age whatever you end up doing.
Less salt used = $$$$ saved (ok you have me on a budget, so I have some knowledge of this, however, you got free salt, so now I don't know again)
How's that for a dummy (*me*)
Of course you will prepare it properly and let it age whatever you end up doing.
Wow! I leave the forum for a few hours and THIS is what happens? 
Life is GOOD!
I prepare my water Sunday morning (with heater and power head(s) ), add salt mix Sunday night (with heater and power head(s) ) and let it "Stew" until Monday night. then I test and confirm parameters before any actual water changes containers. That should suffice no?
Life is GOOD!
I prepare my water Sunday morning (with heater and power head(s) ), add salt mix Sunday night (with heater and power head(s) ) and let it "Stew" until Monday night. then I test and confirm parameters before any actual water changes containers. That should suffice no?
Indeed I do
One day you and the family are gonna say, "Man that 'Al guy' really got us on the right track. He's such a 'Swell' guy!" Boomer I think you obviously realize I like many others am a lousy proof reader. I meant aragonite will convert to the more stable geometric arrangement, which is calcite. To say that this does not always happen is an even greater leap into the unknown than to say it always eventually converts to it's more stable geometric form. Chemistry theory and geology theory says a chemical compound will always convert to its most stable geometric arrangement. That is taught, and unproven theory, as a theory is not a proven fact. But theory does mean widely believed or most likely.
I used to highlight obvious errors in my text books and reference books. It just frustrated me and I quit the highlighting practice. Most text books as well as reference books are full of out dated material before they are even put to print. That is unfortunately the case with most information taken as facts within the reef hobby and on most reef forums. There are not enough of people willing to put out the effort to write down fresh but proven methodologies, or research results, yet alone substantiate those methodologies through the posting of links or data.
As far as RC, the only time I realy ever go to that site is to red from the Chemistry section. Randy often throws out something I have not ever taken the time to contemplate.
As far as how Randy writes, what I am referencing is his basing an opinion on tehre published work of others, then doing limited tesyting on his own tank and decide to cahnge his recommendations to others. This is not neccesarrily wrong as he is well eduacted and can likely make sound judgements in order to form his own opinions basedon both his education and the limited non comparison testing, but it seems contridictory to have both articles posted with nearly opposite opinions. I for one was uite surprised when I quoted that I had read that Randy recommended or was practicing one method od iodine usage, only to have someone post a link to a new article that was about 180 degrees different in his recmmendations or his present reef practices. This is basically in regard to iodine usage. It hs been a while though so I do not remember the specifics. I realise that his first article could be considered a preliminary "opinin," and that the follow up was his opinion after his owntesting, but it sure teems like he was initailly promoting something and then switched. I also realise that he is not going to ask that articles be pulled every time a change in his opinion comes about, I assume he as do others often times base opinions too heavily on others testa/research/opinions and that after performing his own trials/tests/research he realises his opinion has changed. But the artcles still seemed pretty contradictory and show he is just a human like the erst of us.
I used to highlight obvious errors in my text books and reference books. It just frustrated me and I quit the highlighting practice. Most text books as well as reference books are full of out dated material before they are even put to print. That is unfortunately the case with most information taken as facts within the reef hobby and on most reef forums. There are not enough of people willing to put out the effort to write down fresh but proven methodologies, or research results, yet alone substantiate those methodologies through the posting of links or data.
As far as RC, the only time I realy ever go to that site is to red from the Chemistry section. Randy often throws out something I have not ever taken the time to contemplate.
As far as how Randy writes, what I am referencing is his basing an opinion on tehre published work of others, then doing limited tesyting on his own tank and decide to cahnge his recommendations to others. This is not neccesarrily wrong as he is well eduacted and can likely make sound judgements in order to form his own opinions basedon both his education and the limited non comparison testing, but it seems contridictory to have both articles posted with nearly opposite opinions. I for one was uite surprised when I quoted that I had read that Randy recommended or was practicing one method od iodine usage, only to have someone post a link to a new article that was about 180 degrees different in his recmmendations or his present reef practices. This is basically in regard to iodine usage. It hs been a while though so I do not remember the specifics. I realise that his first article could be considered a preliminary "opinin," and that the follow up was his opinion after his owntesting, but it sure teems like he was initailly promoting something and then switched. I also realise that he is not going to ask that articles be pulled every time a change in his opinion comes about, I assume he as do others often times base opinions too heavily on others testa/research/opinions and that after performing his own trials/tests/research he realises his opinion has changed. But the artcles still seemed pretty contradictory and show he is just a human like the erst of us.
bluespotjawfish
Well-Known Member
Al, I can say that right now, no need to wait. BTW, being on a budget is much easier than figuring out what these guys are really talking about!
:LOL: Yeah the word "budget" sounds harsh and "limiting" but it's actually liberating and refreshing! Plus the "end result" is nothing less than PHENOMINAL! Now if I can get my water parms as well balanced as our budget. WAIT! I just figured it out!!
OMG! I know what's wrong! I can't believe I didn't figure it out.... JULIE needs to handle my watar parameters! She's AWESOME with the budget ( I suck) and I bet she's kick some tail in water chemistry!!
I really DO appreciate EVERYONE's input!!
bluespotjawfish
Well-Known Member
I think you got it! It's all about telling your parameters where to go instead of letting them decide!
Don't worry too much about your parameters, just change some water.
My fishies got their water change this morning. They are happy!
Don't worry too much about your parameters, just change some water.
My fishies got their water change this morning. They are happy!
bluespotjawfish
Well-Known Member
lol - I have an $11 credit on my credit card!
I have no card! The money is just stuck there!
I have no card! The money is just stuck there!
Boomer
Reef Sanctuary's Mr. Wizard
Fatman
I think you obviously realize I like many others am a lousy proof reader.
Yes, and it dug you a hole. If I did not corrected you where would others be reading your posts ? But I have done this also. Last month I killed a guys shrimp from that, as I did not move over the decimal on a calculation of a K+ additive.
I meant aragonite will convert to the more stable geometric arrangement, which is calcite.
Only if the geologic events or other chemical events favor such a change.
To say that this does not always happen is an even greater leap into the unknown than to say it always eventually converts to it's more stable geometric form.
How far do you want to go with this There are Aragonites millions of years old that have not converted. Please go look at the story of Aragonite favorability in the oceans vs. the Calcite favorability in the oceans in geologic time, where each has been favored for 100's of millions of years.
I'm sure you have heard of Caribsea and all the gravels and sands they sell. They come from inland mines in Florida 10,000's of years old and are Aragonite. You have leaped into an area you now little about. I would suggest to look at a good carbonate petrology book, like Tucker or Morse. I will say it one last time, Aragonite will only convert if the conditions are favorable. It is not a debate, it is fact.
what I am referencing is his basing an opinion on tehre published work of others, then doing limited tesyting on his own tank and decide to change his recommendations to others.
Yes he has changed is "opinion" on things at times as have I. And he made a grave mistake I had correct him on the other day, as he did not know and assumed but he has done the same to me, which is fine. We all at times "leap" into the unknown and start post-hole digging.
This is basically in regard to iodine usage.
I would like to see that article. As far as know his recommendations on Iodine have not changed as far as I know and are the same as mine. He has written two articles on Iodine. One deals with it in reef tanks, where he states it is not needed as a sup. The other 180, as you call it, deals with those thanks with allot of macroalage where one may need to sup it. All you have to do is a search on RC on his last post on Iodine, it is the same as it was when he wrote those articles. That is not a 180 at all. If you are going to make that claim I want a ref. to such. A ref pretty much shuts one up usually.
I assume he as do others often times base opinions too heavily on others testa/research/opinions and that after performing his own trials/tests/research he realises his opinion has changed.
Yes, and this is quite common in the science world. I'm sure you have changed yours also, as have I. For decades researchers have argued is the Panda Bear and "Bear" or just a big "Raccoon", now we know form DNA. For ~ 300 years the Rainbow Trout was "Trout", now it has been renamed as a Salmon.
I will end this thread with this remark.
The merit or credibly of a post or reply can be found within its contents, which readers will decide.
I think you obviously realize I like many others am a lousy proof reader.
Yes, and it dug you a hole. If I did not corrected you where would others be reading your posts ? But I have done this also. Last month I killed a guys shrimp from that, as I did not move over the decimal on a calculation of a K+ additive.
I meant aragonite will convert to the more stable geometric arrangement, which is calcite.
Only if the geologic events or other chemical events favor such a change.
To say that this does not always happen is an even greater leap into the unknown than to say it always eventually converts to it's more stable geometric form.
How far do you want to go with this
There are Aragonites millions of years old that have not converted. Please go look at the story of Aragonite favorability in the oceans vs. the Calcite favorability in the oceans in geologic time, where each has been favored for 100's of millions of years.I'm sure you have heard of Caribsea and all the gravels and sands they sell. They come from inland mines in Florida 10,000's of years old and are Aragonite. You have leaped into an area you now little about. I would suggest to look at a good carbonate petrology book, like Tucker or Morse. I will say it one last time, Aragonite will only convert if the conditions are favorable. It is not a debate, it is fact.
what I am referencing is his basing an opinion on tehre published work of others, then doing limited tesyting on his own tank and decide to change his recommendations to others.
Yes he has changed is "opinion" on things at times as have I. And he made a grave mistake I had correct him on the other day, as he did not know and assumed but he has done the same to me, which is fine. We all at times "leap" into the unknown and start post-hole digging.
This is basically in regard to iodine usage.
I would like to see that article. As far as know his recommendations on Iodine have not changed as far as I know and are the same as mine. He has written two articles on Iodine. One deals with it in reef tanks, where he states it is not needed as a sup. The other 180, as you call it, deals with those thanks with allot of macroalage where one may need to sup it. All you have to do is a search on RC on his last post on Iodine, it is the same as it was when he wrote those articles. That is not a 180 at all. If you are going to make that claim I want a ref. to such. A ref pretty much shuts one up usually.
I assume he as do others often times base opinions too heavily on others testa/research/opinions and that after performing his own trials/tests/research he realises his opinion has changed.
Yes, and this is quite common in the science world. I'm sure you have changed yours also, as have I. For decades researchers have argued is the Panda Bear and "Bear" or just a big "Raccoon", now we know form DNA. For ~ 300 years the Rainbow Trout was "Trout", now it has been renamed as a Salmon.
I will end this thread with this remark.
The merit or credibly of a post or reply can be found within its contents, which readers will decide.
Jumping in on this (where I probably don't belong), I'd just like to say that Boomer's not only absolutely right on about this, but that Boomer, to me, represents a level of knowledge and experience - and reliability of his facts - that I can trust. And I suspect all of us on here do.
Most posts on this site are open and honest questions, and open and honest responses, representing an attempt to help, rather than an attempt to push or to appear to be the all-knowing, final arbiter.
FWIW, previous comments by Fatman, for example that all people of a certain geographic origin represent truth because of their location, or an attempt to erroneously misquote people we know to be knowledgeable (like Randy Holmes-Farley, etc) erode any possible trust or reliability I'd have in his responses.
Boomer's answers and style of relating them represent, to me, the knowledge I'd like to gain in a friendly and helpful manner. Not judgemental, not a need to prove himself, just always reliable information put forward for others benefit.
nikkipigtails
Well-Known Member
Come on guys...
It's difficult to debate or talk to some people because they're relentless with what they believe to be true (whether it is or not). That's why further research is always necessary.
This might be turning into more of a personal debate about the validity of RHF's research and articles rather than trying to help with Al's problem.
:hug1:
It's difficult to debate or talk to some people because they're relentless with what they believe to be true (whether it is or not). That's why further research is always necessary.
This might be turning into more of a personal debate about the validity of RHF's research and articles rather than trying to help with Al's problem.
:hug1:
hma
Well-Known Member
Mhhhh.... for the RS user with less good chemical knowledge.
What is the issue here?
Now ..... this is the trigger of the Diskusion:
Right ….. ..... a crystal rock! The lower part is much dirtied ARAGONIT (YES, this IS Aragonit), the upper part is pure CALCIT. Both is almost pure CA [CO3] ,
Can you dissolve such a crystal stone? Yes,..... you can. In sour surroundings (Ph 6 and less) this stone will resolve bit by bit, one could supply an aquarium with calcium as well as carbonat hardness. Does this also make sense?
:hug1: :apint:
What is the issue here?
Now ..... this is the trigger of the Diskusion:
Right ….. ..... a crystal rock! The lower part is much dirtied ARAGONIT (YES, this IS Aragonit), the upper part is pure CALCIT. Both is almost pure CA [CO3] ,
Can you dissolve such a crystal stone? Yes,..... you can. In sour surroundings (Ph 6 and less) this stone will resolve bit by bit, one could supply an aquarium with calcium as well as carbonat hardness. Does this also make sense?
:hug1: :apint:
