Low ph and calc with high alk
- Thread starter lcstorc
- Start date
lcstorc
Well-Known Member
Well time for new values.
First my ph probe is way off. Now for the original tests I used the probe and 2 liquid tests and all agreed. Apparently the ph has gone up without going up on the monitor. We'll re-calibrate when we get more solution . Now when we test with 2 different testing solutions they agree so I am going to use those results.
Ph 8.2
alk 9.8 dkh 3.5 meql
ca 350
mg 1650
So according to Randy's graph I am in reasonable shape. Still a bit in zone 3 but at least close to the line. According to the chart water changes and calcium are what I should be adding so I will continue with that. Another water change scheduled for tomorrow then re-testing.
I am a bit puzzled why mg is so high. As far as I know we haven't done anything to raise it directly.
I'm still not sure what exactly fixed it but something sure did. Maybe it is a combination of things. I will continue to monitor all of the values closely particularly the ph since I can't leave the windows open forever. Obviously if the ph drops I will have to figure out a way to get more oxygen to the tank without the window being open.
Anyway, I am much less worried with these values.
I am set to do another water change tomorrow and the one I did today obviously may have helped. I did not use the Oceanic since that is apparently high alk. I used IO instead. Hopefully that one is ok since they are the only salts I have ATM. I did forget to test the NSW so I will do that tomorrow before I do the second water change.
Thank you all for the help.
I loce RS and all the people here. I don't know what I would do without you to help me out with my wacky problems.
First my ph probe is way off. Now for the original tests I used the probe and 2 liquid tests and all agreed. Apparently the ph has gone up without going up on the monitor. We'll re-calibrate when we get more solution . Now when we test with 2 different testing solutions they agree so I am going to use those results.
Ph 8.2
alk 9.8 dkh 3.5 meql
ca 350
mg 1650
So according to Randy's graph I am in reasonable shape. Still a bit in zone 3 but at least close to the line. According to the chart water changes and calcium are what I should be adding so I will continue with that. Another water change scheduled for tomorrow then re-testing.
I am a bit puzzled why mg is so high. As far as I know we haven't done anything to raise it directly.
I'm still not sure what exactly fixed it but something sure did. Maybe it is a combination of things. I will continue to monitor all of the values closely particularly the ph since I can't leave the windows open forever. Obviously if the ph drops I will have to figure out a way to get more oxygen to the tank without the window being open.
Anyway, I am much less worried with these values.
I am set to do another water change tomorrow and the one I did today obviously may have helped. I did not use the Oceanic since that is apparently high alk. I used IO instead. Hopefully that one is ok since they are the only salts I have ATM. I did forget to test the NSW so I will do that tomorrow before I do the second water change.
Thank you all for the help.
I loce RS and all the people here. I don't know what I would do without you to help me out with my wacky problems.
framerguy
Well-Known Member
Ok, my mind is completely boggled after getting through all of this. I used a 1/4 airline hose which is inserted into the air inlet of the skimmer and the other end is vented to the outside via a nearby window. It has made a world of difference in the stability of my tank. Thanks Prow! I feel like a minnow posting in a pool of sharks here but it really worked for me.
Boomer
Reef Sanctuary's Mr. Wizard
Prow
I don't think you are understanding what you are reading and I'm saying.
just raise the Ca+, no more ph limiting. thus its the Ca+ that is limiting.
I'll say it again low pH is limiting to coral growth, it is not up for debate it is a KNOW fact. Are trying to tell me if the pH 6,6 and the Ca++ is 450 and the Alk is normal the corals will not be limited. They will start to melt before you eyes. Higher pH increases calcification ....period, thus lower pH is limiting. Low calcium is also limiting as is low dKH and temp. Will here corals grow faster if the pH remains at 7.7 and the Ca++ is raised, yes. If the Ca++ remains the same and she raises just the pH, will the rate of growth increase, yes. At her posted values the corals are being limited by both. Corals DO NOT stop growing at her posted parameters....period. Her posted parameters are not that low yet.
many calcareous algae's love elevated CO2 its only being limited by the Ca+ level.
Calcareous Algae's don't use CO2 for their C source but HCO3- and covert it into CO2. Lower forms of algae like Cyano, dino's , air, etc. , use CO2. In a reef tank with normal levels there is hardly any CO2 , < 0.50 ppm
"reefing chemistry" can not explain what i am talking about, not yet
I don't think you know what you are talking about with that statement that says nothing.
Artificial sea water with zero or low calcium concentrations
And the word is zero or low, it says nothing about 330 being limiting
As a consequence of the effects of
low-calcium sea water, we have chosen, in the present
investigation, to examine the relationship between calcification
and photosynthesis by using high-calcium sea water..
Low levels are not defined as what the LIMIT is and as I have repeatedly said low calcium will also limit coral growth. You are reading into something that is NOT there.
dont take this wrong but you keep coming back to the effects of adding Ca+ to a tank already at good levels and the effects on calcification. what about the effects of the lowered Ca+ on her corals, it is causing harm, the ph and alk levels are not.
Where did I say that ? You are making things up as you go along. You keep going off on tangents that are not related to her issue.
you believe the ph is doing more harm and should be fixed before addressing the Ca+.
Yes I do but both are to low. The pH should be addressed before the Ca++ and not the other way around as corals are not THE only animals in the tank. And the fact of the matter is both should be addressed at the same time, through WC not just dumping in Ca++ or more buffers. She has a ionic imbalance issue. And dumping in more buffers or Ca++ does not fix the balance.
no reactions with X amount of this present or X amount of that will show what i am talking about, from the quote above; "This inevitably must affect the transport of Ca2+ across the epithelia and compromise any experiments in which Ca2+ transport is a factor." its not possible to get past that and understand whats going on using just chemistry.
Prow , Sorry but you do not undersatand what you are reading. Coral calcification is controlled by Ca++, pH, Alk, temp and ligh in many corals but not all and if you want a health animal. You need some ref to read on the biochemistry of corals here is a start. Try not to reading into things most is on photosynthesis.
Photosynthesis and the Reef Aquarium,
Part I: Carbon Sources
http://www.reefsanctuary.com/forums/reef-chemistry-forum/28978-low-ph-calc-high-alk.html
correct, i do know of some softies that can, but this is far from the norm and her clams, sps zoas and sps are hurting with that Ca+ level.
I never said as such I said again she is limited in Ca++ and that does not = "hurting" things. Here high Alk is helping both the low pH an Ca++ somewhat. Both here pH and Ca++ are to low. Adding just CaCl2 is not going to fix things because of the buffer that was used. She has added Ca++ and what did it do , it just dropped back down. It kinda' has set new rules that don't allow the normal dosing of sups. It is the same issue when one has low Alk or Ca++ or both the Ca++ and Alk are low and not being able to get them and keeping then up but keep trying to fix things by switched from one buffer sup to another kind and one a Ca++ sup to another kind. It is Solution Kinetics. The system gets out of Ionic Balance. This is a common issue in this hobby. Randy and I gave talked about it allot on the RC Chem forum. This issue, similar to Lynn's, was brought up the other day and Chris posted Change the water.
and pushing it to levels of 500+, everyone would be able to just add Ca+ and increase calcification along with it. i dont think its the Ca+ that is increasing calcification but the effects of other mechanisms on calcification. perhaps to initiate those mechanisms that result in a increased calcification rate, higher Ca+ levels are needed. i dout its the Ca+ also
Then you did not understand that pdf I posted, as all they did is raise the Ca++. Other mechanisms yes, there has to be proper temp, pH and Alk They all play a roll in calcification. You can not expect to have a pH of 7. 7 and Alk of 1 meq / l , low light, poor current, low temp and raise the Ca++ to 500ppm and automatically think they will have marked increase in growth rate.
ok lets get off this, i believe alk will get used up while she make adjustments to bring things back to normal, you think Alk will stay the same. ok so be it.
PROW you are beginning to PISS me off with your nonsense and Putting words in my mouth !!
Where did I say that ! I said to do 50 % WC. It was me that brought this up first NOT you or anyone else in post #16.
and to add to
, i stick with the advice i gave. back to back 50% water changes, BAM two days done, water parameters close to norm.
Don't be taking credit from my first advice and what I have been saying from the beginning. I know that Lynn knows that here WC water needs to have a higher Ca++ and pH. I don't need to tell her that. Once the WC are done if the parameters are low they can be bumped up.
When WC are done the Alk will NOT be used up but diluted to a lower level, so the Alk will be less. "IF" the Alk does not drop, because her salt mix is high in Alk, it will then get used up in time from neutralizing acids, Abiotic and biotic precip and won't be an issue. And her posted Alk is really not an issue it is the low Ca++ and pH or did you forget about that ?
I don't think you are understanding what you are reading and I'm saying.
just raise the Ca+, no more ph limiting. thus its the Ca+ that is limiting.
I'll say it again low pH is limiting to coral growth, it is not up for debate it is a KNOW fact. Are trying to tell me if the pH 6,6 and the Ca++ is 450 and the Alk is normal the corals will not be limited. They will start to melt before you eyes. Higher pH increases calcification ....period, thus lower pH is limiting. Low calcium is also limiting as is low dKH and temp. Will here corals grow faster if the pH remains at 7.7 and the Ca++ is raised, yes. If the Ca++ remains the same and she raises just the pH, will the rate of growth increase, yes. At her posted values the corals are being limited by both. Corals DO NOT stop growing at her posted parameters....period. Her posted parameters are not that low yet.
many calcareous algae's love elevated CO2 its only being limited by the Ca+ level.
Calcareous Algae's don't use CO2 for their C source but HCO3- and covert it into CO2. Lower forms of algae like Cyano, dino's , air, etc. , use CO2. In a reef tank with normal levels there is hardly any CO2 , < 0.50 ppm
"reefing chemistry" can not explain what i am talking about, not yet
I don't think you know what you are talking about with that statement that says nothing.
Artificial sea water with zero or low calcium concentrations
And the word is zero or low, it says nothing about 330 being limiting
As a consequence of the effects of
low-calcium sea water, we have chosen, in the present
investigation, to examine the relationship between calcification
and photosynthesis by using high-calcium sea water..
Low levels are not defined as what the LIMIT is and as I have repeatedly said low calcium will also limit coral growth. You are reading into something that is NOT there.
dont take this wrong but you keep coming back to the effects of adding Ca+ to a tank already at good levels and the effects on calcification. what about the effects of the lowered Ca+ on her corals, it is causing harm, the ph and alk levels are not.
Where did I say that ? You are making things up as you go along. You keep going off on tangents that are not related to her issue.
you believe the ph is doing more harm and should be fixed before addressing the Ca+.
Yes I do but both are to low. The pH should be addressed before the Ca++ and not the other way around as corals are not THE only animals in the tank. And the fact of the matter is both should be addressed at the same time, through WC not just dumping in Ca++ or more buffers. She has a ionic imbalance issue. And dumping in more buffers or Ca++ does not fix the balance.
no reactions with X amount of this present or X amount of that will show what i am talking about, from the quote above; "This inevitably must affect the transport of Ca2+ across the epithelia and compromise any experiments in which Ca2+ transport is a factor." its not possible to get past that and understand whats going on using just chemistry.
Prow , Sorry but you do not undersatand what you are reading. Coral calcification is controlled by Ca++, pH, Alk, temp and ligh in many corals but not all and if you want a health animal. You need some ref to read on the biochemistry of corals here is a start. Try not to reading into things most is on photosynthesis.
Photosynthesis and the Reef Aquarium,
Part I: Carbon Sources
http://www.reefsanctuary.com/forums/reef-chemistry-forum/28978-low-ph-calc-high-alk.html
correct, i do know of some softies that can, but this is far from the norm and her clams, sps zoas and sps are hurting with that Ca+ level.
I never said as such I said again she is limited in Ca++ and that does not = "hurting" things. Here high Alk is helping both the low pH an Ca++ somewhat. Both here pH and Ca++ are to low. Adding just CaCl2 is not going to fix things because of the buffer that was used. She has added Ca++ and what did it do , it just dropped back down. It kinda' has set new rules that don't allow the normal dosing of sups. It is the same issue when one has low Alk or Ca++ or both the Ca++ and Alk are low and not being able to get them and keeping then up but keep trying to fix things by switched from one buffer sup to another kind and one a Ca++ sup to another kind. It is Solution Kinetics. The system gets out of Ionic Balance. This is a common issue in this hobby. Randy and I gave talked about it allot on the RC Chem forum. This issue, similar to Lynn's, was brought up the other day and Chris posted Change the water.
and pushing it to levels of 500+, everyone would be able to just add Ca+ and increase calcification along with it. i dont think its the Ca+ that is increasing calcification but the effects of other mechanisms on calcification. perhaps to initiate those mechanisms that result in a increased calcification rate, higher Ca+ levels are needed. i dout its the Ca+ also
Then you did not understand that pdf I posted, as all they did is raise the Ca++. Other mechanisms yes, there has to be proper temp, pH and Alk They all play a roll in calcification. You can not expect to have a pH of 7. 7 and Alk of 1 meq / l , low light, poor current, low temp and raise the Ca++ to 500ppm and automatically think they will have marked increase in growth rate.
ok lets get off this, i believe alk will get used up while she make adjustments to bring things back to normal, you think Alk will stay the same. ok so be it.
PROW you are beginning to PISS me off with your nonsense and Putting words in my mouth !!
Where did I say that ! I said to do 50 % WC. It was me that brought this up first NOT you or anyone else in post #16.
and to add to
, i stick with the advice i gave. back to back 50% water changes, BAM two days done, water parameters close to norm.
Don't be taking credit from my first advice and what I have been saying from the beginning. I know that Lynn knows that here WC water needs to have a higher Ca++ and pH. I don't need to tell her that. Once the WC are done if the parameters are low they can be bumped up.
When WC are done the Alk will NOT be used up but diluted to a lower level, so the Alk will be less. "IF" the Alk does not drop, because her salt mix is high in Alk, it will then get used up in time from neutralizing acids, Abiotic and biotic precip and won't be an issue. And her posted Alk is really not an issue it is the low Ca++ and pH or did you forget about that ?
Boomer
Reef Sanctuary's Mr. Wizard
Lynn
Things are much better with the WC. IO from many, many tests is very low in Mg ++ (1,100) and Ca++ (350). Try a retest on the Mg++ . IO has a higher Alk than Oceanic. It is Oceanic that is very high in Ca++ (550) and Mg++(+1,600). Before you add the new water to the next WC test the WC water. Make up a gallon of both IO and Oceanic. It is fine to mix them to get better levels for your tank so you are not having to add more in sup's later. But you need to know the Mg++ of that tank first. DO a re-test of the tank before you do anything. If after the test the Mg++ is more normal then just use the IO and bump up the Ca++ with Kent Turbo or CaCl 50 ppm before you add it to the tank.
The general rule is WC usually fix things
Things are much better with the WC. IO from many, many tests is very low in Mg ++ (1,100) and Ca++ (350). Try a retest on the Mg++ . IO has a higher Alk than Oceanic. It is Oceanic that is very high in Ca++ (550) and Mg++(+1,600). Before you add the new water to the next WC test the WC water. Make up a gallon of both IO and Oceanic. It is fine to mix them to get better levels for your tank so you are not having to add more in sup's later. But you need to know the Mg++ of that tank first. DO a re-test of the tank before you do anything. If after the test the Mg++ is more normal then just use the IO and bump up the Ca++ with Kent Turbo or CaCl 50 ppm before you add it to the tank.
The general rule is WC usually fix things
prow
Well-Known Member
boomer you keep changing things to fit your perspective. i notice you are good at that. from the start i have pretty much agreed with you. but i made a ref to watch her alk as she corrects things, you said alk will not be effected. from that point all this has been about, it will get use. not in extremes or absolutes like your reading into it.
i do not think that would happen. i dont and would not expect it. said this already but you must of missed that too. where did you get 1 meq from. i see your changing up things again
may i suggest you try to be a little more professional and stop with the condesending remarks. this post was the only time i used them, you seem to like to use them. maybe that intimidates some but really its only for own ego, maybe you have some inferiority issues or control issues. becaues there is no need for that stuff here. if you only openned your mind and look past your nose you would see i have been saying the same things, but differ on how much alk will be getting used and this leads you to making juvenile remarks. the last post i said what i think and what i think is the best thing to do is. happens to be the same with as your thoughts, WC. disagree if you like, take credit for everything, but please refrain from making juvenile remarks. esp when we agree on what to do to fix things, or do you still not see what getting at?
yeah, i said that both should be addressed at the same time. your insinuating i said adding Ca+ is a cure, again. i am not. i directly said both should be addressed concurrently-but yet you missed it and came up with i think adding Ca+ is the cure, come on now.
can only lead a horse to water.
ahh, changing up things again, going off the deep end. ph 6.6 where did that come from?
jsut becaue you dont know doesnt mean it has no merits.
now dont go off and run into left field, i know your ego is telling you too. this just demonstrates what i mean, chemistry can not explain everything in reefing yet. sorry i know you really want it to. kinda like reasons why one does not go to a pharmacist for a prescription.
you did not say it, but all you examples apply to it. i go off on tangents just to illistrate alk will get used as she makes corrections. for lynn, i keep saying the same thing. the alk part is just for you, and it will get used, but you can not get around that and somehow come up with i am saying Ca+ will fix everything. no no-you have miss read many things and put words into my mouth along with others in this thread. i bet you get many responses that start with, "i did not say that"
i did not say that
i do not think that would happen. i dont and would not expect it. said this already but you must of missed that too. where did you get 1 meq from. i see your changing up things again so your saying 330 is not low and is not limiting?-i know you dont think so but what does this mean then?
well it looks like your talking out of both ends to me. you just hinted a 330 Ca+ is not limiting but then say it is? i know you know it is limiting but this is how you have been reading into my posts, can you at least see that?
ditto~
ditto~
yeah and i agree with that or did you miss that and read right over it? i can see how you could have missed it, i only directly said it a couple times.
oo ok i get it now. this is all about getting credit? like i said and you said the alk getting used is going to be small, i just said it will happen. take all the credit. that has nothing at all to do with anything, except your own ego. becaue you feel the need to make that statement, it does gives a peek into your psych though.
may i suggest you try to be a little more professional and stop with the condesending remarks. this post was the only time i used them, you seem to like to use them. maybe that intimidates some but really its only for own ego, maybe you have some inferiority issues or control issues. becaues there is no need for that stuff here. if you only openned your mind and look past your nose you would see i have been saying the same things, but differ on how much alk will be getting used and this leads you to making juvenile remarks. the last post i said what i think and what i think is the best thing to do is. happens to be the same with as your thoughts, WC. disagree if you like, take credit for everything, but please refrain from making juvenile remarks. esp when we agree on what to do to fix things, or do you still not see what getting at?
lcstorc
Well-Known Member
Well, meanwhile the dummy over here will keep the air going and do some more water changes and testing. I have IO mixing now but I will test that before adding. I like the idea of mixing a small amount and testing to see which is better for my needs right now.
Thanks everybody.
Thanks everybody.
Boomer
Reef Sanctuary's Mr. Wizard
Prow
boomer you keep changing things to fit your perspective. i notice you are good at that. from the start i have pretty much agreed with you.
Afraid not you seen to hope no one will go back and look at the original posts where this started and that is why you have no quotes from them.
So lets start to fix YOU
Here are the facts fell free to go back an read them.
Post #1
She added to much buffer and the wrong buffer which causes an ionic imbalance, which is he issue of the problem.
Post # 3 Your first post
no, kalk is for maintaining alk. it just so happens it also adds Ca+ and because the type of reaction, runs a high ph.
what did you use to dose Ca+? try to use pure CaCl-, like Kent Turbo Calcium. your going need to need to dose over a few days. it will seem like a lot. your replacing and raising daily.
First you are wrong about kalk and what is used for in low pH issue. I pointed that out in post #15 go read it. Second, you have her adding CaCl2 to fix things and it won't.
Note: post #1 she did small water changes and added Ca++ but things did not changes. My post # 15 starts to explains why go read it.
Post # 12 you
kent makes a few different Ca+ sups, the dry stuff is what your wanting. on the alk, no worries once you add CaCl it will get used up and drop. also with your alk on the high side it off sets (compensates) for the lower ph, so dont worry about the ph too much focus on balancing your Ca+/alk. ph usually self corrects once things are balanced out. unless of course you see things going bad then fix ph asap, but if corals or fish show no signs stay focussed on the balancing.
No mention of water changes just add more sup's. This would have made things worse for the system. And Post # 15 I inject
This buffer may have off-set the ionic balance so you may need to do 2 - 50 % changes a day apart.
Post # 16 JWarner agrees with me
Post 43
good on dosing Ca+ but dont pay too much attention to the ph, unless it gets down to 7.6.
You tell her to keep adding more Calcium
Lynn I am hoping that by fixing the alk/calc imbalance that it will help or at least not hurt the ph.
[you]likely to correct it.
I said it won't fix it, still no mention of WC. Still trying to fix the Alk /Ca++ buy adding calcium sups'
Marine Buffer or seachems reef buffer is ok to use, but use only if both your alk and ph are low. for low alk and good to a little low ph seachems reef builder is the ticket. raising just Ca+ for a quick fix turbo Ca+ is good. i would suggest you use seachems adv. Ca+ as it contains stronitium and Mg in balanced ratios to Ca+.
You still have her trying to add more Ca++ to fix the problem
ok, why i say no to stopping your dosing of Ca+ because ph. as you raise your Ca+ your alk will get used up. your ph may go up some or down some, depends when test it after dosing. with Ca that low and alk that high i would dose a lot of Ca+, dont worry to much on overdosing, it will percipitate and you might waste a little Ca but no big. but do watch your alk close as you raise your Ca+. much of your bicarb has been converted to carbonic acid, adding Ca will help take the carbonate out of that. and that will help the ph. just focus on getting things balanced, if worst comes to worst do a back to back 50% water change, with each batched mixed to good levels. then see were your at.
Her you still talk about raising the Ca++ then finally bringing up WC but as a last resort.
Past 44
I try to explain things chemically and go much deeper into the issue.
Post 46
all this i think i said but in a different way, maybe not so clear of a way. but still i agree. exp on the water changes---lynn the water changes will get you back to square one, it will be much easier to correct the original issue after, may end up fixing it without any further adjustment, then star dosing with kalk esp if atmospheric CO2 is the issue. o keeping the temp lower 78ish will help as it calms down metobolic rates some (reduces O2 demand, thus reduces CO2 saturation levels)
You now bring up the WC is a good idea and may fix things
You also bring up channels which I said I misread and may have read into it, as if she just raised the Ca++ all would be fixed. That whole section of that post is mess with the way it is worded. I read it again and it still sounds like you are saying just raise the Ca++ and all will be fixed. Go back and read it.
Post 49
My reply to it
Often not the issue at all when a system is in an ionic imbalance. It has nothing to do with "channels" being closed unless you mean imbalance. In many cases and we have seen lots of them, one just keeps failing when trying to bring levels back up. It has to do with solution kinetics and with something like Marine Buffer it is mess. This, what Lynn has, is not the first time it has come up, it is all over our Chem forum on RC to the point where both Randy and Craig have written about. Randy himself will tell you that if you keep trying to raise the Ca++ and fail, if the Mg++ is normal, despite the Alk to do water changes. At her pH and Alk adding Ca++ to 400 will do nothing for the Alk. It will need to be much higher that 400 and the pH needs to be higher.
Post 71
Boomer,
dont know if you lost the topic, i know your replying to losts, but i NEVER said this had anything to do with her issue. where did you get that idea? i have already stated that its most likely CO2 and the buffer complicated things. i also agree with the water changes to correct her current levels. i posted about calicoblastic epithelium because as she raises her Ca+, using CaCl- some alk will get used. you said, No it will not. how did you come to the conclusion i said this had anything to do with her problem? also i NEVER said this was a cure or even a treament for her problem.
That is how your post reads, it has something to do with the issue. You should no of even brought up it just confuses and compounds her real issue Even in you own admission poor tying and wording skills which makes it worse.
no worries, i can see how that can happen, it usually me. some sentences became fragmented as i might have left out a word or two here and there.
Post 74
i see her ph as being with in normal ranges, possibly just below at night.
Her pH me at a dangerous level at night. Her 7.7 could easily be 7.5 and the cut of "floor value" pH 7.6, where it becomes hard to get it back up below that in seawater, which often requires WC's. This pH is more dangerous that 330 ppm Ca++.
the 325ppm Ca+ though is the limiting factor.
My point in a number of posts, says who ? Do know what "Limit" really means. It is the minimum value where growth stops and corals growth stops well below that 325. "Limiting" is any value where grow is less. So, a Ca++ of 375 ppm is more limiting that a Ca++ of 400ppm. It is the same for Alk, pH, temp, etc.. The will be more limiting with a pH of 7.7 than a pH of 8, as higher pH facilitates growth and better abiotic and biotic precip. There is obviously a upper Limit to all of them.
i suspect the raising of Ca+ and "Adding Calcium does not lower the Alk just because you add it". is based on adding Ca+ that is/was already with in normal limits
No it is not or has to be with in normal limits. The precip of CaO3 is based on pH and ALk. Example, if the Ca++ was 300 ppm, ALk 3.5 and pH 8.1 and another tank with the same but the Ca++ at 400 and we raise them both up to 450 in 50 ppm increments, the "safe" thing to do, there would be no precip in either, they are not at their Omega value to bring about precip. But dumping in all of the 150 to the 300 is another issue and raisng the 400 in one dump of 50 is not a issue.
Post 87
ahh, changing up things again, going off the deep end. ph 6.6 where did that come from?
Taking a turn at Posting like you do. I do not change things up, I should not have to go in great detail, cover everything in ever single flippin' post for you. You have a poor understanding of the subject matter at hand and is why you are digging post holes.
you just hinted a 330 Ca+ is not limiting but then say it is?
As I said above you do not understand the meaning of limiting. Go back and re-read it again, so you are sure you understand it.
oo ok i get it now. this is all about getting credit? like i said and you said the alk getting used is going to be small, i just said it will happen. take all the credit.
It has nothing to do with credit, it is the way you write things. There is no more sense in trying to explain Alk-Calcium balances to you because you don't understand or want to under stand them. Go read some articles and learn something.
may i suggest you try to be a little more professional and stop with the condesending remarks
Kinda hard when you won't listen and talk gibberish.
And lastly
"The Royal Society (2005) concluded that there was little data on the consequences of higher CO2 concentrations on the photosynthetic or growth rates or composition of seaweeds or seagrasses although data available did indicate increased rates of photosynthesis at CO2 concentrations higher than present (Beer et al. 2002). This may be because they may take up CO2 by diffusion rather than through a concentrating mechanism. Kubler et al. (1999) found significant increases in the growth rate of a red seaweed at double today’s concentration of CO2 "
now dont go off and run into left field, i know your ego is telling you too. this just demonstrates what i mean, chemistry can not explain everything in reefing yet.
Looks to me like you are the one on a ego trip and is why you are still uselessly arguing, trying to fill in post holes.
See, again you don't understand what you are reading. What does that have to do with anything. And what do they say , "little data" yet. That report is 3, 5 and 8 years old. Maybe now they have more data and can explain that. I guess that never crossed your mind when you posted this stuff.
and to fix this for them
diffusion rather than through a concentrating mechanism.
Diffusion is based on concentration.
And where did I or anyone say or suggest everything can be explain by reefing chemistry. Anyone that says that is an idiot. You seem to be grasping for some kind of straw that is not there.
i bet you get many responses that start with, "i did not say that"
No Prow just you. I'm real finicky on who says what. You need to go back and read things rather than talking them out of context
but i made a ref to watch her alk as she corrects things, you said alk will not be effected.
See what I mean you don't read right or listen. I said that if she just added Ca++ to original posted levels, as you were first suggesting, there will be little if any affect on the Alk as the pH is to low and the Alk really is not that high I then told you to go look at Omega values. I then stated that after WC the Alk levels may or not be affect it will depend on the salt mix Alk.
Here let me help you read
When WC are done the Alk will NOT be used up but diluted to a lower level, so the Alk will be less. "IF" the Alk does not drop, because her salt mix is high in Alk, it will then get used up in time from neutralizing acids, Abiotic and biotic precip and won't be an issue. And her posted Alk is really not an issue it is the low Ca++ and pH or did you forget about that ?
Do you understand the meaning of the word diluted ?
And enough on this thread. Only issues addressing or helping Lynn from now on.
boomer you keep changing things to fit your perspective. i notice you are good at that. from the start i have pretty much agreed with you.
Afraid not you seen to hope no one will go back and look at the original posts where this started and that is why you have no quotes from them.
So lets start to fix YOU
Here are the facts fell free to go back an read them.
Post #1
She added to much buffer and the wrong buffer which causes an ionic imbalance, which is he issue of the problem.
Post # 3 Your first post
no, kalk is for maintaining alk. it just so happens it also adds Ca+ and because the type of reaction, runs a high ph.
what did you use to dose Ca+? try to use pure CaCl-, like Kent Turbo Calcium. your going need to need to dose over a few days. it will seem like a lot. your replacing and raising daily.
First you are wrong about kalk and what is used for in low pH issue. I pointed that out in post #15 go read it. Second, you have her adding CaCl2 to fix things and it won't.
Note: post #1 she did small water changes and added Ca++ but things did not changes. My post # 15 starts to explains why go read it.
Post # 12 you
kent makes a few different Ca+ sups, the dry stuff is what your wanting. on the alk, no worries once you add CaCl it will get used up and drop. also with your alk on the high side it off sets (compensates) for the lower ph, so dont worry about the ph too much focus on balancing your Ca+/alk. ph usually self corrects once things are balanced out. unless of course you see things going bad then fix ph asap, but if corals or fish show no signs stay focussed on the balancing.
No mention of water changes just add more sup's. This would have made things worse for the system. And Post # 15 I inject
This buffer may have off-set the ionic balance so you may need to do 2 - 50 % changes a day apart.
Post # 16 JWarner agrees with me
Post 43
good on dosing Ca+ but dont pay too much attention to the ph, unless it gets down to 7.6.
You tell her to keep adding more Calcium
Lynn I am hoping that by fixing the alk/calc imbalance that it will help or at least not hurt the ph.
[you]likely to correct it.
I said it won't fix it, still no mention of WC. Still trying to fix the Alk /Ca++ buy adding calcium sups'
Marine Buffer or seachems reef buffer is ok to use, but use only if both your alk and ph are low. for low alk and good to a little low ph seachems reef builder is the ticket. raising just Ca+ for a quick fix turbo Ca+ is good. i would suggest you use seachems adv. Ca+ as it contains stronitium and Mg in balanced ratios to Ca+.
You still have her trying to add more Ca++ to fix the problem
ok, why i say no to stopping your dosing of Ca+ because ph. as you raise your Ca+ your alk will get used up. your ph may go up some or down some, depends when test it after dosing. with Ca that low and alk that high i would dose a lot of Ca+, dont worry to much on overdosing, it will percipitate and you might waste a little Ca but no big. but do watch your alk close as you raise your Ca+. much of your bicarb has been converted to carbonic acid, adding Ca will help take the carbonate out of that. and that will help the ph. just focus on getting things balanced, if worst comes to worst do a back to back 50% water change, with each batched mixed to good levels. then see were your at.
Her you still talk about raising the Ca++ then finally bringing up WC but as a last resort.
Past 44
I try to explain things chemically and go much deeper into the issue.
Post 46
all this i think i said but in a different way, maybe not so clear of a way. but still i agree. exp on the water changes---lynn the water changes will get you back to square one, it will be much easier to correct the original issue after, may end up fixing it without any further adjustment, then star dosing with kalk esp if atmospheric CO2 is the issue. o keeping the temp lower 78ish will help as it calms down metobolic rates some (reduces O2 demand, thus reduces CO2 saturation levels)
You now bring up the WC is a good idea and may fix things
You also bring up channels which I said I misread and may have read into it, as if she just raised the Ca++ all would be fixed. That whole section of that post is mess with the way it is worded. I read it again and it still sounds like you are saying just raise the Ca++ and all will be fixed. Go back and read it.
Post 49
My reply to it
Often not the issue at all when a system is in an ionic imbalance. It has nothing to do with "channels" being closed unless you mean imbalance. In many cases and we have seen lots of them, one just keeps failing when trying to bring levels back up. It has to do with solution kinetics and with something like Marine Buffer it is mess. This, what Lynn has, is not the first time it has come up, it is all over our Chem forum on RC to the point where both Randy and Craig have written about. Randy himself will tell you that if you keep trying to raise the Ca++ and fail, if the Mg++ is normal, despite the Alk to do water changes. At her pH and Alk adding Ca++ to 400 will do nothing for the Alk. It will need to be much higher that 400 and the pH needs to be higher.
Post 71
Boomer,
dont know if you lost the topic, i know your replying to losts, but i NEVER said this had anything to do with her issue. where did you get that idea? i have already stated that its most likely CO2 and the buffer complicated things. i also agree with the water changes to correct her current levels. i posted about calicoblastic epithelium because as she raises her Ca+, using CaCl- some alk will get used. you said, No it will not. how did you come to the conclusion i said this had anything to do with her problem? also i NEVER said this was a cure or even a treament for her problem.
That is how your post reads, it has something to do with the issue. You should no of even brought up it just confuses and compounds her real issue Even in you own admission poor tying and wording skills which makes it worse.
no worries, i can see how that can happen, it usually me. some sentences became fragmented as i might have left out a word or two here and there.
Post 74
i see her ph as being with in normal ranges, possibly just below at night.
Her pH me at a dangerous level at night. Her 7.7 could easily be 7.5 and the cut of "floor value" pH 7.6, where it becomes hard to get it back up below that in seawater, which often requires WC's. This pH is more dangerous that 330 ppm Ca++.
the 325ppm Ca+ though is the limiting factor.
My point in a number of posts, says who ? Do know what "Limit" really means. It is the minimum value where growth stops and corals growth stops well below that 325. "Limiting" is any value where grow is less. So, a Ca++ of 375 ppm is more limiting that a Ca++ of 400ppm. It is the same for Alk, pH, temp, etc.. The will be more limiting with a pH of 7.7 than a pH of 8, as higher pH facilitates growth and better abiotic and biotic precip. There is obviously a upper Limit to all of them.
i suspect the raising of Ca+ and "Adding Calcium does not lower the Alk just because you add it". is based on adding Ca+ that is/was already with in normal limits
No it is not or has to be with in normal limits. The precip of CaO3 is based on pH and ALk. Example, if the Ca++ was 300 ppm, ALk 3.5 and pH 8.1 and another tank with the same but the Ca++ at 400 and we raise them both up to 450 in 50 ppm increments, the "safe" thing to do, there would be no precip in either, they are not at their Omega value to bring about precip. But dumping in all of the 150 to the 300 is another issue and raisng the 400 in one dump of 50 is not a issue.
Post 87
ahh, changing up things again, going off the deep end. ph 6.6 where did that come from?
Taking a turn at Posting like you do. I do not change things up, I should not have to go in great detail, cover everything in ever single flippin' post for you. You have a poor understanding of the subject matter at hand and is why you are digging post holes.
you just hinted a 330 Ca+ is not limiting but then say it is?
As I said above you do not understand the meaning of limiting. Go back and re-read it again, so you are sure you understand it.
oo ok i get it now. this is all about getting credit? like i said and you said the alk getting used is going to be small, i just said it will happen. take all the credit.
It has nothing to do with credit, it is the way you write things. There is no more sense in trying to explain Alk-Calcium balances to you because you don't understand or want to under stand them. Go read some articles and learn something.
may i suggest you try to be a little more professional and stop with the condesending remarks
Kinda hard when you won't listen and talk gibberish.
And lastly
"The Royal Society (2005) concluded that there was little data on the consequences of higher CO2 concentrations on the photosynthetic or growth rates or composition of seaweeds or seagrasses although data available did indicate increased rates of photosynthesis at CO2 concentrations higher than present (Beer et al. 2002). This may be because they may take up CO2 by diffusion rather than through a concentrating mechanism. Kubler et al. (1999) found significant increases in the growth rate of a red seaweed at double today’s concentration of CO2 "
now dont go off and run into left field, i know your ego is telling you too. this just demonstrates what i mean, chemistry can not explain everything in reefing yet.
Looks to me like you are the one on a ego trip and is why you are still uselessly arguing, trying to fill in post holes.
See, again you don't understand what you are reading. What does that have to do with anything. And what do they say , "little data" yet. That report is 3, 5 and 8 years old. Maybe now they have more data and can explain that. I guess that never crossed your mind when you posted this stuff.
and to fix this for them
diffusion rather than through a concentrating mechanism.
Diffusion is based on concentration.
And where did I or anyone say or suggest everything can be explain by reefing chemistry. Anyone that says that is an idiot. You seem to be grasping for some kind of straw that is not there.
i bet you get many responses that start with, "i did not say that"
No Prow just you. I'm real finicky on who says what. You need to go back and read things rather than talking them out of context
but i made a ref to watch her alk as she corrects things, you said alk will not be effected.
See what I mean you don't read right or listen. I said that if she just added Ca++ to original posted levels, as you were first suggesting, there will be little if any affect on the Alk as the pH is to low and the Alk really is not that high I then told you to go look at Omega values. I then stated that after WC the Alk levels may or not be affect it will depend on the salt mix Alk.
Here let me help you read
When WC are done the Alk will NOT be used up but diluted to a lower level, so the Alk will be less. "IF" the Alk does not drop, because her salt mix is high in Alk, it will then get used up in time from neutralizing acids, Abiotic and biotic precip and won't be an issue. And her posted Alk is really not an issue it is the low Ca++ and pH or did you forget about that ?
Do you understand the meaning of the word diluted ?
And enough on this thread. Only issues addressing or helping Lynn from now on.
prow
Well-Known Member
agreed, i already said that a few posts back. i did not read your last post here but like i said, i can see were you got the CaCl- thing. however, you did not get what i was talking about. not at all. but i am ok with that. glad to see you are too, i am seeing that you are too right?? or am i reading into that, hehe, sorry had to go there.
prow
Well-Known Member
:smck: hey that came out wrong, again, lol.
ok i really need to work on my typing comunications. i kinda see what happend, i did not even lead you close to what i was thinking. one or two words here and there really changed up the way things were perceived and went along thereafter. i looked back and only found one or two mentions of acids, also only one mention of CO2 used in calicoblastic epithelium, briefly brought up diffusion. then went off using CaCl- to explain, hind sight, bad idea. went in a different intended direction, i used "used" meaning not only used for Ca+ but for Cl- too. then went on without clarification of what was said, and countiued using Ca+ when i should of used the other door to get into the room, the one with less hallways. perhaps better if i used NaCl- to get in there. does that make since? maybe not, i know what i meant, but i can see how you kept thinking i was saying CaCl- was a fix even after i said i do not think so. my next posts after would seemed to have clarified i was saying just that, CaCl- is the fix, even though i was not trying to go into that room i lead you right to that door
ok no more bread crumbs to follow. i know we said were only going to talk about lynn's issue, but just so you know where i wanted to go, with out getting into how to get there, "following bread crumbs"; i was trying to go into the room, but avoided details, with K+ and Cl- and effects on osmoregulatory processes. at that time i did not want to bring in different elements, but was thinking K+ permiability and Cl− efflux here. i think i only brought up diffuse once or twice, but did not go down that road either. instead tried to use CaCl-, should of went right instead of left way back there and used Cl- channels instead of Ca+ channels.
soooo, with out getting into it, lynn dont worry about this, it just for boomer
vacuolar ion sequestering and osmolyte accumulation and how they diminish some inhibitory effects in metabolic processes and keep cytoplasmic pH stable. Cl- HCO3- exchange, Cl–/OH– exchange, K+-H+ exchange with Na+-K+-Cl- cotransports, you know the whole selective ion flux and ion partitioning thing. Ca+ plays a role too, but lets not go there. with my examples of late, it could get messy. the different percpective thing i referred to, was a pointing out water chemistry reponses opposed to corals/algae/"creatures" reponses. corals/bac/algae have extensive vacuoles accociated with calicoblastic epithelium. i just took the wrong road in pointing this out. never intended it be a fix or cause.
ok i really need to work on my typing comunications. i kinda see what happend, i did not even lead you close to what i was thinking. one or two words here and there really changed up the way things were perceived and went along thereafter. i looked back and only found one or two mentions of acids, also only one mention of CO2 used in calicoblastic epithelium, briefly brought up diffusion. then went off using CaCl- to explain, hind sight, bad idea. went in a different intended direction, i used "used" meaning not only used for Ca+ but for Cl- too. then went on without clarification of what was said, and countiued using Ca+ when i should of used the other door to get into the room, the one with less hallways. perhaps better if i used NaCl- to get in there. does that make since? maybe not, i know what i meant, but i can see how you kept thinking i was saying CaCl- was a fix even after i said i do not think so. my next posts after would seemed to have clarified i was saying just that, CaCl- is the fix, even though i was not trying to go into that room i lead you right to that door
ok no more bread crumbs to follow. i know we said were only going to talk about lynn's issue, but just so you know where i wanted to go, with out getting into how to get there, "following bread crumbs"; i was trying to go into the room, but avoided details, with K+ and Cl- and effects on osmoregulatory processes. at that time i did not want to bring in different elements, but was thinking K+ permiability and Cl− efflux here. i think i only brought up diffuse once or twice, but did not go down that road either. instead tried to use CaCl-, should of went right instead of left way back there and used Cl- channels instead of Ca+ channels. soooo, with out getting into it, lynn dont worry about this, it just for boomer
vacuolar ion sequestering and osmolyte accumulation and how they diminish some inhibitory effects in metabolic processes and keep cytoplasmic pH stable. Cl- HCO3- exchange, Cl–/OH– exchange, K+-H+ exchange with Na+-K+-Cl- cotransports, you know the whole selective ion flux and ion partitioning thing. Ca+ plays a role too, but lets not go there. with my examples of late, it could get messy. the different percpective thing i referred to, was a pointing out water chemistry reponses opposed to corals/algae/"creatures" reponses. corals/bac/algae have extensive vacuoles accociated with calicoblastic epithelium. i just took the wrong road in pointing this out. never intended it be a fix or cause.
Boomer
Reef Sanctuary's Mr. Wizard
Well Prow there you go using logic, much better, i.e. "door" , "room", "hallway", " bread crumb"etc.. I do that allot. In my college days my prof's use to give me A+ on my papers in geology and biology and then would drop it to a B, due to wording skills. And I still have issues with the English language 
Chris keeps telling me "Boom , I gotha to get a fund together to get you a new typewrite What you do Prow, is what I use to do, run things in together and you often have only one or two paragraphs a mile long . I also use to do that
Chris keeps telling me "Boom , I gotha to get a fund together to get you a new typewrite What you do Prow, is what I use to do, run things in together and you often have only one or two paragraphs a mile long . I also use to do that I agree, LOL! One dirty sand box by now! They should just PM each other, see what you started Lynn!! I hope your tank is getting better, mine has, just the CO2 thing, I was able to get some fresh air in the house this weekend, it got into the high 40*s hear and with the sun out cracked a few windows.
lcstorc
Well-Known Member
Well after a 20% water change followed by a 50% water change here is where we stand.
Unfortunately I don't have the numbers here at work but I can at leat come close.
Alk was still high but not as high as it was.
Mag when up to 1600
calc was in the basement at 150 salifert. I tested the new water and it was about the same so obviously that is where that is coming from. We are continuing to monitor and add calcium.
The ph has mysteriously fixed itself. I still have the fans running along with the airstone but the windows are now closed so it is all circulating the house air. This did not make a difference to the ph.
I guess I am left with 2 real problems. Extremely low calc and a bit high on Mag. Alk is up a bit but coming down so I am not as stressed unless you tell me I should be. I can get the actual alk numbers when I get home but that will be a bit late tonight.
Unfortunately I don't have the numbers here at work but I can at leat come close.
Alk was still high but not as high as it was.
Mag when up to 1600
calc was in the basement at 150 salifert. I tested the new water and it was about the same so obviously that is where that is coming from. We are continuing to monitor and add calcium.
The ph has mysteriously fixed itself. I still have the fans running along with the airstone but the windows are now closed so it is all circulating the house air. This did not make a difference to the ph.
I guess I am left with 2 real problems. Extremely low calc and a bit high on Mag. Alk is up a bit but coming down so I am not as stressed unless you tell me I should be. I can get the actual alk numbers when I get home but that will be a bit late tonight.
prow
Well-Known Member
yeah i layed those crumbs right the witches house, lol. definitely need to work on my bluntness, no to mention typing skills. sure made a mountian out of a mole hillWell Prow there you go using logic, much better, i.e. "door" , "room", "hallway", " bread crumb"etc.. I do that allot. In my college days my prof's use to give me A+ on my papers in geology and biology and then would drop it to a B, due to wording skills. And I still have issues with the English language
well at least we finally got on the same page and were both still here 
that doesnt sound right. have someone else, LFS, test it. different tester different test kit.
or contaminated kit.
no dout the fans and airstone are helping. esp the room fan if your using them.