I can't believe the difference between Oceanic and IO
- Thread starter vpotts28
- Start date
dawman
Active Member
I use Oceanic with no problems . Once my LFS ran out of my salt so I bought a bucket of I.O. and it contained phoshates and ended up dumping the salt . Have been wanting to try the new Red Sea , I have another tank to set up so think I`ll get some and compare to the Oceanic .
canisee2
Member
Originally Posted by Vpotts28
It isn't such a bad place, though I hate telling people on the phone. I always have that lump in my throat, and smirk on my face. No pun intended.
For those of us who know, we absolutely love Cumming.
Yes it is a very funny name but i like it here anway
It isn't such a bad place, though I hate telling people on the phone. I always have that lump in my throat, and smirk on my face. No pun intended.
For those of us who know, we absolutely love Cumming.
Yes it is a very funny name but i like it here anway
stanlalee
Active Member
Originally Posted by Vpotts28
Well I bought a 200g bucket of Oceanic because I ran out of IO. I did a 20% WC with the new salt yesterday. I checked my calcium levels in my DT before and after the wc. I also tested the water that was going in. Before with the IO, the change water was a 440 ppm calcium, after the wc the calcium level would be near 400 ppm. After a two week period when I do my wc's my levels would be at 330ppm. My tank was at 330ppm yesterday. My levels on my change water using Oceanic was 500 ppm, after the wc they were at 485 ppm. I can't believe that, I am dumbfounded. The alkalinity was at 15 dKH.
I am dumbfounded too
a)Am I understanding your numbers correctly? your tank was at calcium of only 330ppm before the water change. you did a 20% water change with oceanic that had a calcium level of 500ppm. After the water change calcium went all the way up to 485ppm? How is possible for calcium to go up 47% overall when 80% of the old water is still there and the new mix water itself was only 51% greater in calcium than the old water. In other words 80% volume @ 330ppm + 20% volume @ 500ppm will not give you a calcium of level of 485ppm even if had a depleted magnesium level that will inhibits Ca (unlikely if you are doing regular water changes)
b)From what I've gathered its almost certain that a dKH of 15 along with a calcium of 485 ppm would cause obvious calcium precipitation within the water. From what I've read even with much more conservative numbers (calicum over 440ppm along with a dKH of over 10) it is likely to be a false alk reading because precipitation should occur.
Well I bought a 200g bucket of Oceanic because I ran out of IO. I did a 20% WC with the new salt yesterday. I checked my calcium levels in my DT before and after the wc. I also tested the water that was going in. Before with the IO, the change water was a 440 ppm calcium, after the wc the calcium level would be near 400 ppm. After a two week period when I do my wc's my levels would be at 330ppm. My tank was at 330ppm yesterday. My levels on my change water using Oceanic was 500 ppm, after the wc they were at 485 ppm. I can't believe that, I am dumbfounded. The alkalinity was at 15 dKH.
I am dumbfounded too
a)Am I understanding your numbers correctly? your tank was at calcium of only 330ppm before the water change. you did a 20% water change with oceanic that had a calcium level of 500ppm. After the water change calcium went all the way up to 485ppm? How is possible for calcium to go up 47% overall when 80% of the old water is still there and the new mix water itself was only 51% greater in calcium than the old water. In other words 80% volume @ 330ppm + 20% volume @ 500ppm will not give you a calcium of level of 485ppm even if had a depleted magnesium level that will inhibits Ca (unlikely if you are doing regular water changes)
b)From what I've gathered its almost certain that a dKH of 15 along with a calcium of 485 ppm would cause obvious calcium precipitation within the water. From what I've read even with much more conservative numbers (calicum over 440ppm along with a dKH of over 10) it is likely to be a false alk reading because precipitation should occur.
vpotts28
Active Member
Originally Posted by Stanlalee
I am dumbfounded too
a)Am I understanding your numbers correctly? your tank was at calcium of only 330ppm before the water change. you did a 20% water change with oceanic that had a calcium level of 500ppm. After the water change calcium went all the way up to 485ppm? How is possible for calcium to go up 47% overall when 80% of the old water is still there and the new mix water itself was only 51% greater in calcium than the old water. In other words 80% volume @ 330ppm + 20% volume @ 500ppm will not give you a calcium of level of 485ppm even if had a depleted magnesium level that will inhibits Ca (unlikely if you are doing regular water changes)
b)From what I've gathered its almost certain that a dKH of 15 along with a calcium of 485 ppm would cause obvious calcium precipitation within the water. From what I've read even with much more conservative numbers (calicum over 440ppm along with a dKH of over 10) it is likely to be a false alk reading because precipitation should occur.
From the first point, I was giving the 500 ppm reading because the syringe ran out of solution and turned blue on the last drop. Salifert test kits. I performed the calcium 20 minutes after the wc. Its been three days now, and I haven't seen any precipatation. I will perform the test again tonight, to see where I am. You have me curious.
I am dumbfounded too
a)Am I understanding your numbers correctly? your tank was at calcium of only 330ppm before the water change. you did a 20% water change with oceanic that had a calcium level of 500ppm. After the water change calcium went all the way up to 485ppm? How is possible for calcium to go up 47% overall when 80% of the old water is still there and the new mix water itself was only 51% greater in calcium than the old water. In other words 80% volume @ 330ppm + 20% volume @ 500ppm will not give you a calcium of level of 485ppm even if had a depleted magnesium level that will inhibits Ca (unlikely if you are doing regular water changes)
b)From what I've gathered its almost certain that a dKH of 15 along with a calcium of 485 ppm would cause obvious calcium precipitation within the water. From what I've read even with much more conservative numbers (calicum over 440ppm along with a dKH of over 10) it is likely to be a false alk reading because precipitation should occur.
From the first point, I was giving the 500 ppm reading because the syringe ran out of solution and turned blue on the last drop. Salifert test kits. I performed the calcium 20 minutes after the wc. Its been three days now, and I haven't seen any precipatation. I will perform the test again tonight, to see where I am. You have me curious.
vpotts28
Active Member
Originally Posted by Stanlalee
I am dumbfounded too
a)Am I understanding your numbers correctly? your tank was at calcium of only 330ppm before the water change. you did a 20% water change with oceanic that had a calcium level of 500ppm. After the water change calcium went all the way up to 485ppm? How is possible for calcium to go up 47% overall when 80% of the old water is still there and the new mix water itself was only 51% greater in calcium than the old water. In other words 80% volume @ 330ppm + 20% volume @ 500ppm will not give you a calcium of level of 485ppm even if had a depleted magnesium level that will inhibits Ca (unlikely if you are doing regular water changes)
b)From what I've gathered its almost certain that a dKH of 15 along with a calcium of 485 ppm would cause obvious calcium precipitation within the water. From what I've read even with much more conservative numbers (calicum over 440ppm along with a dKH of over 10) it is likely to be a false alk reading because precipitation should occur.
If I in fact get the same or close to numbers as I had on Sunday. One of three things will have to happen. 1) I will be suspect of Salifert, and the opinions on them going forward 2) I will have to have my girlfriend do some scientific equations, she is a biomedical engineer PHD, and she will give me a clearcut answer on how this could be. 3) I will throw myself from the tenth floor of a random building, because I will never understand what is going on.
I am dumbfounded too
a)Am I understanding your numbers correctly? your tank was at calcium of only 330ppm before the water change. you did a 20% water change with oceanic that had a calcium level of 500ppm. After the water change calcium went all the way up to 485ppm? How is possible for calcium to go up 47% overall when 80% of the old water is still there and the new mix water itself was only 51% greater in calcium than the old water. In other words 80% volume @ 330ppm + 20% volume @ 500ppm will not give you a calcium of level of 485ppm even if had a depleted magnesium level that will inhibits Ca (unlikely if you are doing regular water changes)
b)From what I've gathered its almost certain that a dKH of 15 along with a calcium of 485 ppm would cause obvious calcium precipitation within the water. From what I've read even with much more conservative numbers (calicum over 440ppm along with a dKH of over 10) it is likely to be a false alk reading because precipitation should occur.
If I in fact get the same or close to numbers as I had on Sunday. One of three things will have to happen. 1) I will be suspect of Salifert, and the opinions on them going forward 2) I will have to have my girlfriend do some scientific equations, she is a biomedical engineer PHD, and she will give me a clearcut answer on how this could be. 3) I will throw myself from the tenth floor of a random building, because I will never understand what is going on.
A
anmldr
Guest
So if you have calcium precipitation what exactly does that mean??
A
anmldr
Guest
I know what it looks like, it does look like a snow globe 
.. It was happening in my tank before I added my lr and ls... and now I have some sheets on top of my sand that I need to get out
.. It was happening in my tank before I added my lr and ls... and now I have some sheets on top of my sand that I need to get out