Ozone & Water Clarity

[Carlo]

I'm not about to read through all you carpet bombing rants but do have a thing or two that popped out and will leave this thread as it is going nowhere. Just you rant of confusing and twisting things around.

They aren't rants Boomer. They are corrections to your incorrect information you are spewing forth trying to sound like a know it all.

1. You do not know Ron Litton and have never talked to him, it is a line of BS a mile long and so is that Public Aquarium BS line. Ron has been retired for 10 years. Watch you claim it was 10 years or more ago LOL . I just trolled a troll .

I never said I KNOW HIM. What I said was "I have talked to Ron and members of the staff numerous times and have been working on a project with them for one of the public aquariums for a few months."

Boomer I've been around this industry for well over 20 years. If he's been gone now for 10+ years why did you say "Really, well I'll be calling Ron tormorrow to see what he knows about it or you." ???????????

2. have no idea how you try and read specs but that's a horrible carbon for aquariums ROX

It was Ron that told me that. So you are saying he does not know what he is talking about..shhhhhhhhhh

No I'm not saying he doesn't know what he's talking about. I'm saying you don't know what your talking about.

3. They are easy and any carbon will take them out. I want a carbon better suited to POM.


You are now changing your tune. You talk of DOC, then want a GAC for small molecules to be removed and are now talking about a GAC for Particulate Organic Matter........sshhhhhhh

No I'm not changing my tune. It's just the more we get into the subject the more I'm trying to explain why your selection isn't that good for our setups. I don't want to remove just one type of thing. I want to remove several types of things. I just don't like specs or tests designed around one specific thing since it's not a reliable source of information and it isn't the only criteria you need to look at.

4 I never said it was the most efficient carbon. And I agree with you, it isn't that good of a carbon.

Really, then of all GAC on that page why did you pick the crappyest Bitum GAC there is...sshhhhhh. So, I point it out and NOW you agree...funny how that works isn't it. You do that a lot

A general rule of thumb is that, when absorbing small organic molecules, a bituminous coal-based activated carbon such as NORIT GAC 830R will be the most effective

Boomer, dude, get a grip. I DID NOT SELECT 830. I used it as a reference because you wanted me to look at the case studies. That was the carbon they used against their top lignite carbon. It makes the case study worthless. Don't you agree? Also worth noting is that it's not a crap carbon. It's just not a top bitum based carbon.

5.Yes you have called it both a PAC and a SAC.

Here is your clue

"As do I, as Matrix is a SAC or TLF Hydrocarbon, which is a little better"

I have never called it PAC. See the word PAC there ? You assumed I meant PAC. Shows what you really know. It is Spherical Activated Carbon....ssssssh.........and you are still confused.

You're right, cold have swore I saw you call it a PAC. My bad.

I mentioned previously that SAC has many different uses and why most people don't use the term. Seachem's is processed into spherical beads so yes you could say it's a SAC. Most people use SAC to mean Super Activated Carbon just so you know. Seachem doesn't refer to their carbon as a SAC just a bitum.

6. You can't read Billy's post right, get some glasses

Billybeau1

IIRC my H.O.T. Magnum ran me about 50 bucks.

But I use it for two things. I run the GFO sandwiched between 2 layers of Matrix carbon. I change it out about once a month.
Really works well for me.

Find the WORD Chemi-Pure. GFO IS NOT Chemi-Pure......sssssssssh Find the word Poly......ssshhh

You said you talk to him all the time. Ask him.

That quote was in reference to you saying he uses a different carbon and I said he uses Seachem's Matrix carbon. The poly nor the chemi-pure really had nothing to do with the conversation, as we were taling about what carbon he uses.

If you use search you'll see he runs poly filters. For the sake of argument let's just say I'm wrong on his poly filter so we don't go off on something meaningless.

7. Yes I have a clue. I also have a diatom filter but I don't run PAC in it. I run diatomic earth in it which is far superior for that purpose.But that's not the way PAC carbons are designed to be used

No you have no clue it is obvious.

Yep I'm clueless. You are using PAC carbons wrong if that's the way you are using them. The PAC carbons don't have nearly enough time to adsorb stuff from the water column. They are designed as I already mentioned to be added directly to the water. Then after complete saturation are removed by another filtration process. This is not an ideal use of carbon in a reef aquarium. It's also a stupid waste of money on media where they is a media made specifically for those filters which is dirt cheap and a lifetime supply in less then $10 buck. I buy it for less then $1 per POUND which is a huge amount considering it's a very, very light powder.

8.TLF is not the only company selling lignite carbon. A couple companies sell lignite carbon but most stick with bitums because they know it's an overall better valued carbon to use in a marine aquarium. I'm sure if these companies thought lignite was a better value they would sell it. Don't you

Ah I explained all this like twice and no need to do it a third time.

You said they were the only company selling lignite carbon to our hobby. I simply said they aren't. We've now established they aren't the only seller so that's fine.

What happened to everything else? No comment, no rebuttal? You know I'm right and you're fishing for tiny things to pick at Boomer. Give it up. You don't know as much about carbons as you are trying to make it seem. While you might have a good working knowledge of carbons OTHERS DO KNOW MORE. I'll leave it at that.

I'll also add that I know far, far more about carbons then we've even BEGAN to touch on here.

Carlo

 

[Carlo]

I'm tired of it also so may you want to tell Carlo the same he is no differnet on this issue than I. I visit a number of forums, probably 4 hrs a day. I know you have more post for me to look at but I don't get much time here to get to them many of them due the the long rants of who said she said with Carlo and those long not need posts. I have tried couple of times to stop this only to be given another mile long rant. They are not needed and serve no justice. As I aid Greg I have ended this thread and will not be back to it.

Boomer, I don't want to argue/debate with you anymore then anyone else. But when you keep constantly attacking my posts when I DO IN FACT know what I'm talking about I'm going to go until either I'm proven wrong (doesn't happen very often) or I'm right.

In this thread for example if you had said IN YOUR OPINION lignite is best then I can't argue with your opinion. But you ASSERTED it is best and I disagree.

See what I'm saying? We can have a good conversation and learn things but if the "tone" is better then all involved are happier. Also worth noting is that the posts since you've been here haven't been long until you jumped in.

Carlo

 

[Phyl]

Please, lets keep the personal attacks at bay while we're posting/debating issues!

 

[Boomer]

So much for my :-X I just can't listen to myself when I need to :-[

Just as short note or two Carlo

I don't need lesson on reading data sheets and it is obvious you are looking at the numbers wrong or have an issues with reading specs.
...............................................Molasses # ................Iodine #..............Hardness.......................Ash

ROX 0.8 (peat)..............................450.........................950.......................97..............................3 %

Norit GAC 1240 plus (Bitum)................210.........................950....................78..............................0.5 as acid soluble ash, not the same thing as total ASH. Ta is probably similar to ROX

Norit GAC 830 plus(Bitum)................210........................900.....................80..............................0.5 and same as above

All 3 of the above are Acid washed.

Note: It has a Molasses # twice that of Bitum, a Iodine # equal to many Bitum and is harder. ROX beats these other GAC's to death on adsorption. The numbers speak for themselves. So much your horrible carbon for aquariums I 'll say it again for the 3rd time, Ron said if you want the best grade of GAC for a aquarium and want to spend the money this is it.


Nowhere on the Norit site is ROX given as a VPC. You have an odd way of reading into a data sheet.

When you asked about pellets what did I say, large pellets are for VPC. ROX is 0. 8 mm x 4 mm. It looks like broken mechanical pencil lead and is LPC and NOT a VPC.

One of my issues with most data sheets is there is no set std. Meaning some parameters are on some data sheets and others are left out. It would be nice if they all used the same set of numbers and parameters. Try see if you can find the scheme or conversion from Molasses # to Molasses Colorization Efficiency.



PAC is not used JUST as you claim it has been used for years caked or molded into filters. You obviously have little knowledge of its use in this fashion.

Powdered Activated Carbon (PAC)

Unlike CB's, molded or powdered activated carbon (PAC) water filters are an old carbon technology and is effective method of removing volatile organic compounds (insecticides, pesticides and industrial solvents) from drinking water. These filters are often mistaken or misrepresent as a solid carbon block (CB's).

Unlike CB’s, which use binding material with the carbon for strength (extrusion), PAC filters are made of powdered carbon compressed around a synthetic tube with an outer synthetic or cotton wrap to hold the powder in place.

And Vortex sells PAC for their Diatom, it is called SUPER-CHAR, although it is crappy grade. The Vortex can first coated with Diatom, which is best, then the PAC and it will clean/clear/polish the water faster than any simple filtering method I have seen. And it works the same as the bold above. People in the SW and FW have used these for decades. Try putting some copper, dye, DOC, POM in a tank and watch how fast it adsorbs it. Most of us never run it on a continuous bases.


They are corrections to your incorrect information you are spewing forth trying to sound like a know it all

You may also need to look at some of your INCORRECT information Carlo

Try not to make sound like you are so shinny and have not made any errors or given out incorrect info. Your so called correction are your so called opinions and you talk also as if you options are fact. So , you are no different than I here Carol



Boomer, I don't want to argue/debate with you

Well, I have not seen it yet, it seems that is all we both want to do and is quite evident.. So, lets TRY a fresh start

 

[Carlo]

Seachem's carbon has a Molasses number in the 600s ROX at 450.
Rox has a high Ash content, Seachem's is low. Ash normally = phosphate leaching. It's hard to avoid regardless of washing.

I've already stated the reasons why I wouldn't prefer to use ROX in an aquarium so I'm not going to repeat myself. ROX is a horrible carbon choice for our tanks. For what you get it's not worth the price IMHO. It also doesn't work better but in my opinion worse. I don't care what Ron has stated. It may be the BEST carbon they sell but I still think other Manufacturer's brands like Seachem's Matrix is a better carbon and adsorbs more from the water during the normal usage of the carbon as we use it.

Boomer, I personally (and others too) don't like how fast peat and lignite carbons work when first added. They act quickly but trail off. Bitum's run a lot smoother and don't drop off as fast. They tend to remove more overall if left in the tank for a week. You also need to take into account how much carbon volume wise you get per gram/ounce of each and how much you use in a reactor when using either. I'll get more use from the Seachem's then I would from either of the other two.

I will STICK with my assessment of ROX from what I previously said
=== Start ===
"NORIT ROX 0.8 is an acid washed extruded carbon, which offers both superior adsorption properties and an ultra high purity level. NORIT ROX 0.8 is used for the purification of ultra-pure water, and in the purification of condensate water, organic and inorganic fine chemicals and pharmaceutical intermediates. NORIT ROX 0.8 has an extremely low mineral content and is used to purify demineralised starch based sweeteners. NORIT ROX 0.8 is a steam activated carbon that can be thermally reactivated."

I have no idea how you try and read specs but that's a horrible carbon for aquariums. It's mainly used in industry as the final stages in carbon arrays. Did you even catch the part about "ultra-pure water"? You may want to use it in your RO/DI unit but not in the tank itself. As I stated before the extruded carbons are designed for gas phase purification and that description sure sounds like it to me. Doesn't sound like it's very good for aquariums. It'll clog fast with minerals, etc.
=== END ===

I just went to Norit's site and read what the Benefits of Extruded Activated Carbon are:
"This particular carbon type is produced in a cylindrical shape. It is used for gas phase purification, catalyst support and gold recovery."

That sure sounds like my assessment of it don't you think? That doesn't mean it can't be used for water and it certainly is used for that but it's designed to make "pure" water and that's not what we want. I don't want my carbon pulling minerals and other "good" stuff from the water. This of course happens with any carbon but a smart choice in carbon selection and pore size removes much of this and gets you overall better adsorption of the things you want to remove.

Concerning the PAC and use in a Vortex filter. I never said it couldn't be done that way. I said that's not the way the PAC carbon is designed to work and using it that way you aren't getting your money's worth from the carbon. You just don't have the contact time the PAC carbon needs to get full use from it. DE on the other hand works because of it's size. It basically creates a very fine micron filter environment.

You did however bring up an interesting use of the Vortex and PAC combo and that would be for copper removal. I haven't done this as I wouldn't ever add copper to my tank and hope others wouldn't either (FW tanks OK) but that would work quite well I'd think as copper is rapidly removed by almost any carbon.

Your corrections aren't corrections at all. They are interpretations and your opinions which I find flawed. My assertions are the same also which is an "opinion".

Saltwater is much more complex the freshwater and the choice of carbons can be a lot different. You can look at specs all day but in the end it doesn't mean much. You need to test the carbons and see which is the real value for your use.

For anyone reading this thread. I'm sure there are things that may seem like a good idea from each of the different types of carbons discussed. If you're not happy with a "medium grade" carbon get some of the carbons discussed here and try it yourself and see which you like the best for your daily carbon use. Test them for phosphates or anything else you would normally do.

Try Seachem's Matrix for the Bituminous carbon and pick up a pound of both ROX 0.8 and Lignite from twopartsolution.com. Try them all and decide what is the best value for you. Go through a few rounds alternating. Which ever carbon you use first might take the brunt of the load as it cleans your tank up so you need to rotate them and track their usage to get an idea of how long they each work for and then you can determine how much each "usage" of the carbon costs you.

Carlo

 

[Boomer]

As I said I do not buy the Sachem >600 molasses # and if he assumed it does, along with a Iodine number of 1,000 with about the same TS/PV as Matrix, it would plug up FASTER than ROUX because of its higher Iodine number. And other Bitum's with the same 1,000 ' # and much lower M # 200's would plug up even faster than ROX. Molasses # and Iodine # are about pore size. You said wood looks like the best, well it has similar numbers to ROX, high I and M #s . And if the SeaChem #'s end up being true then the same for them.


1. Iodine Number
Measure of micropore (0 – 20 Å)

2. Methylene Blue
Measure of mesopore structure (20 – 500 Å)

3. Molasses Number
Measure of macropore structure (>500 Å)


As far as that, again, Matrix 600 Molasses number, I'm pretty sure I know who the manufacture is, there are only like 2 that make SAC, so I will an will e-mail them to see what answer I get. I know on their data sheets M #'s are not given. IMHO they all do this for a reason. Bitum people, quite often list I # 's and not M #'s as they don't want you see how crappy they are. And Lignite people have crappy I #'s often, so like M #'s to make them look good

SeaChem does not give its Ash content, so lets not guess on it. The word 'Low Ash" says nothing. And when SeaChem talks about Ash it is Soluble Ash. Go look at one of their Seagram's. It is not Total Ash.

You have not tested ROX for PO4 so you don't no. It is acid washed and that is what acid washing does, lower the PO4. That is why you see 0 PO4 in TLF hydrocarbon, it is acid washed. So, based on you remarks, then Matrix is also horrible choice, as is Wood. When you are comparing Ash you need to know what the given values mean they are not the same. Total As is not the same a soluble ash. All GAC should list them both, as it can be misleading. Soluble Ash is always much lower than Total Ash.



I just went to Norit's site and read what the Benefits of Extruded Activated Carbon are:
"This particular carbon type is produced in a cylindrical shape. It is used for gas phase purification, catalyst support and gold recovery."

That is not what ROX is used for. Try not to read into things, based on the general consensus of what cylindrical GAC is for. ROX It is LPC. Warner Marine will also be selling ROX.

I just called Norit and ROX is a Liquid Phase Carbon and was designed for that application, hands down......the end. It can be used for other applications. And 2 techs also told me that same as Ron, the best GAC for aquariums is Lignite. And most of their sales in the aquarium market is Lignite. As far as total sales of Lignite vs Bitum, they have no answer, as there is a world wide shortage of GAC. However, when it comes to water it is Lignite as # 1 for their sales and their recommendations.


You just don't have the contact time the PAC carbon needs to get full use from it

I see you have never run any tests on it but should try it. There is plenty of contact time otherwise it would not be used to purify water.

You did however bring up an interesting use of the Vortex and PAC combo and that would be for copper removal. I haven't done this as I wouldn't ever add copper to my tank and hope others wouldn't either (FW tanks OK) but that would work quite well I'd think as copper is rapidly removed by almost any carbon.

Yes, but still many do with the best choice being Cupramime for SeaChem. I use to use the "Bounce-Method" ( my name for it) I leaned long ago from Amlache'sr book in the 70's. The same for the 3 different cyclic stages of ick., i.e., ~24hr, ~7 days and ~20 days. Although it is directed to FW ick it works the same for SW ick. You just move the fish from QT tank to QT tank every couple of days, no "drugs " needed. I should probably bring it more but I'm kinda burnt out on the diseases stuff. I was even told once by a so called aquarium disease expert this was foolish idea. If you have crap loads of fish with it you will/may need a number of Q-T tanks or at least larger ones, an added cost and extra room required, so back to Hypo or Cupramine for many.


Try Seachem's Matrix for the Bituminous carbon and pick up a pound of both ROX 0.8 and Lignite from twopartsolution.com. Try them all and decide what is the best value for you. Go through a few rounds alternating. Which ever carbon you use first might take the brunt of the load as it cleans your tank up so you need to rotate them and track their usage to get an idea of how long they each work for and then you can determine how much each "usage" of the carbon costs you.

I agree and is often the reason behind Black-Diamond. Not to pricey, easily found and is good enough if that is what you want. Often people just look at cost and not efficiency and want something that is good enough but not crap, so the range is wide and Black-Diamond seems to be on all selves. If they ask for a really good grade I give it to them, to include stuff like Norit GAC 1240 plus or similar from Calgon. One such GAC is thefilterguys C-GAC (Biutm), which is acid washesd, water rinsed and pH neutral for RO/DI use but is great in aqauriun application especailly if you are using ozone and need/want a really good post ozone GAC. When I was asked months ago to give a lsit the top 4 I gave were ROX/Warner Marine(when its out), TLF Hydrocarbon, Matrix and thefitlerguys. There may be others that are great but hard to find and not heard of much. There are lots of claims in FAMA by "manufactures".

 

[Carlo]

If you don't buy the numbers Seachem says, then you don't buy them. I myself don't get hung up on the numbers. I only use them for selecting "candidates" to try. However, don't forget the pore size itself isn't the only factor that affects the carbon getting plugged up.

I didn't say wood looks like the best. Again it's not the pore size I'm looking for. I want something smaller. I mentioned the wood because it seems like it filled the bill you were looking for.

I honestly don't know the ash number on the seachem product. The Ash content is usually something I worry about to much because you kind of have an "idea" of the phosphate leach factor based on what the carbon is made from. You just test it when you get it.

I have tested Rox 0.8 for phosphates and have a few pounds of it right now. Got a few pounds of lots of carbons actually. Probably 100+ pounds total sitting on the shelf from playing with it recently. Rox does leach phosphates like most carbons. Not really any worse or better then other high end carbons. I agree acid washing does get rid of much of the phosphate leaching but not all of it. They still leach. I also do not get zero PO4 from TLF Hydrocarbon. I see phosphate leaching from EVERY carbon. I think many people use crappy test kits when they test this stuff.

Boomer, give them a call back without telling them who you are and ask what carbon they would recommend for one of the processes I mentioned for the extruded carbon. They'll tell you Rox. They'll give you the same answer if you ask about other purposes also. It's a good carbon but they "push" it just like "lignite" because the profit margin is higher. Just business.

I'm probably one of the biggest proponents of the Tank to Tank transfer method for QTing fish myself. It's the only thing I use. No hypo or copper for this old boy. Not needed. You just have to understand the life cycle of the parasites and work it properly. I've actually modded the traditional style somewhat to handle multiple different types of parasites. I've got a lot of people using the T-to-T method. So I totally agree with you on this one! (dang we agree on something)

BTW, I've been careful to always say "on my system" or similar. This way I know I'm speaking in fact because I have tested so many different carbons on my system. However, every system isn't the same. I do think that people with underpowdered skimmers and those with higher DOC levels (usually indicated by nitrate readings > 0 - but not always) may be better servered with a mix of almost 1/3 each of the 3 carbons we have talked about (or 1/2 Matrix, 1/2 lignite) for the "average" reefer. They would then get a little variety of pore size and adsorbion cababilities.

Carlo

 

[Boomer]

As I said Carlo all GAC leaches PO4 to some degree and yes test kits can make a difference.

Boomer, give them a call back without telling them who you are and ask what carbon they would recommend for one of the processes I mentioned for the extruded carbon. They'll tell you Rox. They'll give you the same answer if you ask about other purposes also. It's a good carbon but they "push" it just like "lignite" because the profit margin is higher. Just business.

You have an answer for everything don't you Carlo when you are in the wrong....sssshhhhhh. Now the Norit carbon techs are deliberately trying in to mislead one. They don't know who I am only Ron did. I asked short questions unloaded to two techs. I just gave them my real name out of politeness, as one often does.

Here they are

1. What is you best selling GAC ? The answer is in my post

2. What is the best GAC for water and the best selling GAC for water. The answer is in my post

3. What is the best carbon for aquariums. The answer is in my post.

4. What kind of carbon is ROX for LPC or VPC. The answer is in my post.

5. Would ROX be a good GAC for aquariums if one wanted to pay for it. The answer is in my post.

So now you are saying we are only suppose to trust YOU Carlo...........I don't think so.

Norit will tell you that for water Lingite is the best choice. And most tests throughout the industry will show Lignite's a better choice for water than Bitum. Because they have the right pore structure. And just because there is more Bitum in this hobby is not an indication that it is better. Lets turn the table here and say the real reason it that Bitum is cheaper than Lignite. And what makes you think that Lignite is cheaper to make that Bitum ? There are a lot more Bitum coal deposits than Lignite. An it is fact that Bitum is cheaper to produce than Lignite and why there is so much more of it. So your Lingite /Peat is cheaper is out of line and is not about profit. There is more profit in Bitum. See Marsh (2006), Activated Carbon.

The GAC techs there DISAGREE with you Carlo, pure an simple. And they know a lot more than you by far. I said ROX could be used for other applications didn't I ? One thing they added was that is was the best for Vodka. It was designed for LP and what it is used MOST for........period.....the end. And this discussion is NOT around YOUR tank. It is about for the hobby. Your wants/needs for what ever reason is another issue.




The Ash content is usually something I worry about to much because you kind of have an "idea" of the phosphate leach factor based on what the carbon is made from. You just test it when you get it.

Ash content say nothing of PO4. Chemically activated GAC can have lots of PO4 as it is activated with phosphoric acid,


Just a note

may be better servered with a mix of almost 1/3 each of the 3 carbons


I asked Ron this long ago, as I felt the same way, he told me flat out NO do not combine GAC's. It is self defeatinfg as they have different pore structures.

 

[Carlo]

I know for a fact their best selling carbon is not lignite. It is bitum. Boomer you didn't call. You even mention yourself that there it is cheaper. Cheaper almost always sells more product then higher priced products. Bitum carbons are used in many, many more industries then lignite it's not even close.

As I previously said lignite is probably better for FW but we are talking SW here with use of skimmers. It's not just what carbon can pull the most out of the water. It's about pulling the right particle sizes out of the water. You can go by what they tell you if like I previously said you want to pull everything out of the water. I don't, I only want the smaller stuff. I'll let the skimmer handle the bigger stuff which it does quite well. I don't want my carbon competing with my skimmer. Maybe you do, I don't. I want my carbon to last longer and get help where I need it the most.

You should call them back and tell them they have an error in their 12 page PDF describing what each of their carbons is for then. I already quoted directly from their own PDF what they say it's designed for.

I still don't agree Rox is the best carbon for a reef with a decent skimmer. Not for my system anyway.

Nope, nobody should trust either YOU or ME. They should test it themselves and make the determination what is better for them based on their own criteria. IE best regardless of price, how long each lasts, how well it cleans when backflushing, how much is needed of each when used, what is "dose" costs, what the better value is.

I agree it's not about my tank specifically. But I bet other peoples tanks are pretty close to mine and I bet my results would be the same as theirs if they stop trying to go by specs and test the carbons themselves which I recommend they do.

Ash content say nothing of PO4. Chemically activated GAC can have lots of PO4 as it is activated with phosphoric acid,

Before I even comment do you want to take a look at what you wrote and modify it first? If not I'm going to have a field day with this one for multiple reasons.

The fact that the carbons have different pores structures is EXACTLY the reason why you WOULD want to combine a few different types. That's a ridiculous answer and it just doesn't make sense. Many, many industries do this. Some run different carbons in arrays and others mix it up. Depends on the "life" of each type of carbon being used.

Carlo

 

[Boomer]

What page 12. I'm telling you what they told me it was designed for LPC and it can be used for have other uses. Often products find other uses. I know what the pdf says on ROX I have one, if that is your page 12

""Ash content say nothing of PO4. Chemically activated GAC can have lots of PO4 as it is activated with phosphoric acid"""

Before I even comment do you want to take a look at what you wrote and modify it first? If not I'm going to have a field day with this one for multiple reasons.

What I mean is, ash contents in PO4, tells you nothing until it is measured. Ash values given say nothing about PO4 levels. The raw materials, processing and if is not acid washed or not can be a guide at times. So, Ash content says nothing of PO4. You can't tell or give me any numbers from a data sheet, such as Matrix or ROX that tells you its PO4 "ash" is. It would have to be measured. I forgot to mention I also asked Norit if they ever measured PO4 and they said no.

As I previously said lignite is probably better for FW but we are talking SW here with use of skimmers. It's not just what carbon can pull the most out of the water. It's about pulling the right particle sizes out of the water

Nobody has a line on that. Lignite, wood or even bamboo,etc. could be better in SW than FW. That is why I said way back there is really no good test that suits us that as ever been done. We are really knit picking adsorption, both of us, in this hobby. There are similar debates on skimmate and skimmer x vs skimmer y. At least in the next year we will have some results when he gets done.

If you want to see a carbon that beats the hell out of everything you should see adsorption curves for ACF. They even make ROX and other Norit's tested look like crap. It is hrs vs 2 days Now that is really FAST..... LOL. The line is almost vertical and the others look like sine waves.

Nope, nobody should trust either YOU or ME.

Well, I think we may have proved that.


WOULD want to combine a few different types

Not according to Ron. They will plug at different rates. And he never really convinced me of it.

 

[debfife]

I feel sorry for the person that started this post by asking a quick question and it turned into this. His head must be spinning. I know mine is.

 

[Carlo]

Of course they won't tell you outright how the ash contributes to PO4 leaching. But generally speaking the more ash in the product the more phosphate leaching occurs. Not always but generally is a good way to put it. This is the general correlation I've found anyway for those with published ash content.

Are you sure they are using phosphoric acid to chemically activate the charcoal?

I totally agree we are both "knit picking adsorption". I also agree there are not any good test information published on this. That will probably change soon as much of what I've been working on will be published. The skimmer to skimmer analogy is a wise one. This is a very similar debate. In a sense it can go back to what you are trying to skim or not skim in your choice of quality skimmers versus a medium cost skimmer that does the job OK (IE black diamond).

I haven't tested any ACF carbons that I'm aware of. Doesn't sound like something that would make a general purpose/daily use carbon. Could be quite effective in emergency situation or for copper or stuff like that however.

I do agree with Ron that that different carbons mixed would plug at different rates. That would make sense. That's why industries usually use different carbons in arrays. However with the proper blend/mix of carbons this would be ideal IMHO. Figuring out the blend however is another issue.

Carlo

PS When I start to compile all the carbon and skim mate information gathered in each set of test into "English" and readable forms/matrix about a month or so from now would you be interested in having a first-crack look at the data?

 

[Carlo]

I feel sorry for the person that started this post by asking a quick question and it turned into this. His head must be spinning. I know mine is.

Look at the bright side, if you've been following this. You must have learned something about carbons a long the way even if only trivial.

If nothing else, the chart on the value of different carbons is generally pretty decent. I think most people could also gather from this thread that both boomer and I both agree that Two Little Fish Hydrocarbon (lignite) or Seachem's Matrix (bitum) are tops and you generally won't go wrong with either purchase. Not the cheapest carbons but both very good and usually available at most LFS!

Carlo

 

[120gallons]

I started it and nah no head spinning...I tuned out when the chest beating started...

 

[Boomer]

Yes 120 there has been waaaaaaaaaaay to much chest beating for sure and I will raise my hand for guilt :-[