They aren't rants Boomer. They are corrections to your incorrect information you are spewing forth trying to sound like a know it all.Boomer said: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.
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."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 .
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." ???????????
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.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 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.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
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.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
You're right, cold have swore I saw you call it a PAC. My bad.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.
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.
You said you talk to him all the time. Ask him.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
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.
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.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.
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