-
Folks, if you've recently upgraded or renewed your annual club membership but it's still not active, please reach out to the BOD or a moderator. The PayPal system has a slight bug which it doesn't allow it to activate the account on it's own.
Ozone & Water Clarity
- Thread starter 120gallons
- Start date
Carlo and others
If you want to remove tannic acids then I'd agree lignite is best and you can see this in Harper's article (link above) but if you want to remove DOCs then bituminous has been shown to be superior. Both types of carbon will still remove tannic acids and DOCs but they each excel at one better then other
You have that backwards
Between the appearance of the first Hovanec article and the second, Stephen Spotte and Gary Adams published a study examining GAC’s ability to remove dissolved organic carbons (DOC) in a captive seawater system (1984). They reached somewhat different conclusions. ***They found that carbon made from hardwood was most effective in removing DOC***. Carbon of anthracite coal origin was least effective.
Reconciling the conclusions of the two articles is difficult. The Hovanec study examined tannic acid removal from freshwater, whereas Spotte examined DOC removal from seawater. The two authors compared GAC from a somewhat different mix of sources (both authors examined coal based carbon, but while Spotte evaluated lignite coal based carbon, Hovanec evaluated bituminous coal based carbon). The rank order of the Hovanec study from most effective to least was coal, coconut and wood, whereas Spotte’s rank order was wood, coconut and coal — exactly the opposite. Hovanec concluded that coconut carbon was ineffective for filtering water. Spotte found coconut carbon less effective than hardwood based carbons, but still able to remove significant proportions of DOC.
Lignite or wood are better at DOC and Bitum would the worst.
When ever you look at a choice of GAC you have to look at its overhaul effect on adsorption and not some single parameter. We are dealing with tanks and by far for our application Peat (ROX) is the best followed Lingite, then Bitum and CC. Selection must be based a function of its physical and chemical properties, all which are a function of the Pore sizes, from macro-mes-micro, which dictate which "type" of molecules are being removed. Any GAC will work, it is just to the degtree as to how they work. If one wants very fast adsorption then Peat and if you want it slower then Bitum or slower yet CC.
One should try to look at GAC as if is a Tennis net where different nets have different openings and what type of balls,ie., golf-balls, tennis-balls, bowling-balls, baseball, footballs etc., fit through the openings and get into the GAC. CC do to is tight pore structure plugs up very quickly and wood is to big and lets to much through and out the other end we'll say. Biutm's in this hobby are more common not because of their pore structure /say it is that they are form some more user friendly and produce less dust.
In this hobby there has never really been a good comprehensive study on GAC.
If you want to remove tannic acids then I'd agree lignite is best and you can see this in Harper's article (link above) but if you want to remove DOCs then bituminous has been shown to be superior. Both types of carbon will still remove tannic acids and DOCs but they each excel at one better then other
You have that backwards
Between the appearance of the first Hovanec article and the second, Stephen Spotte and Gary Adams published a study examining GAC’s ability to remove dissolved organic carbons (DOC) in a captive seawater system (1984). They reached somewhat different conclusions. ***They found that carbon made from hardwood was most effective in removing DOC***. Carbon of anthracite coal origin was least effective.
Reconciling the conclusions of the two articles is difficult. The Hovanec study examined tannic acid removal from freshwater, whereas Spotte examined DOC removal from seawater. The two authors compared GAC from a somewhat different mix of sources (both authors examined coal based carbon, but while Spotte evaluated lignite coal based carbon, Hovanec evaluated bituminous coal based carbon). The rank order of the Hovanec study from most effective to least was coal, coconut and wood, whereas Spotte’s rank order was wood, coconut and coal — exactly the opposite. Hovanec concluded that coconut carbon was ineffective for filtering water. Spotte found coconut carbon less effective than hardwood based carbons, but still able to remove significant proportions of DOC.
Lignite or wood are better at DOC and Bitum would the worst.
When ever you look at a choice of GAC you have to look at its overhaul effect on adsorption and not some single parameter. We are dealing with tanks and by far for our application Peat (ROX) is the best followed Lingite, then Bitum and CC. Selection must be based a function of its physical and chemical properties, all which are a function of the Pore sizes, from macro-mes-micro, which dictate which "type" of molecules are being removed. Any GAC will work, it is just to the degtree as to how they work. If one wants very fast adsorption then Peat and if you want it slower then Bitum or slower yet CC.
One should try to look at GAC as if is a Tennis net where different nets have different openings and what type of balls,ie., golf-balls, tennis-balls, bowling-balls, baseball, footballs etc., fit through the openings and get into the GAC. CC do to is tight pore structure plugs up very quickly and wood is to big and lets to much through and out the other end we'll say. Biutm's in this hobby are more common not because of their pore structure /say it is that they are form some more user friendly and produce less dust.
In this hobby there has never really been a good comprehensive study on GAC.
Phyl
The rather crude guide Carlo gave you is the same kind I would give you. It is often very difficult to tell which is which without lots of experience looking at GAC and hopefully under a hand lens. GAC is like a Hobby of mine
Hardness is a good guide to see for example if it is Bitum, CC, Lignite etc, but such observation tell you nothing of its physical and chemical properties. Two Bitum's of the same physical appearance can be completely different in their parameters of adsorption. The GAC you got will obviously work fine but the issue is what did you get in "bang for the buck". More than likely you got a poor grade of Bitum but I hope not.
If you have a link to where you got it form I can back track to see what it is *maybe
The rather crude guide Carlo gave you is the same kind I would give you. It is often very difficult to tell which is which without lots of experience looking at GAC and hopefully under a hand lens. GAC is like a Hobby of mine
Hardness is a good guide to see for example if it is Bitum, CC, Lignite etc, but such observation tell you nothing of its physical and chemical properties. Two Bitum's of the same physical appearance can be completely different in their parameters of adsorption. The GAC you got will obviously work fine but the issue is what did you get in "bang for the buck". More than likely you got a poor grade of Bitum but I hope not.
If you have a link to where you got it form I can back track to see what it is *maybe
I don't think so but it's hard to take everything in. For example in 1998 Timothy Hovanec reviewed the performance of GACs on freshwater and found bituminous coal to be the most effective. Harker also tested tannic acids but in Saltwater and found TLF hydrocarbon to work the best ounce for ounce followed by seachem's bituminous coal (close 2nd).Boomer said:Carlo and others
If you want to remove tannic acids then I'd agree lignite is best and you can see this in Harper's article (link above) but if you want to remove DOCs then bituminous has been shown to be superior. Both types of carbon will still remove tannic acids and DOCs but they each excel at one better then other
You have that backwards
Hovanec in 1998 states flatly that "the best carbon for use in water filtration for removing dissolved organic carbons is bituminous coal-based carbon."
So that would seem to indicate bituminous is better at DOCs while lignite is slightly better at tannic acids.
Personally I think removing the DOCs is more important then pulling the tannic acids (unless your tank water is yellowish) out so I prefer to purchase bituminous carbons based on the studies I've read. But with that said I just prefer Chemi-Pure since it's the best carbon I've ever used bar none. It would kick the crap out of all the carbons in these studies.
That is true, but that study has also gotten a lot of critism too so I'm not sure I'd rely much on it.
Dang, should have completely read your message instead of glancing at it before replying. Well we agree.
Agree on all that.
That is true, but that study has also gotten a lot of critism too so I'm not sure I'd rely much on it.
Hovanec's study can also be criticized and has been by Harker. He never gave the manufacture and type of the GAC used. You CAN NOT be compairing GAC unless they are on a equal bases. You do not compare a 53 Chevy with a new Ferrari And I will criticize it somemore.
Bitum can not out compete Lignite on equal bases for DOC or tannic acid/Gelbstoff....period. GAC is a function of pore size which dictates what it can removes. Lignite has large pores and DOC is a large "substance". You can not base something just because Hovanec says so and he fits your mode of thinking. He is wrong on his assessment. Fell free to call a GAC tech at American Norit, the worlds largest manufacture of GAC, such as Ron Litton and he will explain it to you. They sells/manufacture all types of GAC. You will see he agrees with me. I have spent hrs on the phone with many GAC tech's. and hrs of my own tests on many GAC's ~50 of them. If my F drive did not crash last year where I lost all my data I would post it.
Finally, as I already stated you should no be picking a GAC based on a single parameter, which you are going. You have to look at the whole picture. And when you do that, Acid Washed Lignite is the best by far.
TLF hydrocarbon to work the best ounce for ounce followed by seachem's bituminous coal (close 2nd).
And that TLF hydrocarbon is a Lignite GAC and you seem to be trying to indicate it is a Bitum
But with that said I just prefer Chemi-Pure since it's the best carbon I've ever used bar none. It would kick the crap out of all the carbons in these studies
Carlo, that it so funny it is not even worthy of a comment. That GAC could not kick the carp, as you put it, out of, API, SeaChem's or TLF's in those tests. You are dreaming And lets not make it sound like Chemi-Pure is JUST a GAC it is not. It also contains ionic exchange resins. I never recommend Chemi-Pure, it is crap and a rip-off You yourself have stated that ionic exchange resins can't work in seawater and Chemi-Pure is loaded with them. You can not have it both ways
Hovanec in 1998 states flatly that "the best carbon for use in water filtration for removing dissolved organic carbons is bituminous coal-based carbon."
."
Then why are you arguing and contradicting your own statement and agreeing with this
Dang, should have completely read your message instead of glancing at it before replying. Well we agree
"Lignite or wood are better at DOC and Bitum would the worst."
You need to read this again
The Hovanec study examined tannic acid removal from freshwater, whereas Spotte examined DOC removal from seawater
So, how can Hovanec make a assessment on DOC when all he tested for was Tannic acid ????????? And Harker's test choose Lignite's, API, TLF and SeaChems Matrix, a Bitum.
And you can one accept a FW study vs a SW study ? Havonec FW Spotte SW. And when it come to credibility I don't think you will find many on the side of Havonec vs Spotte. And lets not forget Havonec may be trying to promote Black Diamond, his GAC and a Bitum. And currently Havonec article can not be found on-line all links are dead. But there is another. WOW, what and ad.
http://www.cichlid-forum.com/articles/marineland_carbon.php
But this is what Harker says
A rare exception is an article published in Aquarium Fish Magazine by Timothy A. Hovanec (1993). Hovanec described sources of GAC and reviewed the performance of four different types of source material for carbons. Hovanec found carbon derived from bituminous coal to be the most effective in removing tannic acid from freshwater.
And note it say "RARE EXCEPTION" and nothing about DOC.
and from another article
Conclusions: Selection of a Carbon Product.
As we have seen activated carbon is an important part of the marine aquarium filtration. Removal of organic “pollutants” increases water quality and promotes the health of marine specimens. Not all activated carbon products are equal in performance. So-called marine grade activated carbons may not be the most efficient or cost effective sorbent for the aquarium. Use this check list as a “starting point” when selecting carbon products for the marine aquarium”
1) No chemical activation or washing with phosphoric acid, zinc or hydroxides.
2) Macroporous structure: large pores of 30 Angstrom or above.
3) Low Iodine Number: below 600
4) High Molasses Number: above 400
Find me a Bitum GAC that has a Molasses # above 400. Find me a Bitum with a Iodine # below 600
Hovanec's study can also be criticized and has been by Harker. He never gave the manufacture and type of the GAC used. You CAN NOT be compairing GAC unless they are on a equal bases. You do not compare a 53 Chevy with a new Ferrari
And I will criticize it somemore.Bitum can not out compete Lignite on equal bases for DOC or tannic acid/Gelbstoff....period. GAC is a function of pore size which dictates what it can removes. Lignite has large pores and DOC is a large "substance". You can not base something just because Hovanec says so and he fits your mode of thinking. He is wrong on his assessment. Fell free to call a GAC tech at American Norit, the worlds largest manufacture of GAC, such as Ron Litton and he will explain it to you. They sells/manufacture all types of GAC. You will see he agrees with me. I have spent hrs on the phone with many GAC tech's. and hrs of my own tests on many GAC's ~50 of them. If my F drive did not crash last year where I lost all my data I would post it.
Finally, as I already stated you should no be picking a GAC based on a single parameter, which you are going. You have to look at the whole picture. And when you do that, Acid Washed Lignite is the best by far.
TLF hydrocarbon to work the best ounce for ounce followed by seachem's bituminous coal (close 2nd).
And that TLF hydrocarbon is a Lignite GAC and you seem to be trying to indicate it is a Bitum
But with that said I just prefer Chemi-Pure since it's the best carbon I've ever used bar none. It would kick the crap out of all the carbons in these studies
Carlo, that it so funny it is not even worthy of a comment. That GAC could not kick the carp, as you put it, out of, API, SeaChem's or TLF's in those tests. You are dreaming
And lets not make it sound like Chemi-Pure is JUST a GAC it is not. It also contains ionic exchange resins. I never recommend Chemi-Pure, it is crap and a rip-off You yourself have stated that ionic exchange resins can't work in seawater and Chemi-Pure is loaded with them. You can not have it both ways Hovanec in 1998 states flatly that "the best carbon for use in water filtration for removing dissolved organic carbons is bituminous coal-based carbon."
."
Then why are you arguing and contradicting your own statement and agreeing with this
Dang, should have completely read your message instead of glancing at it before replying. Well we agree
"Lignite or wood are better at DOC and Bitum would the worst."
You need to read this again
The Hovanec study examined tannic acid removal from freshwater, whereas Spotte examined DOC removal from seawater
So, how can Hovanec make a assessment on DOC when all he tested for was Tannic acid ????????? And Harker's test choose Lignite's, API, TLF and SeaChems Matrix, a Bitum.
And you can one accept a FW study vs a SW study ? Havonec FW Spotte SW. And when it come to credibility I don't think you will find many on the side of Havonec vs Spotte. And lets not forget Havonec may be trying to promote Black Diamond, his GAC and a Bitum. And currently Havonec article can not be found on-line all links are dead. But there is another. WOW, what and ad.
http://www.cichlid-forum.com/articles/marineland_carbon.php
But this is what Harker says
A rare exception is an article published in Aquarium Fish Magazine by Timothy A. Hovanec (1993). Hovanec described sources of GAC and reviewed the performance of four different types of source material for carbons. Hovanec found carbon derived from bituminous coal to be the most effective in removing tannic acid from freshwater.
And note it say "RARE EXCEPTION" and nothing about DOC.
and from another article
Conclusions: Selection of a Carbon Product.
As we have seen activated carbon is an important part of the marine aquarium filtration. Removal of organic “pollutants” increases water quality and promotes the health of marine specimens. Not all activated carbon products are equal in performance. So-called marine grade activated carbons may not be the most efficient or cost effective sorbent for the aquarium. Use this check list as a “starting point” when selecting carbon products for the marine aquarium”
1) No chemical activation or washing with phosphoric acid, zinc or hydroxides.
2) Macroporous structure: large pores of 30 Angstrom or above.
3) Low Iodine Number: below 600
4) High Molasses Number: above 400
Find me a Bitum GAC that has a Molasses # above 400. Find me a Bitum with a Iodine # below 600
You need to go back and read what I said. Basically the same thing as you about the different studies and how they contradict each other. Actually I criticize most studies I see on carbon because they test one small part of the carbon functionality and don't give the whole picture of how the carbon is going to work in the real world day after day.
I totally disagree with you on pore size. The smaller the pore the better. This should be so obvious it's almost silly.
I still find bituminous carbon the best overall. What you hardly ever see in studies that I've tested is HOW LONG IT WORKS FOR. Bituminous carbons typically work longer and pull more overall from the water column then lignite carbons as a general rule. Lignite works faster but not longer. I'd rather go slower and have it last longer.
I agree you shouldn't pick carbon on a single parameter. Based on my own criteria I like Seachem's carbon overall the most as a general carbon.
I'm not getting into the he said, she said type stuff. I clearly pointed out the contradiction in the tests also and hence the TLF hydrocabon...
I don't agree Lignite or wood are better at DOC and Bitum. I'd put it B,L,W.
For the question about Hovanec. He has published multiple studies on carbon. One set on DOC and the other with tannic acids.
I find this highly amusing. Concerning the Chemi-Pure boomer you obviously don't know what type of carbon it is or you wouldn't have said that. This is the same carbon US Navy nuclear submarines use. With all the money spent in nuclear product testing I'd think they would choice a different source of carbon if it was so bad with both air and fluids. Looking at it's specs one would thing it should work very, very well with air but wouldn't be as good with SW fluids but it does and they use it for both purposes.
I've tested it extensively and ounce for ounce it will remove more from the water then any other available hobby carbon for a longer period of time. I agree it does have ionic exchange resins in it and that is part of the reason it works the way it does in SW. I've never said ionic exchange resins don't work in sea water but it sounds like you are saying that. Every hear of something called Zeolites? They are natural ion exchangers and many zeolites work in SW.
Have you ever read any of the things guys like Julian Sprung, Bob Fenner, Steven Pro, James (Salty Dog) say about it? Hell even Julian Sprung has said it's one of the best carbons available for a reef tank but he prefers his own hydrocarbon. Do you have the same personal issue Randy does with Boyd's products? He doesn't trash them but refrains from either good or bad comments.
The last selection criteria you mentioned sounds like something from Layton since he mentions the Iodine criteria. That number is way to high for normal carbons. The Iodine number and the Molasses number work against each other. The Iodine number measures the microporosity and you would want to use this for air purification, while the Molasses Number is a measure of macroporosity and you would want to use this for fluids.
Seachem's Carbon would fit this criteria quite easily.
What is probably more important then those in specs in general are the actual size of the granules. The smaller the better for obvious filtration reasons.
When you get right down to it none of the specs really matter. What matters is how the carbon performs in the real world. I'll take Seachem or Chemi-Pure depending on what I want to do with the carbon.
Carlo
I totally disagree with you on pore size. The smaller the pore the better. This should be so obvious it's almost silly.
I still find bituminous carbon the best overall. What you hardly ever see in studies that I've tested is HOW LONG IT WORKS FOR. Bituminous carbons typically work longer and pull more overall from the water column then lignite carbons as a general rule. Lignite works faster but not longer. I'd rather go slower and have it last longer.
I agree you shouldn't pick carbon on a single parameter. Based on my own criteria I like Seachem's carbon overall the most as a general carbon.
I'm not getting into the he said, she said type stuff. I clearly pointed out the contradiction in the tests also and hence the TLF hydrocabon...
I don't agree Lignite or wood are better at DOC and Bitum. I'd put it B,L,W.
For the question about Hovanec. He has published multiple studies on carbon. One set on DOC and the other with tannic acids.
But with that said I just prefer Chemi-Pure since it's the best carbon I've ever used bar none. It would kick the crap out of all the carbons in these studies
Carlo, that it so funny it is not even worthy of a comment. That GAC could not kick the carp, as you put it, out of, API, SeaChem's or TLF's in those tests. You are dreaming
I find this highly amusing. Concerning the Chemi-Pure boomer you obviously don't know what type of carbon it is or you wouldn't have said that. This is the same carbon US Navy nuclear submarines use. With all the money spent in nuclear product testing I'd think they would choice a different source of carbon if it was so bad with both air and fluids. Looking at it's specs one would thing it should work very, very well with air but wouldn't be as good with SW fluids but it does and they use it for both purposes.
I've tested it extensively and ounce for ounce it will remove more from the water then any other available hobby carbon for a longer period of time. I agree it does have ionic exchange resins in it and that is part of the reason it works the way it does in SW. I've never said ionic exchange resins don't work in sea water but it sounds like you are saying that. Every hear of something called Zeolites? They are natural ion exchangers and many zeolites work in SW.
Have you ever read any of the things guys like Julian Sprung, Bob Fenner, Steven Pro, James (Salty Dog) say about it? Hell even Julian Sprung has said it's one of the best carbons available for a reef tank but he prefers his own hydrocarbon.
Do you have the same personal issue Randy does with Boyd's products? He doesn't trash them but refrains from either good or bad comments.The last selection criteria you mentioned sounds like something from Layton since he mentions the Iodine criteria. That number is way to high for normal carbons. The Iodine number and the Molasses number work against each other. The Iodine number measures the microporosity and you would want to use this for air purification, while the Molasses Number is a measure of macroporosity and you would want to use this for fluids.
Seachem's Carbon would fit this criteria quite easily.
What is probably more important then those in specs in general are the actual size of the granules. The smaller the better for obvious filtration reasons.
When you get right down to it none of the specs really matter. What matters is how the carbon performs in the real world. I'll take Seachem or Chemi-Pure depending on what I want to do with the carbon.
Carlo
I totally disagree with you on pore size. The smaller the pore the better. This should be so obvious it's almost silly
That statement proves my point you really do not unbderstand GAC. The tighter the pore size the faster the GAC surface area plugs up, which does not allowing much into the pore openings, which further causes the bio-film to grow faster. How many soccer balls fit through a tennis net, none. How many golfballs fit through a tennis net, all of them. It is the same basic principal.
If that is your theory then you should be promoting Coconut shell Carbon, which has the tightest pore size or better yet Zeolites. Fell free to call any GAC tech and tell them how you think it is and they will have a good chuckle. You are not disagreeing with me Carlo, you are disagreeing with the entire GAC industry. Pore size and active surface sites controls all. It is what Iodine #, Molasses #, Methylene Blue #, CTC #, Phenol index #, etc. are all about, pore size. GAC is selected based on application and with our application need Lignite is better folowed by Bitum, unless you want to spend the money on something like ROX or certain C-GAC Bitum (the filterguys). And if one is picking a poor or even fair grade Lignite vs a high quality Bitum I will choose the high quality bitum every time. Crrrently only TLF sells Lignite, others that use to swicthed to Bitum due to all the whinning about dust, which should not be an issue but I understand their reasoning behind it.
I don't agree Lignite or wood are better at DOC and Bitum.
You disagree then with the tested facts then and what Ron Litton from American Norit will tell you flat out, Lignite is better for our application. You seem to miss what we are looking at here, "molecule sizes". Look up the size of some common DOC's and others substances like, Tannic acid, Phenol, Iodine, Molasses, Methylene Blue, CTC etc.. Then compare them to the sizes that dictate a micro, meso or macro GAC.
Bituminous carbons typically work longer and pull more overall from the water column then lignite carbons as a general rule. Lignite works faster but not longer. I'd rather go slower and have it last longer.
I'm not disagreeing with that and have said as such. The issue here and on tests is which one is the most efficient. Just like if one whats to debate PO4. And TLF Hydrocarbaon always test out with the least PO4, ZERO and is a acid washed Lignite.
Based on my own criteria I like Seachem's carbon overall the most as a general carbon.
As do I, as Matrix is a SAC or TLF Hydrocarbon, which is a little better. I only recommend Black-Diamond more on posts because it is cheaper and good enough and what people want to hear. When they ask for the best I give it. Ranyd always suggests Black-Diamond, as does Billybeau most of the time.
Lignite works faster but not longer. I'd rather go slower and have it last longer.
That is not the case at all of it not lasting longer and yes it does work faster and is why one may choose a Bitum over a Lig', to fast. And Peat, like ROX.8, has even bigger pores and nothing is as fast or clears water faster. Smaller pores plug up faster is not fiction but fact and Bitum has smaller pores. There are extremes Carlo to big and to small, those being Wood and CC, so the Lingire and Biutm fits us better than these. Only one company in this hobby has ever sold Wood GAC, Rainbow Plastics years ago. And CC has pretty much left us as it was only a hype due to its very high Iodine # and massive surface area but would still be very good stuff for Ozone treatment. I might add that one reason some do not like Lignite over Bitum is that it is softer and sometimes produces more dust as I stated above.
For the question about Hovanec. He has published multiple studies on carbon. One set on DOC and the other with tannic acids.
Where, show me a link/s.
And as far as knowledge goes I will take Harker any day over Havonec on this issue and Ron Litton, director of technical sevices at American Norit over anyone else. Norit actually sells a aquarium grade Lignite and is the only GAC they have directed to for aqauirums. It is from their PK series. And Ginger Products use to sell the oringal PK 1-3 with their name on it.
I'm not getting into the he said, she said type stuff
Neither am I. And I will not post on this thread in relation to GAC again. It is going nowhere.
That statement proves my point you really do not unbderstand GAC. The tighter the pore size the faster the GAC surface area plugs up, which does not allowing much into the pore openings, which further causes the bio-film to grow faster. How many soccer balls fit through a tennis net, none. How many golfballs fit through a tennis net, all of them. It is the same basic principal.
If that is your theory then you should be promoting Coconut shell Carbon, which has the tightest pore size or better yet Zeolites. Fell free to call any GAC tech and tell them how you think it is and they will have a good chuckle. You are not disagreeing with me Carlo, you are disagreeing with the entire GAC industry. Pore size and active surface sites controls all. It is what Iodine #, Molasses #, Methylene Blue #, CTC #, Phenol index #, etc. are all about, pore size. GAC is selected based on application and with our application need Lignite is better folowed by Bitum, unless you want to spend the money on something like ROX or certain C-GAC Bitum (the filterguys). And if one is picking a poor or even fair grade Lignite vs a high quality Bitum I will choose the high quality bitum every time. Crrrently only TLF sells Lignite, others that use to swicthed to Bitum due to all the whinning about dust, which should not be an issue but I understand their reasoning behind it.
I don't agree Lignite or wood are better at DOC and Bitum.
You disagree then with the tested facts then and what Ron Litton from American Norit will tell you flat out, Lignite is better for our application. You seem to miss what we are looking at here, "molecule sizes". Look up the size of some common DOC's and others substances like, Tannic acid, Phenol, Iodine, Molasses, Methylene Blue, CTC etc.. Then compare them to the sizes that dictate a micro, meso or macro GAC.
Bituminous carbons typically work longer and pull more overall from the water column then lignite carbons as a general rule. Lignite works faster but not longer. I'd rather go slower and have it last longer.
I'm not disagreeing with that and have said as such. The issue here and on tests is which one is the most efficient. Just like if one whats to debate PO4. And TLF Hydrocarbaon always test out with the least PO4, ZERO and is a acid washed Lignite.
Based on my own criteria I like Seachem's carbon overall the most as a general carbon.
As do I, as Matrix is a SAC or TLF Hydrocarbon, which is a little better. I only recommend Black-Diamond more on posts because it is cheaper and good enough and what people want to hear. When they ask for the best I give it. Ranyd always suggests Black-Diamond, as does Billybeau most of the time.
Lignite works faster but not longer. I'd rather go slower and have it last longer.
That is not the case at all of it not lasting longer and yes it does work faster and is why one may choose a Bitum over a Lig', to fast. And Peat, like ROX.8, has even bigger pores and nothing is as fast or clears water faster. Smaller pores plug up faster is not fiction but fact and Bitum has smaller pores. There are extremes Carlo to big and to small, those being Wood and CC, so the Lingire and Biutm fits us better than these. Only one company in this hobby has ever sold Wood GAC, Rainbow Plastics years ago. And CC has pretty much left us as it was only a hype due to its very high Iodine # and massive surface area but would still be very good stuff for Ozone treatment. I might add that one reason some do not like Lignite over Bitum is that it is softer and sometimes produces more dust as I stated above.
For the question about Hovanec. He has published multiple studies on carbon. One set on DOC and the other with tannic acids.
Where, show me a link/s.
And as far as knowledge goes I will take Harker any day over Havonec on this issue and Ron Litton, director of technical sevices at American Norit over anyone else. Norit actually sells a aquarium grade Lignite and is the only GAC they have directed to for aqauirums. It is from their PK series. And Ginger Products use to sell the oringal PK 1-3 with their name on it.
I'm not getting into the he said, she said type stuff
Neither am I. And I will not post on this thread in relation to GAC again. It is going nowhere.
OOPs typo, sorry, didn't mean pore size, meant granule size. One of those times when the eyes saw one thing but the brain read something else.Boomer said:
I agree on the molasses and iodine tests measuring pore size and a bigger pore size being able to capture more larger particles if that is what you want to capture. I just happen to like bitum better then lignite as it's a bit smaller pore size and captures some DOCs that get by the bigger pore sizes of lignite carbons. The bio-film can be disruptive to the carbon of course. However the size difference of the pores between lignite and bitum isn't great enough that that the lignite fair much better. It's all around better to use smaller amount of carbon and change it out more often so neither has this problem.
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. I also buy quite a bit of carbon from them. They are one of the best references of carbon around since they actually produce 150 different types of carbon. Ron will not flat out tell you lignite or Peat is better but it depends on exactly what you are trying to remove. In our many talks we came to the conclusion that the choice of carbon for each system really depends on many filtration factors such as sponges, filter socks, what the skimmer(s) are pulling and what it's leaving, if UV and especially Ozone are being used, etc... The use of Ozone according to Norix will generally give you better results using smaller pore size carbons as the ozone breaks down the DOCs. No one size carbon fits all. It's very dependant on many factors. So I know first hand that Ron will NOT "tell you flat out, Lignite is better for our application".
Agreed, on which one is most efficient. Hence my recommendation to pull water from your system and test it separately in 10 gallon tanks. It's pretty easy to test multiple carbons on your own water to determine what carbon gives you the most bang for the buck side by side. This is what Norix had us do! IMHO, anyone using a decent amount of carbon each year should perform a little test or two and try a couple of carbons on their own water to see what works best.
Billybeau run's Seachem's Matrix Carbon.
He runs GFO sandwitched between two layers of Matix carbon and follows it up with poly or chemi-pure. Black diamond is darn cheap for what you get. Even cheaper if you pick up the same carbon at walmart under their brand name.
But I don't personally like it because it leaches to many phosphates for my taste in a reef tank.Hmm, you just said earlier you won't disagree with that but now you do disagree with it. Peat carbons in general do not have bigger pore sizes the lignite carbon. This is from Norit. Bitum (14-16) is smallest then wood (22-26), peat (23-26) then lignite (29-32). Lignite has the biggest pore size in general. These are mean pore radius in angstroms.
Then there is also the surface area of the carbon which is also important. Lignite (600-675), Peat (900-1050), Bitum (900-1050), Wood (1200-1600). There is also the total pore volume per gram used. In all cases for liquids wood would come out best by your specs/criteria. Why not just use wood based carbons? Lignite has the smallest surface area of all the carbons.
ROX 0.8 carbon doesn't show the pore size but since it's peat should be in the range of (23-26) and not bigger then lignite. I agree the bitum will plug up faster, no doubt. It could pull finer particles from the water. If changes regularly it won't plug up from bio-films. You just have to use the carbon correctly. I like to use a small amount when using any carbon and change it out every 4 to 7 days to keep it fresh and not try and use a large amount over several weeks. More bang for the buck using just about any carbon this way.
I'll try and dig them up for you.
Personally, I read what others say on the matter, then test for myself using multiple criteria and not just one factor to determine what is best overall. The carbon that works the best for one person may not be the best carbon for someone else. It all depends on the specific situation which is why I recommend people take the time to test it for themselves to see what works best on their system and is cost justifiable.
No, don't take that the wrong way. Please do post, we are keeping it civil. What I meant by that statement was that I didn't want to get into the other studies relying on one specific study as many of the studies contradict each other in many ways. They each test different things in different ways so it's very hard to pick a best overall carbon when you only look at one function of the carbon.
Carlo
Subliminal
NJRC Member
Well, if we're talking about a 53 Chevy that's been rebuilt for the same $$ that a new Ferrari costs, I'll take the 53.
Well, damn I said no more post but you have so many misleading errors I have to
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. I also buy quite a bit of carbon from them
Really, well I'll be calling Ron tormorrow to see what he knows about it or you. You might want to ask youself why is TLF selling their Lignite and how and why Julian ended up with Lignite, Ron Litton. Sure is odd how all of a sudden you know Ron.
Billybeau run's Seachem's Matrix Carbon. He runs GFO sandwitched between two layers of Matrix carbon and follows it up with poly or chemi-pure
Feel free to ask Billy who recommend that Matrix to him I talked to him on then phone all the time. Last night is was like 3 hrs. Go look on RC who Billy always summons when it come to a question on GAC. Fell free to ask him There is currently only one Lignite sold in this hobby by an aquarium company TLF. I explained why and is it is pricey. Billy does not use Chemi-Pure and there is no post on RC where he says he uses it or even recommends. So, you have the wrong person and neither does Randy recommend Chemi-Pure. Go look.
Not that it makes any difference, but why do you think Randy suggest a bituminous carbon if lignite is better?
Go look on RC who Randy asks to answer GAC questions. Ask Billy who Randy asks to answer most of the GAC questions on RC. I'm sure you know who it is, me. Randy's choice has nothing to do with because it is Bitum. It is because it is good enough and not pricey, simple and short. I recommend to him long ago. Go do a post count on me on RC about the GAC I recommend the the most. It is Black-Dimaond followed by SeaChem Matrix. And I have already explained why And it is not because they are the best. Same reason I don't tell people to go out and by the best PO4 test kit, for the tune of ~$150
So you were a American Norit. Go look at some of their case studies and see what GAC they replaced Bitum with, YUP Lignite. And a tank is pretty much that a waste treatment plant and where Lignite is the most common, treatment plants.
You just have to use the carbon correctly
Of course you should but most don't' which is an issue. Any GAC will work, it is what you get for your money and which one is the most effective in the long run. It takes more Bitum than lignite to remove the same amount of DOC's over time, to include the rinsing you may do and putting it back in the tank for a second run. Case studies on treatment plants also show this. And why is this Carlo, it is mostly the density difference and the the ability to wash/rinse it an reuse it before it is spent.
Ron will not flat out tell you lignite or Peat is better but it depends on exactly what you are trying to remove. In our many talks we came to the conclusion that the choice of carbon for each system really depends on
You keep missing the point what I said and what Ron said, for OUR APPLICAION it is Lignite, unless one wants to spend money on ROX or PAC which is really the best. If one is trying to remove a more specific what ever he may give a different GAC. I said they sell a aquarium GAC and it is Lignite, why is that. ? It fits OUR APPLICAION. Ask youself why isn't it Bitum
Picking a choosing a GAC for some single parameter is not part of this discussion, we are looking for the best over all, which is what I have stated form the get go. Ron will always tell you application and in my last post I said application.
You posted numbers for pore volume and pore size openings, how come not pore volume ? You have to look at all three as a guide and then look at the parmeters, Molasses, #, Iodine #, etc. You want to know WHAT it is taking OUT of the water. Pore vol, surface area and pore size does not tell 100% as far as actually adsorption. A lot of surface area is not available so can be misleading. As I said Wood is to big, also to soft and CC to small in pore size. You are looking for the most effect range and adsorption properties.
And yes I made an error on pore size. I should have gone looked it up. You also will not find Peat miuch of anywhere as a GAC except as extruded GAC, such as ROX. I don't think Norit even sells Wood GAC.
Edited by Phyl: Fixed a bold tag
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. I also buy quite a bit of carbon from them
Really, well I'll be calling Ron tormorrow to see what he knows about it or you. You might want to ask youself why is TLF selling their Lignite and how and why Julian ended up with Lignite, Ron Litton. Sure is odd how all of a sudden you know Ron.
Billybeau run's Seachem's Matrix Carbon. He runs GFO sandwitched between two layers of Matrix carbon and follows it up with poly or chemi-pure
Feel free to ask Billy who recommend that Matrix to him
I talked to him on then phone all the time. Last night is was like 3 hrs. Go look on RC who Billy always summons when it come to a question on GAC. Fell free to ask him There is currently only one Lignite sold in this hobby by an aquarium company TLF. I explained why and is it is pricey. Billy does not use Chemi-Pure and there is no post on RC where he says he uses it or even recommends. So, you have the wrong person and neither does Randy recommend Chemi-Pure. Go look. Not that it makes any difference, but why do you think Randy suggest a bituminous carbon if lignite is better?
Go look on RC who Randy asks to answer GAC questions. Ask Billy who Randy asks to answer most of the GAC questions on RC. I'm sure you know who it is, me. Randy's choice has nothing to do with because it is Bitum. It is because it is good enough and not pricey, simple and short. I recommend to him long ago. Go do a post count on me on RC about the GAC I recommend the the most. It is Black-Dimaond followed by SeaChem Matrix. And I have already explained why
And it is not because they are the best. Same reason I don't tell people to go out and by the best PO4 test kit, for the tune of ~$150So you were a American Norit. Go look at some of their case studies and see what GAC they replaced Bitum with, YUP Lignite. And a tank is pretty much that a waste treatment plant and where Lignite is the most common, treatment plants.
You just have to use the carbon correctly
Of course you should but most don't' which is an issue. Any GAC will work, it is what you get for your money and which one is the most effective in the long run. It takes more Bitum than lignite to remove the same amount of DOC's over time, to include the rinsing you may do and putting it back in the tank for a second run. Case studies on treatment plants also show this. And why is this Carlo, it is mostly the density difference and the the ability to wash/rinse it an reuse it before it is spent.
Ron will not flat out tell you lignite or Peat is better but it depends on exactly what you are trying to remove. In our many talks we came to the conclusion that the choice of carbon for each system really depends on
You keep missing the point what I said and what Ron said, for OUR APPLICAION it is Lignite, unless one wants to spend money on ROX or PAC which is really the best. If one is trying to remove a more specific what ever he may give a different GAC. I said they sell a aquarium GAC and it is Lignite, why is that. ? It fits OUR APPLICAION. Ask youself why isn't it Bitum
Picking a choosing a GAC for some single parameter is not part of this discussion, we are looking for the best over all, which is what I have stated form the get go. Ron will always tell you application and in my last post I said application.
You posted numbers for pore volume and pore size openings, how come not pore volume ? You have to look at all three as a guide and then look at the parmeters, Molasses, #, Iodine #, etc. You want to know WHAT it is taking OUT of the water. Pore vol, surface area and pore size does not tell 100% as far as actually adsorption. A lot of surface area is not available so can be misleading. As I said Wood is to big, also to soft and CC to small in pore size. You are looking for the most effect range and adsorption properties.
And yes I made an error on pore size. I should have gone looked it up. You also will not find Peat miuch of anywhere as a GAC except as extruded GAC, such as ROX. I don't think Norit even sells Wood GAC.
Edited by Phyl: Fixed a bold tag
That doesn't surprise me a bit. Why are you always out to try and prove me wrong at every turn? Now you stupe to calling somebody to see if they know me? What if he doesn't know or remember me from the other thousand customers they have? Does that mean my knowledge of carbons is any less? You could be best friends with him but that doesn't mean your knowledge is any better then anyone else.Boomer said:Well, damn I said no more post but you have so many misleading errors I have to
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. I also buy quite a bit of carbon from them
Really, well I'll be calling Ron tormorrow to see what he knows about it or you. You might want to ask youself why is TLF selling their Lignite and how and why Julian ended up with Lignite, Ron Litton. Sure is odd how all of a sudden you know Ron.
BTW, What do you mean all of a sudden? Do you not think I talk to people in the industry? I just don't go around bragging about this person or that person. Frankly that type of thing doesn't matter or impress me. It's not who you know, but what you know that's important. Doing consulting work on bio/chemical filtration systems in the industry, do you not think my path with Norit would cross? They are one of the top 2 carbon companies (Calgon being the other). I have also talked with Calgon a lot on their carbons also, probably much more actually. Does that also surprise you?
Billybeau run's Seachem's Matrix Carbon. He runs GFO sandwitched between two layers of Matrix carbon and follows it up with poly or chemi-pure
Feel free to ask Billy who recommend that Matrix to him
Cool, glad you helped him find a good carbon! If you recommended Matrix to him, then Kudos, it's a good carbon and I've been saying that. But what you said is that he recommends Black Diamond, and I simply said he runs Matrix. It's funny because you said one thing but he uses something else. Here is a post of his from last week. http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=1fa403ffe46aba0573651fc66116c7d4&threadid=1213814 Just a bit more then 1/2 way down the page. It WAS poly filter and not chemi-pure he follows the carbon/gfo mixture with. Sorry I wasn't sure which it was and that's why I wrote "poly or chemi-pure" because I couldn't remember which it was, but remembered it was one of the two. The poly makes more sense and is a good thing to do. I mentioned Randy doesn't like Boyd for personal reasons and never said he did recommend chemi-pure. It could be the best carbon in the world and Randy would not comment on it for his dislike of the company and it's founder.
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?
Not that it makes any difference, but why do you think Randy suggest a bituminous carbon if lignite is better?
Go look on RC who Randy asks to answer GAC questions. Ask Billy who Randy asks to answer most of the GAC questions on RC. I'm sure you know who it is, me. Randy's choice has nothing to do with because it is Bitum. It is because it is good enough and not pricey, simple and short. I recommend to him long ago. Go do a post count on me on RC about the GAC I recommend the the most. It is Black-Dimaond followed by SeaChem Matrix. And I have already explained why
That didn't answer the question. You keep saying how wonderful peat and lignite carbons are (which I disagree with) but everyone you've mentioned runs and recommends bitums. You say one thing but then later say Randy & Billy recommend Black-Diamond and I simply said that is was a bitum carbon which it is(black diamond). My point is that if the lignite is so good as you preach then why does Randy recommend a bitum carbon? You basically just proved my point. Bitum is a better value which is what I've been saying.
You very well could preach GAC to the whole world but when they use and still recommend the bitum carbons even though you say it's inferior it seems to punch a whole in your argument that lignite is better. IE If you've explained it to them how lignite is better and they tried it but then went back to using and recommending bitums that infers that they disagree with you for one reason or another.
I've missed something here. Why do you recommend Black-Diamond followed by Seachem Matrix if lignite is better? Why not recommend the TLF hydrocarbon2 brand or the lignite carbon twopartsolution sells? I'm not trying to be a (insert appropriate phrase/word) here
but I don't get your reasoning. You're saying lignite is best but then recommend the bitums. It's a contridiction.A tank is not a waste treatment plant. Not the way I run one at least.
That's too funny. We deal with much smaller particles then waste treatment plants do. Actually you should go back and read the studies and see why the 2 waste plants choose the lignite over the bitum (notice they got the same performance from them). It's because of backflushing and regeneration which we don't do.Norit, didn't replace bitum with any other carbon. It's one of there better if not best selling carbons. You need to get your facts straight. They also sell over 150 different types of carbon. Each carbon is designed with different purposes in mind. They always recommend to not go by the specs but to use the specs as a rough selection criteria and then to select a few different carbons to see which works best in your environment. They will gladly send you different samples so you can test with.
Well that's a dumb argument. If people aren't using the carbon correctly then they need an education, not a different product. No it DOES NOT take more bitum carbon over the long haul to remove more DOCs. You can and should also rinse bitum carbons just as lignite. Go back and read the case studies you are referring to. In industrial applications lignite can be backwashed easier and with fewer gallons of water which is a cost savings on both water and especially labor. But on our tanks we work on a much smaller scale. If it takes us an extra 30-60 seconds to backflush are carbon good it's not a big deal. There isn't a measurable cost savings to us from doing it like a big industry would get. Apples and Oranges.
We also don't regerate are carbons like industry does. We use it, discard it and put fresh carbon in it's place.
Another thing worth mentioning is that I'd never recommend a lignite carbon to someone who is not presently running a carbon on a reef tank. Lignite carbons work to fast at the start and then slow way down. Frankly I don't want a carbon that is going to massively pull a lot out of the water super quickly like lignite does. I don't want to shock my system. I want the transition to be slower. I don't want the corals getting "blinded" super fast by the clean water without a slower transition period. This can be worse then chaning light bulbs without raising your lights.
I'm not missing the point. I'm disagreeing with it. PAC has no place in our tanks. Powdered carbons are used in batch processes. PACs are actually mixed with the liquid you are trying to purify and then after the impurities are adsorbed by the carbon they are removed by another filtering process. Now tell me how you do that in an aquarium? You don't, we don't use PAC carbons. BTW, you have referred to Seachems Matrix as a PAC and it is far from it. It's not a powdered carbon, it's a small granule carbon. Quite a difference!Ron will not flat out tell you lignite or Peat is better but it depends on exactly what you are trying to remove. In our many talks we came to the conclusion that the choice of carbon for each system really depends on
You keep missing the point what I said and what Ron said, for OUR APPLICAION it is Lignite, unless one wants to spend money on ROX or PAC which is really the best. If one is trying to remove a more specific what ever he may give a different GAC. I said they sell a aquarium GAC and it is Lignite, why is that. ? It fits OUR APPLICAION. Ask youself why isn't it Bitum
Also unless I'm uninformed, extruded activated carbons like ROX 0.8 are designed for gas phase purification. They can be reactivated and reused which can make them much cheaper to use long term in some industries but not ours.
I can post the pore volumes. Do you want them?
Your wrong again. Wood does not have a bigger pore size then lignite. Lignite carbons have the largest pore size of all the common carbons! Wood is smaller and right between both bitum and lignites (22-26). It has a surface area of 1200-1600 and has the highest total pore volume of any carbon. You can get it hard or soft. By your specs would this not be the best carbon to use then? If not why?
I don't understand what you mean by a lot of surface area is not available. You are correct on the pore size, But I'm looking for a smaller pore size so that it gets the small molecules the skimmer leaves behind and never takes out of the water. The larger pore carbons compete with the skimmer and I want something that compliments it. I'm interested in the particulate matter the skimmer isn't going to remove.
Yes Norit makes and sells carbon made from both soft and hard wood. They also leach a lot of phosphates. I know because I've tested them. Also see my note above on the use of extruded carbons and what they are designed for.
Here's a couple blurbs from Norit:
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
The best type of activated carbon is not so easily determined because of the variety of molecules that cause the problems. These molecules can range from very small to very large. The large molecules often clog up small pores, making them inaccessible to other molecules. A better match for this application is often an activated carbon with more medium-sized pores. NORIT recommends performance testing first to find the very best match.
Carlo
[It's because of backflushing and regeneration which we don't do.
You need to get your facts straight there Carlo. Plants do not regenerate GAC every time it is back flushed. Back-flusing is not much different than us washing the carbon for a second run. YOU even used the same term If it takes us an extra 30-60 seconds to back flush are carbon good it's not a big deal That washing of a Bitum will not remove as much as the trapped material as it will from Lignite.
Norit, didn't replace bitum with any other carbon
see why the 2 waste plants choose the lignite over the bitum
First you say they didn't replaced and now you say they did not. It can't be both ways I know why they choose Carlo I said so in my last post, go back an read it...density......backwashing
It's one of there better if not best selling carbons. You need to get your facts straight
Norit sells more Lignite than Bitum by a long shot. It is pretty much a fact as they make mostly Lignite and sell mostly Lignite. Just go count all the GAC"s they have and see. Get you facts straight.
No it DOES NOT take more bitum carbon over the long haul to remove more DOCs.
It most certainly DOES, as you can not wash out the inner pores and smaller pores as well and move trapped particle and substances.
There isn't a measurable cost savings to us from doing it like a big industry would get. Apples and Oranges.
There MOST certainly does, is it will remove more with Lignite and it will last longer.
You many want to do some tests with large to med DOC dyes, it is pretty much evident the Lignite lasts longer, if you rinse out the GAC, run it again, risen it out and run it again. GAC DOES NOT have to be trashed on just one run. And it is not fiction but FACT that Bium plugs quicker which make it less efficient, meaning it can not be left as long and requires more maintenance, which means Lignite is a better choice for us.
tank is not a waste treatment plant. Not the way I run one at least
It is pretty close, GAC is one of the end processes/stages where there is not much in the water.
Lignite carbons work to fast at the start and then slow way down. Frankly I don't want a carbon that is going to massively pull a lot out of the water super quickly like lignite does.
You are NOT think'in at all. Ever hear the phrase "JUST USE LESS Carlo ???. That means what you need or can use less Lignite over Bitum to achieve the same DOC removal. And more of the reason behind it is better choice for US. I just proved your WROING on you own opinion.
I'm not missing the point. I'm disagreeing with it. PAC has no place in our tanks. Powdered carbons are used in batch processes. PACs are actually mixed with the liquid you are trying to purify and then after the impurities are adsorbed by the carbon they are removed by another filtering process
You have no clue do you, that is so funny You should have done a search on it on RC or other forums where I have talked about it. PAC is Powdered Activated Carbon and we use in in Diatom fillers caked on a pleated filter. We have been using as such Carlo for like hum.....30 years Look up the phrase Votrex Diatom Filter. A number of us use them and no filter polishes the water as well as a PAC. Every time I did a large WC I ran PAC for 4 hrs.
BTW, you have referred to Seachems Matrix as a PAC and it is far from it
You seem to miss things on GAC, I said SAC, do you know what SAC means ??
unless I'm uninformed, extruded activated carbons like ROX 0.8 are designed for gas phase purification
You must be reading my posts again on RC about things and missing things You do that a lot . If you would have done a better search you have seen that extruded large pelleted GAC is for VPC and not LPC. That 0.8 in ROX 0.8 means it is 0.8 mm in dia. If you were at Norit and choose under there selection ROX 0.8 and read the pdf on ROX it says what it is used for......water. If you ever talked to Ron Litton, as you claim, he would have brought it up.
I'm not missing the point. I'm disagreeing with it. PAC has no place in our tanks
And Ron Litton will also disagree with this statement also. I leaned about PAC from him
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
Quite picking or choosing phrases that seem to suit you. Your wanted application is not the "general " application that most are looking for. No it will NOT and we are not just trying to remove JUST small organics. If WE want to talk about what YOU want that is another issue and fine with me
And Norit NORIT GAC 830R is not the most efficient of their GAC's Bitum's for this. Get the facts straight Is it Ok to use sure, but it is a poor grade of Bitum, just look at its pdf. It is not even acid washed. Norit reccommends PK 1-3 for aquarium, also not acid washed and a Lignite, unless you want to up it to a higher grade. It is obvious you HAVE NEVER talked to or know Ron Litton. If you want to use a Norit Bitum then NORIT GAC 1240 PLUS Acid Washed Bituminous or at least NORIT GAC 830 PLUS Bituminous. And why in God's name have YOU chosen a REACTIVATED GAC, that is what that R stands for in 830R This product is a recycled activated carbon and not for food grade or potable water applications. Talk about a crap choice for US on GAC you have hit the bottom on Bitum there Carlo on YOUR selection Ron would never advice this for an aquarium, let alone a reef tank
If people aren't using the carbon correctly then they need an education
Then YOU really need it to Carlo
I don't understand what you mean by a lot of surface area is not available.
Well then go back to that Norit page it is all right there in a diagram. Many molecules can not get into inner small channels/pores (see pdf below) in the grains which may have lots of surface area, so that area is not available to do much of anything in adsorption. It is wasted space. Lignite has less surface area large pores and grater pore vol. A GAC with a lot of surface area and low pore vol will not remove as much in many cases. That is evident by Molasses #'s when matching Bitum against Lignite.
Wood does not have a bigger pore size then lignite
Yah I did it again
By your specs would this not be the best carbon to use then? .........WOOD
You missed your own remark about Wood and why not to use it. They also leach a lot of phosphates
I can not argue that Carlo about Wood but it still soft, to dusty and to much PO4 but we can say so what. Not only does it have a high Iodine like 1,000, like Bitum or CC it also can have a very high Molasses # like >500. Wood is just a GAC you do not find very often anywhere. Yes, one can get it. Norit does have Wood PAC but I do not see any WOOD GAC. Have a model number as I can not find any. I also like wood. The only GAC I don't care for is CC, unless it is for ozone application. And if one wants or YOU want to deal with small molecules then this is probably the best choice but will plug up quickly and does not do well at all on washing. Of course one could say "can't I acid wash my GAC and get better removal", sure if one wants to.
NORIT recommends performance testing first to find the very best match.
And based on their expertise they choose Lignite for OUR application. And hardly no one is going to be out buying or using 2-3 GAC's for some selective means.
The larger pore carbons compete with the skimmer and I want something that compliments it. I'm interested in the particulate matter the skimmer isn't going to remove.
That is the purpose behind GAC to compete with the skimmer. They benefit each other and the skimmer will work better if is not dealing with larger molecules. Skimmers are moslty hydrophobic and GAC is both hydrophobic and a molecular sieve.They work hand in had. It makes no difference which one removes what, as long as they are removed.
If you want to find something that you really like as a GAC I'd be glad to help you find one that you prefer.
People can read and learn from these pdf's and links rather than our rambling on it. And from my use and tests over 30 some years Lignite is the best for us over all and is the same choice as Ron Litton and Julian Sprung and most others.
Understanding GAC
http://www.norit-americas.com/pdf/na58_2.pdf
http://www.carbochem.com/activatedcarbon101.html
http://www.cee.vt.edu/ewr/environmental/teach/wtprimer/carbon/sketcarb.html
Tested Aquarium GAC
http://web.archive.org/web/20030315173347/www.animalnetwork.com/fish2/aqfm/1997/jul/product/default.asp
http://web.archive.org/web/20000918065426/http://www.animalnetwork.com/fish2/aqfm/1998/may/features/1/default.asp
http://web.archive.org/web/20000918065819/http://www.animalnetwork.com/fish2/aqfm/1998/june/features/1/default.asp
How Norit feels about cost and Lignite
http://www.norit-americas.com/1.13.cfm?id=8
A case study
http://www.norit-americas.com/pdf/case_study_edmond_rev1.pdf
http://www.norit-americas.com/pdf/case_study_wilmington_rev1.pdf
A case study on DOC
http://www.norit-americas.com/pdf/AWWA_%20Journal_01-05.pdf
You need to get your facts straight there Carlo. Plants do not regenerate GAC every time it is back flushed. Back-flusing is not much different than us washing the carbon for a second run. YOU even used the same term If it takes us an extra 30-60 seconds to back flush are carbon good it's not a big deal That washing of a Bitum will not remove as much as the trapped material as it will from Lignite.
Norit, didn't replace bitum with any other carbon
see why the 2 waste plants choose the lignite over the bitum
First you say they didn't replaced and now you say they did not. It can't be both ways
I know why they choose Carlo I said so in my last post, go back an read it...density......backwashingIt's one of there better if not best selling carbons. You need to get your facts straight
Norit sells more Lignite than Bitum by a long shot. It is pretty much a fact as they make mostly Lignite and sell mostly Lignite. Just go count all the GAC"s they have and see. Get you facts straight.
No it DOES NOT take more bitum carbon over the long haul to remove more DOCs.
It most certainly DOES, as you can not wash out the inner pores and smaller pores as well and move trapped particle and substances.
There isn't a measurable cost savings to us from doing it like a big industry would get. Apples and Oranges.
There MOST certainly does, is it will remove more with Lignite and it will last longer.
You many want to do some tests with large to med DOC dyes, it is pretty much evident the Lignite lasts longer, if you rinse out the GAC, run it again, risen it out and run it again. GAC DOES NOT have to be trashed on just one run. And it is not fiction but FACT that Bium plugs quicker which make it less efficient, meaning it can not be left as long and requires more maintenance, which means Lignite is a better choice for us.
tank is not a waste treatment plant. Not the way I run one at least
It is pretty close, GAC is one of the end processes/stages where there is not much in the water.
Lignite carbons work to fast at the start and then slow way down. Frankly I don't want a carbon that is going to massively pull a lot out of the water super quickly like lignite does.
You are NOT think'in at all. Ever hear the phrase "JUST USE LESS Carlo ???. That means what you need or can use less Lignite over Bitum to achieve the same DOC removal. And more of the reason behind it is better choice for US. I just proved your WROING on you own opinion.
I'm not missing the point. I'm disagreeing with it. PAC has no place in our tanks. Powdered carbons are used in batch processes. PACs are actually mixed with the liquid you are trying to purify and then after the impurities are adsorbed by the carbon they are removed by another filtering process
You have no clue do you, that is so funny
You should have done a search on it on RC or other forums where I have talked about it. PAC is Powdered Activated Carbon and we use in in Diatom fillers caked on a pleated filter. We have been using as such Carlo for like hum.....30 years Look up the phrase Votrex Diatom Filter. A number of us use them and no filter polishes the water as well as a PAC. Every time I did a large WC I ran PAC for 4 hrs.BTW, you have referred to Seachems Matrix as a PAC and it is far from it
You seem to miss things on GAC, I said SAC, do you know what SAC means ??
unless I'm uninformed, extruded activated carbons like ROX 0.8 are designed for gas phase purification
You must be reading my posts again on RC about things and missing things
You do that a lot . If you would have done a better search you have seen that extruded large pelleted GAC is for VPC and not LPC. That 0.8 in ROX 0.8 means it is 0.8 mm in dia. If you were at Norit and choose under there selection ROX 0.8 and read the pdf on ROX it says what it is used for......water. If you ever talked to Ron Litton, as you claim, he would have brought it up.I'm not missing the point. I'm disagreeing with it. PAC has no place in our tanks
And Ron Litton will also disagree with this statement also. I leaned about PAC from him
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
Quite picking or choosing phrases that seem to suit you. Your wanted application is not the "general " application that most are looking for. No it will NOT and we are not just trying to remove JUST small organics. If WE want to talk about what YOU want that is another issue and fine with me
And Norit NORIT GAC 830R is not the most efficient of their GAC's Bitum's for this. Get the facts straight
Is it Ok to use sure, but it is a poor grade of Bitum, just look at its pdf. It is not even acid washed. Norit reccommends PK 1-3 for aquarium, also not acid washed and a Lignite, unless you want to up it to a higher grade. It is obvious you HAVE NEVER talked to or know Ron Litton. If you want to use a Norit Bitum then NORIT GAC 1240 PLUS Acid Washed Bituminous or at least NORIT GAC 830 PLUS Bituminous. And why in God's name have YOU chosen a REACTIVATED GAC, that is what that R stands for in 830R This product is a recycled activated carbon and not for food grade or potable water applications. Talk about a crap choice for US on GAC you have hit the bottom on Bitum there Carlo on YOUR selection Ron would never advice this for an aquarium, let alone a reef tankIf people aren't using the carbon correctly then they need an education
Then YOU really need it to Carlo
I don't understand what you mean by a lot of surface area is not available.
Well then go back to that Norit page it is all right there in a diagram. Many molecules can not get into inner small channels/pores (see pdf below) in the grains which may have lots of surface area, so that area is not available to do much of anything in adsorption. It is wasted space. Lignite has less surface area large pores and grater pore vol. A GAC with a lot of surface area and low pore vol will not remove as much in many cases. That is evident by Molasses #'s when matching Bitum against Lignite.
Wood does not have a bigger pore size then lignite
Yah I did it again
By your specs would this not be the best carbon to use then? .........WOOD
You missed your own remark about Wood and why not to use it. They also leach a lot of phosphates
I can not argue that Carlo about Wood but it still soft, to dusty and to much PO4 but we can say so what
. Not only does it have a high Iodine like 1,000, like Bitum or CC it also can have a very high Molasses # like >500. Wood is just a GAC you do not find very often anywhere. Yes, one can get it. Norit does have Wood PAC but I do not see any WOOD GAC. Have a model number as I can not find any. I also like wood. The only GAC I don't care for is CC, unless it is for ozone application. And if one wants or YOU want to deal with small molecules then this is probably the best choice but will plug up quickly and does not do well at all on washing. Of course one could say "can't I acid wash my GAC and get better removal", sure if one wants to.NORIT recommends performance testing first to find the very best match.
And based on their expertise they choose Lignite for OUR application. And hardly no one is going to be out buying or using 2-3 GAC's for some selective means.
The larger pore carbons compete with the skimmer and I want something that compliments it. I'm interested in the particulate matter the skimmer isn't going to remove.
That is the purpose behind GAC to compete with the skimmer. They benefit each other and the skimmer will work better if is not dealing with larger molecules. Skimmers are moslty hydrophobic and GAC is both hydrophobic and a molecular sieve.They work hand in had. It makes no difference which one removes what, as long as they are removed.
If you want to find something that you really like as a GAC I'd be glad to help you find one that you prefer.
People can read and learn from these pdf's and links rather than our rambling on it. And from my use and tests over 30 some years Lignite is the best for us over all and is the same choice as Ron Litton and Julian Sprung and most others.
Understanding GAC
http://www.norit-americas.com/pdf/na58_2.pdf
http://www.carbochem.com/activatedcarbon101.html
http://www.cee.vt.edu/ewr/environmental/teach/wtprimer/carbon/sketcarb.html
Tested Aquarium GAC
http://web.archive.org/web/20030315173347/www.animalnetwork.com/fish2/aqfm/1997/jul/product/default.asp
http://web.archive.org/web/20000918065426/http://www.animalnetwork.com/fish2/aqfm/1998/may/features/1/default.asp
http://web.archive.org/web/20000918065819/http://www.animalnetwork.com/fish2/aqfm/1998/june/features/1/default.asp
How Norit feels about cost and Lignite
http://www.norit-americas.com/1.13.cfm?id=8
A case study
http://www.norit-americas.com/pdf/case_study_edmond_rev1.pdf
http://www.norit-americas.com/pdf/case_study_wilmington_rev1.pdf
A case study on DOC
http://www.norit-americas.com/pdf/AWWA_%20Journal_01-05.pdf
If you read my message you'll see I did say you should backflush your carbon. What I also said is that if you read the case studies the two carbons performed almost identical with lignite costing more. It was the TIME & WATER SAVINGS that made the lignite a better value. The bitum carbon was also a pore choice IMHO. This doesn't apply to us. Spending an extra 30 to 60 seconds flushing a small amount of carbon is no big deal to an individual so the lignite doesn't get the boost in performance/value from this.Boomer said:
I stand by this. Bitums are their top seller. Ask Ron and I'm sure he'll tell you this. You originally said they replaced bitums with lignite which is far from the truth. What they did in some (only a few mind you) is make the value of using lignite better then bitum in a couple of plants. That's quite a difference in what's being said. In either regard it has no bearing on how we use it in our aquariums.
Same as aboveFirst you say they didn't replaced and now you say they did not. It can't be both ways
Boomer you are confusing selection with most sold. Ask them what their top selling carbon is.
You realize that lignite weighs more per volume then bitums correct? You realize I've been saying "once for ounce" and not per volume correct? Do you want to rethink some of the things you are saying or trying to argue?
Well gosh, if you say so Boomer then it must be correct. I'll throw out months of testing and everything I know about carbon and just take your word for it. We can start a campaign with all the aquarium sellers of carbon and let them know they are selling everyone the WRONG carbon since it's not designed for our purpose. When do you want to start?
I'm not interested is pulling dyes out of water. I'm not interested in tannic acids and things like that. They are easy and any carbon will take them out. I want a carbon better suited to POM.
If you say so.
Of course I have. But I don't want to be a slave to my carbon changing it that often when I've got an alternative that works better for MY NEEDS. I'd rather use a carbon that pulls approximately the same amount out today as it will tomorrow. Not a lot today and a much smaller proportion tomorrow.
Yes I have a clue. I also have a diatom filter but I don't run PAC in it. I run diatomatic earth in it which is far superior for that purpose.I'm not missing the point. I'm disagreeing with it. PAC has no place in our tanks. Powdered carbons are used in batch processes. PACs are actually mixed with the liquid you are trying to purify and then after the impurities are adsorbed by the carbon they are removed by another filtering process
You have no clue do you, that is so funny
But that's not the way PAC carbons are designed to be used. They are designed to be added directly to the fluid and after absorbing removed. That's not the way a diatom filter works. Maybe you need a clue.
Yes you have called it both a PAC and a SAC.
SAC can mean different things depending on how you use it:
Spent Activated Carbon
Spherical Activated Carbon
Super Activated Carbon
I'm assuming you're talking about super activated carbon correct? That's just a process how it's made. Seachem's is still a bitum carbon. Many aquarium brands of bitum are super activated.
You seem to like to flatter yourself thinking you're the only person who knows anything about anything. Frankly Boomer I wouldn't take a carbon lesson from you. I certainly don't do that alot nor at all.unless I'm uninformed, extruded activated carbons like ROX 0.8 are designed for gas phase purification
You must be reading my posts again on RC about things and missing things
From http://www.norit-americas.com/pdf/ROX_08_rev4.pdf
"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.
I'm sure you learned about it from him but then figured out your own way to use it. You wasted money using PAC carbon when you could have just used diatomic earth which you can get at any pool store for what a dollar a pound or something? $8-$10 bucks for a bag would last you you're whole life instead of getting you a few ounces of PAC. Choose the proper tool for the job.I'm not missing the point. I'm disagreeing with it. PAC has no place in our tanks
And Ron Litton will also disagree with this statement also. I leaned about PAC from him
Should I pick phrases that suit you instead? You're not getting it. You trying to assume you know what I'm trying to do with my carbon BUT YOU DON'T. If you would read what I've been typing I've made it clear. I'm NOT interested in using a carbon that's going to compete with my skimmer. I think it's stupid to spend money on something the skimmer will do for free. I want to compliment the skimmer and use a carbon that will get the stuff the skimmer will not. This is what you don't get. You can argue the virtues of different carbons till you're blue in the face and you're not going to change MY MIND. I know what works best for me. I would sure assume other people would feel the same about their carbon too if they knew enough about how it works. Why spend money on "tools" the compete with each other instead of complimenting each other? That just doesn't make sense to me.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
Quite picking or choosing phrases that seem to suit you. Your wanted application is not the "general " application that most are looking for. No it will NOT and we are not just trying to remove JUST small organics. If WE want to talk about what YOU want that is another issue and fine with me
I never said it was the most efficient carbon. And I agree with you, it isn't that good of a carbon. Do you even realize where that carbon came from in this discussion? You wanted me to read the case studies where they replaced the bitum with lignite and I did. That is the carbon the waste treatment facilities were running compared to the lignite they replaced. Do you see the problem here? Do you remember me saying our tanks aren't anything like waste treatment centers? Do you think the lignite would have won out against a good bitum carbon. The case studies are flawed. It's a marketing gimmick in a way. They put their best lignite up against a crappy bitum and the lignite just barely is more cost justifiable and only when they factor in the water flushing and labor time saved. What would have happened to the study if they put the top bitum for that application up against the lignite? The lignite would have lost. But they are trying to push the lignite so the study is biased. If you really understand carbons you would see right through that. But I guess you didn't because Ron teaches you stuff and tells you what carbons are best to use.And Norit NORIT GAC 830R is not the most efficient of their GAC's Bitum's for this. Get the facts straight
I surely don't use it. I've said the carbons I personally use. In case you missed it I use either Chemi-pure or Seachem's Matrix Carbon depending on what I'm using the carbon for in the tank. If I'm going to use carbon for air filtering for ozone (which I don't) I'd just use a cheap carbon like black-diamond where leaching of phosphates isn't a problem. It's good enough to take out ozone smells and works for a long time. Good enough for the purpose.
If you say so.If people aren't using the carbon correctly then they need an education
Then YOU really need it to Carlo
I give up. You're stuck on larger sizes and don't get the application. Tell you what, you use the carbon you want and I'll use the carbon I want. We'll both be happy that way, and you won't have to try and teach me about carbons anymore OK?
I didn't miss it. I gave you the answer.Wood does not have a bigger pore size then lignite
Yah I did it again
By your specs would this not be the best carbon to use then? .........WOOD
You missed your own remark about Wood and why not to use it. They also leach a lot of phosphates
I felt sorry for you after the whole argument you made was thrown out because you got the pore sizes wrong on the two carbons when making your argument.To much phosphate leaching for me on the wood. Wouldn't even consider it. CC is too small. I want a medium pore size. Not small, not large but right in the middle. To be honest with you, I'd also use peat mixed about 25% in with bitum if it weren't so darn expensive. That IMHO would be an ideal mix of carbons but it's just not cost worthy.I can not argue that Carlo about Wood but it still soft, to dusty and to much PO4 but we can say so what
Are you serious? 2 or 3 selections isn't even getting started when testing carbons for a specific use. By the time you choose 3 different types of carbon and then 3 or 4 different pore size and factor in the different Iodine and Molasses numbers you easy have a dozen or two different carbons that need testing. Then you go back and try mixes of 2 or 3 different carbons to see the affect.
Well I also ready stated it before but I don't want the carbon competing with my skimmer for the same stuff. I want it to compliment the skimmer. Enough said.
I've read all of these before. The case studies aren't in line with our application and as I said before they are comparing apples and oranges as far as the carbon go. Sure a high priced lignite is going to be better then a medium grade bitum. Big deal. It's marking to sell the lignite so they make more money. Big surprise.
Thanks for the offer to help but I've already found what works best for me. Chemi-Pure and Seachem's Matrix.
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.
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 .
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
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
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
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'm assuming you're talking about super activated carbon correct?
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
7. Yes I have a clue. I also have a diatom filter but I don't run PAC in it. I run diatomatic 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.
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 .
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
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
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
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'm assuming you're talking about super activated carbon correct?
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
7. Yes I have a clue. I also have a diatom filter but I don't run PAC in it. I run diatomatic 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.
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.