Alex’s IM 150 EXT

[Alexander1312]

Euphyllias look pretty unhappy immediately after dipping in KCI, but not too bad. Cotton candy added from nano tank. Flesh band is not great, which is why I moved it from the nano tank, and hope it will do better here where I am watching closer trace elements.

 

[Alexander1312]

Timing of ozone usage (vs. dosing major and minor elements)

Learned something new yesterday from Christoph / Oceamo in the German-speaking podcast:

Not relevant for most here since not many, if any use ozone, so more a note for me.

I recently reduced ozone dosing from 24/7 to 10 minutes every hour in the first 10 minutes of each hour, due to low/0 SAK values. This increased my SAK value to 1 and my skimmer also seems to perform better now. The main reason for my reduction in ozone usage.

Christoph said that trace element dosing should not overlap with ozone dosing as ozone would try to oxidize these elements (known bromate concern, but apparantly not limited to bromine only).

I struggle with maintaining certain key elements such as Nickel, Vanadium, Copper, and Zinc, which coincidentally are being dosed hourly while the hourly 10 minute ozone dosing occurs.

I have now moved the ozone schedule so that it would not conincide with any trace element dosing. However, I might need to move ozone dosing further away (several hours) from any trace element dosing, as he recommended, which will require additional dosing schedule changes.

Will see in the next ICP in late April if any impact.

 

[Alexander1312]

Reading and addressing ICP results have become rather BAU, and the mystery in what to do with them is mostly gone.

There are still quite a lot of nuances to go into, but my main actions are a) calibrating home testing results, and b) chasing perfect parameters.

While it is debatable who runs the best ICP lab currently - it is either Oceamo or Fauna Marin - Fauna's reporting is superior in my opinion, once you understand how to read the report.

Unfortunately, this could have been one of the better test results if it were not for the totally off salinity (this was discussed in the other thread at great length) due to a not-calibrated refractometer.

Other insight was the following:

• Hanna tester overstates alkalinity by quite a bit - 0.6 dkh.
• Hanna tester overstates phosphate by quite a bit - .0.06 mg/L
• My resins seem to be depleting already (silicate and silicon in osmosis water results), but I blame the membranes (2), which I replaced. This could have been the wrong action, but the last time the resins lasted much longer, so I suspect that the membranes do not do a good job upfront, and the color coding of the resins does not indicate otherwise.
• Most critical trace elements to adjust are those under the dynamic elements, which continue to not look good despite increased dosing of these - I blame GAC and GFO for this. But I do not want to stop either of them - hopefully GFO at one point.

One the best news today was the new Fauna ICP tests finally come with a pre paid shipping label - which is fantastic, and whic was massive pain point in the past. Also, I got these test results in 8 days, when I shipped my samples on Thursday morning vs Friday previously.

 

[RandyC]

Reading and addressing ICP results have become rather BAU, and the mystery in what to do with them is mostly gone.

There are still quite a lot of nuances to go into, but my main actions are a) calibrating home testing results, and b) chasing perfect parameters.

While it is debatable who runs the best ICP lab currently - it is either Oceamo or Fauna Marin - Fauna's reporting is superior in my opinion, once you understand how to read the report.

Unfortunately, this could have been one of the better test results if it were not for the totally off salinity (this was discussed in the other thread at great length) due to a not-calibrated refractometer.

Other insight was the following:

• Hanna tester overstates alkalinity by quite a bit - 0.6 dkh.
• Hanna tester overstates phosphate by quite a bit - .0.06 mg/L
• My resins seem to be depleting already (silicate and silicon in osmosis water results), but I blame the membranes (2), which I replaced. This could have been the wrong action, but the last time the resins lasted much longer, so I suspect that the membranes do not do a good job upfront, and the color coding of the resins does not indicate otherwise.
• Most critical trace elements to adjust are those under the dynamic elements, which continue to not look good despite increased dosing of these - I blame GAC and GFO for this. But I do not want to stop either of them - hopefully GFO at one point.

One the best news today was the new Fauna ICP tests finally come with a pre paid shipping label - which is fantastic, and whic was massive pain point in the past. Also, I got these test results in 8 days, when I shipped my samples on Thursday morning vs Friday previously.

I wouldn't state that your Hanna checkers are "overstating." They seem to be well their within error range as stated by the manufacturer. So, including that there is some possibility of human error injected, it's probably a reasonably reported value and working normally. Also, who's to say the ICP test is exactly correct? They will have their own reporting error as well. Do they state what it is?

Unfortunately, your quest to obtain your "perfect values" with hobby grade equipment is not going to happen.

Phosphate

 

[PjFish]

Freezer ziplock or double bag it, or small canvas bag like sleeping bags come in then smash with flat surface like 2x4, meat tenderizer..rolling pin will work.. Small tipped hammers in such may break the bag unless your hitting the 2x4 on top of bag..
If you purchased a Molcajete ( mortar pestal) make salsa in it which is the only way!! You will never go back ha. May need to preseason the stone if its not already unless it’s marble..

 

[Alexander1312]

I wouldn't state that your Hanna checkers are "overstating."

I would. And I did. Because they are.

They seem to be well their within error range as stated by the manufacturer.

Exactly. It is overstating the results because it has an error rate. Like EVERY other tester. But if it helps you better understanding, I can add ‘relative to the ICP results’. But hopefully we are not getting in this petty debate, as this was implied.

So, including that there is some possibility of human error injected, it's probably a reasonably reported value and working normally.

Never said it did not. In fact, I quite like the Hanna Checkers.

Also, who's to say the ICP test is exactly correct?

Hm, is the ICP OES more accurate or the Hanna checker? Now you make me think.

They will have their own reporting error as well. Do they state what it is?

Unfortunately, your quest to obtain your "perfect values" with hobby grade equipment is not going to happen.

It will happen Randy, try to be more positive.

 

[Alexander1312]

Freezer ziplock or double bag it, or small canvas bag like sleeping bags come in then smash with flat surface like 2x4, meat tenderizer..rolling pin will work.. Small tipped hammers in such may break the bag unless your hitting the 2x4 on top of bag..
If you purchased a Molcajete ( mortar pestal) make salsa in it which is the only way!! You will never go back ha. May need to preseason the stone if its not already unless it’s marble..

Love it!

 

[RandyC]

I would. And I did. Because they are.

Exactly. It is overstating the results because it has an error rate. Like EVERY other tester. But if it helps you better understanding, I can add ‘relative to the ICP results’. But hopefully we are not getting in this petty debate, as this was implied.

Never said it did not. In fact, I quite like the Hanna Checkers.


Hm, is the ICP OES more accurate or the Hanna checker? Now you make me think.


It will happen Randy, try to be more positive.

My problem with you constantly stating all these hobby grade testing equipment is bad and giving an impression that they're wrong. I'm simply stating facts, not being negative. These are hobby grade testers with an error range and they are all reporting normally as they should. You calling out all these testers as bad or "overstating" is erroneous and gives an impression these testers are faulty, when in fact, they are not. You're comparing a machine that cost $100,000+ and requires that a trained technician to run the device to a $50 hobby grade tester. Hobby grade testers have their place, but getting perfect and highly accurate numbers are not what they can do.