lduncan

They have had more than 8 years to sort it out, and that pretty much sums up the bureaucracy they face in trying to do what they need to do. In incompetent I was talking more from providing a technical standpoint rather than a business one, they fail to provide reliability in some of the most basic services required for the internet to operate. But I agree, essential infrastructure networks need to be heavily regulated if they are going to operate "privately". It's the one place where the government should poke their nose in business. They don't seem to have a problem doing that where they aren't needed, but are reluctant to where it matters.

Yip I realise the reasons behind the two options. But for me, it's not worth the effort to bake and try and dissolve.

On a gram for gram basis it provides more alkalinity. But 1 gram of plain baking soda provides the same alkalinity as the resulting baked baking soda from that same 1 gram of baking soda. For example if you bake 100 grams of baking soda, it provides the same alkalinity as the 100 grams would if it was unbaked. The baking process reduces the weight by up to 40% (as H20 and CO2 evapourate).

There is no change in alkalinity it provides when you bake it. And although it makes it more soluble, it appears to make it harder to dissolve.

This is quite a different situation than Telecom. The industry have been trying to get these major upgrades to progress. They have the money to spend, and are willing to spend it. They are well aware of the fragility and capacity shortfalls of the power network, not only into Auckland but into Christchurch as well. Their hands are tied with the ridiculous processes involved to get anything approved through the RMA and associated crap. By being charged with providing critical infrastructure, they should have the ability to bypass all this consultation and RMA rubbish and go ahead with their plans, as they are in the national interest. Look what happened to Meridian and project aqua, canned because of the expense and time required to got through consent processes. I suspect that will come back to bite hard. How are they different to Telecom, well Telecom's just plain incompetent.

People worry too much about the dip in pH it's not a problem, and is usually not significant unless you're adding a lot at once. A 0.5 meq/L (1.5 dkH) addition temporarily drops the pH by 0.04, which is nothing to be worried about. Also at a pH of 8.3, carbonate provides about 7% of the buffering, compared to hydrogen carbonate which provides around 90%. So why convert so much of the hydrogen carbonate into carbonate by baking the baking soda? All it does when it hits the tank, is grab CO2 which you just spent so much time (and energy) trying to drive off in the oven. Just use the baking soda without baking, it's easy to dissolve, literally a couple of minutes and it's done. Layton

But when you bake baking soda, you can be left with only 60% of the weight you started with.

I've got bulbs from here: http://www.reefdepot.com.sg/ XM 10k's they're a very good bulb.

Any superglue, there almost always methyl-2-cyanoacrylate. And yes they do contain a cyano group, but it's safely bound as part of the polymer. It's the ionic form which is highly toxic. You'd have to heat the glue in an inert atmoshphere to release toxic cyanide. The long and short of it is, they're both safe to use (aquanead it and superglue).

I don't bother baking it, it's not really worth the effort.

It's reasonably soluble, you can dissolve 100 grams in a litre of water. I premix 300 grams in 4 litres of water for using during the week.

I use around 20 grams of baking soda every day. Try and keep alk in the 10 - 12dkH range.

Temperature isn't particularly important. Most things can handle significantly lower temperatures (high temps are a different story) for a reasonable amount of time. Circulation is key. Especially in DSB systems which can have very high oxygen demands. My priority would be: Circulation / Airation Temperature Light

KH (alkalinity) is VERY important in calcification. It's the limiting factor, calcium isn't particularly important as long as it's above around 350. Strontium is a metal, and behaves much like calcium, it can be substituted for calcium in coral skeleton. From what I've read, there is a lot of stuff still up in the air around strontium and it's significance to calcifying organisms, some say it's required, others say it's just there so it's used.

I've found that often it's a matter of just trial and error. For example, my Sohal got along fine with a similar sized clown tang they would actually swim together, but he harassed my blue tang to the brink of death after having lived peacefully with it for several months. He just snapped one day. I'd say the clown tang would be the most risky option, they have a reputation for being aggressive, and slashing other fish to bits.

It's all Telecom eventually.

Why?

:-? No, it's called English, and it's used to explain something. It means that there is not a simple relationship between the variables you are controlling (bubble count, and flow rate), and the variables your trying to control (calcium and alkalinity). Fo example if you increase the bubble rate by 1bps and the flow rate by 10mL/hr how easy is it to predict what the calcium and alkalinity in the tank will rise to? That's abstraction.

any butterflies Tim?

Sure it's opinion. There are a few people going this way though. A couple of people down here have ditched their calcium reactors, and a couple more have started using CaCl and baking soda. There's cracker, and chimera looks like he's a little frustrated with his calcium reactor, reef's dabbling with it. Done properly two part systems are easy to run, and pretty inexpensive. Costs me a little over $1 a week for a pretty high demand tank. Tuning can be done in a single day, as opposed to several days or couple of weeks with reactors. And you directly adding what you need, whereas with reactors you adding CO2 and CaCO3 then trying to adjust abstract things like flow rates and bubble counts. Which when you think about it is a pretty longwinded means to an end. Two part is more of a back to basics approach. And yes wasp, I do think a reactor is more difficult to run when compared to this system. Why? well because of the abstraction of the controlable variables (bubble count, and flow rate) over the ones you're measuring (calcium and alk). Like all things, there is always one best way to do something, but the one best way can vary by individuals circumstances. Something which is least effort for one, may not be for another. Layton

That pretty much sums up my opinion too.

Any one else find his domain name funny http://www.cashh.de/

Wasp? The tank in this thread doesn't use a calcium reactor.

yip, obviously they work. But there seems to be more of a trend away from using them, or at least an increase in Balling style methods.

I agree, definitely up there with Weast's tank. That setup is about as close to my ideal setup i've seen. I don't think there is anything I would change about it. No calcium reactor in sight either