Ca,KH, and Mg Calc

[lduncan]

By testing,adding and retesting has set the amounts required for my litreage.

So you use trial and error effectively to work out how much you need to add to raise something a particular ppm?

The calculator does this without trial and error, and is more trustworthy. Why is it more trustworthy? Because the chemistry of what's going on doesn't change ;-) Atoms are atoms.

The calculator is always right. If you want to know how it works, i'll run you through the calculations it's doing, then you might trust it?

Layton

[cookie extreme]

So you use trial and error effectively to work out how much you need

trial yes, error only if you chuck in large quantities or the wrong stuff like KW thinking it is baking soda . if you add a small amount test and increase it to see how much is needed on a weekly? basis then i can't see a problem. on the other hand if you want to adjust your water within 12-24 hours (which is not really a wise thing to do anyway as it could cause more damage then good) then i would call it not error but a mistake full stop.

how can anyone put an accurate liter amount in the formula (its guessing at a best to start off with), unless you design your tank with all sand, rockwork and corals etc and then add the messured amount of water needed to fill the tank. i played with the formula as well but i guessed my approx. literage too. so whats better guessing something and hope for the best or slowly working out how much your systems really needsn while testing on an ongoing basis until the correct amount needed is found? JMO

[lduncan]

You can spin it which ever way you want. But the fact is, give the calculator accurate info, it'll give you an accurate answer.

You can just chuck some in hoping it's close to required amount then test, find it's just right, nowhere near, or way too much, then adjust and test. Or you could test then put some numbers in the calculator and come up with the number of grams you need to add within +/- 5 or 10%. Then add that quantity over whatever period you want.

Why wouldn't you use the calculator? Surely it just makes things easy? Maybe a rundown of what it's working out would be useful?

Layton

[wasp]

Pretty dum argument Layton.

Someone can use a calculator, or they may have dosed their tank enough times to know what's needed.

Doubt anyone needs your help to tell them how to use the calculator. :roll:

[cracker]

At the end of the day, I know what my tank needs and you guys know yours.

[cracker]

At least this thread has actually been informative...Its been a bit dull of late.

[lduncan]

wasp?? Sure the horse has bolted if you've already spent the time on a trial and error type method. But if you haven't, why wouldn't you use the calculator? It sure does make thing easier. How would you do this without a calculator?

Ok cracker, show me, complete with formulas, how to work out how much Calcium Chloride Dihydrate I need to add to a tank with volume of 950 litres of water in order to raise Calcium from 290ppm to 420ppm? (and I dont want the "guess work" or "adding a little bit" then testing the next day solution) I want total grams to add.

Layton

[chimera]

i agree with layton, the hard works been done, the calculators there, it works, use it (unless of course, you've already done the ground work yourself like cracker has and knows what is needed for his tank) for everyone else, its just another handy tool - the difference being, its VERY handy and works out right. cookie - you can guestimate pretty effectively your actual water volume, you might be out by +/- 50 litres but in essence, for me that doesnt change the results a great deal when you're talking 1,000 litres. in fact, to raise by calcium 10ppm for 50 litres requires 1.8 grams of calcium chloride. thats hardly measurable but over a large scale and larger volume of water, it quite obviously is. always dose half the recommended dose then test - thats just common sense.

[wasp]

Fear not Layton, the horse has not bolted :lol:

I have no problem with a calculator, they are a good thing. I have even used a calculator.

Just think the whole argument is pretty dum.

I also think it is a bit arrogant to assume that just because somebody does not use a calculator means it is because they are too ignorant & need your instruction.

[KP]

Wasp you have quite a selection of new icons.

I especially like the pink elephant. :lol: :lol:

[wasp]

[wasp]

The calculator does this without trial and error, and is more trustworthy. Why is it more trustworthy? Because the chemistry of what's going on doesn't change ;-) Atoms are atoms.

The calculator is always right. If you want to know how it works, i'll run you through the calculations it's doing, then you might trust it?

Layton

I don't think it is quite that black and white. The statement is too simplistic.

The calculator is always right, but it is not always right.

Many people have had the experience of working out via a calculator what they need to add to move a level from the current value, to the desired value. They then add the dose, but upon testing after a suitable time period, find that the value is not what the calculator said it would be.

The reason for this is that the calculator excludes all other variables, it is just straight mathematical calculations of the chemical in question. In real life, there may exist many other factors that will have an influence. So for example, a person may want his calcium to be 450, but when he tests he finds it has dropped to 260. He freaks, uses his calculator to figure out how much to add, and sticks it in the tank. Next day, he tests, fully expecting calcium to be 450, as per the calculator. But it isn't it is only 390. Why? This is because his alkalinity was way too high and took out a lot of the calcium, plus magnesium was only 900. These other factors had an influence.

Another example is one Layton touted a while ago, when trying to explain why Chimera had added a lot of alkalinity, but alkalinity was still low. Layton said this might be due to the action of bacteria which used the alkalinity. So if all these could be true there can be a lot of other factors that have a bearing, I did not see the action of bacteria built into any calculators I have seen.

So, correct course of action for me anyway, is use the calculators as a very useful guide to establish initial dose, but don't blindly accept the result will be a straight exersize in maths, it isn't. The water should be tested after dosing, and additional dosing be undertaken to make it good. Many reefers become quite intuitive about their tank after a while, and will know how much to dose to move one value to another, without having to refer to a calculator every time.

[lduncan]

Wasp, I think you missed it again.

I don't care whether you use the calculator or not. But when someone says they don't trust it, maybe it would be useful if they know what it's doing in the background. It's not being arrogant, like you suggest.

Also I don't really get your point above. A calculator is not going to adjust for ignorance, and neither is trial and error. If anything, a calculator is more useful in detecting this sorts of things, because you know how much you need to add to get to a certain number, and if it doesn't get anywhere near that number, then you know to do some deeper investigating of other parameters.

What would happen if you were just doing the add some and test, add some and test, feedback method? You'd keeping adding more, until you found it suspicious, at which point you may have added far more than you should have.

Layton

[cracker]

If you add too much when trialling you would be a fool. But the calculator could be used for this to get an idea of approximate size.

[tel]

ive done a calculation but come up with 3 different results :-? ;

1: it will take 4 reefers to hold cracker down and force him to use the calculator

2: crackers tank looks pretty damn good

3: it actually may take 6 reefers to restrain him :lol:

[cracker]

Now thats gotta be the bast damn comment for weeks!!

(And no, I wont use the calculator)!!!!

[lduncan]

[chimera]

But the calculator could be used for this to get an idea of approximate size.

or even an exact size

(And no, I wont use the calculator)!!!!

perhaps all this talk about being arrogant is directed at the wrong person 8)

cracker, try it next time you need to dose. test before then add the results to the calculator and see what it recommends. compare that to what YOU usually dose, i almost guarantee they're the same (or approximately the same) assuming your dosing brings the levels up to the desired amount

basically, my point is you simply cant make a statement or comment about a tool when you have never used it or at least understand how it works. you have said you dont trust it yet you say you have not used it. how can you not trust something you've never used or even seen?!!! did you have a preminition, got a crystal ball or dream about it?

[Drifty]

as the tank matures and the corals grow, wouldnt a tank use more of all the additives

[wasp]

you have said you dont trust it yet you say you have not used it. how can you not trust something you've never used or even seen?!!!

Ha Ha!! Now where have I seen someone do that before?

[chimera]

yes of course it would, more corals, more additives consumed. its a never ending circle, always requiring to test and add to counteract changes.

The reason for this is that the calculator excludes all other variables, it is just straight mathematical calculations of the chemical in question. In real life, there may exist many other factors that will have an influence. So for example, a person may want his calcium to be 450, but when he tests he finds it has dropped to 260. He freaks, uses his calculator to figure out how much to add, and sticks it in the tank. Next day, he tests, fully expecting calcium to be 450, as per the calculator. But it isn't it is only 390. Why? This is because his alkalinity was way too high and took out a lot of the calcium, plus magnesium was only 900

Clearly another person who has not read the text on the site. It effectively states this and suggests that ALL parameters need to be at a certain level. It DOES make recommendations based on what zone you are in. For example, it suggests if you are in zone 3 (low ca and possibly low kH), then to move to zone 1 or 2 (preferably to the middle of each) to add calcium chloride FIRST to reach one of those zones THEN raise kH afterwards (or leave your tank alone and let kH drop naturally if its too high) It also (separately) suggests that if your Mg is too low, to raise this to around 1300 (which most of us already know, but then it states why and shows the importance of Magnesium)

There is no point arguing about this either Wasp, in its basic form it works. Adding calcium chloride will raise Ca to the correct figure, whether it stays there is of course dependant on other parameters. However if all other parameters are at correct levels (which is the intention of the calculator), then there should be no problem.

I really dont understand why people get all serious about things like this, almost like you all just have to have a say, to cause a reaction and start a pointless arguement, to pull out the negatives because you're bored. If you want an argument, how about we start up a zeovit thread again? After all, its not rocket science... 8)

At least this thread has actually been informative...Its been a bit dull of late.

i think cracker summed it up nicely,... at first. now its just becoming another zeovit thread.

[wasp]

I thought the bit of my post you quoted was helpful & well thought out. Don't know why you feel so negative about it.

And to remind you what I previously said

I have no problem with a calculator, they are a good thing. I have even used a calculator.

Maybe you need to cool off a while.

[wasp]

Oh, and if you are all upset because of this -

Ha Ha!! Now where have I seen someone do that before?

I'll just let everybody know it was not you I was thinking of Chimera.

[lduncan]

You know wasp you are really misleading with the way you chose to quote stuff. Here is the full meaning of chimera's point:

basically, my point is you simply cant make a statement or comment about a tool when you have never used it or at least understand how it works.

In particular the last part about understanding how it works. You don't have to physically use something to understand how it works.

Do you have to be hit by a bus to know how that works?

Comes back to the whole limitation of experience thing. What you've said previously is quite different, and implies that people can only learn through experience. That is just wrong.

Layton

[Pegasus]

Time to cool off boys.

Thread is being closely monitored.

Bill.

Mod.