victoly

The pro's use MH for their SPS, LED for everything else, so maybe you line up your coral such that the MH is over the SPS predominately.

For sherita, I tested chloramine out of the 2nd CGAC (mechanical->CGAC->pentex->sample) and got 0.00. My CGAC/pentek are now one month old. I'll test out of that port every month to see if I start to get some chloramine creep.

Oh no !

There is a god, you finally fragged that leather. How's the mother colony look ?

High capacity or standard.

Sorry that my tank won't meet your abstract definition of the purest definition of "nano", or your opinion of if I'm going overboard or not. I'm gonna go make some lunch if that has everyone's approval.

welcome. glad to have you here.

I'll be a 4th.

<br /><br />For a nominal fee!

YAP. that pic is mine.

Holy CRAP i'm so excited about this: http://www.marinedepot.com/AquaMaxx_Nano_Star_Calcium_Reactor_Calcium_Reactors-AquaMaxx-UJ00170-FICRRA-vi.html It's a HOB calcium reactor, and it's beautiful. Cheap too!

Innncoooominnnnggg

I AM THE SKIMMATE

I sweep my floors and throw the dirt up in the air.

Looks really well put together glen.

That pricing is generally tied into a multi service discount.

Uverse is tops in terms of what you get for the money IMO.

I've got one that is pending, but if it falls through we can talk.

that stand looks AMAZING! high quality materials and workmanship!

that's what I would do. Unless the skimmer is DIY, most skimmers have a pump that is only large enough to supply air/water to it, and no more.

GFO needs to tumble because it is most effective when fluidized.

If you buy from migs, you get automatic entry into heaven. True story.

yep

Sent Yesterday, 04:57 PM I could not actually find any info on their carbon filter products at their site regarding type of carbon utilized. And I must say I was a little lazy at wanting to research it further. Maybe you would be kind enough to provide me with a link so I could verify the type of GAC utilized in their filter blocks. Stage one (post mechanical) http://www.bulkreefs...dge-refill.html Stage two (post catalytic) http://www.pentekfil...file 310106.pdf I know when utilizing carbon for reactors it is pretty easy to buy what you want and people utilize anything from cheap coconut carbon Coconut carbon isn't bad by default. You know who else uses coconut carbon? ITER. with peroxide numbers that are way high to the bituminous coal-based carbons that you mentioned in your rebuttal. All the information you noted was ripped right from the The Water Quality Association Technical Application Bulletin as you stated. So I used my source in a quote, and gave the source, so that's me "ripping" it? I call that citing. I know because I read the article, and it has been around about 10 years most likely before you began your degree program in hydrogeology. Yeah, old data is no longer good data, right? The theory of relativity is totally outdated because Einstein did his work a long time ago. Got it. Were you aware of it from your studies or researched it do to this posting? Hey, if you can repost what you google, so can I. But I am sure you know that this report also hits right at the heart of one of my main points. Let me tear a little paragraph from them as well. You quoted them as saying “New types of activated carbons (bituminous coal-based) have been developed with increased catalytic activity that is especially effective at the removal of chloramines. These new “catalytic” carbons are marketed with a peroxide number (rate of hydrogen peroxide decomposition) instead of the traditional iodine adsorption number. The chloramine removal capacity of activated carbon is dependent upon pH. Catalytic carbons have demonstrated increased chloramine removal efficiency at higher pHs.” I guess I'm confused. First, the information I cited is 10 years old and presumable not useful. Now pieces of it are worthy to make your case? You can't have it both ways. Now let’s for the sake of conversation put in layman terms for others reading along that may be unaware, that the peroxide number is simply an assigned number indicating how fast different types of carbon breakdown peroxide. The lower the number the more effective the carbon. And hence its effectiveness to produce a response in a reaction, which is what carbon does in all situations. But what you left out was it article goes on to say “…Ammonia (NH3), chloride (Cl-), and nitrogen gas (N2) are produced by the catalysis of monochloramine. The removal of these catalytic byproducts can be achieved by additional treatment with ion exchange resins or by reverse osmosis”. This was one of my main points. That IO ion exchange resins are required to remove the toxic byproducts of GAC and Chloramine catalysis. This is not breaking news. My system uses DI resin, and just about every reefer I know does as well. I simply use a different carbon setup. This process is not lost on your typical WQA Certified Water Specialist. Most of my information comes from this industry where there about 10 different certification levels. My primary source is a WQA-CI about mid-level on the food chain. I mention food chain because the food industry is where I bang out some bucks. COOL STORY BRO! Knowing someone does not directly impart the knowledge to you! Experimentally verifying information for yourself is the *only* thing that matters. I oversee some pretty expensive commercial equipment which requires the use of RO and in some applications RODI to protect the equipment. I have used a national service for this purpose for 20+ years and have seen a few systems come and go in that time. But it was only a few years back when Austin began utilizing mono-chloramines that it was necessary to begin utilizing the DI resin to protect the glass in some of the equipment. Maybe as a hydrologist and being more familiar with ground water movement and contamination, the need to remove the catalytic byproducts was lost on you. I find the notion offensive. Tell me, as a food services director, what do you do on a daily basis that makes you more uniquely qualified to dispense information like you did the study? After all these contaminants are only a taste consideration of drinking water and not a real health issue that you may be more familiar with. Above all, protect human health and the environment is my profession's credo. But, yeah, I could see how having a certified water quality specialist make YOU the expert. But rest assured it is not lost of the aquaria inhabitants. As I am sure you know it is well known to aquarists what the affects of Ammonia (NH3), chloride (Cl-), and nitrogen gas (N2) have on our fish in particular. And how many times have I read that someone does a water change and looses all their gilled inhabitants. Quoting they used only RODI water. These poisonings usually are NH3 and or Cl-. And yes they are sometimes pH related or even temperature or SG problems. But when an experienced aquarist says they temped and buffered the water and checked SG and yet they experience a die off after a water change then the answer is always contaminates. This in itself provides some documented proof that these poisoning do occur. But I digress. Gaping back to the article cited “The average municipal water system maintains residual monochloramine concentrations around 2 mg/L (range: 1.5 mg/L to 2.5 mg/L).” They go on to say. “Chloramines are small, stable molecules with no net charge making them difficult to remove by distillation, reverse osmosis, and ion exchange resins. But with all this said none of this changes the fact that probably none of the RODI systems in use by aquarist today are working at capacity. R.H. Holmes states that in his experimentation he found thru fairly extensive study that an 11 month old cartridge produced 0.16 total chlorine and 0.06 free chlorine when the same cartridge new only produced 0.01 in both categories. Sure proof that less than perfect systems miss Cl- and leave it for the membrane and the DI. I challenge you to find a single statement from a reef chemist that says DI is a waste of time on any RO system. For the third time, I use DI resin. And it is good you point out that only quality carbons are highly effective on monochloramines. But I question the use of these higher priced carbons in the use of filters. Again this was your point. Why don’t you contact a BRS WQA certified tech. Because I have test results that prove that I have removed a satisfactory level of chloramine, based off of BRS recommendations. I am sure they have one or more on staff that can answer this question. We would all be better off knowing the results And I am aware that there are some beautiful reefs out there that have never used anything but carbon out there. Just like there are some beautiful reefs out there that never utilize RODI for their water supply, and have never had an algae problem either. But then I wouldn’t try Austin water for that project either. Bottom line is although we can trust our equipment and our methodology or our experience. Stuff happens! Equipment fails, people get distracted, or we find we are not as experienced as we think we are. I’ll bet you a dollar to a donut that in another 29 years you’ll be saying I can’t believe I really thought that or did that. Know how I know that? Cause we all do. Ask the guys over at RCA where you say their water tested at 0.0 Cl-. I think you'll find they have extra DI on the system and quote me on this "No RO" Commercial production of water is a TOTALLY different beast than what the hobbyist does. Their motive is do the most with the least to make the most profit.

Right, but for the cost, you may as well go with the lite that has a single pH probe outlet integrated. If pH isn't important for you, and 4 outlets is enough, the hr will work fine.