CaC03 sand & water chemistry
Thomas Bartkus
I *do* want to use calcium carbonate based sand because -
It will help keep up the calcium & alkalinity & pH & trace elements as the
sand slowly dissolves into the water. AND it won't scratch the glass like
a silica sand.
I *don't* want to use calcium carbonate based sand because -
Calcium will preciptate out onto the CaCO3 sand and cause the
alkalinity and pH to drop. I will have a heck of a time maintaing calcium
& pH. Better to use a neutral silica or perhaps aragonite sand.
What to believe?
Thomas Bartkus
Wayne Sallee
Calcium sand will not make it hard to maintain calcim and
alkalinity levels.
Calcium sand will scrach the glass
You want clacium sand.
Wayne Sallee
Wayne's Pets
Wa...@WaynesPets.com
Marc Levenson
CaribSea bags up for hobbyists and is available at most LFS.
Marc
--
Personal Page: http://www.sparklingfloorservice.com/oanda/index.html
Business Page: http://www.sparklingfloorservice.com
Marine Hobbyist: http://www.melevsreef.com
kim gross
normal sea water, part 1 is very true. It will not though dissolve very
much to suppliment the CA and Alk.
Now if you are trying to run very very high calcium and alk. The CA
will precipatate out of solution. The place it precipatates depends on
many things, one of which is, it forms on other aragonite easier than on
the glass of your tank, but you will find it on your heaters, pumps,
powerheads and any other item that is warmer than the bulk water also.
So for a reef tank, you do want aragonite based sand, but it will not
buffer your water much, but it will be a lot easier on the glass since
it can not scratch glass like silica sand can.
Kim
Boomer
Q1. It will not help keep up the pH, Ca and Alk. It does not dissolve unless the pH falls,
for x number of reasons. It my add a tad to the pH, Ca and Alk but in a trivial,
depending. In short time it will be coated bacteria and organics and all that will stop,
unless the pH falls much lower. Do not worry about it.
Q2. Ca and Mg will precip onto some of it initially, if it is aragonite, less if calcite
and more so it dolomite. However, such Hi-Mg Calcites will just go right back into
solution. Again in a short time it will get coated with bacteria and organics and this
will also stop
So don't worry about any of this
Kim said this
"Now if you are trying to run very very high calcium and alk. The CA
will precipatate out of solution"
This has nothing to do with the sand/say but does happen, it is called abiotic precip, aka
hard water deposits. All tanks have some, like the heaters and at the water-air interface
and sometimes lower on the glass. On fresh sand it can also happen more so, as Kim stated,
as the Ca has a greater affinity to be attracted to a similar surface chemistry. However,
again on the sand, organics and bacteria will stop this once coated.
--
Boomer
Want to talk chemistry ? The Reef Chemistry Forum
http://www.reefcentral.com/vbulletin/index.php
WCW...@nospamChartermi.Net
Former US Army Bomb Technician (EOD)
Member; IABTI, NATEODA, WEODF, ISEE & IPS
If You See Me Running You Better Catch-Up
"Thomas Bartkus" <thomas...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.10.01...@comcast.net...
: Okay - I'm confused.
:
Thomas Bartkus
news:JXz%e.6702$vw6....@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> Calcium sand will not cause calcim to precipitate out.
>
> Calcium sand will not make it hard to maintain calcim and
> alkalinity levels.
>
> Calcium sand will scrach the glass
>
> You want clacium sand.
I think you meant to say that calcium sand won't scratch!
If I interpret these posts correctly -
There isn't much point to chasing after a particular "flavor" of sand for
imaginary benefits to water chemistry. And coral, dolomite, aragonite sands
are all acceptable alternatives to silica with the added benefit that they
aren't as likely to leave scratches on the aquarium glass.
I just want something non-toxic that won't scratch my fused silica (glass!)
aquarium.
Thomas Bartkus
Thomas Bartkus
news:JXz%e.6702$vw6....@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
> Calcium sand will not make it hard to maintain calcim and
> alkalinity levels.
>
> Calcium sand will scrach the glass
>
> You want clacium sand.
I think you meant to say that calcium sand won't scratch!
Wayne Sallee
silica cand. You don't want to get calcium sand under your
algae magnet, or it can scrach your glass. Your live
rock can also scrach the glass.
Wayne Sallee
Wayne's Pets
Wa...@WaynesPets.com
stoutman
"Boomer" <wcw...@nospamchartermi.net> wrote in message
news:adR%e.3505$ES....@fe07.lga...
> So lets unconfuse you
The CONFUSED informing the confused. Hmmmmm.
>
>
> Q1. It will not help keep up the pH, Ca and Alk. It does not dissolve
> unless the pH falls,
You are contradicting yourself in the same sentence and you don't even know
it. If the pH falls and CaCO3 dissolves than [Ca++] increases, along with
[CO3--] and [HCO3-]. CaCO3 contributes to your overall buffering capacity.
When the pH drops your substrate i.e. aragonite (a form of CaCO3) breaks
down (dissolves) into Ca++ and CO3-- and adds to your buffering capacity (pH
stabilization).
> for x number of reasons. It my add a tad to the pH, Ca and Alk but in a
> trivial,
> depending.
What?? You just said in the previous sentance that it WILL NOT help keep
up the pH.
unclenorm
A fact I think you should know, irrespective what other
people may tell you, Calcium Carbonate sand, Southdown Tropical Play
sand, Aragonite sand, and Oolite are all the same they are all Calcium
Carbonate sands, they will not cause precipitation or PH shifts etc.
The rate they will dissolve naturally is very very small, they need a
calcium reactor running a CO2 system to dissolve.
Finally they are the preferred substrate for any marine tank.
regards,
unclenorm.
Thomas Bartkus
news:1128430082....@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Hi Thomas,
> A fact I think you should know, irrespective what other
> people may tell you, Calcium Carbonate sand, Southdown Tropical Play
> sand, Aragonite sand, and Oolite are all the same they are all Calcium
> Carbonate sands, they will not cause precipitation or PH shifts etc.
> The rate they will dissolve naturally is very very small, they need a
> calcium reactor running a CO2 system to dissolve.
> Finally they are the preferred substrate for any marine tank.
> regards,
> unclenorm.
>
I am returning to the hobby. In the past, it was a 3" deep sugar sized
silica sand that pushed nitrides down to the vanishing point. It was silica
sand because the other flavors were just plain unavailable. This may still
be the case here in Nashville, TN. I'm wondering how much $ and effort I
should expend in order to find the still elusive "Southdown Tropical Play
Sand". With so much money needed to support the hobby, is it really worthy
blowing hundreds of $ on the sand bed when clean silica sand is still cheap
and available.
Thomas Bartkus
Boomer
articles on the solution kinetics' of CaCO3 in seawater.
Carbonate beds do about nothing for MAINTAINING, pH and Alk were we run them, ask anybody.
It is the reason behind supplements. Why do you think sups are added to even carbonate
based tanks or do I need to explain that to you. Under certain acid conditions, that may
take place in the sanded, some may/will go into solution, a trivial amount, which will not
count for much of anything and add little to the Ca, Alk or pH.. IF the pH dropped
substantially, more will go into solution but you will not see this happening. YOU CAN NOT
MAINTAIN pH, Alk or pH with a carbonate substrate SB .........PERIOD
Initially fresh carbonates add a little to the Alk, Ca and pH, mostly due to the amount
of dust. In a short time Hi-Mg Calcites will precip out onto fresh sand and there will be
a small drop in Ca, pH and Alk. These Hi-Mg Calcites are the most soluble of the
carbonates and do need much of a drop to go back into solution. All of these shifts are
trivial
" buffering capacity "
I see you are still lost on this one but there is no sense in trying to explain it to you
again.
stoutman
> Oh gee, I see the knothead is back and confused again. I would suggest
> you go read some
> articles on the solution kinetics' of CaCO3 in seawater.
No need.
>
> Carbonate beds do about nothing for MAINTAINING, pH and Alk were we run
> them,
What do you mean by "about nothing". It (aragonite) either helps to
maintain pH or it doesn't. You can't have it both ways.
>ask anybody.
No need.
> It is the reason behind supplements. Why do you think sups are added to
> even carbonate
> based tanks or do I need to explain that to you.
Supplementing ALSO helps maintain pH.
>Under certain acid conditions, that may
> take place in the sanded, some may/will go into solution, a trivial
> amount, which will not
> count for much of anything and add little to the Ca, Alk or pH..
What do you mean by "certain acid conditions" or "trivial amount" or "much
of anything" or "add little"? Can you be MORE vague?
> IF the pH dropped substantially, more will go into solution but you will
> not see this happening. YOU CAN NOT
> MAINTAIN pH, Alk or pH with a carbonate substrate SB .........PERIOD
When did I say MAINTAIN pH, Alk or pH?
I think what I wrote was "When the pH drops your substrate i.e. aragonite (a
form of CaCO3) breaks
down (dissolves) into Ca++ and CO3-- and adds to your buffering capacity (pH
stabilization).
Should I type slower for you?
>
> Initially fresh carbonates add a little to the Alk, Ca and pH, mostly due
> to the amount
> of dust. In a short time Hi-Mg Calcites will precip out onto fresh sand
> and there will be
> a small drop in Ca, pH and Alk. These Hi-Mg Calcites are the most soluble
> of the
> carbonates
I'm not sure you know what calcite is at this point.
>and do need much of a drop to go back into solution. All of these shifts
>are
> trivial
What do you mean by "trivial"?
REMEMBER pH is a logarithmic scale.
>
> " buffering capacity "
>
> I see you are still lost on this one but there is no sense in trying to
> explain it to you
> again.
Please....
Go ahead, lets see how much you still do not know.
Boomer
mean nothing to your short brain. You should really learn to troll better. You are about
as good as it as you are on chem issues. The only one that needs to type slower is me, for
you, I proved last time and that did not work either, so try to get out of the fog bank
you live in.
"It (aragonite) either helps to
: maintain pH or it doesn't. You can't have it both ways."
Sorry yes you can, as all aragonite is not the same. Go get a book on carbonate aquatic
geochemistry. Puka sand , oyster sand, oolitic sand and coral sand are all aragonite but
the solution kinetics is not all the same. Some may initially raise the pH and some may
cause a drop in pH. Puka is the best an trying to maintain initial pH. It does not make
much difference what they do, for the amount of increase or decrease is small and all will
cease in time due to organic coatings and bacteria films. Under controlled lab test
conditions all aragonitic sands will cause a drop in pH due to the precip of Mg-Calcites.
Some only a few hundredths of a pH, others almost .5 pH. Even different salt brands give
different results. Running life form aquariums are not controlled. Some reefers have 4 x
the amount of CO2 and some SB are more acid producing than others, depending on the load.
Even baking soda which has a pH of over 8 causes a drop in initial pH.
" I'm not sure you know what calcite is at this point"
Well, it is obvious you are clueless. I guess your lack of though process never got you to
think hmm Goggle " Hi-Magnesium Calcite", Low-Magnesium Calcite, Calcite. Lets go further
just for you, Magnesite, Dolomite, etc.
I see you are still confused on "buffering capacity" so it seems hopeless for you. Please
go to library and seek out a aquatic chem book. If your pH dropped from 8.2 to 7.8 the
buffering capacity INCREASES as you are approaching its pKaą. And the max buffering
capacity is at its pKa.and 7.8 is closer to its pKaą ( pH 6.0 for seawater) than 8.2
Increasing the alk with buffers, with no shift in pH, just changes the amount of
alk/buffers but not the ratio so there is no change in the buffering capacity, just its
ability to neutralize acids, its Alk (ANC). Similarly if you raise it from 8.2 to 8.4
because of its pKa˛ ( pH 9.1)
I forgot I'm talking to a troll so BY
"Go ahead, lets see how much you still do not know."
I think we all know WHO that is lol
Still waiting for you to vist our chem forum and to tell us that we don't know what we are
talking about but you do. lol
Either put up or shut up
stoutman
> Why don't you go back to your last nonsense post here to me months ago.
>Even known ref mean nothing to your short brain.
Is this English?
>You should really learn to troll better. You are about as good as it as you
>are on chem issues.
Your knowledge of chemistry is almost as good as your spelling and grammar.
>The only one that needs to type slower is me, for you, I proved last time
>and that did not work either, so try to get out of the fog bank
> you live in.
The only thing you proved last time was how little chemistry you understood.
> "It (aragonite) either helps to : maintain pH or it doesn't. You can't
> have it both ways."
>
> Sorry yes you can, as all aragonite is not the same. Go get a book on
> carbonate aquatic
> geochemistry. Puka sand , oyster sand, oolitic sand and coral sand are all
> aragonite but
> the solution kinetics is not all the same.
Wrong. Puka sand, oolitic sand
(http://geology.utah.gov/utahgeo/rockmineral/collecting/oolitic.htm) and
coral sand are all composed of CaCO3, but they are all NOT ARAGONITE. Coral
sand and oolitic sand might possibly contain aragonite, but they are not by
definition aragonite. Aragonite is a specific type of mineral. You need
to get a clue.
http://mineral.galleries.com/minerals/carbonat/aragonit/aragonit.htm
>Some may initially raise the pH and some may cause a drop in pH. Puka is
>the best an trying to maintain initial pH. It does not make
> much difference what they do, for the amount of increase or decrease is
> small and all will
> cease in time due to organic coatings and bacteria films.
> Under controlled lab test conditions all aragonitic sands will cause a
> drop in pH due to the precip of Mg-Calcites.
> Some only a few hundredths of a pH, others almost .5 pH. Even different
> salt brands give
> different results.
> Running life form aquariums are not controlled. Some reefers have 4 x
> the amount of CO2 and some SB are more acid producing than others,
> depending on the load.
> Even baking soda which has a pH of over 8 causes a drop in initial pH.
Baking soda does NOT have a pH. A solution of water and specific amount of
baking soda will have a specific pH. If I put 2 mg of baking soda into my
bathtub filled with water (pH = 7), is the pH going to be 8 after the
addition? Nope.
I am going to have to start charging you.
> " I'm not sure you know what calcite is at this point"
>
> Well, it is obvious you are clueless. I guess your lack of though process
> never got you to
> think hmm Goggle " Hi-Magnesium Calcite", Low-Magnesium Calcite, Calcite.
> Lets go further
> just for you, Magnesite, Dolomite, etc.
You are not making sense.
It's difficult to debate you. Please try and maintain some degree of
coherency.
> I see you are still confused on "buffering capacity" so it seems hopeless
> for you. Please
> go to library and seek out a aquatic chem book.
No need.
>If your pH dropped from 8.2 to 7.8 the buffering capacity INCREASES as you
>are approaching its pKaą.
>And the max buffering capacity is at its pKa.
Half correct here.
The buffering capacity does not increase. When the pH reaches the pKa, the
buffer is at its optimum to resist changes in pH. The total capacity of the
buffer did NOT increase.
>and 7.8 is closer to its pKaą ( pH 6.0 for seawater) than 8.2
> Increasing the alk with buffers, with no shift in pH, just changes the
> amount of
> alk/buffers but not the ratio so there is no change in the buffering
> capacity, just its
> ability to neutralize acids, its Alk (ANC).
Wrong. Boomer, read this very slowly. A solutions ability to neutralize
acids is a function of its buffering capacity. Buffering capacity IS the
ability of a solution to resist sharp changes in pH. Alkalinity is a
measurement of buffering capacity. If you INCREASE the total alkalinity you
INCREASE the buffering capacity. The buffering capacity of water depends on
the total amount of HCO3- and CO3-2 present. Water with low levels of these
ions will quickly exhaust its ability to counteract pH fluctuations. Is
this sinking in yet?
You are still very confused here. You learned NOTHING while I was gone.
>Similarly if you raise it from 8.2 to 8.4
> because of its pKa˛ ( pH 9.1)
>
> I forgot I'm talking to a troll so BY
I'm no troll. I think you have potential and I just want to help you. You
are just very stubborn. I use to have students like you.
> "Go ahead, lets see how much you still do not know."
>
> I think we all know WHO that is lol
Yep, I think WE do... The more you type the more evident it becomes.
Sir, YOU should type less.
>
> Still waiting for you to vist our chem forum and to tell us that we don't
> know what we are
> talking about but you do. lol
Again, I am NOT interested.
>
> Either put up or shut up
Sir, I am putting up with a lot here. Do you want to continue?
Boomer
Ooooooo I made a couple of typo's so shame on me. I don't care about by grammar, I'm not
trying to impress anybody with it, I guess you are
<The only thing you proved last time was how little chemistry you understood.>
No that would be you and it was well proven by references, something you are also "short"
on, to include you own posted websites which shows how little you know.
<and
coral sand are all composed of CaCO3, but they are all NOT ARAGONITE. Coral
sand and oolitic sand might possibly contain aragonite, but they are not by
definition aragonite. Aragonite is a specific type of mineral. You need >
Really, where on that Utah website does it say it is not aragonite, just for argument and
to include coral sand is not aragonite. It is a bad thing for you to be playing geologist
and posting geology websites, that is my background. Please show me some Puka shells that
are not composed of aragonite. Coral sands, you may want to look up the composition of
coral sands before you open your mouth again. And no, not sands derived from broken down
limestone, which are calcite. By the way, being as about as sharp has a dull tac, do you
want to explain why almost all recent carbonate sands, corals, Puka etc, etc, are
aragonite but all those found in limestone are calcite. Do you even have a clue how
aragonite is converted to calcite and why ? Not aragonite by definition don't make me
laugh that is so funny. Might contain aragonite, that is almost as funny and a joke.
So lets have a field day with your first geology less, to show you how clueless your
really are. lol
You must have a problem of reading from your our own website. It is you that does not
understand the definition of aragonite lol
" Aragonite is a constituent of many sea creatures' shell structures; a curious
development since calcite is the more stable form of calcium carbonate. Most bivalve
animals and ***corals secrete aragonite*** for their shells and pearls are ***composed of
mostly aragonite***. The pearlization and iridescent colors in sea shells such as abalone
are made possible by several minute layers of aragonite.
No not ALL oolites are aragonite but ALL oolitic sands that we use in this hobby are. Show
me one that is not
Ok, now to my website on the Stansbury oolitic sand
http://www.fogsl.org/education/pdf/IIWhatAb.pdf
Humm, what does it say it is...... aragonite. Got a website that say it is not. The only
other mineral that is CaCO3 is Calcite. See that word anywhere on Stansbury oolites
Assay of Stansbury oolites by jfinch, a chemical engineer
http://www.utahreefs.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=404&KW=Aragonite&PN=0&TPN=4
Would you like me to post more lol. You need to learn how to do search and know what the
hell you are taking about shorty
<Baking soda does NOT have a pH.>
This is really getting funny and you claim to have a Ph.D in the field. I'll bet it was
one of those by mail-in Ph.D's
"The Baking Soda/Washing Soda question pondered . . .
A definition from ****Dr. Dan Berger (Faculty- Chemistry/Science dept. at Bluffton
College)**** gives a bit of understanding regarding the primary difference between Washing
Soda (Sodium Carbonate) and Baking Soda (Sodium Bicarbonate).
". . . washing soda will consume two equivalents of acid, while baking soda will only
consume one equivalent."
So, what does this mean for those of us concerned about laundering our cloth diapers and
family laundry? Well, basically that Washing Soda is a stronger base than baking soda,
and is in fact, CAUSTIC. This is one reason why it isn't used for baking!
***Washing Soda is caustic/alkaline with a pH of 11*** (with 7 being neutral).
***Baking Soda ***is only slightly alkaline with a pH around ***8.1 ***(again, 7 being
neutral).
Ok, so the chemistry professor does not know what he is taking about but you do.
<A solution of water and specific amount of
baking soda will have a specific pH. If I put 2 mg of baking soda into my
bathtub filled with water (pH = 7), is the pH going to be 8 after the
:addition? >
No shit and the pH of the above's is defined by a specific amount of either to a liter of
water. Claiming to be a chemist you should know that it is a std .1 molar @ 25 C. Maybe
you should look at a MSDS. Do you have a chemistry book anywhere ? Maybe you should look
up the pH scale. Most books a similar scale
Baking Soda pH
http://www.ec.gc.ca/water/en/manage/qual/e_ph.htm
<I am going to have to start charging you.>
I think we know who should be charging the fee lol
< Half correct here.>
<The buffering capacity does not increase. When the pH reaches the pKa, the
buffer is at its optimum to resist changes in pH. The total capacity of the
buffer did NOT increase>
Sorry not so or are you going to argue with this too ? Please say yes
"Buffering capacity can be quantified using the buffer intensity ( buffering capacity,
buffering index), b, defined mathematically in a way that is easy to calculate, but that
isn't worth detailing here. The units of the buffering intensity can be expressed as
meq/L or meq/L/pH unit (these are equivalent since pH is really a dimensionless
parameter). Thinking about it as meq/L/pH unit makes it easier to understand that it is
a measure of the amount of alkalinity or acidity ( ** what is this ? it was you that said
there is no such measurement as Acidity**) either one measured as meq/L, that needs to be
added to impact the pH up or down by one unit (though that is a substantial
simplification).
In the case of normal seawater at pH 8.2, b = 0.19 meq/L/pH unit for the boric acid/borate
system, and 0.63 meq/L/pH unit for the bicarbonate/carbonate system. These values are
additive, and result in a total buffering of b = 0.82 meq/L/pH unit. Under these
conditions, the boric acid/borate system provides about 23% of the total buffering, while
the bicarbonate/carbonate system provides about 77%.
If the pH of normal seawater is raised to 8.5, the total buffering is b = 1.2 meq/L/pH
unit, or about 40% greater than at pH 8.2 (because both systems are closer to the pKa).
At this pH, the relative contribution of the two systems to the total capacity is only
slightly different than at pH 8.2, with 20% from borate and 80% from carbonate.
If the pH of normal seawater is lowered to 7.8, the total buffering is b = 0.42 meq/L/pH
unit, or about half that at pH 8.2 (because both systems are farther from the pKa). At
this pH, the relative contribution of the two systems to the total capacity is also only
slightly different than at pH 8.2, with 29% from borate and 71% from carbonate."
< Wrong. Boomer, read this very slowly.> Buffering capacity IS the
: ability of a solution to resist sharp changes in pH. Alkalinity is a
: measurement of buffering capacity. If you INCREASE the total alkalinity you
: INCREASE the buffering capacity. The buffering capacity of water depends on
: the total amount of HCO3- and CO3-2 present. Water with low levels of these
: ions will quickly exhaust its ability to counteract pH fluctuations. Is
: this sinking in yet?>
No, you need to read slowly
<A solutions ability to neutralize
: acids is a function of its buffering capacity. >
Half correct, it is the ability to neutralize acids and/or bases, as that is its
definition.
" Bc is a measurement of how well a solution is able to resist pH changes when EITHER a
strong acid or strong base is added" (Pankow)
B= d(C^b - C^a) / dpH
However, they can be measured or expressed separately, just strong base or just strong
acid.
Alk or ANC deal only with acids and Acy or BNC deal with bases. Increasing the Alk will
give a indication of how much acid can be neutralized, for that part of the Bc but says
nothing about the ability to neutralize a base.
<The buffering capacity of water depends on
: the total amount of HCO3- and CO3-2 present>
You get a star for being correct there. And when pH = pKa it is at its max Bc. If the pH
was 9.1 pKa half of the principal buffer will be an acid HCO3- and half a base CO3-- . If
your raise just the alk 1 meq / l, with no change in pH, the Bc will increase only to the
point to neutralize more acid, not base. If only CO2 is added it will not effect the Alk
but the pH, which will fall. That fall will shift the ratio to less 50/50 for HCO3- :
CO3-- and the Alk remains the same. Now the solution has a greater ability to neutralize
more acid than base The bicarb will increase to greater than the carbonate and its Bc has
decreased from its pKa where the Bc was higher at 9.1. Alk is only an indication of part
of its Bc.
<Sir, I am putting up with a lot here. Do you want to continue?>
I know, it is hard for you to admit that you have some misunderstandings on the subject
matter, especially after claiming to have a Ph.D in chemistry. Why, does it hurt that much
??
"Still waiting for you to visit our chem forum and to tell us that we don't
know what we are
talking about but you do."
"Again, I am NOT interested."
I figured that as much, afraid to get involved with real chemists on these issues.
stoutman
> "Your knowledge of chemistry is almost as good as your spelling and
> grammar."
>
> Ooooooo I made a couple of typo's so shame on me.
Just a couple? Geesh, you can't count either.
> I don't care about by grammar,
I think you care. I think you are not capable of writing sentences that are
consistently grammatically correct.
>I'm not trying to impress anybody with it, I guess you are
I have no need to impress anyone. I just use better grammar. It is
generally easier to understand people who don't write gibberish.
> <The only thing you proved last time was how little chemistry you
> understood.>
>
> No that would be you and it was well proven by references, something you
> are also "short"
> on,
That's just it Boomer, I am trying to explain VERY BASIC chemistry
principles to you that shouldn't need references. I will TRY and include
more.
> to include you own posted websites which shows how little you know.
I am having difficulty with this grouping of words and letters (I wouldn't
call it a sentence) :
>"No that would be you and it was well proven by references, something you
>are also "short"
>on, to include you own posted websites which shows how little you know."
You see Boomer, this is why it is a good idea to use good grammar. I can't
rebut you if I don't understand your gibberish. In the future I will just
use the following acronym DUYG where it applies (Don't Understand Your
Gibberish).
> <and
> coral sand are all composed of CaCO3, but they are all NOT ARAGONITE.
> Coral
> sand and oolitic sand might possibly contain aragonite, but they are not
> by
> definition aragonite. Aragonite is a specific type of mineral. You need
> >
>
> Really, where on that Utah website does it say it is not aragonite,
They also DO NOT say coral sand is GOLD or SILVER or PLUTONIUM.
>just for argument and to include coral sand is not aragonite.
DUYG!
>It is a bad thing for you to be playing geologist and posting geology
>websites, that is my background.
Really. Now you are claiming to be a geologist. Ok.
>Please show me some Puka shells that are not composed of aragonite.
>Coral sands, you may want to look up the composition of coral sands before
>you open your mouth again. And no, not sands derived from broken down
> limestone, which are calcite. By the way, being as about as sharp has a
> dull tac, do you
> want to explain why almost all recent carbonate sands, corals, Puka etc,
> etc, are
> aragonite but all those found in limestone are calcite.
They may contain aragonite, but they are NOT by definition, the mineral
ARAGONITE.
>Do you even have a clue how aragonite is converted to calcite and why ?
How is this relevant?
>Not aragonite by definition don't make me laugh that is so funny. Might
>contain aragonite, that is almost as funny and a joke.
>
> So lets have a field day with your first geology less, to show you how
> clueless your
> really are. lol
>
> You must have a problem of reading from your our own website. It is you
> that does not
> understand the definition of aragonite lol
>
> " Aragonite is a constituent of many sea creatures' shell structures;
Just because ARAGONITE is a constituent in sea creatures shells, it doesn't
mean that sea creatures shells are ARAGONITE. They contain some ARAGONITE.
My sweater contains some wool. I would not say "I am putting on my WOOL".
I would say "I am putting on my sweater".
>a curious development since calcite is the more stable form of calcium
carbonate. Most bivalve
> animals and ***corals secrete aragonite*** for their shells and pearls are
> ***composed of
> mostly aragonite***. The pearlization and iridescent colors in sea shells
> such as abalone
> are made possible by several minute layers of aragonite.
Just because ARAGONITE is a constituent in sea creatures shells, it doesn't
mean that sea creatures shells are ARAGONITE.
>
> No not ALL oolites are aragonite but ALL oolitic sands that we use in this
> hobby are. Show
> me one that is not
Show me one of your MANY references that state (from a credible source) that
oolitic sand IS, by definition, aragonite.
Oolitic sand is not aragonite.
> Ok, now to my website on the Stansbury oolitic sand
> http://www.fogsl.org/education/pdf/IIWhatAb.pdf
>
> Humm, what does it say it is...... aragonite.
No it doesn't. You are misinterpreting your OWN reference.
Your reference states:
"Ooids sometimes bond with carbonates of calcium and magnesium to form rock
called aragonite (CaCO3)."
The KEY word here is SOMETIMES. When ooids bond with carbonates of calcium
and magnesium they form a rock called aragonite (CaCO3). This DOES NOT mean
that oolitic sand IS aragonite. What this says is that oolitic sand might
(SOMETIMES) CONTAIN aragonite.
I think you are having a problem with calling a constituent of a lot of
parts the whole. If I have a bucket of charcoal that contains a few
diamonds, you can NOT say I have a bucket of diamonds just because they are
both made of carbon.
Got any more websites Boomer?
>Got a website that say it is not. The only other mineral that is CaCO3 is
>Calcite.
>See that word anywhere on Stansbury oolites
DUYG!
>
>
> Assay of Stansbury oolites by jfinch, a chemical engineer
> http://www.utahreefs.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=404&KW=Aragonite&PN=0&TPN=4
This is a link to a message board. This is NOT credible. You may as well
reference yourself from your last post from this very newsgroup.
Hey, look at what Stoutman wrote in this link:
Here is a tinyurl for you if you had problems opening it:
> Would you like me to post more lol.
YES!!
>You need to learn how to do search and know what the hell you are taking
>about shorty
That's just it Boomer. I don't NEED to "do a search". These are things I
ALREADY know.
> <Baking soda does NOT have a pH.>
>
> This is really getting funny and you claim to have a Ph.D in the field.
> I'll bet it was
> one of those by mail-in Ph.D's
I thought you might have problems with this. Baking soda is NaHCO3. pH is
the measurement of the hydronium ion concentration of a solution. Solid
NaHCO3 is NOT in solution therefore it does NOT have a concentration and
does not influence the concentration of hydronium ions (usually expressed in
terms of molarity, M: mol/L).
If you want to get a little abstract, moist or hydrated NaHCO3 could be
considered a saturated solution (in ABSTRACT terms). In this case if you
touch a piece of pH paper to moist or hydrated NaHCO3 you would be measuring
the pH of the water on the surface of the NaHCO3, which would be saturated
with Na+ and HCO3- ions. An ABSTRACT saturated solution. MOST people do
not look at a pile of hydrated/moist NaHCO3 and see a saturated solution.
This is why it is ABSTRACT.
Anhydrous NaHCO3 does NOT have a pH.
> "The Baking Soda/Washing Soda question pondered . . .
>
> A definition from ****Dr. Dan Berger (Faculty- Chemistry/Science dept. at
> Bluffton
> College)**** gives a bit of understanding regarding the primary difference
> between Washing
> Soda (Sodium Carbonate) and Baking Soda (Sodium Bicarbonate).
>
> ". . . washing soda will consume two equivalents of acid, while baking
> soda will only
> consume one equivalent."
No argument here. How is this relevant?
> So, what does this mean for those of us concerned about laundering our
> cloth diapers and
> family laundry? Well, basically that Washing Soda is a stronger base than
> baking soda,
> and is in fact, CAUSTIC.
The SOLUTION (saturated or dilute) would be caustic.
>This is one reason why it isn't used for baking!
No. I don't think so. I'm not a chef, but I think it is used because it
releases CO2. It's called a leavening agent.
> ***Washing Soda is caustic/alkaline with a pH of 11*** (with 7 being
> neutral).
> ***Baking Soda ***is only slightly alkaline with a pH around ***8.1
> ***(again, 7 being
> neutral).
They are referring to SATURATED SOLUTIONS. Anhydrous NaHCO3 does not have a
concentration therefore it does NOT have a pH.
> Ok, so the chemistry professor does not know what he is taking about but
> you do.
>
> <A solution of water and specific amount of
> baking soda will have a specific pH. If I put 2 mg of baking soda into
> my
> bathtub filled with water (pH = 7), is the pH going to be 8 after the
> :addition? >
>
> No shit and the pH of the above's is defined by a specific amount of
> either to a liter of
> water. Claiming to be a chemist you should know that it is a std .1 molar
> @ 25 C. Maybe
> you should look at a MSDS. Do you have a chemistry book anywhere ? Maybe
> you should look
> up the pH scale. Most books a similar scale
>
> Baking Soda pH
> http://www.ec.gc.ca/water/en/manage/qual/e_ph.htm
They are referring to SATURATED SOLUTIONS. Anhydrous NaHCO3 does not NOT
have a pH.
pH = - log [H3O+] . What is the H3O+ concentration of 5 g of solid
anhydrous NaHCO3?
> <I am going to have to start charging you.>
>
> I think we know who should be charging the fee lol
>
> < Half correct here.>
>
> <The buffering capacity does not increase. When the pH reaches the pKa,
> the
> buffer is at its optimum to resist changes in pH. The total capacity of
> the
> buffer did NOT increase>
>
> Sorry not so or are you going to argue with this too ? Please say yes
You are impossible.
>
> "Buffering capacity can be quantified using the buffer intensity (
> buffering capacity,
> buffering index), b, defined mathematically in a way that is easy to
> calculate, but that
> isn't worth detailing here. The units of the buffering intensity can be
> expressed as
> meq/L or meq/L/pH unit (these are equivalent since pH is really a
> dimensionless
> parameter). Thinking about it as meq/L/pH unit makes it easier to
> understand that it is
> a measure of the amount of alkalinity or acidity ( ** what is this ? it
> was you that said
> there is no such measurement as Acidity**) either one measured as meq/L,
> that needs to be
> added to impact the pH up or down by one unit (though that is a
> substantial
> simplification).
>
Does the author of that web page know you plagiarize him?? I was beginning
to think your grammar was improving.
What happen to giving a reference? Don't worry, I will provide it for you:
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/issues/dec2002/chem.htm
> In the case of normal seawater at pH 8.2, b = 0.19 meq/L/pH unit for the
> boric acid/borate
> system, and 0.63 meq/L/pH unit for the bicarbonate/carbonate system.
> These values are
> additive, and result in a total buffering of b = 0.82 meq/L/pH unit.
> Under these
> conditions, the boric acid/borate system provides about 23% of the total
> buffering, while
> the bicarbonate/carbonate system provides about 77%.
>
> If the pH of normal seawater is raised to 8.5, the total buffering is b =
> 1.2 meq/L/pH
> unit, or about 40% greater than at pH 8.2 (because both systems are closer
> to the pKa).
> At this pH, the relative contribution of the two systems to the total
> capacity is only
> slightly different than at pH 8.2, with 20% from borate and 80% from
> carbonate.
>
> If the pH of normal seawater is lowered to 7.8, the total buffering is b =
> 0.42 meq/L/pH
> unit, or about half that at pH 8.2
Ok Boomer, read the above from the web page you plagiarized.
Summary from Boomers post above: At pH 8.5 b = 1.2 meq/L/pH If we lower
the pH to 7.8, the total buffering b = 0.42 meq/L/pH.
1.2 is less than 0.42. Therefore the buffering capacity decreased. You
agree with this right? After all, you wrote it.
OK. Either you have a REALLY BAD MEMORY or you are just really slow. Do
you remember writing this in your last post? :
Boomer from last post: "If your pH dropped from 8.2 to 7.8 the buffering
capacity INCREASES as you are approaching its pKaญญน. And the max buffering
capacity is at its pKa.and 7.8 is closer to its pKaน ( pH 6.0 for seawater)
than 8.2"
You stated last time that as the pH DROPS from 8.2 to 7.8 the buffering
capacity increases. Today you write it DECREASES..
Today you are plagiarizing someone and contradict yourself from yesturday!
As Homer Simpson would say. Dough!!!
In response to your pH example from yesterday (pH drop from 8.2 to 7.8), I
wrote: "The buffering capacity does not increase. When the pH reaches the
pKa, the
buffer is at its optimum to resist changes in pH. The total capacity of the
buffer did NOT increase."
Who is correct? or should I just flat out tell you the answer. You are
wrong. The website you plagiarized today is CORRECT.
>(because both systems are farther from the pKa). At
> this pH, the relative contribution of the two systems to the total
> capacity is also only
> slightly different than at pH 8.2, with 29% from borate and 71% from
> carbonate."
>
> < Wrong. Boomer, read this very slowly.> Buffering capacity IS the
> : ability of a solution to resist sharp changes in pH. Alkalinity is a
> : measurement of buffering capacity. If you INCREASE the total alkalinity
> you
> : INCREASE the buffering capacity. The buffering capacity of water
> depends on
> : the total amount of HCO3- and CO3-2 present. Water with low levels of
> these
> : ions will quickly exhaust its ability to counteract pH fluctuations.
> Is
> : this sinking in yet?>
>
> No, you need to read slowly
>
> <A solutions ability to neutralize
> : acids is a function of its buffering capacity. >
>
> Half correct, it is the ability to neutralize acids and/or bases, as that
> is its
> definition.
Wrong. Buffering capacity is not the ABILITY TO neutralize acids/bases, it
is the CAPACITY TO. The KEY word is CAPACITY. Think of a capacitor in
electronic terms.
A 1M HCl solution has the ABILITY to neutralize NaOH. It does not have ANY
buffering CAPACITY.
>
> " Bc is a measurement of how well a solution is able to resist pH changes
> when EITHER a
> strong acid or strong base is added" (Pankow)
>
> B= d(C^b - C^a) / dpH
>
> However, they can be measured or expressed separately, just strong base or
> just strong
> acid.
>
> Alk or ANC deal only with acids and Acy or BNC deal with bases.
Alkalinity is a MEASUREMENT of BUFFERING CAPACITY.
> Increasing the Alk will give a indication of how much acid can be
> neutralized, for that part of the Bc but says
> nothing about the ability to neutralize a base.
>
> <The buffering capacity of water depends on
> : the total amount of HCO3- and CO3-2 present>
>
> You get a star for being correct there.
Gee thanks.
>And when pH = pKa it is at its max Bc. If the pH
> was 9.1 pKa half of the principal buffer will be an acid HCO3- and half a
> base CO3-- . If
> your raise just the alk 1 meq / l, with no change in pH, the Bc will
> increase only to the
> point to neutralize more acid, not base.
Yeah! You're getting it. Yep, raising the alkalinity will increase BC!
> If only CO2 is added it will not effect the Alk
> but the pH, which will fall. That fall will shift the ratio to less 50/50
> for HCO3- :
> CO3-- and the Alk remains the same. Now the solution has a greater
> ability to neutralize
> more acid than base The bicarb will increase to greater than the carbonate
> and its Bc has
> decreased from its pKa where the Bc was higher at 9.1.
>Alk is only an indication of part of its Bc.
I disagree here.
>
> <Sir, I am putting up with a lot here. Do you want to continue?>
>
> I know, it is hard for you to admit that you have some misunderstandings
> on the subject
> matter, especially after claiming to have a Ph.D in chemistry. Why, does
> it hurt that much
> ??
>
>
> "Still waiting for you to visit our chem forum and to tell us that we
> don't
> know what we are
> talking about but you do."
>
> "Again, I am NOT interested."
>
> I figured that as much, afraid to get involved with real chemists on these
> issues.
Yeah, that's it. I'm afraid. Very afraid.
Boomer,
It really cracks me up that you try and pass something off as your own and
contradict yourself at the same time.
This can ONLY mean one thing. You do not UNDERSTAND what you are reading.
Seek help.
I am T R Y I N G very hard to help you, but you only shun me. You are
either VERY stubborn or you are just trolling me.
It is EXTREMELY obvious to me (ANYONE ELSE??) that you are in over your head
with regards to chemistry.
Instead of shunning those that obviously know more than you on a topic and
running at the mouth, why don't you try and learn something? I think I know
the answer to this one.
YOU NEED HELP!!!
Boomer
I did not plagiarized anyone !!!! It was all in quotes, go back and read it. Do you need
glasses
"They may contain aragonite, but they are NOT by definition, the mineral
ARAGONITE."
That is a line of BS and you know it. Who are you trying to fool ? Quite chasing the dogs
tail. 100 % no but 95 % aragonite. And I think you are well aware of that. A pure Quartz
sandstone is also not 100 % quartz. Some species produce calcite but by far the majority
are aragonite.
Again from you own website go back and read it
" Most bivalve animals and corals secrete aragonite for their shells and pearls are
***composed of mostly aragonite***"
Where in any of my posts did I say they where 100 % the mineral aragonite. NOTHING in
nature is 100 %. Even aragonite is no 100% CaCO3 now is it ?? So in your limited narrow
mind there is no such thing as aragonite. Empirical speaking it is 100 % CaCO3 . You
should have look at other mineral sites rather than the first one on Google's
http://webmineral.com/data/Aragonite.shtml
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coral
"The skeletons of Scleractinian corals are composed of a form of calcium carbonate known
as aragonite"
http://www.jhu.edu/news_info/news/home04/nov04/coral.html
<This is a link to a message board. This is NOT credible>
Oh, a chemical engineer that ran samples tests is not creditable but here you are CLAIMING
to be credible on a newsgroup lol. Give us a break. I guess if Randy Holmes Farley posted
tests on our chem forum they are not credible either, as it is a message board.
<They are referring to SATURATED SOLUTIONS. Anhydrous NaHCO3 does not have a
concentration therefore it does NOT have a pH.>
I am quite aware of that and you know what its meant by what I stated as baking soda have
a pH of just over 8, as is every one else. pH diagrams, like the one I posted are common
in any chem book and say nothing about molar values. More chasing of the dogs tail.
<Oolitic sand is not aragonite>
Oh, Ok, now you are saying no oolitic sand is aragonite.. hmm . Then what is it . ? So
the famous oolitic aragonite sands of the Bahamas Banks are not aragonite, sure, right
cause you say so .Go ahead and chase the dogs tail some more
http://www.ecruise.com/cruise_content/port_Great_Bahama_Bank.htm
" the warm Gulf Stream surface water is supersaturated (by 40 percent) with dissolved
calcium carbonate, and when the water washes up and over the bank rim, it is warmed.
Agitation and evaporation cause massive chemical precipitation of a cloud of aragonite
crystals. These accrete concentrically on nuclei of shell or coral fragments, growing into
oolites, which are sand-sized pellets with a layered structure similar to hailstones. The
clouds of limy precipitate and shoals of oolitic sand effectively inhibit coral growth
today."
I guess Randy is wrong also them
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/issues/mar2002/chem.htm
"Finally, calcium in the ocean can be locally depleted in places where precipitation of
calcium carbonate is especially rapid. This includes the Bahamas Banks (where oolitic
aragonite is precipitated), in parts of the Red Sea, and presumably in some lagoons where
calcification is high and the water volume is small."
http://www-geology.ucdavis.edu/~GEL109/labs/lab5.pdf
Stansbury ooltic sand
http://www.pgjr.alpine.k12.ut.us/s_studies/kerr/Antelope.html
" The oolitic sand (say 'ooh-lih-tic') is an actually concentric layer of aragonite built
around a microscopic core of mineral fragments of brine shrimp fecal pellets."
Such sand in geology are referred to as oolitic aragonite sands .......PERIOD
<That's just it Boomer. I don't NEED to "do a search". These are things I
ALREADY know>
It sure does not seem that way now does it.
<Today you are plagiarizing someone and contradict yourself from yesturday! >
YOU misspelled yesterday
I made an error sorry, at least I can admit to mine where are yours? Plagiarizing, stick
up your ass, it was in quotes, other than the addition of the remark on ACIDITY
measurement, which YOU SAY there is not such thing. WHEN are YOU GOING to correct your
ass. You sure have a habit of NEVER correcting your own errors but ooooooooooooow, how
I, Boomer should. At least I try to.
Should I or do I need to quote you from your last visit here where you said there was no
such thing as a measurement of Acidity ( ANC, Acid Neutralizing Capacity) and how you
would be laughed at in the lab if you brought it up. I believe you also said CO2 effects
Alk, want to correct any of these.
You can not even get this straight although you want to pick on things
"When ooids bond with carbonates of calcium
and magnesium they form a rock called aragonite (CaCO3). "
Technically there is no such thing, as aragonite is a mineral and not a rock. So lets knit
pick you. You seem now to be confused about aragonite, first you call it a mineral, then a
rock . A rock is made of minerals and minerals are not rocks.
<No argument here. How is this relevant?>
I see you like to pick and leave out things as you see fit
Why did you leave out the rest of that post, for it suits you better to make you look more
correct
***Washing Soda is caustic/alkaline with a pH of 11*** (with 7 being neutral).
***Baking Soda ***is only slightly alkaline with a pH around ***8.1 ***(again, 7 being
neutral)."
That is a quote from Dr. Dan Berger (Faculty- Chemistry/Science dept. at Bluffton
College. And there is nothing there about baking soda in a solution, although I know what
he means, as I'm sure you do. More tail chasing, may be some day you will actually catch
it.
< plagiarizing >
<Ok Boomer, read the above from the web page you plagiarized.>
It is in quotes, go back and read the DAM THING . I will expect an apologue for that last
remark. Are you MAN enough
:Alk is only an indication of part of its Bc.:
<I disagree here.>
Fine but that does not make you correct.
<Alkalinity is a MEASUREMENT of BUFFERING CAPACITY.>
I disagree partly .
Fact of the matter is, as I stated in the other thread, alk does not mean much in
buffering on pH control, as CO2 in natural or closed systems is usually the controlling
factor.
Well you seem to like to toot allot as I do but you are also not correct in allot of your
chems remarks. When are you going to correct yourself??
<It really cracks me up that you try and pass something off as your own>
It is really below the belt to down right lie like you. It was all in quotes.
<Instead of shunning those that obviously know more than you on a topic and
running at the mouth, why don't you try and learn something?>
Ah sorry there, but most of the people here or on any forum I'm on will disagree with
that, as well Randy Holmes Farley
I have written Randy on the following statement of mine on his forum. He has never
corrected it. I will go with his answer, probably not till Sunday. It is almost the same
thing I posted here. I will go by his remarks
"Yes the Bc ( Buffering Capacity) will shift to a lower pH which will increase the
Buffering Capacity, as there will be more HCO3 and CO2 compared to CO3--. But Buffering
Capacity and Alkalinity are not the same. Seawater (NSW) has its maximum Buffering
Capacity at a pH of 6 and 9.1. My issue was many people use the word "buffer" for Alk,
which it is not. If a sample of seawater had a pH of say 8.3 and it dropped to 7.8 there
will be an increase in the Buffering Capacity/buffer, so at those two pH's it will be the
hardest to change the pH, yet the Alk may remain unchanged. If there is not a shift in the
pH there is no change in the Buffering Capacity or buffer. You would not change the
CO2:HCO3:CO3 ratio at all, there will just be more of CO2, HCO3- and CO3-- and the ratio
stays the same and the Buffering Capacity stays the same as does the Alk. Any water
samples maximum Bc is when pH = pKa (6 & 9.1). So seawater has almost no Bc but yet a good
Alk."
Want to talk chemistry ? The Reef Chemistry Forum
http://www.reefcentral.com/vbulletin/index.php
WCW...@nospamChartermi.Net
Former US Army Bomb Technician (EOD)
Member; IABTI, NATEODA, WEODF, ISEE & IPS
If You See Me Running You Better Catch-Up
"stoutman" <.@.> wrote in message news:82k1f.87281$Jp.30...@twister.southeast.rr.com...
:
: "Boomer" <wcw...@nospamchartermi.net> wrote in message
: capacity INCREASES as you are approaching its pKaą. And the max buffering
: capacity is at its pKa.and 7.8 is closer to its pKaą ( pH 6.0 for seawater)
: >
: >
:
:
:
Boomer
"I believe that buffering capacity of normal seawater is lower at pH 7.8 than at 8.2,
which in turn is lower than at pH 8.5:"
I would assume after looking a at a pC-pH diagram, for seawater, that an increase on the
low pH side, would not take place until you reach a pH of about 7.5 when it is almost all
bicarb.
So I stand corrected
I replied with a couple of more questions. Maybe long ago I read to much into Millero's
remark on "Bc is not the same thing as Alk" and " Bc can be calculated from Alk". To most
chemical oceanographers Bc is a function of CO2, as the Alk does not change and any
changes in pH is due to CO2/ So, in short seawater has really little, if any buffering
capacity
stoutman
> <you plagiarized >
>
> I did not plagiarized anyone !!!! It was all in quotes, go back and read
> it. Do you need
> glasses
Boomer, Putting something in quotes does not mean you are referencing
someone.
If I submit a manuscript to be published and copy word for word someones
work and do NOT reference them, it is PLAGIARISM whether I put it in quotes
or not.
It is still PLAGIARIZM if you copy a body of text from someone else and do
NOT reference said person. Quotes around the body of text do NOT negate
plagiarizm.
>
> "They may contain aragonite, but they are NOT by definition, the mineral
> ARAGONITE."
>
> That is a line of BS and you know it. Who are you trying to fool ? Quite
> chasing the dogs
> tail. 100 % no but 95 % aragonite. And I think you are well aware of
> that. A pure Quartz
> sandstone is also not 100 % quartz. Some species produce calcite but by
> far the majority
> are aragonite.
If something is NOT 100% it is NOT pure. The end.
Do you know the definition of PURE?
> Again from you own website go back and read it
> " Most bivalve animals and corals secrete aragonite for their shells and
> pearls are
> ***composed of mostly aragonite***"
> Where in any of my posts did I say they where 100 % the mineral aragonite.
> NOTHING in
> nature is 100 %.
Plenty of things in nature are pure.
Sea water is 100% sea water.
Sand is 100% sand.
Sodium Chloride is 100% Sodium Chloride
>Even aragonite is no 100% CaCO3 now is it ??
Yes, it is.
http://mineral.galleries.com/minerals/carbonat/aragonit/aragonit.htm
>So in your limited narrow mind there is no such thing as aragonite.
>Empirical speaking it is 100 % CaCO3 .
You think aragonite is not 100% CaCO3. You also think it is emperically
100% CaCO3.
Are you on drugs?
If you are not on drugs, than you DO NOT know what emperical means.
>You should have look at other mineral sites rather than the first one on
>Google's
> http://webmineral.com/data/Aragonite.shtml
>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coral
> "The skeletons of Scleractinian corals are composed of a form of calcium
> carbonate known
> as aragonite"
> http://www.jhu.edu/news_info/news/home04/nov04/coral.html
>
> <This is a link to a message board. This is NOT credible>
>
> Oh, a chemical engineer that ran samples tests is not creditable but here
> you are CLAIMING
> to be credible on a newsgroup lol.
I will NOT accept as FACT something I read from someone in a message board
(nor do most people) unless I know the author is credible.
Do you know if I am credible: NO
Should you believe everything I write: NO Research things I state on your
own and draw your own conclusions as to the validity of my statements.
Although, I am willing to bet I have helped you.
>Give us a break. I guess if Randy Holmes Farley posted
> tests on our chem forum they are not credible either, as it is a message
> board.
I will NOT accept as FACT something I read from someone in a message board
(nor do most people) unless I know the author is credible.
> <They are referring to SATURATED SOLUTIONS. Anhydrous NaHCO3 does not
> have a
> concentration therefore it does NOT have a pH.>
>
> I am quite aware of that and you know what its meant by what I stated as
> baking soda have
> a pH of just over 8, as is every one else. pH diagrams, like the one I
> posted are common
> in any chem book and say nothing about molar values. More chasing of the
> dogs tail.
Again, you can not have a pH of a material unless said material is in
solution. As I stated already, you can measure the pH of the water on the
surface (pH paper) of NaHCO3 which will be SATURATED with NaHCO3 and WILL
have a pH.
Stating that the pH of solid NaHCO3 is 8.1 is a VERY vague and misleading
statement. It is more PRECISE to state that a saturated solution of NaHCO3
will be 8.1.
> <Oolitic sand is not aragonite>
>
> Oh, Ok, now you are saying no oolitic sand is aragonite.. hmm . Then what
> is it . ?
You have to READ this Boomer. I am not going to spoon feed you (although
some would argue that is exactly what I have been doing.)
http://geology.utah.gov/utahgeo/rockmineral/collecting/oolitic.htm
Shall we count the number you misspelled?
>
> I made an error sorry, at least I can admit to mine where are yours?
You made an error? A bit of an understatement.
You made an error that is at the CRUX of this entire debate. Buffering
capacity and aragonite.
>Plagiarizing, stick up your ass, it was in quotes,
Putting something in quotes DOES NOT negate plagiarizim.
> other than the addition of the remark on ACIDITY measurement, which YOU
> SAY there is not such thing. WHEN are YOU GOING to correct your
> ass. You sure have a habit of NEVER correcting your own errors but
> ooooooooooooow, how
> I, Boomer should. At least I try to.
Lets exhaust this debate before we resurrect old ones.
> Should I or do I need to quote you from your last visit here where you
> said there was no
> such thing as a measurement of Acidity ( ANC, Acid Neutralizing Capacity)
> and how you
> would be laughed at in the lab if you brought it up. I believe you also
> said CO2 effects
> Alk, want to correct any of these.
Lets exhaust this debate before we resurrect old ones.
> You can not even get this straight although you want to pick on things
>
> "When ooids bond with carbonates of calcium
> and magnesium they form a rock called aragonite (CaCO3). "
Goofy, the above passage was taken from something YOU posted originally
(http://www.fogsl.org/education/pdf/IIWhatAb.pdf). Didn't you read it?
You referenced it!
Don't remeber? Go to the link YOU posted.
Do you remember writing this in your VERY LAST post?:
---From Boomer in LAST post :
Ok, now to my website on the Stansbury oolitic sand
http://www.fogsl.org/education/pdf/IIWhatAb.pdf
Humm, what does it say it is...... aragonite. Got a website that say it
is not. The only
other mineral that is CaCO3 is Calcite. See that word anywhere on
Stansbury oolites
---End Boomer post.
> Technically there is no such thing, as aragonite is a mineral and not a
> rock. So lets knit
> pick you. You seem now to be confused about aragonite, first you call it a
> mineral, then a
> rock . A rock is made of minerals and minerals are not rocks.
NOT ONLY do you NOT believe anything I write, YOU DON'T even believe the
very references you are citing.
What is WRONG with you???
WHO is the one that is CONFUSED?
I will say this again. You either are really STUPID or you do not
UNDERSTAND what you are reading (or you have a REALLY bad memory).
Seek help.
> <No argument here. How is this relevant?>
>
> I see you like to pick and leave out things as you see fit
No, I am beginning to lose interest here.
>
> Why did you leave out the rest of that post, for it suits you better to
> make you look more
> correct
>
>
> ***Washing Soda is caustic/alkaline with a pH of 11*** (with 7 being
> neutral).
> ***Baking Soda ***is only slightly alkaline with a pH around ***8.1
> ***(again, 7 being
> neutral)."
>
> That is a quote from Dr. Dan Berger (Faculty- Chemistry/Science dept. at
> Bluffton
> College. And there is nothing there about baking soda in a solution,
> although I know what
> he means, as I'm sure you do. More tail chasing, may be some day you will
> actually catch
> it.
>
>
> < plagiarizing >
> <Ok Boomer, read the above from the web page you plagiarized.>
>
>
> It is in quotes, go back and read the DAM THING . I will expect an
> apologue for that last
> remark. Are you MAN enough
YOU DID NOT REFERENCE ANYONE! Do you know what it means to reference
someone or a passage? You generally give the source of your citation ( i
will even except a web link).
>
> :Alk is only an indication of part of its Bc.:
>
> <I disagree here.>
>
> Fine but that does not make you correct.
>
> <Alkalinity is a MEASUREMENT of BUFFERING CAPACITY.>
>
> I disagree partly .
>
> Fact of the matter is, as I stated in the other thread, alk does not mean
> much in
> buffering on pH control,
Wrong. Reread my earlier posts. When alkalinity DECREASES, buffering
capacity DECREASES. When the buffer is weakened the pH will DECREASE.
>as CO2 in natural or closed systems is usually the controlling
> factor.
DUYG.
>
> Well you seem to like to toot allot as I do but you are also not correct
> in allot of your
> chems remarks. When are you going to correct yourself??
>
>
> <It really cracks me up that you try and pass something off as your own>
>
> It is really below the belt to down right lie like you. It was all in
> quotes.
> <Instead of shunning those that obviously know more than you on a topic
> and
> running at the mouth, why don't you try and learn something?>
>
> Ah sorry there, but most of the people here or on any forum I'm on will
> disagree with
> that, as well Randy Holmes Farley
>
> I have written Randy on the following statement of mine on his forum. He
> has never
> corrected it. I will go with his answer, probably not till Sunday. It is
> almost the same
> thing I posted here. I will go by his remarks
Who is Randy?
stoutman
> Randy sent me quick reply,
Who is Randy?
>before I was about to leave for the weekend
When are you going to get an internet connection at home? Come on man, it's
2005.
> "I believe that buffering capacity of normal seawater is lower at pH 7.8
> than at 8.2,
> which in turn is lower than at pH 8.5:"
>
>
> I would assume after looking a at a pC-pH diagram, for seawater, that an
> increase on the
> low pH side, would not take place until you reach a pH of about 7.5 when
> it is almost all
> bicarb.
>
> So I stand corrected
>
> I replied with a couple of more questions. Maybe long ago I read to much
> into Millero's
> remark on "Bc is not the same thing as Alk" and " Bc can be calculated
> from Alk". To most
> chemical oceanographers Bc is a function of CO2, as the Alk does not
> change and any
> changes in pH is due to CO2/ So, in short
>seawater has really little, if any buffering capacity
Wrong.
This is taken from the web page you like to plagiarize:
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/issues/dec2002/chem.htm
"In the case of normal seawater at pH 8.2, b = 0.19 meq/L/pH unit
for the boric acid/borate system, and 0.63 meq/L/pH unit for the
bicarbonate/carbonate system. These values are additive, and result
in a total buffering of b = 0.82 meq/L/pH unit."
READ THIS VERY SLOWLY:
At pH 8.2 (normal seawater) the above exert states that the total buffering
capacity of sea water is 0.82 meq/L/pH unit.
How can you say that seawater was little, if any buffering capacity???????
You are so freaking CONFUSED it is not even funny. It is SAD.
You like to give references and than contradict the very references you are
giving. I do not know many people that do that.
I think one of your many problems is that you are not READING and
UNDERSTANDING the references you are citing.
This is what I mean by: The Confused informing the Confused.
> If You See Me Running You Better Catch-Up
You need to change this to: If You See Me Responding To a Question You
Better Not Read It.
stoutman
"stoutman" <.@.> wrote in message
news:DsJ1f.96083$SL.23...@twister.southeast.rr.com...
Boomer
FLIPPER. I have seen some trolls in my time but you are a real DUCK. How does it feel to
have a mouth full of worms, yah know, the ones I put in there, from trolling you ?
PLEASE SEEK MEDICAL ATTENTION IMMEDIATELY !!!!!!!!
<Who is Randy ?>
A troll statement, but I'll give it any ways even though I know you know
Dr Randy Homes Farley, yah know the author of whom you say I plagiarized .
<When are you going to get an internet connection at home? Come on man, it's
2005.>
Another troll statement
"seawater has really little, if any buffering capacity"
<Wrong>
More trolling I explained that
"To most
chemical oceanographers Bc is a function of CO2, as the Alk does not change and any
changes in pH is due to CO2/ So, in short seawater has really little, if any buffering
capacity"
A quote from Spotte (1979)
"Seawater is very little buffered, if at all, at its normal pH of 8.2 (Skirrow 1975)"
As the buffer mechanism, be it Bc or Alk, does not buffer the water, due to shift changes
in pH by CO2. Any change in NSW pH is always do to CO2 and CO2 has no effect on Alk.
Having any alk, even if at 4 meq / l, means nothing to the addition or subtraction of CO2.
The pH will drop or rise as a faction of CO2 concentration. It is why the std Bc equation
is rewritten by chemical oceanographers as a function of CO2 input or output.....GET IT
From Randy's reply, so you know I DO NOT leave errors out
"Maybe I was wrong before.
At a given pH, the higher the alkalinity the higher the buffering capacity (direct
relationship). But a higher alkalinity does not necessarily mean higher buffering if the
pH changes too.
If the pH goes low enough, the buffering picks back up again as the bicarboante/carbonic
acid buffering comes into play. Down in the 6's.
It also drops off as you get above the pKa of bicarbonate/carbonate."
Also from Randy already posted this
"***I believe*** that buffering capacity of normal seawater is lower at pH 7.8 than at
8.2, which in turn is lower than at pH 8.5"
It seems even Randy is not 100 % sure. But I will assme he is
<This is taken from the web page you like to plagiarize:>
Afraid not, it is quite common on Ng and forums to copy and paste and put it in quotes
without ref., although they should be. They quote or at times put in bold type and are an
indication that the statement are not words as one's own. Maybe I had a reason not to post
the link. Maybe it was the reason I left this remark by me at the end of that statement
"Please say yes" GET IT
"Plagiarism -- the attempt to pass off the ideas, research, theories, or words of others
as one's own -- is a serious academic offense. "
I never tried to pass this a as my own despite your accusations and you know it so
ANOTHER TROLL by you
Quote
"To repeat or copy the words of (another), ***usually with acknowledgment of the source."
<I think one of your many problems is that you are not READING and
UNDERSTANDING the references you are citing.>
This and the rest is much more like you and more trolling
<That was excerpt NOT exert. Dam spell check...>
Another troll for me to say you can not spell without spell check LOL
<If something is NOT 100% it is NOT pure. The end.
Do you know the definition of PURE?>
Yes and you are still trolling
<Plenty of things in nature are pure.>
Yes !!!
Sea water is 100% sea water.
Sand is 100% sand.
The shit in your brain is 100 %
Sodium Chloride is 100% Sodium Chloride
"Even aragonite is no 100% CaCO3 now is it ??"
<Yes, it is.>
No they are not, MORE TROLLING or you are really, really stupid and must live in a cave
with a pin sized head Wait, it is much , much smaller than that. It is more on the
order of sticking your brain in an ants ass and it raps around like a bee-bee in a
boxcar. So you have been spoon feeding me, well then I must be feeding you with a
SHOVEL.......... LOL
You just can't think on your own now can you Stupid man
<Yes, it is.>
You need help again. So lets go R_E_A_L S_L_O_W
http://webmineral.com/data/Aragonite.shtml
Chemical composition, where you are lost. Take note it saaaaaaaaaaayyssss........... ONLY
shows Ca, C and O3
NOW if you can manage go to the next link, it may be HARD for some one like you. I gave
you the chance, on the other post, to fix your sick dumb ass and you failed.....AGAIN.
Click on MinDat.org. Can you find it or do you need assistance??? See where is says
...Common Impurities Notice it say Sr, Pb and Zn. These ions and others, such as Mg,
often replace Ca.Which means, such ions, like Sr, are found fitted into the Aragonite
lattice and STILL it is called ARAGONITE , where they have replaced Ca. It is COMMON
knowledge and is one of the reasons behind many in this hobby wanting to use aragonite
sand and oolites, as they often have good amounts of Sr. Aragonite is a transition
mineral, depending on it Ca/Sr ratio, in one respect, where if there is enough Sr it is
called Strontianite SrCO3. All of these are members of the Aragonite Group, GET IT. Yah
see that nice pic of aragonite ? If you powdered it and dropped it into an XRD, it would
more than likely have Sr replacing Ca in the crystal lattice but it is still
ARAGONITE....GET IT So, it is not 100 % CaCO3 NOW IS IT. In your narrow mind if so much
as 1 ion of Sr was in the lattice replacing Ca it would not be Aragonite.. But SHIT for
BRAINS it is GET IT.
Same dam thing with NaCl, such as K replacing Na
Lets now progress to the Calcite Group, are you still with me stubornman ??
Calcite = CaCO3. Should be more like Ca, Mn,Fe,Zn,Co,Ba,Sr,Pb,Mg,Cu,Al,Ni,V,Cr,Mo(CO3)
Now click on mindata
Common impurities;
Mn,Fe,Zn,Co,Ba,Sr,Pb,Mg,Cu,Al,Ni,V,Cr,Mo
Follows the same rule as ARAGONITE. Take notice, if you can, there is no Calcite Group Sr
mineral. Do you know why ?? Also take notice that the crystal structure/class is
different, Trigonal and not Orthorhombic like Aragonite MEAN ANYTHING TO YOU ??
From you flipin' website flipper
http://geology.utah.gov/utahgeo/rockmineral/collecting/oolitic.htm
<You have to READ this Boomer>
YOU NEED TO READ THAT
What the hell does it say ??
"An oolite has a shell of concentric layers of ***calcium carbonate*** that precipitated
around a nucleus or central core."
Do you need glasses or what CALCIUM CARBONATE = CaCO3 There are only THREE forms in
mineralogy, Calcite Aragonite and the very, very, rare Vaterite . So it must be one of
them CORRECT and it is ARAGONITE...THE END. Feel free to write or e-mail the Utah
Geological Survey and ask their ass which one it is. I will stand corrected, WILL YOU ??
But you will say it is NOT CALCITE either, if I said it is calcite oolitic sand by your
narrow way of thinking. Aragonite should be more properly labeled (Ca,Sr,Pb,Zn, Mg)CO3
Here are some hints before you make yourself look like an ass
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/index/ Does it say Aragonite, NO, it does not have to but
it is. If it was not it would be what Calcite
oolitic sand is never aragonite according to you
http://www.maden.hacettepe.edu.tr/dmmrt/index.html
"Sand-size grains of predominantly aragonite (CaCO3 ) found in shallow, tropical waters.
Aragonite forms by chemical precipitation in sea water due to the presence of SO4 ions."
http://www.voneresearch.org/Aragonite.htm
http://www.saj.usace.army.mil/pd/noiTestB.html
"Although carbonate sediment from offshore borrow sites has traditionally been used for
project renourishment, the use of oolitic aragonite or other carbonate sand"
No such thing as oolitic aragonite sand, so you say. Ok, let me guess, all these mean
nothing.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=oolitic+aragonite+sand&btnG=Search
http://www.purearagonite.com/facts.html
I see you FAILED to answer or acknowledge the other websites on aragonite oolitic sand
what's wrong, cat got your tongue. Lets try again
<Oolitic sand is not aragonite>
According to YOU
Oh, Ok, now you are saying no oolitic sand is aragonite.. hmm . Then what is it . ? So
the famous oolitic aragonite sands of the Bahamas Banks are not aragonite, sure, right
cause you say so .Go ahead and chase the dogs tail some more
http://www.ecruise.com/cruise_content/port_Great_Bahama_Bank.htm
" the warm Gulf Stream surface water is supersaturated (by 40 percent) with dissolved
calcium carbonate, and when the water washes up and over the bank rim, it is warmed.
Agitation and evaporation cause massive chemical precipitation of a cloud of aragonite
crystals. These accrete concentrically on nuclei of shell or coral fragments, growing into
oolites, which are sand-sized pellets with a layered structure similar to hailstones. The
clouds of limy precipitate and shoals of oolitic sand effectively inhibit coral growth
today."
I guess Randy is wrong also them
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/issues/mar2002/chem.htm
"Finally, calcium in the ocean can be locally depleted in places where precipitation of
calcium carbonate is especially rapid. This includes the Bahamas Banks (where oolitic
aragonite is precipitated), in parts of the Red Sea, and presumably in some lagoons where
calcification is high and the water volume is small."
http://www-geology.ucdavis.edu/~GEL109/labs/lab5.pdf
Stansbury oolitic sand
http://www.pgjr.alpine.k12.ut.us/s_studies/kerr/Antelope.html
" The oolitic sand (say 'ooh-lih-tic') is an actually concentric layer of aragonite built
around a microscopic core of mineral fragments of brine shrimp fecal pellets."
Such sands in geology are referred to as oolitic aragonite sands .......PERIOD
Are all calcium carbonates oolitic sands aragonite, NO some are calcite.
DO I NEED TO REPEAT THIS AGAIN FOR A THIRD TIME ???
Maybe you need a book or two
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0632014725/qid=1128912473/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/103-5315055-0123011?v=glance&s=books
http://bookweb.kinokuniya.co.jp/guest/cgi-bin/booksea.cgi?ISBN=0784406405
"Give us a break. I guess if Randy Holmes Farley posted
tests on our chem forum they are not credible either, as it is a message
board."
<I will NOT accept as FACT something I read from someone in a message board
(nor do most people) unless I know the author is credible.>
Oh, but I guess it is Ok to accept his articles that you posted when it suits you but not
this article quote
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/issues/mar2002/chem.htm
"This includes the Bahamas Banks (where oolitic aragonite is precipitated)"
http://geowords.com/histbooknetscape/c04.htm
I wish you a bad week. This will be my last post, with a TROLL that can not reason with
reality.
Have a field day with my last post, I could care less.
I'm sure in your next, posted troll BS line, you will leave out which statements or links
or ref that does not fit your narrow mind or where you are in serious error.
You remind me of a empty tin can you just roll around and make allot of noise.
SOME PLEASE CALL 911 FOR THIS GUY
YOU MOST BE RETARDED
--
Boomer
Want to talk chemistry ? The Reef Chemistry Forum
http://www.reefcentral.com/vbulletin/index.php
WCW...@nospamChartermi.Net
Former US Army Bomb Technician (EOD)
Member; IABTI, NATEODA, WEODF, ISEE & IPS
If You See Me Running You Better Catch-Up
Boomer
was never my a intention. We both seem to be waaaaaaayyyyy to strong headed a stubborn. I
felt like dip shit all weekend because of this and when I saw your posts when I go home I
just got fueled again. I have yet learned to defused myself at times when I need to. Right
after I gave that last post I felt like shit again. But feel free to say what you like, no
problem here . Maybe next time we can be civil, I hope so. I will not post to this thread
again. I apologies again to all on the NG. Hopefully I will never have to do it again and
can call this the LAST learning experience
--
Boomer
Want to talk chemistry ? The Reef Chemistry Forum
http://www.reefcentral.com/vbulletin/index.php
WCW...@nospamChartermi.Net
Former US Army Bomb Technician (EOD)
Member; IABTI, NATEODA, WEODF, ISEE & IPS
:
:
stoutman
> Let me please apologies for my bad remarks. We have got off on the wrong
> foot again and it
> was never my a intention. We both seem to be waaaaaaayyyyy to strong
> headed a stubborn. I
> felt like dip shit all weekend because of this and when I saw your posts
> when I go home I
> just got fueled again. I have yet learned to defused myself at times when
> I need to. Right
> after I gave that last post I felt like shit again. But feel free to say
> what you like, no
> problem here . Maybe next time we can be civil, I hope so. I will not post
> to this thread
> again. I apologies again to all on the NG. Hopefully I will never have to
> do it again and
> can call this the LAST learning experience
I hope you LEARNED something this time...
Points/concepts you still NEED to work on:
Alkalinity.
Buffering Capacity.
Calling the constituent of a lot of parts the whole.
Spelling/grammar
-Until your next lesson,
Stoutman
stoutman
> WOW. I leave home for the weekend and you just flip out.
I flipped out? Ok.
>We should start calling you FLIPPER.
If that's what it takes to make you feel superior. You couldn't do it
intellectually so you may as well name call.
>I have seen some trolls in my time but you are a real DUCK. How does it
>feel to
> have a mouth full of worms, yah know, the ones I put in there, from
> trolling you ?
Ok, you have been trolling me??
At first I wasn't sure, but as you posted more and more, I knew you were not
trolling me. You just have a weak grasp on chemistry.
>
> PLEASE SEEK MEDICAL ATTENTION IMMEDIATELY !!!!!!!!
??
>
>
> <Who is Randy ?>
>
> A troll statement, but I'll give it any ways even though I know you know
>
> Dr Randy Homes Farley, yah know the author of whom you say I plagiarized
> .
Oh. Ok.
>
> <When are you going to get an internet connection at home? Come on man,
> it's
> 2005.>
>
> Another troll statement
How is that a troll statement? What is a troll statement?
>
> "seawater has really little, if any buffering capacity"
>
> <Wrong>
>
> More trolling I explained that
>
> "To most
> chemical oceanographers Bc is a function of CO2, as the Alk does not
> change and any
> changes in pH is due to CO2/ So, in short seawater has really little, if
> any buffering
> capacity"
>
> A quote from Spotte (1979)
>
> "Seawater is very little buffered, if at all, at its normal pH of 8.2
> (Skirrow 1975)"
Please respond to my earlier question that you ignored:
This is taken from the web page you like to plagiarize:
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/issues/dec2002/chem.htm
"In the case of normal seawater at pH 8.2, b = 0.19 meq/L/pH unit
for the boric acid/borate system, and 0.63 meq/L/pH unit for the
bicarbonate/carbonate system. These values are additive, and result
in a total buffering of b = 0.82 meq/L/pH unit."
Boomer, you need to read this and then reread it:
At pH 8.2 (normal seawater) the above excerpt states that the total
buffering
capacity of sea water is 0.82 meq/L/pH unit.
How can you say that seawater has little, if any buffering capacity???
Seawater at pH 8.2 has 0.82 meq/L. This is a significant level of buffering
capacity.
Please explain to me how 0.82 meq/L is equivalent to little to no buffering
capacity?
I know you said that was your last post, but I would love to hear the answer
to this.
>
> As the buffer mechanism, be it Bc or Alk, does not buffer the water, due
> to shift changes
> in pH by CO2.
>Any change in NSW pH is always do to CO2 and CO2 has no effect on Alk.
CaCO3 also has an effect on pH. The pH lowering effect of CO2 is countered
(BUFFERED) by the pH raising effect of CaCO3(s).
CaCO3(s) <------>Ca++ CO3-- <-------> Ca++ HCO3- <---------> Ca++ H2CO3
<---------> H2O + CO2(g)
----------------------------->>> Decreasing pH (getting more acidic)
<<<----------------------------- Increasing pH (getting more basic)
> Having any alk, even if at 4 meq / l, means nothing to the addition or
> subtraction of CO2.
> The pH will drop or rise as a faction of CO2 concentration.
Ok
>It is why the std Bc equation
> is rewritten by chemical oceanographers as a function of CO2 input or
> output.....GET IT
>
> From Randy's reply, so you know I DO NOT leave errors out
Am I having a debate with Randy or Boomer??
I will NOT respond to any second hand quotes from Randy.
> "Maybe I was wrong before.
>
> At a given pH, the higher the alkalinity the higher the buffering capacity
> (direct
> relationship). But a higher alkalinity does not necessarily mean higher
> buffering if the
> pH changes too.
>
> If the pH goes low enough, the buffering picks back up again as the
> bicarboante/carbonic
> acid buffering comes into play. Down in the 6's.
> It also drops off as you get above the pKa of bicarbonate/carbonate."
>
> Also from Randy already posted this
> "***I believe*** that buffering capacity of normal seawater is lower at pH
> 7.8 than at
> 8.2, which in turn is lower than at pH 8.5"
>
>
> It seems even Randy is not 100 % sure. But I will assme he is
I wouldn't expect you not to ASSME. (chuckle..)
>
>
> <This is taken from the web page you like to plagiarize:>
>
> Afraid not, it is quite common on Ng and forums to copy and paste and put
> it in quotes
> without ref., although they should be.
Your right, they should be.
>They quote or at times put in bold type and are an indication that the
>statement are not words as one's own. Maybe I had a reason not to post
> the link. Maybe it was the reason I left this remark by me at the end of
> that statement
> "Please say yes" GET IT
???
>
> "Plagiarism -- the attempt to pass off the ideas, research, theories, or
> words of others
> as one's own -- is a serious academic offense. "
>
> I never tried to pass this a as my own despite your accusations and you
> know it so
By not citing the source of your quotation, you are leaving yourself open
for an accusation of plagiarism.
>
> ANOTHER TROLL by you
What??
>
> Quote
>
> "To repeat or copy the words of (another), ***usually with acknowledgment
> of the source."
>
> <I think one of your many problems is that you are not READING and
> UNDERSTANDING the references you are citing.>
>
> This and the rest is much more like you and more trolling
>
>
> <That was excerpt NOT exert. Dam spell check...>
>
> Another troll for me to say you can not spell without spell check LOL
You might want to consider using your spell check. Seriously!
> <If something is NOT 100% it is NOT pure. The end.
>
> Do you know the definition of PURE?>
>
> Yes and you are still trolling
>
> <Plenty of things in nature are pure.>
>
> Yes !!!
> Sea water is 100% sea water.
> Sand is 100% sand.
>
> The shit in your brain is 100 %
If that's what it takes to make you feel superior. Feel free.
You couldn't do it intellectually, so you may as well as a last resort.
>
>
> Sodium Chloride is 100% Sodium Chloride
>
> "Even aragonite is no 100% CaCO3 now is it ??"
>
> <Yes, it is.>
>
> No they are not, MORE TROLLING or you are really, really stupid and must
> live in a cave
> with a pin sized head Wait, it is much , much smaller than that. It is
> more on the
> order of sticking your brain in an ants ass and it raps around like a
> bee-bee in a
> boxcar. So you have been spoon feeding me, well then I must be feeding you
> with a
> SHOVEL.......... LOL
>
> You just can't think on your own now can you Stupid man
If that's what it takes to make you feel superior.
You couldn't do it intellectually so you may as well name call.
>
>
> <Yes, it is.>
>
> You need help again. So lets go R_E_A_L S_L_O_W
>
>
> http://webmineral.com/data/Aragonite.shtml
>
> Chemical composition, where you are lost. Take note it
> saaaaaaaaaaayyssss........... ONLY
> shows Ca, C and O3
>
> NOW if you can manage go to the next link, it may be HARD for some one
> like you. I gave
> you the chance, on the other post, to fix your sick dumb ass and you
> failed.....AGAIN.
> Click on MinDat.org. Can you find it or do you need assistance??? See
> where is says
> ...Common Impurities Notice it say Sr, Pb and Zn. These ions and others,
> such as Mg,
> often replace Ca.Which means, such ions, like Sr, are found fitted into
> the Aragonite
> lattice and STILL it is called ARAGONITE
It is called a Common Impurity because it is foreign to its make-up.
Sr, Pb and Zn salts of CO3 are not ARAGONITE. Just because there are
impurities in aragonite, does not make the impurities aragonite. The
impurities are also not required for aragonite to be aragonite. They are
impurities. Aragonite is a specific type of mineral with a specific
geometric crystal structure with orthorhombic symmetry. The impurities are
not required for aragonite to be aragonite and the impurities are not
aragonite.
Please reread the above sentences.
> , where they have replaced Ca. It is COMMON knowledge and is one of the
> reasons behind many in this hobby wanting to use aragonite
> sand and oolites, as they often have good amounts of Sr. Aragonite is a
> transition
> mineral, depending on it Ca/Sr ratio, in one respect, where if there is
> enough Sr it is
> called Strontianite SrCO3. All of these are members of the Aragonite
> Group, GET IT. Yah
> see that nice pic of aragonite ? If you powdered it and dropped it into an
> XRD, it would
> more than likely have Sr replacing Ca in the crystal lattice but it is
> still
> ARAGONITE....GET IT So, it is not 100 % CaCO3 NOW IS IT. In your narrow
> mind if so much
> as 1 ion of Sr was in the lattice replacing Ca it would not be Aragonite..
> But SHIT for
> BRAINS it is GET IT.
>
> Same dam thing with NaCl, such as K replacing Na
>
> Lets now progress to the Calcite Group, are you still with me stubornman
> ??
We are NOT discussing Calcite. This discussion is about ARAGONITE.
>
> Calcite = CaCO3. Should be more like Ca,
> Mn,Fe,Zn,Co,Ba,Sr,Pb,Mg,Cu,Al,Ni,V,Cr,Mo(CO3)
>
> Now click on mindata
>
> Common impurities;
> Mn,Fe,Zn,Co,Ba,Sr,Pb,Mg,Cu,Al,Ni,V,Cr,Mo
>
>
> Follows the same rule as ARAGONITE. Take notice, if you can, there is no
> Calcite Group Sr
> mineral. Do you know why ?? Also take notice that the crystal
> structure/class is
> different, Trigonal and not Orthorhombic like Aragonite MEAN ANYTHING TO
> YOU ??
>
> From you flipin' website flipper
> http://geology.utah.gov/utahgeo/rockmineral/collecting/oolitic.htm
>
> <You have to READ this Boomer>
>
> YOU NEED TO READ THAT
>
> What the hell does it say ??
> "An oolite has a shell of concentric layers of ***calcium carbonate***
> that precipitated
> around a nucleus or central core."
Ahhh. Here is your problem. Just because something is **calcium
carbonate** does NOT mean it is aragonite.
Aragonite has a specific crystalline structure.
Diamonds are made of CARBON, they have a specific crystalline structure.
Charcoal is made of CARBON.
Using your logic charcoal can be considered diamond.
>
> Do you need glasses or what CALCIUM CARBONATE = CaCO3 There are only
> THREE forms in
> mineralogy, Calcite Aragonite and the very, very, rare Vaterite . So it
> must be one of
> them CORRECT and it is ARAGONITE...THE END. Feel free to write or e-mail
> the Utah
> Geological Survey and ask their ass which one it is. I will stand
> corrected, WILL YOU ??
> But you will say it is NOT CALCITE either, if I said it is calcite oolitic
> sand by your
> narrow way of thinking. Aragonite should be more properly labeled
> (Ca,Sr,Pb,Zn, Mg)CO3
>
> Here are some hints before you make yourself look like an ass
>
> http://www.advancedaquarist.com/index/ Does it say Aragonite, NO, it does
> not have to but
> it is.
Boomer's logic: It doesn't say it is aragonite therefore it must be
aragonite... Interesting logic Boomer!
> If it was not it would be what Calcite
Boomer's logic: If a lump of CaCO3 is not aragonite it must be Calcite.
Hmmm. more interesting logic Boomer!!
>
> oolitic sand is never aragonite according to you
>
> http://www.maden.hacettepe.edu.tr/dmmrt/index.html
> "Sand-size grains of predominantly aragonite (CaCO3 ) found in shallow,
> tropical waters.
> Aragonite forms by chemical precipitation in sea water due to the presence
> of SO4 ions."
Boomer, I think you are still having a problem with calling a constituent of
a lot of
parts the whole. Oolotic sand may CONTAIN aragonite. Oolitic sand is NOT
by definition the mineral aragonite.
>
> http://www.voneresearch.org/Aragonite.htm
>
The above web page is WRONG.
Do you believe EVERYTHING you read on the internet?
When the aragonite crystals ACCRETE or grow into oolites they no longer have
the required crystalline structure to be called ARAGONITE.
You MOST be retarded??
I think your last statement says it all...