A Fishkeeping forum. FishKeepingBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » FishKeepingBanter.com forum » rec.aquaria.marine » Reefs
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Ozone



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old March 4th 04, 03:26 PM
Brian and Vanessa Smythia
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Ozone

Does anyone know if the ASM G-3 skimmer is ozone safe?


  #2  
Old March 5th 04, 07:10 AM
Marc Levenson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Ozone

Do you plan to run Ozone on your reef tank? Skimmers such as the ASM remove
DOCs, and Ozone definitely has an effect on water quality.

JB NY has run Ozone on his tank for quite some time now, so he might be the one
to contact. You can find JB NY on reefcentral.com as one of the 50,000+
members.

Marc


Brian and Vanessa Smythia wrote:

Does anyone know if the ASM G-3 skimmer is ozone safe?


--
Personal Page: http://www.sparklingfloorservice.com/oanda/index.html
Business Page: http://www.sparklingfloorservice.com
Marine Hobbyist: http://www.melevsreef.com


  #3  
Old March 5th 04, 02:12 PM
Brian and Vanessa Smythia
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Ozone

Yes, I am planning on running ozone on a 110 Gallon reef tank I am putting
together (finally moving up from my 55 Gallon)

I know skimmers remove dissolved organics before they break down into
ammonia and nitrite but I am unfamiliar with the term DOC's. What does it
mean?



"Marc Levenson" wrote in message
...
Do you plan to run Ozone on your reef tank? Skimmers such as the ASM

remove
DOCs, and Ozone definitely has an effect on water quality.

JB NY has run Ozone on his tank for quite some time now, so he might be

the one
to contact. You can find JB NY on reefcentral.com as one of the 50,000+
members.

Marc


Brian and Vanessa Smythia wrote:

Does anyone know if the ASM G-3 skimmer is ozone safe?


--
Personal Page: http://www.sparklingfloorservice.com/oanda/index.html
Business Page: http://www.sparklingfloorservice.com
Marine Hobbyist: http://www.melevsreef.com




  #4  
Old March 5th 04, 04:40 PM
Bill Kirkpatrick
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Ozone

DOC - Dissolved Organic Carbon.

Skimmers also remove particulates.

**************************
Brian and Vanessa Smythia wrote:
I am unfamiliar with the term DOC's. What does it
mean?

  #5  
Old March 6th 04, 05:47 AM
Marc Levenson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Ozone

Almost.. Dissolved Organic Compounds.

Marc


Bill Kirkpatrick wrote:

DOC - Dissolved Organic Carbon.

Skimmers also remove particulates.

**************************
Brian and Vanessa Smythia wrote:
I am unfamiliar with the term DOC's. What does it
mean?


--
Personal Page: http://www.sparklingfloorservice.com/oanda/index.html
Business Page: http://www.sparklingfloorservice.com
Marine Hobbyist: http://www.melevsreef.com


  #6  
Old March 6th 04, 04:29 PM
stoutman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Ozone

Nope. It's Dissolved Organic Carbon.

http://www.algone.com/protein_skimmer.htm









"Marc Levenson" wrote in message
...
Almost.. Dissolved Organic Compounds.

Marc


Bill Kirkpatrick wrote:

DOC - Dissolved Organic Carbon.

Skimmers also remove particulates.

**************************
Brian and Vanessa Smythia wrote:
I am unfamiliar with the term DOC's. What does it
mean?


--
Personal Page: http://www.sparklingfloorservice.com/oanda/index.html
Business Page: http://www.sparklingfloorservice.com
Marine Hobbyist: http://www.melevsreef.com




  #7  
Old March 7th 04, 03:26 PM
Bill Kirkpatrick
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Ozone

No, actually. "Carbon" was correct. DOC is only one class
of material in various the nutrient cycles.

DIP - Dissolved Inorganic Phosphorous
DIN - Dissolved Inorganic Nitrogen
DOP - Dissolved Organic Phosphorous
DON - Dissolved Organic Nitrogen
DOC - Dissolved Organic Carbon
POC - Particulate Organic Carbon
PON - Particulate Organic Nitrogen
POP - Particulate Organic Phosphate

Each of these reflect the primary bio-material cycles on
Earth. Carbon, Phosphorus, and Nitrogen. There are others,
such as Silicon.

The rule is simple. We have Dissolved/Particulate,
Organic/Inorganic, and the nutrient cycle we're talking
about. We use these terms because each class requires
certain forms of remediataion. One doesn't, even remotely,
treat DIN the same way as POP.

Here's some scientific lit. where the term(s) are used
correctly...

http://www.uea.ac.uk/env/solas/summe...ndouts/LC2.pdf
http://jacquet.stephan.free.fr/engel_ame_2004.pdf

*****************************
Carbon.Marc Levenson wrote:
Almost.. Dissolved Organic Compounds.

Marc

  #8  
Old March 7th 04, 07:58 PM
Ross Bagley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Ozone

Bill Kirkpatrick writes:

No, actually. "Carbon" was correct. DOC is only one class of
material in various the nutrient cycles.

DIP - Dissolved Inorganic Phosphorous
DIN - Dissolved Inorganic Nitrogen


DOP - Dissolved Organic Phosphorous
DON - Dissolved Organic Nitrogen
DOC - Dissolved Organic Carbon


These three would seem to sum up to describe the category of
DOM - Dissolved Organic Matter

Which would then be a substantially better term to use than "Dissolved
Organic Compounds" which, as is the topic of discussion, collides with
"Dissolved Organic Carbon".

POC - Particulate Organic Carbon
PON - Particulate Organic Nitrogen
POP - Particulate Organic Phosphate


While these three would seem to sum up to describe the category of
POM - Particulate Organic Matter

I can certainly shift to use these terms from the larger scientific
discussion in my own language on aquariums.

One question, are phytoplankton (algae, bacterial agglomerates, etc.)
part of POM or are POC, PON, and POP limited to particles that are
nonliving? Seems like it would be useless to attempt to divide them
out, so I may have just answered my question...

Regards,
Ross

-- Ross Bagley http://rossbagley.com/rba
"Security is mostly a superstition. It does not exist in nature...
Life is either a daring adventure or nothing." -- Helen Keller

  #9  
Old March 7th 04, 09:19 PM
Bill Kirkpatrick
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Ozone

Ross Bagley wrote:

While these three would seem to sum up to describe the category of
POM - Particulate Organic Matter


Sure, but wouldn't it be kind of limiting if we just used
the term "Color" (Matter/Compounds) to describe all various
forms of "Red"(DOC), "Orange"(POC), "Yellow"(DIN), etc.?

Of course, if you don't understand the subject or it is not
applicable to you (like a total color blind), then the broad
term is all you need.

In both aquaria, and waste water treatment, it would seem we
surely can't say these terms are inapplicable. We use
various filters/media/methods, each to specifically address
the various classes of pollutants, and their makeup components.

If you take it to the extreme, why not just say there is
"junk", or "pollution", in our tanks. Not very scientific
sounding, perhaps, but if "we" should use DOC in the way you
suggest, then why not use a simpler and less confusing word
for the stuff?
  #10  
Old March 8th 04, 08:09 AM
Ross Bagley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Ozone

Bill Kirkpatrick writes:

Ross Bagley wrote:

While these three would seem to sum up to describe the category of
POM - Particulate Organic Matter


Sure, but wouldn't it be kind of limiting if we just used the term
"Color" (Matter/Compounds) to describe all various forms of
"Red"(DOC), "Orange"(POC), "Yellow"(DIN), etc.?


But I see it as wanting to know if the color is red or blue, and
you keep asking me which wavelength near 450nm do I mean.

A particular scientist's mapping of a symbol space into language is
not the only mapping, nor is it necessarily the best mapping merely
because it is the most precise.

Of course, if you don't understand the subject or it is not applicable
to you (like a total color blind), then the broad term is all you need.


No need to condescend to make your point. In hobby aquariums, we care
about phosphate, nitrate (along with nitrite and ammonium), calcium,
carbon (as carbonate and bicarbonate), particulate organic material,
and dissolved organic material, and to a lesser extent silica, iodine,
magnesium, and iron.

Most, if not all of the interactions we have with our tank water are
limited to these categories. To suggest that we as a group need to
subdivide the categories that we find useful in order to be "right" is
missing the point of jargon in communities.

In both aquaria, and waste water treatment, it would seem we surely
can't say these terms are inapplicable. We use various
filters/media/methods, each to specifically address the various
classes of pollutants, and their makeup components.


Except that I've never participated in a discussion of how to filter
just dissolved organic phosphate from the water. Skimmers remove
unknown fractions of lots of different dissolved organic compounds
(DOC, DOP, etc.) and smaller particulate organic material. Given that
resolution of knowledge, does it make sense to use an overly precise
term when the precision doesn't match to the available information?

As the hobby evolves and we acquire more information about what's
really going on in the skimmer and in our water, more precise terms
may begin to make sense. Until that level of research has been done,
to say that skimmers remove Dissolved Organic Carbon when Dissolved
Organic Phosphorus is the next entry down (and also partly removed by
skimming) makes no sense to me.

If you take it to the extreme, why not just say there is "junk", or
"pollution", in our tanks. Not very scientific sounding, perhaps, but
if "we" should use DOC in the way you suggest, then why not use a
simpler and less confusing word for the stuff?


Use the term that best describes the substance in question. If we're
measuring something, I'll be looking for a phosphorus-specific
measurement (described by a phosphorus-specific term), or a nitrogen-
specific measurement (described by a nitrogen-specific term). But
if all I've got is a cup full of gunk, then "gunk" might just be
the best possible use of language to convey a description of my
mental model so that someone else can understand me.

I can completely understand not wanting to use jargon that collides
with an established nomenclature in a related field (which is why I'll
start using DOM instead of DOC to refer to the dissolved elements in
skimmate). What I'm not following is the logic that we should use
that other jargon, even if it doesn't map well to the concepts that
need relating in our community.

What we've got is a mapping problem. You've got thirty shades of
light with a wavelength near 450nm. All I see is a rich deep blue.

Who's right?

Regards,
Ross

-- Ross Bagley http://rossbagley.com/rba
"Security is mostly a superstition. It does not exist in nature...
Life is either a daring adventure or nothing." -- Helen Keller
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
What is the purpose of Ozone in a reef tank? [email protected] Reefs 1 September 24th 03 10:38 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:55 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 FishKeepingBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.