<you plagiarized >
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 ***, 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
***. 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
WCWing@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$Jp.3078115@twister.southeast.rr.c om...
:
: "Boomer" <wcwing@nospamchartermi.net> wrote in message
: news:xgd1f.961$qo6.185@fe07.lga...
: > "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:
:
:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.aquaria.marine.reefs/browse_thread/thread/a454bcc2b77386dc/9207502088878460?lnk=st&q=oolitic+sand+stoutman&rnum=1&hl=en#9207502088878460
:
:
: Here is a tinyurl for you if you had problems opening it:
:
: http://tinyurl.com/drjpq
:
:
: > Would you like me to post more lol.
:
: YES!!
:
: >You need to learn how to do search and know what the **** 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 **** 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 pKa