CaC03 sand & water chemistry

[Thomas Bartkus]

"unclenorm" <normnam2000@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1128430082.202318.28600@g47g2000cwa.googlegro ups.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]

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.

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.
--
Boomer

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]

"Boomer" <wcwing@nospamchartermi.net> wrote in message
news:tcw0f.461$2_6.37@fe02.lga...

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

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

[Boomer]

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. 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 pKa

[stoutman]

"Boomer" <wcwing@nospamchartermi.net> wrote in message
news:WkR0f.8540$Yv6.6619@fe06.lga...

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/rock...ng/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/mineral...t/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.

[quote]If your pH dropped from 8.2 to 7.8 the buffering capacity INCREASES as you
are approaching its pKa

[Boomer]

"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. 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...ite&PN=0&TPN=4


Would you like me to post more lol. You need to learn how to do search and know what the
**** 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 **** 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.
--
Boomer

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]

"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...ite&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.a...07502088878460


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

[Boomer]

<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


[ame]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coral[/ame]
"The skeletons of Scleractinian corals are composed of a form of calcium carbonate known
as aragonite"
http://www.jhu.edu/news_info/news/ho...v04/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_conten...ahama_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_s.../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...ite&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.a...07502088878460
:
:
: 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

[Boomer]

Randy sent me quick reply, before I was about to leave for the weekend

"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


--
Boomer

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]

"Boomer" <wcwing@nospamchartermi.net> wrote in message
news:wHB1f.2410$Ue7.1922@fe03.lga...

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.

--
Boomer

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