[Timezone Detection]
Create Account - Join in Seconds!

User Name: Email Address:
Human Verification

Please enter the six letters or digits that appear in the image opposite.

CaC03 sand & water chemistry


Bookmark and Share
Page 3 of 3 First 1 2 3
Results 21 to 25 of 25
  1. #21
    stoutman
    Guest

    Default Re: CaC03 sand & water chemistry

    That was excerpt NOT exert. Dam spell check...


    "stoutman" <.@.> wrote in message
    news:DsJ1f.96083$SL.2396132@twister.southeast.rr.c om...
    "Boomer" <wcwing@nospamchartermi.net> wrote in message
    news:wHB1f.2410$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





  2. #22
    Boomer
    Guest

    Default Re: CaC03 sand & water chemistry

    WOW. I leave home for the weekend and you just flip out. We should start calling you
    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 **** 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 *** 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 *** 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 **** 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/rock...ng/oolitic.htm

    <You have to READ this Boomer>

    YOU NEED TO READ THAT

    What the **** 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 *** 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 ***

    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&l...nd&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_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 oolitic 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 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
    [ame="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"]Amazon.com: Carbonate Sedimentology (9780632014729): Professor Maurice E. Tucker, V. Paul Wright: Books[/ame]

    http://bookweb.kinokuniya.co.jp/gues...SBN=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

    WCWing@nospamChartermi.Net
    Former US Army Bomb Technician (EOD)
    Member; IABTI, NATEODA, WEODF, ISEE & IPS

    If You See Me Running You Better Catch-Up

  3. #23
    Boomer
    Guest

    Default Re: CaC03 sand & water chemistry

    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 **** 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 **** 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

    WCWing@nospamChartermi.Net
    Former US Army Bomb Technician (EOD)
    Member; IABTI, NATEODA, WEODF, ISEE & IPS

    If You See Me Running You Better Catch-Up


    :
    :

  4. #24
    stoutman
    Guest

    Default Re: CaC03 sand & water chemistry

    "Boomer" <wcwing@nospamchartermi.net> wrote in message
    news:hEl2f.6446$dO5.2184@fe07.lga...
    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 **** 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 *** 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 *** 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 **** 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/rock...ng/oolitic.htm

    You have to READ this Boomer

    YOU NEED TO READ THAT

    What the **** 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 *** 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 ***

    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.


    The above web page is WRONG.

    Do you believe EVERYTHING you read on the internet?




    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&l...nd&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_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,
    When the aragonite crystals ACCRETE or grow into oolites they no longer have
    the required crystalline structure to be called ARAGONITE.




    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_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 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...glance&s=books

    http://bookweb.kinokuniya.co.jp/gues...SBN=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
    You MOST be retarded??

    I think your last statement says it all...










    --
    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

  5. #25
    stoutman
    Guest

    Default Re: CaC03 sand & water chemistry

    "Boomer" <wcwing@nospamchartermi.net> wrote in message
    news:uVl2f.6447$dO5.4711@fe07.lga...
    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 **** 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 **** 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



    --
    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


    :
    :

Page 3 of 3 First 1 2 3

Similar Topics

  1. Salt & Water RO Water Chemistry
    By goodgreef in forum Basics
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 05-26-2010, 11:47 AM
  2. Flow & Plumbing Water Chemistry
    By 320shallow in forum Hardware
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 10-15-2009, 12:26 AM
  3. Calcium, Alk, Mg & pH water chemistry
    By Sea~Horse~Whisperer in forum Chemistry
    Replies: 43
    Last Post: 08-12-2005, 08:48 PM
  4. Nitrogen Cycle & Phosphate Water chemistry
    By Sea~Horse~Whisperer in forum Chemistry
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 04-15-2005, 08:12 AM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

About CaptiveReefs

    If you are interested in learning about reefkeeping or have a problem with your reef, our reefkeeping community is here to help. Feel free to ask a question or search our site. We have lots of experienced reefkeepers that are willing to provide free reefkeeping advice!

    Besides being a great resource for all levels of reef aquarium hobbyists, CaptiveReefs is a social experience that will enhance your enjoyment of reefkeeping. CaptiveReefs is committed to connecting reefkeepers with the support and information they need to grow beautiful coral reef aquariums.

Information

Connect with Us