[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Do we need RO?
>> 1. The filters DO remove chloramine; the conc of ammonia/um that gets
>> through is not detectable with an aquarium test kit.
>No, everything I saw, and everyone I talked to confirmed that an
>activated carbon filter will not remove any of the ammonia.
If this were true in practice, I would have aquariums chuck full of dead
and dying fish! I'm not saying it doesnt let through some ammonia but as I
said earlier, the concentration is too low to be detected w/ an over the
counter test kit. Its a foot-race b/n the plants and the bio-filter to
see who gets to eat this extra ammonia first! :-)
>And as for chloramine removal, many of the filters, including the one
>you use, make no specific mention of Chloramines. Ametek makes a different
>filter cartridge (not the one you use) that specifically claims to deal
>with chloramine. The engineer I spoke with at Plymouth Products
>stated that the filter you mentioned is just a "taste and odor" cartridge,
>which removes SOME of the chlorine, and wouldn't be effective on chloramine
>due to the ammonia-chlorine bond.
Anyone who has ever lived in South Florida knows we are in a chloramine
zone. In addition, when I first purchased this filter some years ago, the
packageing clearly stated it removed 90% of the chlorine.
>But past success
>doesn't mean it's working the way you think. Lots of people do water
>changes without any dechlorination at all and have no problems.
I do massive 75% water changes when I do them once per month.
I once tried to go cheaper (to save $) on a lower cost insert..... DISASTER!!
THAT was when I learned chloramine kills BOTH plants AND fish. I NEVER
made that mistake again. The advantage I have is practical REAL world
experience w/ this particular filter. You mean well, but your "experience"
opon which you based your somewhat general article comes from a chat with
an engineer from AMETEK who probably has no clue how planted aquaria works
and understated the CBR2-10R filter's capablilities (a wise move; he
doesnt know you, and was probably unwilling to assume possible liability on
a specific application the company is unfamiliar with). I don't believe
you've ever actually used the filter nor even held it in your hands (else
you would have read the package that it DOES reduce chlorine 90%).
This thread is not the first time I've written about the application of
this filter for planted aquaria. Search the archives for "AMETEK" and
you'll find I've been at it with this filter for quite some time. The
reason I like the Ametek cartridge is you can't miscalculate timing
additions w/ it as you can w/ the Amquel drops. Such an error results in
disaster (as has already been stated here). I do not advocate a strategy
with which I don't have extensive first hand experience.
The next filter that Ametek produces that does an even better job is the KX
PB1 $47.00 that removes greater than 90% of the chlorine UP TO 6,000
gallons: http://www.shopibs.com/kx.htm I see no need to go for the
chloramine specific filter cartridge that Ametek puts out (I think its more
expensive) when even an R.O. unit cannot compete with a KX PB1 for volume
>How else do you remove phosphates from water besides RO or the Kold Steril
>Unit? I don't know of any processes that water purification plants do to
>eliminate them for us? Does anyone? I know the obvious point of using a
>Phosphate removing pad or beads, but that could get expensive. Ideas?
Since the AMETEK CBR2-10R and KX PB1 cartridges don't control phosphates,
I depend on the plants to do the job. I also keep a med-low fish-load w/
minimal feedings and this strategy does the job so well, that I still have
a LARGE bottle of Phosphoguard that has gone unused for 15 mts. As has
been stated early in this thread; make sure your municipal waters have VERY
high (not just elevated) phosphate levels before you invest in an expensive