[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Forrest King on the SOAP box again!!

Forrest King wrote in the last APD endeavouring to emulate his role
model, the inimitable George Booth. ;-)

Gee Forrest, it seems you have actually missed the point of this whole
discussion. -sigh-

The plants don't CARE what units you use to measure the concentration of
minerals. They only "care" that the right minerals are available in the
right RANGE of concentrations. It is just much CLEARER when we discuss
nutrient concentrations for us all to use the SAME units. The reasons
for the standardization of the scientific communities units apply
equally well to us "hobbyists". Don't you AGREE with that?

I was very glad to learn that Dupla has taken the lead in calibrating
their kits in mg/L. At least if you PAY good money for a test kit, it
should be in a USEFUL calibration, not in some arcane units of degree of
German hardness or USAnian hardness or British hardness.

In my last post, I said we ought to discuss what the most useful measure
for mineral concentrations should be. If there are those of you who have
any OTHER points to raise in defence of degrees of hardness (aside from
the fact that they are in common use), please make them. If the
consensus of this group is that the proper way to measure minerals is in
units of hardness, then I will accede to that wish gracefully.

Forrest King expostulated sarcastically:
> > I know on my website I use measures like cups, teaspoons [etc.]
> Unlike yourself, who has full access to laboratory grade analytical
> instruments, chemical and procedures? Gee, you're a prince. 

I do have an Ohaus triple beam scale which I treated myself to earlier
this year. If you're going to do anything quantitative, those things can
be extremely useful. Aside from that, I don't have any lab instruments,
chemicals or procedures (?). It's pretty easy to obtain ordinary
chemicals like calcium carbonate, potassium sulphate, potassium nitrate
and Epsom salt. 

Actually, I'm not a prince. Here in the great Dominion of Canada, we
recognize the Royal Monarchs. We just don't like to make a big deal out
of it, eh. ;-)

I don't think a hobbyist needs a triple beam scale to dose chemicals.
You can easily check the bulk density of chemicals using a cheap postal
scale or just use the teaspoon method. It's close enough. You can also
use a Tetra GH kit if you're not ashamed to admit you own one. I have
one but don't use it. I think we should try to have methods that can be
used all over the world where hobbyists may not be able to afford test
kits and trace nutrient powders. I advocate a method which should be
usable without all those "products". Forrest, you need to travel the
world a little more to understand what things are like in other places
(IMHO). Meet me in Mindanao?


WARNING! I found that there is a variance in the bulk density of the
chelated trace nutrient mix that we have been getting in Vancouver from
the same supplier. The latest mix is a lot coarser in texture and has
about double the density. I make up dosage kits for the other members in
the hobby here in Vancouver and I adjust the instructions to use the
correct dosages based on the ACTUAL weights of the chemical stocks which
I have. And, yes, you are welcome. No compliments necessary. Just send
cash. ;-)

Steve P in Vancouver where the cherries are ready in the interior! Yum!