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

Re: Hardness

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

I certainly may have, given the obtuseness of your statements. Maybe once I
"get to know you", I will be able to decode what you meant based on what you
actually wrote.

>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?

Yes, I agree with that and find it a capital idea!  In aligning with the
scientific community, we should all present our data in terms of meq (Meq?).
This makes calculations ever so much simpler. However, I'm afraid the average
dolt that you pander to would find this cumbersome and somewhat discouraging.
What is your opinion on 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.

I don't remember anyone specifically mentioning Dupla? Being a German firm,
one might suspect that they also use the arcane German degress. 

>In my last post, I said we ought to discuss what the most useful measure
>for mineral concentrations should be. 

One continues to think that you are confusing minerals truly associated with
generally accepted measures of hardness (Ca, Mg) with other minerals (K, S)
that most people already measure in PPM or mg/l as a general rule.  
What IS your point?

>Forrest, you need to travel the
>world a little more to understand what things are like in other places
>(IMHO). Meet me in Mindanao?

Fat chance of that, old boy.  So I assume you are now suggesting that people
in Southeast Asia do not have access to water test kits?  I rather doubt that.

>Roger Miller wrote:
>Oh yeah.  Vancouver isn't a state.

Forgive me, I was being obtuse myself. I was referring to a "state of mind". I
am a bit familiar with the Provinces. 

One point I would like to have clarified by the real chemists reading this (if
you have managed to wade through all this petty bickering):

For our purposes, we use the terms "mg/l" and "PPM" interchangeably. But in
absolute terms, this is not true, is it?  I haven't "run the numbers" but one
would have to guess that 1 mg of nitrogen in 1 liter of lead (to use a rather
extreme and silly example) would be different than 1 atom of nitrogen in 1
million atoms of lead?

Also, isn't there some difference of opinion between some countries as to
which is larger - million or billion?  This may lead to misunderstanding when
using PPM.

And finally, we toss about the terms mg/l, PPM and Metric system as if they
were all consistent.  One would think that mg/l would be a Metric system
measure but isn't "parts per million" rather system independent?  Just a
semantic nit, really.

Forrest King
Checking  Mr. Booth's WebPage for things I missed the first time (and there
were a few items!)