🚀 go-pugleaf

Just so everyone understands: I have every intention of doing all my 
calculations in ppm CaCO3. Nevertheless...**flame on *** I'm pursuing the dKH 
conversion because there seems to be a mystery here that still hasn't received 
a quantitative explanation. I just think it' s good practice to understand 
something from all angles. A problem like this is a red flag that says "you 
don't understand this" -- and yet it must be understandable. So I'm looking for 
an answer.  I was hoping someone could resolve the problem by either 1) 
explaining what the correct conversion factor is or 2) explaining why there is 
no conversion factor.  

Keith's post on the matter was a suggestion that there were at least two kinds 
of  hardness. An interesting suggestion, but what's the quantitative 
implication? Is there a conversion factor or not? Also it seems to imply that 
Moe doesn't have the whole picture either since he does not suggest that there 
are two kinds of hardness and just gives a single conversion factor for CaCO3. 
*** flame off ***

An interesting e-mail response:

Someone who uses a Thiel test kit that measures in units of dKH directly didn't 
use a conversion factor to go from Ca+2 or CaC03). He reports dKH of 15-17 for 
freshly mixed Tropic Marine. Although it is higher than ordinary sea water this 
is much more reasonable than 56 dKH which is what one gets if one blindly uses 
Moe's conversion.  


Note to Keith:

I didn't look at every page of Theil's "Advanced Reef Keeping vol. 1", but, 
everywhere I did look I saw dKH quoted instead of mg/l... not a big deal.


Note to marine biologists or chemists:

C'mon you guys, we physicists don't know beans about chemistry. How about a
little input!



Anyway, I'm pursing this question through other sources as well. If I find a 
definitive  answer I'll post it otherwise this is my last post on the matter...
have to get some work done!

Thanks to all -- Fernando

Fernando Pineda (fernando@aplcomm.jhuapl.edu)