RO/DI units environmentally destructive?

[yardboy]

I can't believe I read this whole thread.

The only thing I'll add, and it won't contribut a whole lot, is that all the people who've said that the same amount of water is present on earth as always may not realize that water is being outgassed to space constantly, at a fairly significant rate, and that we'll be out of water in about several billion years.

Supposedly that's how Mars got so dry.

Another thing is that even though its fun to diss the idiot who started this thread, we may have played right into his hands, as there is this weird subgroup of people who play this strange troller game, where they score points by getting people all agitated about and angry about whatever sheeit they've started. They get more points by playing people off against each other. Check wikipedia on trolls to learn more than you might have wanted to know about some of the strange games some are into.

 

Lastly, I love my RO/DI and all the life in the tanks it supports. I also oversee the operation of RO/DI units that make 300gpm of ultrapure water. And it's a tiny system compared to the megaunits that make drinking water in places that don't have any.

[YeahitsK]

Not true either yardboy. We've had more than enough time to lose our water and atmosphere. It doesn't happen because our planet, unlike Mars, still has a molten iron core which causes our planet to have a dynamo shaped magnetic field. Ionized gases (i.e. the atmosphere) follow our planet's magnetic field just like iron filings around a magnet and do not escape into space. Some reputable links:

 

http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/earthwherewater.html

 

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/origins/mckay.html

 

http://mgs-mager.gsfc.nasa.gov/

[Gill Snork]

way to go!!!!

 

you win the "I KNOW THE MOST OBSCURE FACTS" prize

 

ALL you do is take a person's response, ignore context and rational boundries of the actual discussion, and find insignificant ways to interject your useless responses that have nothing to do with the original point, topic, or meaning. GO back and ask yourself what value you have added.

 

How long did you search for those links? Do you think ANYONE really cares about "dynamo shaped magnetic fields" on a reef aquarium site?

 

Just think about what a sorry, sad span of time you spent searching for that.

 

GET A LIFE

 

-Gill

[YeahitsK]

Actually a lot of it comes from my education, although I don't believe for a second that it makes me better than anyone. Just thought I would clear up what I saw as misconceptions. Did you care to debate any of the facts or just attack the messenger? Now back to work for me. Have a nice day.

[neanderthalman]

^^ I care, but then I subsist almost exlusively on obscure facts and physics.

[MDeth]

Does anybody beside me think that RO+make your own water is A LOT better eco-wise than using catalina or a 'pure' ocean water ?

[Phixion]

Does anybody beside me think that RO+make your own water is A LOT better eco-wise than using catalina or a 'pure' ocean water ?

 

Yes, especially since Catalina water SUCKS a$$. I know better than most since I pee in the source it comes from, well not really lol! But seriously, it comes from Long Beach harbor or nearby which is some of the nastiest ocean water I've ever seen. I don't see how the aquarium there (AOTP) uses that stuff... =/

[strangelove]

I've been wondering if there is an easy way to filter and condition sea water in a natural filter system. I've been toying with the idea of having two 50 gallon tanks, one filled with live rock the other filled with sand some live rock and macro algae as well as mangroves. Would a system like this condition sea water to be used as water change water for a main tank? Since all this stuff is easily collectable from the ocean, it makes it an affordable option.

 

My current choices are to continue to buy my water and salt mix, or catalina.

 

Buy a RO/DI system and salt mix.

 

or the above mentioned natural filter system.

 

An advantage to this is that I would have 100 gallons of SW ready if I ever had an emergency, i.e. oregon's tank. Also I could expand the system and plumb it into a propagation tank.

 

I think I'll start this as a new thread, since this is a bit of a hijack.

[Gill Snork]

Actually a lot of it comes from my education, although I don't believe for a second that it makes me better than anyone. Just thought I would clear up what I saw as misconceptions. Did you care to debate any of the facts or just attack the messenger? Now back to work for me. Have a nice day.

 

I was attacking the usefulness of taking statements from people that are responding to a specific topic and thinking you are adding value by pointing out "inconsistencies".

 

Its a luxury I guess to convey intelligence through nit-picking details of other people's original thoughts.

 

If I said 2+2=4, you would find some way it doesn't or state some 1 in 10 billion instance it isn't quite true. That was my issue.

 

I consider myself an educated person and enjoy educated scientific conversations. I just get annoyed when people pay no attention to context or will alter it to make a point that doesn't apply.

 

-Gill

[Gill Snork]

Oh, and one more thing, just to be hypocritical and further demonstrate my point:

 

Hydrocarbons are not necessarily made from decomposition of water. They are made from Carbon and Hydrogen. No oxygen is present in the textbook definition of hydrocarbons as a class of structured molecules.

 

If you can prove that you need water to make hydrocarbons, PLEASE tell all the refineries using hydrogen as a purchased feed that they can now switch to water. THAT WOULD MAKE THEIR DAY.

 

You are assuming that during the creation of the earth, there were no hydrocarbons- only water and carbon. I'm no geological PhD, but I also don't think ANYONE has really come up with the actual method in which the earth was created. To speak about these topics is quoting junk science.

 

-GIll

[neanderthalman]

is all science junk science to you? Just askin'

 

Not sure where you're getting the idea that refineries "make" hydrocarbons. Last I checked, we pull them from the ground. The hydrogen feed is used to saturate the hydrocarbons to make them more efficient for burning.

 

Still, you've completely ignored the fact that the chemical reaction to produce hydrocarbons releases oxygen into the atmosphere. It is the combination of carbon dioxide and water, by plants, into organic sugars, also producing oxygen gas. Such sugars are chemically transformed into a wide variety of compounds, such as fats, proteins, and importantly in plants, cellullose. Later, said plant decomposes, and under specific circumstances a portion of these sugar-based molecules become oil.

 

So, hydrocarbons are formed from base materials of CO2 and water, and release said water back to the environment when burned, at the expense of atmospheric oxygen.

 

Now, if you'd like to get into a debate over how the earth was formed, I'm pretty certain that astrophysicists have a pretty good handle on that one. I'm game if you are

[YeahitsK]

Why do we have to fight dude? Some of what has been said here IS wrong. 2 + 2 DOES equal 4! Congratulations, happy now! What I've said IS true and I've provided evidence to back it up, sorry you have such problem with it.

 

Neanderthalman has said everything I basically intended to say, thank you n-man. Time to chill, Gill. I'm sure you're a good guy and all, I'm not attacking you personally with what I've said.

[Gill Snork]

I was responding to THE PURPOSE OF THE INITIAL THREAD, NOT with the creation of hydrocarbons, how magnetic fields work, how Mars dried up, or how refinery reformers work.

 

That, and C + H4 -> CH4 has no oxygen release (or CO2) and can be completed with a catalyst in a reformer at high temps and pressures (sounds like an oil deposit to me) IN THE ABSENCE OF OXYGEN so it won't EXPLODE.

 

I'm not here to argue, I just get frustrated when I say "water today = water tomorrow" and the response is "that's incorrect, 0.00000000000000000000000001259 mL left overnight due to cosmic evaporation".

 

Come on,......... really.

 

 

-Gill

[neanderthalman]

^^ wasn't the cosmic evaporation refuted and you attacked those who refuted it?

[Gill Snork]

I was a joke, man. Did you count my zero's too?

 

-Gill

[yardboy]

He did not refute it. He posted a few links to kiddie science, one of which said that the volume of water in the sea was about the same.

Water is too heavy to escape the gravitational pull of the earth, but water vapor dissociates in the atmosphere and the hydrogen liberated is light enough to escape, which is why there is very little free hydrogen in the atmosphere. It is estimated that 5X10*11 grams is lost each year this way. This still only means that since the earth began <0.2% of the water in the oceans has been lost.

I did not read this on the Internet, so I can't cite any links, but if you want to look at my Physical Chemistry textbook, or a simpler book would be James Trefil's "A Scientist looks at the Seashore" he discusses it at length.

I didn't want to get into any bs about this, but don't really appreciate anyone dissing me and accusing me of spreading false knowledge.

[svvad]

the question is pretty simple... Is it ok to think OUTSIDE the box ?

[Phixion]

This topic is kinda lame....

[ezcompany]

This topic is kinda lame....

 

yes. i say enjoy the hobby, be aware of your actions, and do your part for the environment in other ways.

[YeahitsK]

Yardboy,

 

I meant no disrespect to you or anyone but I guess that's what I did. Thanks for posting your sources. You are right. I was right about some of what I said as well but I don't really care about that or arguing over something stupid. Sorry for the disrespect and hope we can be cool.

 

K

[yardboy]

Fine, Thanks. As I initially stated, I didn't think I was really adding anything to the discussion about RO/DI's anyway.

For people who live in areas where water is expensive and precious I'm sure it really irks them to see the water going down the drain from the RO waste. Fact is, especially if you recycle the waste in some way, RO's save a ton of money over a simple demineralizer which have to be regenerated quite often when you don't have an RO in front of them. This involves acids and bases and lots of rinse water, which is even more wasteful. Sa to say, in many places you can't even drink the water without running it through a filtration system which might include RO to make it palatable.

Being a "prisoner" of the city, where the water is so hard and corrosive that they add phosphate at the rate of 2ppm to keep corrosion to a minimum, RO/DI is not an option, it is a necessity. Oh for the day I can live out in the country and use well water of a high enough quality that I don't have to use an RO/DI. Funny to imagine asking a realtor for a well water analysis before we consider purchasing!

[John30507]

lol you noobs are still using water in your aquariums?

 

 

Adin thinks he's so cool because he uses lava.

 

MJD

 

 

OMG!!!!! I AM DOING WRONG???? But there is no lava source close to me.... oh gee

[Scott Riemer]

I have enjoyed this thread up to the point someone thanked God for Al Gore.

[Phixion]

I have enjoyed this thread up to the point someone thanked God for Al Gore.

 

I do, he invented the internet as we modernly know it, right?

[Scott Riemer]

I do, he invented the internet as we modernly know it, right?

Who? God?