# Concentrations of stuff using EI (or, how much junk is in the trunk?)



## wet (Nov 24, 2008)

Recently someone bumped up a 5 year old thread of Vladimir Zhurov's on Plantbrain's forum that I found inspiring. So, I made this in my spare time, then added some ideas from Plantbrain and NFrank I liked. There hasn't been much testing of it so far, though.

Anyway, I'm going on vacation and away from the Internet for a few days. So, I'm sharing it here and opening it up for you to help make a new kind of dosing calculator, rethink how you're dosing, and maybe come up with new ideas we can apply next time I have some free time.

http://wet.biggiantnerds.com/ei/con_v_time.pl

"Stuff" can be N, P, or whatever you'd like.

Here's an example of Sue, who doses 15 ppm Stuff after a 50% water change.









Check out what happens when she doses 5ppm every three days instead.









If Sue wanted to, she could play with water change doses, start with some known ppm of Stuff, and even factor in fish food as options to this calculator.

I hope you like it. Have fun with it.


----------



## wet (Nov 24, 2008)

So, for fun, I used this tool in an update for my tank's thread in Paludarium Aquascaping, and you might dig it: http://www.aquaticplantcentral.com/...thingy-40g-breeder-post527486.html#post527486


----------



## jschall (Apr 13, 2009)

Can you release the source code under the GPL or similar?
Looks pretty simple, but I'm too lazy to write it from scratch.


----------



## wet (Nov 24, 2008)

Of course you can have my source: http://r.indica.petalphile.com/con.source

How about as beerware?  That's a copy of the live, and dirty as folks came up with ideas. I'll clean it up and maybe separate stuff into subs or like a Aquatic::Calc module later.


----------



## wet (Nov 24, 2008)

*Re: stump remover*

You might like this calculator, goldier and folks.

http://wet.biggiantnerds.com/ei/con_v_time.pl


----------



## goldier (Feb 13, 2010)

*Re: stump remover*

Very nice! I wish "the next 3 months" can be an input variable.


----------



## wet (Nov 24, 2008)

*Re: stump remover*



> Very nice! I wish "the next 3 months" can be an input variable.


Done


----------



## goldier (Feb 13, 2010)

*Re: stump remover*

Sweet! Why was Santa Claus not like you back then  ?

Per the "Water Change" thread over in the El Natural forum, I'm interested to see the long term effect of infrequent water change, so I expanded my codes to include the modulus function for 20% WC every month. My program result does not match yours. I got 162.3 ppm at the end of 6 months before the next WC. I also did a calculation by hand and got the same result at 162.3 ppm. This is for no uptake condition

Wet, your graph, however, shows a value < 50 ppm after 6 months for no uptake. Could you check my codes or yours one more time, please. Thanks 

My codes:
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
#include <stdio.h>
#define amount_add 11;
#define WC 0.2 ;
int main()

{
int week_number;
float accumulation, new_accumulation, percentChange;
accumulation = 0;
percentChange = 1-WC;
for (week_number=1;week_number<25;week_number++)
{
accumulation=new_accumulation+amount_add;
if (week_number % 4 == 0)
{
new_accumulation=accumulation*percentChange;
}
else new_accumulation = accumulation;

}
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

The snapshot of your graph is attached below.


----------



## wet (Nov 24, 2008)

*Re: stump remover*

You found a bug, goldier - thanks! The calc wasn't properly adding the weekly dose when you choose monthly water changes -- I just missed this condition. Fixed. Here's the graph:









The only difference between our calculations is that I'm assuming on water change day folks do a water change then dose, whereas your calculation does dose then water change. I think most people are dosing after the pwc. So, I think that change in your for loop would be

```
for (week_number=1;week_number<25;week_number++)
{
   if (week_number % 4 == 0)
   {
      accumulation=accumulation*percentChange;
   }
   accumulation=accumulation+amount_add;
}
```


----------



## goldier (Feb 13, 2010)

*Re: stump remover*

It looks good. Thanks. Yeah, I was thinking about the max accumulation level before a WC so it reflected in the codes, and I also probed the levels before & immediately after WC. Now I have your calc values to compare for the core functions so I can add more crazy combination later. Ain't behavioral modeling such as this a useful tool?


----------



## wet (Nov 24, 2008)

*Re: stump remover*

Agreed -- Much of it was Plantbrain's (Tom Barr's) idea and the bonus stuff are things folks like you and NFrank contributed from playing with it. It is neat and I find it useful and it made me rethink some things even after feeling comfortable with dosing and method.

You're welcome to my source (Perl), by the way. It's hacky and pretty ugly but makes it easy to add these ideas as they pop up. I still haven't cleaned it up... one of these days.


----------



## Philosophos (Mar 1, 2009)

*Re: stump remover*

The calc could use some consideration for past effects of dosing. Give quantity dosed with allowance to input end of week results to figure out the uptake. This number will change, of course, but it's still closer than just showing what dosing accounts for. Right now the consideration is 0, any number greater than that is closer to the maximum possible uptake.

You could do approximate food calculations as well. Most food has a pretty reliable combination of things like fish meal, spirulina and ash content. Even without doing dry weight analysis, it might be possible to add in considerations for the minimum N and P that most foods would provide per gram. Even estimates by tiny fingered pinch and 5ml short tablespoon would bring us closer to an accurate projection.

Light and CO2 is probably beyond most of our capacity. If you've got a PAR meter or a pile of results bookmarked, you might be able to put together something that creates a maximum boundary for uptake from both of the above values. Don't get me wrong, that bit would be difficult, but it's something to look towards in the future. CO2 well... that's a number nearly none of us have a meter sitting around for, I'm not sure it could be made meaningful for a long while.


----------



## wet (Nov 24, 2008)

*Re: stump remover*

Have you played around with the calculator, Philosophous? It does do 0%, 25%, 50%, 75% and 90% uptake from the weekly dose (calculated as daily uptake). It also includes an optional section where you can input grams food and the percent Stuff (N, P, whatever) in that food (calculated as daily input and impacting daily uptake percent). It does some other options, too.

I played around with adding known uptake as an option using what's measured between water changes, but am actually of the opinion that such numbers aren't as useful as the percent uptake values above. For example, someone who knows their uptake can ballpark their upper and lower limits with more accuracy. (Think baseball projection or odds or something.) Say, a higher degree of confidence they are between, say, 50 and 75% uptake than some exact (say, +/- 1ppm) number. And as we know the uptake will change as the tank grows anyway.

I am sorry for the threadjack. There's a thread here where I'd love your folk's continued input. When I get around to it I'll fix some stuff to make known uptake easier to add, P.

http://www.aquaticplantcentral.com/...6-concentrations-stuff-using-ei-how-much.html


----------



## goldier (Feb 13, 2010)

*Re: stump remover*



wet said:


> You're welcome to my source (Perl),


Thanks Wet. Somehow I missed your other thread where you posted the link to the source code. I will save it and will think about other new features. I wouldn't want to reinvent the wheel so would rather pass the suggestions/added codes to you as we expand it in time. Perl is among the handful programming languages I'd used, but for a very limited exposure. I feel like I have to relearn it (it was either Perl 3 or 4 back then).


----------



## Philosophos (Mar 1, 2009)

*Re: stump remover*



wet said:


> Have you played around with the calculator, Philosophous? It does do 0%, 25%, 50%, 75% and 90% uptake from the weekly dose (calculated as daily uptake). It also includes an optional section where you can input grams food and the percent Stuff (N, P, whatever) in that food (calculated as daily input and impacting daily uptake percent). It does some other options, too.


I've played with it some. Unless I've been clicking the wrong link, I haven't seen anything for uptake.

The value of adding calculations for food is that the calculator already has the numbers for about how much N and P a food contains; the average person isn't able to figure that out. On the other hand, most people can simply figure out what 20% of 100mg is and add it.


----------



## wet (Nov 24, 2008)

*Re: stump remover*

Philosophos,

I realized I could add uptake a lot easier than I thought by just replacing one of the other numbers (90% uptake -- green), so done.

I'm pretty sure the food thing past the above isn't going to happen, man. My combination of prepared OSI, Ocean Nutrition, and Wardley sinking stuff is from 30 - 45% Protein and 4 - 11% Fat. How do you calculate N, P, or "Stuff" from that? Get some number for those approximations for food and I'll add it to the calculator if there's some logical way to do it.

(I have not had test kits for a long time, nor do I measure food or think past input and uptake rate for fetilizers since I am certain my plants uptake more than my fish or substrate put into the water column from past experience and tests. I just differ from Plantbrain and I guess you on the importance of this number in most planted tanks that need dosing, but I also think it's easier to run tanks at high uptake (stems) or always compensate with biger water changes if things are not known, as we can see the stabilization with any such numbers on the calculator now. I think the export part of any method is as important as the input part. FWIW, of course.)

goldier,

FWIW I am such a beginner with Perl I think you'll find the script readable. But will update once I get around to cleaning it, which will be more readable I think.

Would a kindly moderator mind moving my threadjack -- say, post #36 down -- to this thread? http://www.aquaticplantcentral.com/...6-concentrations-stuff-using-ei-how-much.html This is the only public place for this calculator. (Subscribers to Plantbrain's forum can see the original thread in that fertiization subforum.)

Thanks!


----------



## Philosophos (Mar 1, 2009)

Sounds like I've got some reading to do on fish/shellfish proteins. This one could take a while. PM me if I haven't chimed in with anything by next weekend. The next 3-4 days are busy for me, but I should be clear for serious reading through the week and it'd be a good bit of info for me to add in with the fert guide I'm slowly working at.


----------



## wet (Nov 24, 2008)

Added weekly ppm uptake, which is then calculated as a percent weekly uptake for the graph legend and a daily uptake for the calculations. Play around and you'll see what I mean. Allowed >100% uptake to model mistakes or something goofy or whatever you'd like.

http://wet.biggiantnerds.com/ei/con_v_time.pl

Updated source link with snapshot of the live copy as of now.

<3


----------



## Philosophos (Mar 1, 2009)

Thanks for posting the update.

An obvious source skipped my mind; check out Ecology of the Planted tank for some nice nutrient values in food. Spirulina powder is easy to find info for as well. It won't be perfect, but it does give a bit of consideration.


----------



## wet (Nov 24, 2008)

Anyone using Walstad's tables (V-2 and V-3 under the Sources of Plant Nutrients chapter) for prepared foods can plug those mg/kg numbers (converted to %) into the calculator as it is now. The problem with using these varying concentrations of individual elements as a singular "Stuff" is it does not provide an accurate number and can mislead aquarists when the point is "Stuff" can be whatever we'd like.

A dedicated food calculator or adding something like it to a Fertilator would be an interesting idea. I do not think it fits the purposes of this particular calculator past what we've already discussed.

(Just justifying my opinion.)

I am thinking about clarifying that the dose ppm option can also be used to account for Stuff in tapwater. Think it necessary?


----------



## Philosophos (Mar 1, 2009)

If you go through Ecology of the Planted Aquarium and do a bit of math, you'll actually find some indications in the specs for getting fertilization through fish food at some decent rates. 2-3ppm of K+, 20ppm of N, etc.

What you have in mind for this calculator and what this hobby needs are two different things. You're taking the initiative to do new things with fertilizer calculation, and you're putting it into graphs which is something people seem to get along with easier. Run with it.

The, "Stuff" part of your calculator gets a little confusing with how repetitive it is. While I like the math, perhaps switching up some variables would make it easier to use.


----------



## goldier (Feb 13, 2010)

wet said:


> I am thinking about clarifying that the dose ppm option can also be used to account for Stuff in tapwater. Think it necessary?


Thanks for the update Wet.

Yeah, the stuff in tap water can be significant depending on where you live. Since city water reports list the stuff in ppm and/or percent, those parameters can simply be fed into your calculator to see how much is reduced or accumulated after factoring in action of plants, bacteria, light, pH, temperature, etc... in the tank.


----------



## wet (Nov 24, 2008)

> If you go through Ecology of the Planted Aquarium and do a bit of math, you'll actually find some indications in the specs for getting fertilization through fish food at some decent rates.


Yes, this is Walstad's groundbreaking work in a chapter with plenty of data to support her claims, as well as her well written insights into what she's observed and measured in her "mature" tanks. You can use her work and the data she's shared in Ecology of the Planted Aquarium for all micro and macro nutrients with this calculator.



> What you have in mind for this calculator and what this hobby needs are two different things.


...

You've typed things like this in multiple threads. So, tell me: what does this hobby need? And please don't type something Plantbrain has taught us many many posts ago. That's not a personal attack, that's me hoping we can advance this hobby and bring something new to the table and advance interesting conversations about plants.

What this hobby needs is to look at the body of work our gurus have taught us. Then we think about it and play with our plants for a while. And then maybe we have an idea that other people like, too. Or some problem or plan we're trying to figure out but are too lazy to pull out a calculator for, or did already and want to compare vs another guy. My target with this calculator are guys like me. And there's plenty of guys like me.

And I'm asking for usable suggestions. These suggestions often bring along an interesting concept by showing how the other guys think. This was an unexpected and pleasant bonus!


> The, "Stuff" part of your calculator gets a little confusing with how repetitive it is. While I like the math, perhaps switching up some variables would make it easier to use.


Do you understand that there's actually lots of variables in the calculator and that "Stuff" is one of them, and by manipulating it, Stuff could be PO4 or NH4 or B or whatever you want? When there's a new variable, say light (working it out in my head), it'll have a new name, like "Light".

One of my ideas is to let you input "Light" by punching in your watts or ft then bulb type. This then compares with Hoppy's standards for PAR and his dropoff vs distance (aka "Low", "Medium", "High", and "Reef-like" light) as the difference in putake rates. But I think this will bring back the same old thoughts of expecting some uptake number instead of thinking in broader terms. aka "stuff" I feed my plants, "light" I use to drive them, "dirt" that, say, Walstad has provided some quantifiable metric we can model from, and so on. I might have to float this to TPT unless some our great data collection members (you, Philosophous?) collects linkage and numbers for PAR v height v bulb type from Hoppy's body of work... I love Hoppy's ideas and posts regardless and would like to have a working model for him to play with and generate new ideas and suggestions. Anyway, this might be a while because of, you know, stuff.

goldier,

Adding tap water's Stuff to the list, just to automate that calculation vs. % water changed.

Adding mg/kg converstion/option to the food Stuff to the list.


----------



## Philosophos (Mar 1, 2009)

wet said:


> You've typed things like this in multiple threads. So, tell me: what does this hobby need? And please don't type something Plantbrain has taught us many many posts ago. That's not a personal attack, that's me hoping we can advance this hobby and bring something new to the table and advance interesting conversations about plants.
> 
> And I'm asking for usable suggestions. These suggestions often bring along an interesting concept by showing how the other guys think. This was an unexpected and pleasant bonus!
> 
> Do you understand that there's actually lots of variables in the calculator and that "Stuff" is one of them, and by manipulating it, Stuff could be PO4 or NH4 or B or whatever you want? When there's a new variable, say light (working it out in my head), it'll have a new name, like "Light".


I was thinking along the lines of basically taking fertilator to the next step. The fact that it does the math for various compounds is great, and that yours does algorithms for WC's plus dosing is very useful too. Synthesis would come first. I understand stuff can be anything, but the problem is people don't know how to think of these various compounds; some don't get calculating K+ in KNO3 by atomic mass in the entirety of their time in the hobby. Don't get me wrong, it's a perfectly good foundation, I'm just trying to suggest ways to expand on it.

Anyhow, after synthesis, the next thing would be to make the system give people what they want. Fertilator fails at this on one very simple step that could be altered by reversing a couple of numbers in an equation. Rather than saying, "I have 10ppm of x substance being added, what does this do?" allow the user to say, "I want 10ppm much of Y nutrient from X substance." In my time helping people with fertilizes, I quite often notice that they even miss doing this for their own calculations; they just try to brute force for something that looks about right.

Your metrics idea is something else that I was going to mention, though in a slightly different way. Doing a little dry weight analysis info gathering (and possibly research) would give us some min/max levels for common macrophyte composition. With a bit of a group/forum initiative involving scales and graduated cylinders, it'd be possible to get some density comparisons and compare stem vs. leaf. With the input and leaf diameter, people would be able to find out their approximate nutrient export rate. It would start a little ham-handed of course, but could be refined over time as the analysis of species is figured out. Wouldn't it be nice to know the min/max of K+ in your system to make up for test kit issues?

I think another consideration that people don't ponder in the hobby is toxicity. The call gets made way too quickly, and in some cases (shrimp + Cu) people don't find out until its too late. Having toxicity bounds/warnings would be neat. Range it from LC50 to NOAEL for fry both fry and adults of the same or similar species depending on the availability of information. Maybe work it in with an interactive fauna list?



wet said:


> What this hobby needs is to look at the body of work our gurus have taught us. Then we think about it and play with our plants for a while. And then maybe we have an idea that other people like, too. Or some problem or plan we're trying to figure out but are too lazy to pull out a calculator for, or did already and want to compare vs another guy. My target with this calculator are guys like me. And there's plenty of guys like me.


I think it's valuable to have an intimidatingly advanced calculator that can go beyond what almost any of us can do, but I think it wouldn't be much to make multiple user modes either. Make a "for dummies" web app and a separate downloadable program.

Either way, I usually abhor calculators because they can stunt the growth of new hobbyists. All the same, people are going to use them. If it's working on an uncommonly large body of knowledge with principles most of us don't have the chance of learning in a lifetime, then it's something quite valuable. I have plans for a fert guide (picking at it right now) which is something that I think the hobby has needed, and it would make it possible for people to know the basics without having to spend all day searching.



wet said:


> One of my ideas is to let you input "Light" by punching in your watts or ft then bulb type. This then compares with Hoppy's standards for PAR and his dropoff vs distance (aka "Low", "Medium", "High", and "Reef-like" light) as the difference in putake rates. But I think this will bring back the same old thoughts of expecting some uptake number instead of thinking in broader terms. aka "stuff" I feed my plants, "light" I use to drive them, "dirt" that, say, Walstad has provided some quantifiable metric we can model from, and so on.


Definitely a good idea. This is the part I was commenting on expanding with analysis in my 3rd paragraph. Who knows, maybe it'd be possible to negotiate the rights on some of Tom's analysis work.



wet said:


> I might have to float this to TPT unless some our great data collection members (you, Philosophous?) collects linkage and numbers for PAR v height v bulb type from Hoppy's body of work... I love Hoppy's ideas and posts regardless and would like to have a working model for him to play with and generate new ideas and suggestions. Anyway, this might be a while because of, you know, stuff.


I've got a bit of Hoppy's work bookmarked for PAR data. I've also got other papers around somewhere showing growth responses of some plants to varying par levels in nature. I don't mind putting on the hard hat and grabbing a canary for some research and data mining. Hi-ho-hi-ho :-\"

I don't think this should be a project based on a specific forum crowd though. There's politics about who will go where and do what; it'd help to break that up. I think neutral ground would be a nice thing to have, even if it's a sub-forum somewhere that the site owner doesn't mind letting run wild for the sake of site traffic. If you're really in it for the long haul on a massive ongoing sort of project, you might as well involve everyone possible. You've already got the credit of its creator, and I haven't seen you mention anything of charging for it. I'm sure if you put this thing under GNU licensing it would encourage more people to give a hand.

Hariom (if you're lurking around) would you be willing to volunteer on the interface should Wet open the project up?


----------



## wet (Nov 24, 2008)

Thank you for taking the time to write a very good post with some newer ideas.

1) I think you are overstating the Fertilator not doing a target PPM as some sort of failure. It is a relatively (compared to hand) fast tool and, as you know, also provides target ranges. It is not difficult for the user to adjust their dose to find new PPMs, and if you are typing of beginners, such shouldn't care too much about exact PPMs (confusion, complication) until s/he is ready for it.

For example, there is nothing fundamentally wrong between the person who says, "I want 5ppm of Stuff" and the other person who says "How much is Stuff is in 1 teaspoon of this compound into my tank?" The latter just translates better for folks, and I would argue is more practical for the majority of folks. The person who does have some target can intuitively change their dose for the target. See how most commercial products instruct dosing, for example.

(I also like to calculate for targets, by the way. I'm just saying I understand this is not of some advantage and more important is understanding what and why we are feeding our plants. I believe we agree on this point.)

2) How are you going to get the dry weight of each compound (say, your K example) from the dry weight of the plants? Titration? Already thought of a howto to do this to get more samples from the many members here who may be willing to participate?

This is an interesting idea we've posted thoughts about on Plantbrain's site (and should here), 'case you missed it.

I guess my point earlier is I sometimes wonder why you're not starting this thread you'd like instead of dismissing ideas on other folks's existing threads exploring new ideas.

3) Yet another nutrient and dosing guide is what you think this hobby needs? When we have a wealth of information in archives, formulas recreating stuff like Seachem or other products (thanks LeftC and all) and oldies but goodies like Chuck's site around? Really? 

4) Toxicity limits would be interesting and indeed an interesting calculation to add to existing tools, though I think we would both agree this number is not one to worry about except for the most extreme cases of Cl, S, and so on, but also think about what "Toxic" means. For example, IIRC Walstad mentioned something like 1ppm N and 0.3ppm P as "polluted" when using waterways.

5) Plantbrain is fairly open with his stuff when used with tools, but building of Melev's Reef, Hoppy's, and other calculations is just as valid. I and Wizard~Of~Ozz did this when we tried to make "lumens/sq in" calculations years ago (before PAR was explained very well among the masses in most forums), for example. We did this by regressing bulb types. The spreadsheet is still floating around the net btw if interested in what the skeleton of a new calc will probably look like and generate ideas.

6) My suggesting I might post to TPT is not a matter of politics. I'm just a guy who likes to grow plants and doesn't have time for multiple forums, man. And for whatever reasons Hoppy and I are regulars on different forums. I do think his input so valuable it is worth seeking him out wherever he is.

I don't think there's a reason to bring some third forum into it.

7) All my calculators and formulas have always had the source available to anyone who asks. I have no desire to charge for contributions back to fellow plant nerds. But, for clarity, there's nothing in the GPL stating one cannot make money off open soure if they want to. (I have no want to. I am saying if someone made a better tool, provided proper credit, and charged for my calc, I don't care, provided I get their source too and can do what I want with the same provisions.) I do not think the GPL a serious document. Consider my work open source. Beerware if you're local or make it to AGA this year 

8) Respectfully, you should not make assumptions about how difficult code is unless you're writing or willing to contribute to the code. I do not have any desire to build a downloadable app (I don't, for example, use Windows or Apple computers, and I am not competent not have any desire to be in something like Java). 

However, you could easily download this script, modify it or run it unmodified in a local web server on any platform -- Perl is ported to Windows or Mac or whatever.

What I'm suggesting is that web interfaces are fast and pimp and let us use mobile phones, which are the best pocket calculators ever. I don't see why there needs to be several versions of some calculator or tool: easy enough for folks of varying experience to omit or use options.

Look forward to and appreciate the offer for collecting PAR data for bulbs v height. Will be extremely helpful. There are also advanced calculators for the same on several reef sites that may be better than reinventing the wheel.


----------



## Philosophos (Mar 1, 2009)

Good idea with the numbering. I can already see the character count bulging. I'm subdividing it a little here and there.

1) I think that it's only a failure because it could be done so easily; they already suggest ppm ranges. All it would take is an option to provide the quantity of fertilizer by weight or volume (ml or teaspoons) required. You could even provide pre-sets for common dosing methods.

2)On forums we usually speak of targets as a matter of ppm, so wouldn't it make sense to provide a tool that allows people to hit these targets? I have a spreadsheet that I use constantly for stock solutions for this exact reason; I input the desired dose, it tells me how much I need. I also don't think the two are mutually exclusive at all; both should be available.



wet said:


> 2.1) How are you going to get the dry weight of each compound (say, your K example) from the dry weight of the plants? Titration? Already thought of a howto to do this to get more samples from the many members here who may be willing to participate?


I've just started figuring out how to make my own titration kits, and I'm not sure what sort of limitations we might find. I think for now it'll have to be highly approximated based on the dry weight analysis work that already exists, which from the little I've looked seems on the scant side.



wet said:


> 2.2) I guess my point earlier is I sometimes wonder why you're not starting this thread you'd like instead of dismissing ideas on other folks's existing threads exploring new ideas.


This is an excellent topic to bring up, at least if you want to figure out why I seem crabby. I throw away most of my ideas because they aren't any good before I even open a book. What makes it from there gets torn apart from what I can read. If I think it might work, I tend to ask someone with a specialty. One good opinion is far more valuable to me.

If someone posts, I tend to assume that they're asking for their idea to be criticized because they've taken it as far as they want/can and now think that the opinion of the forum masses would serve them best. Direct, honest criticism will show them any potential issues much faster than saying nothing. In my mind is not about being right or personal emotions; it's about testing and refining a concept worth having. I think that the most damaging thing you can do to someone's project is to tell them that they have a great idea, that it will work well, etc. while holding back real criticism. It's like encouraging someone to jump off a cliff. Most people don't get this about me, so it comes off harsh to them.

To address what I'm guessing you're alluding to on TBR, it pretty much relates to what I've said. When you posted your thread, I assumed that the calculator was mostly done; that not much expansion would happen. It looked to me like a calculation many of us could've done in excel, kept the outline for future use, and played with the graph tool if we wanted it visualized. This isn't the case though; I didn't realize you were envisioning taking it so much farther. I'm glad you are, and I hope you don't take offense to my bluntness. I don't play well with others, and have been accused of biting those next to me during nap time.

3) No, I think they need a chemistry guide so that they can dose what these people are talking about without being constrained to the forms that they are given in. I think people need a guide that shows them not just how to make one or two working stock solutions, but how to make their own stock solutions based on their needs and curiosities without having to guess or worry. My aim is to provide something that will let people go from assuming that salt means NaCl all the way to mixing and dosing with an understanding of why what they're doing actually works. It's not going to be some quickly hammered out project, but I believe it needs doing.

4) Salmonids keel over if you sneeze at them, so yes 1ppm of N can be polluted. Life from cold water rivers gets abused so frequently that it's frustrating. We're definitely on the same page about concerns; I think having a calculator that includes things like this might calm some others down. At the same time though, I'm watching the Cu content of CSM+B as an interesting little issue. People talk about it not hurting CRS or RCS, I even back some threads saying that it isn't an issue. At the same time, I see people going from .1ppm Fe to 1ppm Fe and dosing it all through CSM+B without asking if it's safe. Just wait until someone writes a great article about iron in some major magazine and cites 6-8ppm as maxed out luxury uptake from JAPM 27: 65-69. I figure some warning bells might be cool just because people tend to leap without looking, especially if everyone else is doing it.

5) I wouldn't mind taking a look over the calculator.

6) It's more a matter of having somewhere central to look at the entire thing. The concepts covered here are intimidating to think of putting together as a large project. If it all gets moved to one forum with an established reputation moderated by one of the usual people then there could be issues. If it's split, then it's obscenely hard to cover. I wouldn't care if the entire thing were hosted on a site advocating the spread of dyed Lake Victoria hybrids, so long as it's something independent of what the rest of the forum is doing. You're running the project, so you or your choice in moderators would create less conflict anyhow.

7) Good to hear. I wouldn't blame you for charging if it gets to the point of being a rather large file with hosting and distribution costs, and thousands of your hours spent.

As you said; If you can make it a website, you can run it offline. If this takes off big, maybe someone would be willing to convert it. I can appreciate the difficulty of coding; the syntax never sits well with me for some reason, but I've written pages of rational expressions at a time for the sake of debate (or MUD's... that counts, right?). Web interface is nice; I would think the obvious first goal is a simple, small calculator. Anything bigger is too far in the distance to worry about for now.

8 ) Good idea with the reefers. Maybe I can sneak off and bother some of the hobbyists around here for a better understanding of how they think of and express it. Two coral farms (inc. GARF) and a SW club are here, so there's a good knowledge base.

I'm working at collecting the FW info right now... Hoppy really needs his own site, or at least a thread linking to all his PAR graphs. I may just ask him for a link dump from his bookmarks. Do you want the whole works raw? If not we've got to discuss what's important, which isn't something I mind doing.

It's unrelated but worth saying; Limnologists should be forced to use standard units of measure rather than making up their own as they go along and leaving the equivalencies in size 6 font on an obscure page.


----------



## wet (Nov 24, 2008)

Just the PAR vs height and bulb types in some table or CSV or spreadsheet would be ideal. Plain text is preferred. What I'd really appreciate is the time saved in collecting that data for, say, T5, T5HO, T8, T12, MH, LED since time is just so limited and we've got a pile of stuff to finish this quarter for work.

Also linkage to the source of data and posts, of course.

Anyway:

Added:
Option for % or mg/kg conversion for Food.
% Stuff in tapwater (to simplify that conversion for folks)
Options for 2 or 4 times a week dosing (in addition to 1, 3 or 7 times)
The ability to choose 0% water changes

Fixed:
Unreadable Y-axis increments when the Stuff goes too far negative when using the custom uptake option
Legend word-wrapping

<3


----------



## wet (Nov 24, 2008)

So, I put this together as a proof of concept for a project with hariom, but it was built while keeping in mind that some folks have trouble conceptualizing "Stuff" -- so, this is just another nutrient calculator, but extra bonus is when done it then replaces "Stuff" in the Concentrations vs Time and Plant Uptake calculator with your actual stuff.

http://calc.petalphile.com/

This is my first Ruby, Sinatra, or Haml script, but if you'd like it, the source is here:

http://downoi.petalphile.com/calc/nutes.rb

Thanks!


----------



## wet (Nov 24, 2008)

Wanted to play with something new running in the background, so the Concentrations of Stuff vs Time and Plant Uptake calculator now does CSV export! Check it out under "Options" - the link will be in bold under the graph.

http://wet.biggiantnerds.com/ei/con_v_time.pl


----------



## wet (Nov 24, 2008)

I hope nobody minds my using this thread and the one on Plantbrain's site as sort of community changelogs for these two calculators as I have time or reason to play with them. 

A while ago, Tug suggested that the wording for liquid dosing on http://calc.petalphile.com was confusing. So, the output for that style of dosing is now something like



> To reach your target of 15.0 ppm NO3,
> you'll need to add 1851.66 mg of KNO3
> into your 500.0 mL container.
> Each 5.0 mL of that mix into 20.0 gal is:
> ...


or



> Your dose of 780.0 mg KNO3 into your
> 500.0 mL container, with doses of 5.0 mL
> into a 20.0 gal tank gives:
> 
> ...


Thanks!


----------



## Tex Gal (Nov 1, 2007)

I, for one, appreciate you guys doing this sort of thing. There are those who count, and others who just look at the pile and say, "That's a lot of stuff!". I think I fall more in the latter category. I love the tools that count for me. The easier to use the better. Thanks for doing the grunt work!


----------



## wet (Nov 24, 2008)

That's awesome, Tex Gal. One of the coolest things Plantbrain ever said was that his goal with his Plantbraininess was not to get us obsessed with numbers and nutrients and stuff but to get us obsessed with our aquascaping and enjoying plants and animals. I'm honored if my tools help anyone get to that goal.


----------



## wet (Nov 24, 2008)

http://wet.biggiantnerds.com/ei/con_v_time.pl now does (a linear) regression!


----------



## wet (Nov 24, 2008)

New http://calc.petalphile.com stuff from your suggestions! :

Now does CaCl2.2H2O, CaSO4, CaMg(CO3)2, MgSO4.7H2O
Does dGH (as CaO equivalents) for all the above
Does dKH (as CO3 equivalents) from CaMg(CO3)2

Fixed bugs:
Liquid dosing showing per dose and not stock solution amounts in instructions
Dry dosing to target broken after fixing the above

Thanks! Have fun!


----------



## wet (Nov 24, 2008)

1) More new stuff: Folks -- Andy Ritter, for example -- have recently been looking at elemental N and P instead of only looking at NO3 and PO4. Now the calculator does, too.

2) The calculator was designed for compatibility on most mobile phones as well as our desktops, and one of the bonuses of this is you can open http://calc.petalphile.com into a new window, resize it to some shape you like, and just have it hang out off to the side or in the background when you're calculating stuff.

Attached is a screen shot to show what I mean, case you've not gotten around to using it this way yet.

3) Recently, Biollante over on The Barr Report has been making a point to whiteboard and show calculations, and observed that some tools don't take the time to show how they calculate. So, I thought I'd show how to do Mg, in light of recent threads about GH and stuff, and how the calculator goes about looking at such a problem. I'm using these tags here to make a pretend whiteboard since I only have a dirty chalkboard at hand. 

We'll assume a tank of 10 gallons. We are adding 1000mg of MgSO4.7H2O. We are looking for the resulting Mg ppm in our 10 gallon tank.

With the help of our chemistry book, we know that:

```
Mg is 24.30506 grams per mol
MgSO4.7H2O is 246.4755 g/mol
(thats the 1 Mg, 1 S, 14 H's, and 11 O's.)
ppm is the same as mg/L
```
Here's our formula. I'm using [ ] to enclose our constants. The calculator does this at once, of course, but let's deal with the stuff in the brackets first, and we'll drop out units as we cancel them out while retaining the stuff we have not cancelled out yet. 

```
ppm Mg = [ g/mol Mg ] / [ g/mol MgSO4.7H2O ] * 1000mg MgSO4.7H2O / ( 10 gal * [  3.785 L/gal  ] )

ppm Mg = [ 24.30506 g/mol Mg / 246.4755 g/mol MgSO4.7H2O ] * 1000mg MgSO4.7H2O / (  10 gal * [  3.785 L/gal  ]  )

ppm Mg = [ 0.09861 ] * 1000mg /  37.85 L
```
2.605 ppm Mg

4) Still owe:

Toxicity indicators (I'd love help collecting this data!)
Comparison between your results and EI, PPS-Pro, and Walstad. (A graph?)
New ideas?


----------



## wet (Nov 24, 2008)

Plantbrain thinks glutaraldehyde calculations would be popular, so added to the list.

dbazuin makes the great point that using mg instead of grams adds an extra step for many hobbyists, so...

*New stuff:*
1) Now accepts grams as input! Always outputs grams for amount to reach a target.

2) Results page for calculating amount added always returns your units (mg, g, or tsp)

3) Graphs of relative concentrations between PPS-Pro, EI, and you!

I'm using standard EI ( http://barrreport.com ) and PPS-Pro ( http://sites.google.com/site/aquaticplantfertilizer ) ideal ranges for these graphs. I've omitted the Hoagland's solutions since their PPM is so high it throws the whole scale off. Still need to add others and am interested in what you'd like to see added!

What do you think? Is it confusing? Does it make sense? Suggestions?










Thanks!


----------



## wet (Nov 24, 2008)

Added Walstad's values for the "Model Aquarium" (Table V-7 from her book). There's a 20% buffer to her values to ensure they are visible in the graph.


----------



## wet (Nov 24, 2008)

New stuff for http://calc.petalphile.com:

1) Usability: removed noise (unnecessary words) from dGH and dKH calculations. No one mentioned the distinction for CaO and CO3-specific calculations, so we don't either.
2) Feature: added calculations for Mg (and dGH provided), Mo, B, and Co from comprehensive traces Plantex CSM+B, Miller MicroPlex, and Rexolin APN
3) Supported compounds for input are now sorted in alphabetical order.

Nerds:
4a) These projects are now on github for your forking or collaborative pleasure! I'm focusing on calc.petalphile.com (Ruby) as I have free time to learn. http://bit.ly/azfsom
4b) Code: compound_constants.yml now holds about 100 lines worth of constants that was previously in the controller (nutes.rb)


----------



## wet (Nov 24, 2008)

See what's coming next for the Concentraions of Stuff vs Time and Plant Uptake calculator, including faster load times, the ability to save graphs (you'll need to register), view those saved graphs (this one is currenty buggy, but feel free to play around), and give feedback via PM at http://petalphile.com/alpha/con_v_time.pl

Teaser image:


----------



## wet (Nov 24, 2008)

*http://ei.petalphile.com* (aka http://wet.biggiantnerds.com/ei/con_v_time.pl )
1) New domain name to make your life easier.
2) Pushed the changes above -- you'll need to create an account to save graphs. Folks who created test accounts (thank you!) still have those accounts active.

*http://calc.petalphile.com*
1) Now sends an alert if it or you make a solution higher than the solubility of the compound.
- I'm using solubility at 20-25 degrees Celsius as "room temperature"
- It sends an alert when you're within 20% or higher of that solubility.
- Currently does KNO3, KH2PO4, KCl, K2SO4, CaCl2.2H2O, CaSO4.1/2H2O, CaSO4.2H2O, MgSO4.7H2O, and MnSO4.H2O
2) Added CaSO4.1/2H2O (aka Plaster of Paris) per request.

Thanks!


----------



## wet (Nov 24, 2008)

More stuff for http://calc.petalphile.com :

Added common forms of "Calcium Nitrate": Ca(NO3)2.4H2O and 5Ca(NO3)2.NH4NO3.10H2O (really Calcium-Ammonium-Nitrate).
Added Mb and Cu calculations for Microplex. (Tug's request)
Corrected Mo and Cu typo in CSM+B. (nipat)
Graph comparing EI, Walstad, and PPS-Pro now uses Fe ranges for Mn. (for consistency)
Added Copper alert. (barbarossa4122)

The copper alert looks like this:


I was going to add Sulphur, too, since folks sometimes ask for it, but googling gave this article: http://pmep.cce.cornell.edu/profiles/extoxnet/pyrethrins-ziram/sulfur-ext.html It says:


> Effects on Aquatic Organisms
> 
> The 96-hour LC50 values for two fish species, bluegill sunfish and rainbow trout, are greater than 180 ppm in a study using a 99.5% sulfur dust formulation. The 48-hour LC50 for daphnia and the 96-hour LC50 for mysid shrimp is reported to be greater than 5,000 and 736 ppm, respectively, in a study using 90% sulfur (9, 10). In studies on ecological effects involving two fish species, daphnia, and mysid shrimp, sulfur has been shown to be practically non-toxic to the species tested (1, 3, 7, 8).


... So at180 to greater than 736ppm S, I don't think any of us will ever need to worry about it.

Suggestions and requests are always welcome!


----------



## barbarossa4122 (Dec 31, 2009)

Best nutrient calc around folks.


----------



## JeffyFunk (Apr 6, 2006)

wet said:


> Added Mb and Cu calculations for Microplex. (Tug's request)


What is Mb?


----------



## wet (Nov 24, 2008)

JeffyFunk said:


> What is Mb?


My forgetting the abbreviation for Molybdenum.  Thanks! Fixed.

So tug found a great link Philosophous posted a while ago, with animals much more specific to our aquarius than the MSDS above: http://www.pesticideinfo.org/List_AquireAcuteSum.jsp?Rec_Id=PC33538&Taxa_Group=Crustaceans&offset=0

You can look up individual species here but it is cumbersome:
http://www.pesticideinfo.org/List_AquireAll.jsp?Rec_Id=PC33538&offset=200

Sweet, right? If we use the standard of Caridina sp., we have a value of 0.072ppm Cu as safe (the Lethal Concentration * 50%). What do you think? Should this be the new standard for Copper moving forward?

If so, lets use this same philosophy for all the other nutrients and collect it for all the elements we dose, then if we are in danger of overdosing have the calculator cite how much we're over, with what species, and a link.

If folks are up for helping collecting this for any nutrients they're worried about (say, Fe or N or B or whatever), we could get this online quickly!


----------



## wet (Nov 24, 2008)

So, I'm moving forward with the best information available and open documentation path. There's now a publicly editable wiki page here:

https://github.com/flores/yet-another-nutrient-calculator/wiki/Copper(Cu)

In it we have the safe levels recommended for various common species in our aquariums -- Red Cherry Shrimp, Rosy Barbs, Stone Loaches, and so on. I've added notes regarding Tug's suggestions of pH and Plantbrain's warnings of inbreeding increasing chances of toxicity. These documents at the Pesticides Database are aggregates from various University studies and science programs. I believe this standard with specific species is good place to set our guidelines.

The calculator alerts on the lowest acceptable number: Caridina sp at 0.072ppm Cu. I kept the percentage over in the calculator alert because I think it's intuitive and saves time as folks ballpark a smaller dose to stay below this alert threshold.


----------



## barbarossa4122 (Dec 31, 2009)

wet said:


> So, I'm moving forward with the best information available and open documentation path. There's now a publicly editable wiki page here:
> 
> https://github.com/flores/yet-another-nutrient-calculator/wiki/Copper(Cu)
> 
> ...


Hey Wet,

I used your calculator and it looks like I have to stay away from Microplex when dosing micros in my 10g rcs tank. I'll just use Microplex for my other non shrimps tanks. Why is Microplex so high in Cu ?


----------



## wet (Nov 24, 2008)

Keep in mind that per the pesticide database, Red Cherry Shrimp's tolerance is 5x higher than that alert, which is conservative and geared towards Crystal Red Shrimp or other highly sensitive Caridina sp. At your regular doses you like you're well under the Cu threshold for RCS.

Microplex, like Plantex, was originally an agricultural fertilizer. I don't know why they choose to ut so much copper relative to other fertilizers.


----------



## barbarossa4122 (Dec 31, 2009)

wet said:


> Keep in mind that per the pesticide database, Red Cherry Shrimp's tolerance is 5x higher than that alert, which is conservative and geared towards Crystal Red Shrimp or other highly sensitive Caridina sp. At your regular doses you like you're well under the Cu threshold for RCS.
> 
> Microplex, like Plantex, was originally an agricultural fertilizer. I don't know why they choose to ut so much copper relative to other fertilizers.


Hey,

Thanks for the reply Wet. To be safe and considering that this rcs tank is "my wife's" tank I'll just let her continue dosing RootMedic liquid micros and macros and some extra Fe Gluconate solution I made. She's dosing RM for about 2 wks now and the results are very good. Anyway the RM liquid ferts I bought for her will last forever. I think you like Microplex a little better than CSM. May I ask you why ? Btw, the mailman just delivered my 1/2 lb of Microplex from GLA.


----------



## wet (Nov 24, 2008)

I think that's a really good plan.

I played with Microplex at the same time I played with Tropica Master Grow and Greg Watson's old Plantex CSM+B+Extra Fe, around 2006. I remember Microplex clouding less than Plantex (which, when dosed into my tanks from concentrated solutions, tends to sink near the bottom of the tank and take a minute to dissipate). I also remember it clumping less than Plantex, though this may be mitigated by Orlando's grinding of the stuff nowadays. In terms of plants, I just think Tropica and Microplex dosing for extended periods just looked a little nicer. I was playing with isolated traces (keeping the rest non-limiting) and these tanks at the time. Nothing special but fwiw my biggest interests were nice moss, nice P. stellatus 'Narrow Leaf', and nice Rotala sp, respectively, and I think those tanks got there: 2.5 gal, 8 gal, 10 gal

(The 2.5gal and 10gal had no mechanical/powered filtration and always had clarity issues. Also good for testing the cloudiness of different ferts  )


----------



## barbarossa4122 (Dec 31, 2009)

wet said:


> I think that's a really good plan.
> 
> I played with Microplex at the same time I played with Tropica Master Grow and Greg Watson's old Plantex CSM+B+Extra Fe, around 2006. I remember Microplex clouding less than Plantex (which, when dosed into my tanks from concentrated solutions, tends to sink near the bottom of the tank and take a minute to dissipate). I also remember it clumping less than Plantex, though this may be mitigated by Orlando's grinding of the stuff nowadays. In terms of plants, I just think Tropica and Microplex dosing for extended periods just looked a little nicer. I was playing with isolated traces (keeping the rest non-limiting) and these tanks at the time. Nothing special but fwiw my biggest interests were nice moss, nice P. stellatus 'Narrow Leaf', and nice Rotala sp, respectively, and I think those tanks got there: 2.5 gal, 8 gal, 10 gal
> 
> (The 2.5gal and 10gal had no mechanical/powered filtration and always had clarity issues. Also good for testing the cloudiness of different ferts  )


Tug suggested to me that I can mix 3 tsp of CSM and 5 tsp Miller in a 500ml bottle. I'll use this solution just for the non shrimps tanks.


----------



## wet (Nov 24, 2008)

Just another changelog-y update:

Still no progress on the new project incorporating light and CO2 into a dosing plan, but Hoppy has very kindly given us permission to use his images for the lighting section. I'm sorry the idea has not been moved from your suggestions and the concept to a page you can poke around yet.

Here's new stuff on the old projects:

http://ei.petalphile.com :

a) Some folks are using automated water change systems to exchange some percentage of their water daily, and you can now model this with the calculator. The smallest increment of time is a day, but still smooths out nicely:









Folks who use this method can also change the optional fields to add known concentrations of Stuff in their PWC reservoir or whatever.

b) Switched to MongoDB (aka NoSQL, aka faster) for the data-store.

c) Animations/sliding sections for Optional and Nerdy input. Degrades gracefully for browsers that do not support javascript.

d) Asynchronus web forms. Because of the animation this is actually slightly slower, but I think more intuitive for folks.

e) There's no longer a login form -- this was hardly ever used and was more my learning for non-aquarium-related things anyway.

f) I've begun building an API so people with more design skills can make a prettier and maybe better calculator. If you're interested, try sending over a POST with something like this to ei.petalphile.com :

```
dose            33
dose_freq	3
pwc		1.5
pwc_freq	week
length		three months
known_uptake	
known_uptake_units	
initial	
dose_pwc	
tap_conc	
food_mg	
tank	
tank_units	
food_conc	
food_units
```
I'm planning on moving it to JSON and doing this via GET. If you're interested in making a sweet front-end to these calculators, or want to calculate things I'm not, I'd love to build the API in a way that helps you as much as possible.

http://calc.petalphile.com :

a) Added 11% DTPA from greenleafaquariums.com -- Dempsey kindly sent over a sample so we could add it to the calc.

b) Now accepts fractions for input. For example, you can use 3/4 tsp of whatever.

petalphile.com as a whole now uses Amazon's Content Delivery Network to get data to our non-US folks a little faster. I'm rolling this out slowly but you'll see it when images and stuff come from cdn.petalphile.com

Thanks!


----------

