Went away for a week, came back to 1.60 salinity...??

[gobytron]

ATO was working perfectly.

No fish losses but all of my coral are affected, my clam detached (after 2 years in the same spot) but seems okay.

Most coming back, some will have to wait and see.

Cyano and dino flare up all close to gone now.

In any case, can't figure out for the life of me how this happened?

Any thoughts or suggestions?

[mrhasan]

I read the number wrong LOL. Never mind....

[Coralgurl]

Is your there a chance your ato was topped up with salt water? I had left a bottle of salt water by my tank after a water change and went away for a weekend. My daughter ended up refilling the ato reservoir with this bottle of salty water rather than ro water. She didn't know as I didn't tell her, luckily it was a 1/2 full 5 gallon jug, so not a huge impact. Any chance of something like this happening?

[Tom R]

ATO was working perfectly.


Cyano and dino flare up all close to gone now.



And then there is the brite side

Tom R

[Delphinus]

What are you using to measure salinity/SG ?

[gobytron]

I use a regularly calibrated Vertex refractometer.

I actually tested my top up water and it was 0 on the same refractometer.

To clarify, the Dino and Cyano happened due to the salinity increase, and now, after 3 30 gallon water changes (it's a 95 gallon tank with 60 gallon sump) we're back to 1.24-1.25 and the dino's are all gone with very little cyano in some lower flow spots remaining.

[sphelps]

salinity is 1.6? salinity of NSW is like 35... So you essentially have a fresh water tank now?

[Bblinks]

thought fresh water is at 1? 1.6 is like triple the natural salinity...

[Delphinus]

I thought he meant maybe his SG went up to 1.060 from 1.025 or whatever he normally keeps it at.

[Rogue951]

do u dose as well? I noticed mine climbed from 1.025 to 1.031. only thing I could put it down to was dosing.
I think specifically it was magnesium. I was trying the whole add tons of mag and hope the algae will die off trick... never got it to work.

[sphelps]

Ah specific gravity with a missing zero, makes more sense now. I have no idea how it could get that high without interference. More salt must have been added.

[Dearth]

What about salt build up around edges of tank falling in

[sphelps]

What about salt build up around edges of tank falling in

I can't see it. For reference to raise specific gravity of 120 gallons of saltwater from 1.025 to 1.060 you would need around 100 cups of salt, so more than the average bucket... I'm surprised anything would survive at that level.

[howdy20012002]

i think something is wrong with your refractometer
fish would have a very difficult time living in that much salt as they would not be able to dispel waster properly. I think that you would not have any live fish at that high of salt.
also coral would not do well, if not die, in that much salt.
that is almost 3 times the normal amount of salt.
it would be very hard to accidentally have that high of level unless someone dumped an extra bucket of salt into tank over the last week.
IMO, if it had been such a huge increase over the week period you were gone, you definitely would have losses as things can't adjust that quickly to such a large increase of osmotic pressure.
and I don't see how dosing various suppliments would do anything to the salt content as they are two separate things.

[sphelps]

Yeah I would venture my guess towards a measurement issue as well but probably user error since the posted measurement wasn't salinity nor an accurate SG. Not to be rude but if you can't write it down properly, there's a good chance you didn't read it properly either.

Also just noticed "Perpetual Water Changer" in your sig, what's that about?

[howdy20012002]

not trying to insult you, but make sure when you use your refractometer that you wash it before and wipe it down really well.
sometimes remaing saltwater will dry out and leave the salt residue on the lense and you will get a wonky reading the next time you use it.
i would definitely think it is a reading error of some sort.

[Delphinus]

I'm inclined to agree that there was a problem or error in the reading. A 95 gallon with 60 gallon sump, let's assume around 120 gallons of water in this system, would require in the order of 240 cups of salt to go from 1.000 to 1.025 (so 240 cups for a jump of 0.025). Correspondingly a jump to 1.060 from 1.025, a difference of 0.035 would be in the ballpark of 336 cups of salt.

[Myka]

Ime, reef inhabitants become irritated around 1.035 (SPS corals much sooner). I don't trust your refractometer. Do you happen to have anything else around to test with? Even a hydrometer reading would help at this point.

[paddyob]

Did you try calibrate your refractometer?

[gobytron]

The proof is in the pudding.
fish were lethargic and almost all coral gone other than some zoas and palys that look like they might come back.

A couple of LPS seem to have fared the best.

I assure you, my refractometer is regularly calibrated and this isn't the only tank in my house so I know the reading is accurate as my 14 gallon and 60 gallon tanks are still right around 1.024-1.025. I've been reefing for about 10 years, I'm well aware that you should clean your refractometer with fresh water before and after each use.

I also calibrate is every couple of months.


Guys, I'm seriously looking for suggestions here and not banter.

If you don't have suggestions beyond my own personal error please don't post here.

[gobytron]

Yeah I would venture my guess towards a measurement issue as well but probably user error since the posted measurement wasn't salinity nor an accurate SG. Not to be rude but if you can't write it down properly, there's a good chance you didn't read it properly either.

Also just noticed "Perpetual Water Changer" in your sig, what's that about?

Really?
I ask for some helpful suggestions and someone who has 4200 posts can only offer insults like this?

I wrote this post up at work, was in a rush to do so as there are things other than being on canreef I'm sure my employer would like me doing so I missed a 0.

I'm sorry if that makes you think I'm an idiot.
I don't mean to be rude, but that was an unfair and pointless statement to make.

I have a hard time believing that you've NEVER had a spelling or syntax error sphelps?

Im a perpetual water changer because I have so many tanks and they all need water changes so I change water, you know, a lot.

[sphelps]

Ok, gremlins probably went to the LFS and bought two pails of salt, then when you were away they dumped the two full pails into your tank. It's always the gremlins.

[gobytron]

Really.
Thanks very much for your help Sphelps.

Maybe someone else here might benefit from your wisdom though.

I think you've just about maxed out your usefulness on this thread.

Gremlins or measurement error indeed.

[sphelps]

you're welcome :biggrin:

[Myka]

The proof is in the pudding.
fish were lethargic and almost all coral gone other than some zoas and palys that look like they might come back.

If you don't have suggestions beyond my own personal error please don't post here.

There is no reason to start getting rude. Your story doesn't make sense, so either there is a hole in the story or there is user error. That error could be with handling the refractometer or it could be something like adding SW instead of FW. It makes perfect sense that someone would say user error, and you would say the same thing. I have about 20 years of reefing experience and I still make stupid mistakes...it happens. ;)

You didn't say the corals were lost. You said "my coral are affected" which really makes it sound that simply the corals are irritated.

When was the last time you checked the specific gravity of the tank and had it within normal range? If you checked just before you left, and you came back after a week to 1.060 then someone added A LOT of salt to your tank. Evaporation would not account for that amount of salt in the system even under extreme circumstances - maybe if you had a flat dish of water with a fan blowing on it. If you are sure no one added salt directly to the tank then I think your refractometer is not reading the high SG correctly, and it was probably more like 1.035-1.040 to begin with. Given the right conditions I could see SG getting that high with no FW top off, but not under normal conditions. How much FW did it take to lower the SG?

[gobytron]

I hope a lot of newbies read this thread and think twice before asking for help on this board.

Sphelps is what you'll get.

[christyf5]

just because someone has 4200 posts doesn't mean they're an expert. I consider myself an excellent case in point as I am no expert.

Ok so you've measured 2 other tanks with the same refractometer and both of them come out normal? Yet your "problem" tank was 1.060 correct? And now you've gotten the salinity down to normal? (sorry its been a very rough morning and the caffeine hasn't kicked in yet).

I don't know what to suggest, frankly I don't think there is any way fish could live in that environment as the constant clearing of chloride from their system would overwhelm them osmotically and they'd kick off after mere days. I have no idea how corals regulate themselves but I would imagine they'd be stressed all to hell.

Definitely puzzling.

[christyf5]

Sphelps is what you'll get.

LOL, you've been around for awhile and you're just figuring this out now? :razz:

[gobytron]

There is no reason to start getting rude. Your story doesn't make sense, so either there is a hole in the story or there is user error. That error could be with handling the refractometer or it could be something like adding SW instead of FW. It makes perfect sense that someone would say user error, and you would say the same thing. I have about 20 years of reefing experience and I still make stupid mistakes. ;)

You didn't say the corals were lost. You said "my coral are affected" which really makes it sound that simply the corals are irritated.

When was the last time you checked the specific gravity of the tank and had it within normal range? If you checked just before you left, and you came back after a week to 1.060 then someone added A LOT of salt to your tank. Evaporation would not account for that amount of salt in the system even under extreme circumstances - maybe if you had a flat dish of water with a fan blowing on it. If you are sure no one added salt directly to the tank then I think your refractometer is not reading the high SG correctly, and it was probably more like 1.035-1.040 to begin with. Given the right conditions I could see SG getting that high with no FW top off, but not under normal conditions. How much FW did it take to lower the SG?


I guess you need 4000 plus posts to have reason to be rude?

Maybe there is a part of the story missing, but I don't know what it is.
I do know my refractometer is working perfectly and my salinity was at 1.060.

Remember, i had to do 3 30 gallon water changes to get it back to 1.024 or so.

I didn't imagine those and I also didn't imagine the levels in my other tanks measuring normal.

I also must have checked the salinity level 6 times before believing what i was seeing.

[gobytron]

just because someone has 4200 posts doesn't mean they're an expert. I consider myself an excellent case in point as I am no expert.

Ok so you've measured 2 other tanks with the same refractometer and both of them come out normal? Yet your "problem" tank was 1.060 correct? And now you've gotten the salinity down to normal? (sorry its been a very rough morning and the caffeine hasn't kicked in yet).

I don't know what to suggest, frankly I don't think there is any way fish could live in that environment as the constant clearing of chloride from their system would overwhelm them osmotically and they'd kick off after mere days. I have no idea how corals regulate themselves but I would imagine they'd be stressed all to hell.

Definitely puzzling.

An expert on being a prick maybe.

[Aquattro]

Clearly we can't have a mature conversation about this, so everyone needs a break.
sphelps, next time you post as a condescending *****, you'll be leaving us.

[Delphinus]

Don't get grumpy, people are trying to help you. I have to ask the questions I asked because I don't know you, I don't know your tank and I don't know your setup so I have to try to fill in the blanks as best I can. I assume others are in a similar situation as well. Try not to be grumpy as we try to get the full picture here. I am legitimately trying to help here...

Anyhow if you follow my earlier post, 1.060 (I assume you meant 1.06, because 1.6 would be .. ketchup, maybe, or jello or something. :lol: For comparison's sake, I think the Great Salt Lake in Utah is in the ballpark of 1.17 and the Dead Sea is something like 1.25.)

If you follow my earlier post, going to 1.060 would take a rather extraordinary amount of salt which is why I find it easier to suspect a reading error. It doesn't take much to throw a refractometer off (an air bubble, an incomplete film of water between the glass and cover, or debris, etc.) In actual fact I would NOT suspect a calibration error because that it is so far off the charts.

But if you're absolutely certain there was no error in the reading then basically your water was too salty. (And, incidentally, I did the math and I agree that it would take 3, 30 gallon water changes (using 1.000 water) to take 120gal @1.060 down to 1.025, so if that is what you did, then I believe you that your water was that salty.)

But how you got there??? That is weird. Somehow something dissolved into the tank that added to the water's specific gravity, or that amount of salt was somehow added (either wittingly or unwantonly). Are you certain it hasn't been creeping up over a long period of time and things just came to a head while you were away?

Could something have died and melted and thus contributed to a temporary spike in SG? But you'd think you'd basically have a tank of death at that point with ammonia off the charts.

Do you run a calcium reactor by chance?

[Delphinus]

Wow a lot of posts happened in the 20 minutes it apparently took me to type that last reply in. :(

Good luck, I hope you get it all sorted out, whatever the case may be, or have been ...