Wet's EI modeling dosing calculator

[Tom Barr]

This modeling calculator is pretty useful to estimate many things with EI type water changes and dosing thereafter etc.

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

You can factor fish waste as well as any nutrient you want and see what the trend will be over time.

It does not factor things like light in terms of PAR, nor sediment based ferts, nor CO2, nor total plant biomass .........these are also key, but it does give a % uptake assumption in the out put.

Regards,
Tom Barr

..Edit Jason 4th July 2017..

The new updated versions of wets Calculators can now be found here on the Barr report

https://barrreport.com/pages/planted-tank-calculators/

 

[Biollante]

I Love Stuff

Hi,

That is a marvelous calculator! :gw

I would think the “percent uptake assumption” accounts for the missing things such as PAR, CO2 and total plant biomass. The trick of course is “knowing” the total uptake.

I think this calculator is a good argument for frequent large-scale water changes.

Biollante

 

[dbazuin]

On the other hand. A water change of 33% instead of 50% seems to do the trick just as fine.

It is a great tool. But it it would also be nice if you good give the uptake in ppm.

 

[Wet]

Thank you!

dbazuin,

Done.

It will also calculate the weekly uptake ppm as a percentage of the input ppm. Also allows for >100% uptake, should you want to model something goofy or look at a mistake or something.

Here is another calculator/concept I am surprised does not get more folks thinking and playing: building a smaller CO2 ballpark using two drop checkers and assumptions about human error: http://wet.biggiantnerds.com/drop_calc.pl It does not solve the CO2 measurement problem and is not as fast and accurate as $$$ equipment, but surprisingly effective. Note the word "ballpark"

Thanks again!

 

[Tom Barr]

Since you are on a roll, you might take the Par data from Hoppy's graph(see comparison of T5, T12, and PC on TPT thread) and make a model for light also.
I'd add a +/- 10micromol fudge factor.

You can also add a distance component from the water's surface to the light, and the total distance.
Most folks have a ruler etc, but not a PAR meter.
Other issues etc, but might help and should be easy to use.

CO2?
That one is going to be really tough.


Regards,
Tom Barr

 

[dbazuin]

Great.
But when you choose for ppm the legenda spread out more horizontal en the first and last % get a bit out of sigth.
I assume this is a small error in your script that is easily to fix.
Maybe if it is possible you good set the lines above. Thats give a easier reading

Also You know have 1, 3 or 7 times weekly. Why not add 4.

Also I have been looking at your pictures. And I must say this tanks are looking great.

 

[Wet]

dbazuin,

Update when I have time again. Thanks for these ideas and finds -- the maximum limits and nicer formatting currently only work when we don't drive nutrient levels below 0.

Tom,

What if the user could enter watts and bulb type, and the calculator would find umol then an assumed uptake rate at that range. What if then instead of 0, 25, 75, and 90% uptake colors it did the same idea depending on distance of the lights from the tank, as low through maximum umols? What do you think?

 

[Tom Barr]

Try it and see........then compare to Hoppy's graph

Regards
Tom Barr

 

[Tug]

Verry Cool

I like were this is going. The only other factor driving nutrient uptake to include then, is CO2. Along with lighting information, there could be three injected CO2 options - none, a mid-range and ≥ 20ppm (or upper limit). Maybe an algae warning pop up when someone has more light then need explaining CO2 and lighting recommendations.

 

[Tom Barr]

If you look at Tropica's article on light and CO2 with Riccia, then plug in nutrients to that, then you have somewhat like this model.
CO2 is very tough though for aquarist. Light and nutrients are much easier.
But CO2 causes a huge difference, not to mention algae issues etc.

Regards,
Tom Barr

 

[Wet]

Should we really get too caught up in PAR vs height instead of using the % uptake as a ball park for these variables? I mean that a person doing standard EI proportions would intuitively think of 90% uptake as "High light"/very high PAR and adjust accordingly for less light, no?

 

[dbazuin]

Just one other thing. In some area's the tapwater contains some NO3. So maybe you need a option to add that value to.

 

[Tug]

Let the Rumpus Begin.

I see Wet's point. I know ruffly what percentage uptake I am looking at for my tank. This boat could capsize if we keep piling on. Maybe a simple explanation of what conditions would constitute 100% uptake.

Adding too much stuff to calculate stuff might bring Niecy Nash to the door. She is always cleaning out stuff for people who can't find there way through the mounds of stuff. It might require "PAR vs height" has it's own life raft. It would be nice to use the PAR data from Hoppy's graph.

Just one other thing. In some area's the tapwater contains some NO3. So maybe you need a option to add that value to.

Already there, "start with X ppm stuff after a waterchange."

 

[Tom Barr]

That's the Fausian trade off, too much= mud, not enough= cannot predict accurately over a wide range of aquariums.

For my tanks, I have a light meter.
So I can measure and add this, measure the % uptake.
Then use that to dial in the model.

But that would be only for my own tank.
Adding a good reliable CO2 ppm would be nice as well, but again, pretty tough.
I think there's going to be some eyeballing going on, but it might help folks to predict their water changes and dosing routines some, but not the rest as much.

Perhaps a few comments about light in terms of PAR, CO2 and the issues many assume about it, and plant type/species/total biomass etc and sediment type(source of nutrients or inert).

Regards,
Tom Barr


Regards,
Tom Barr

 

[Biollante]

There Is "Stuff" Then There Is "Stuff"

On the other hand. A water change of 33% instead of 50% seems to do the trick just as fine.

It is a great tool. But it it would also be nice if you good give the uptake in ppm.

Hi Tom,

While the 33% or even 0% water changes may work well for “high uptake” tanks where we are only talking “stuff” taken up by plants for “stuff” not taken up by plants we need to look at the “no uptake” “red” part of the graph.

As I said earlier, I think this calculator makes excellent case for the large 70-80% water changes to maintain a given water quality.

Thanks once again for a wonderful calculator that takes into account more factors than many realize.

Biollante

 

[Wet]

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:
Y-axis increments giving too many decimals when the Stuff goes too far negative when using the custom uptake option
Legend word-wrapping

Thought you guys would like this. I call it The Barr Effect:
Average posts (submits) per day: 126
Average posts (submits) per day since Plantbrain linked this calculator on a couple sites, and those people linked on more sites: 619

Sweet.

Thanks!

 

[Tom Barr]

I want a cut of the rent on your site later

Regards, '
Tom Barr

 

[dbazuin]

Perfect Wet
Now al it need is a fancy layout

 

[Wet]

pssssst...

This is a proof of concept I put together for a project with hariom (from APC) and to learn something for work, and it's not quite done yet, but check this out and what it does to Stuff.
http://calc.petalphile.com/

 

[Tom Barr]

Like it, looks better.

Regards,
Tom Barr