Should we rethink and refine means and methods for cycling tanks?

[LRT]

Haha its all good. Ive set up too many quick cycle tanks and tracked nh3 with seneye too many times to know it detect levels to lowest concentrations and tell peeps that there is absolutely a better tool for reefers to test nh3

 

[MnFish1]

Rev should do this:

create one of those social media release threads about unsticking cycles

it will get six hundred thousand clicks, cycle help post


with the team that does debate here, reef2reef can fix cycles better than any site in the world.


instead of doing battle it will take all of us to field the wall of posts that will happen. this is free data, free pattern, free accountability let's go ahead and get that done


as a separate thread, where there's so much help me unstick/help my nitrite we won't have time to battle. we will have to aim at the tanks being presented

make that thread, a live time cycle assist thread let me get my track shoes I don't own on.

a wall of help my cycle posts will happen, a wall.

we each take seven of them at once

this is the preferred title


Reef2Reef Can Fix your Cycle

its nobody's work thread to take over, we'll need help managing the posts. it would be popular, everyone can assist the cycles

LOL - I recommended this 2-3 weeks ago - to concentrate all the Quarantine - and Cycling threads into their own topics. Thus - anyone that wants to - can look easily - at 'work threads' - and other discussions. In fact it was in response of someone here linking to threads. In fact - I think you should be the moderator of the 'topic'.

 

[MnFish1]

Rev should do this:

create one of those social media release threads about unsticking cycles

it will get six hundred thousand clicks, cycle help post


with the team that does debate here, reef2reef can fix cycles better than any site in the world.


instead of doing battle it will take all of us to field the wall of posts that will happen. this is free data, free pattern, free accountability let's go ahead and get that done


as a separate thread, where there's so much help me unstick/help my nitrite we won't have time to battle. we will have to aim at the tanks being presented

make that thread, a live time cycle assist thread let me get my track shoes I don't own on.

a wall of help my cycle posts will happen, a wall.

we each take seven of them at once

this is the preferred title


Reef2Reef Can Fix your Cycle

its nobody's work thread to take over, we'll need help managing the posts. it would be popular, everyone can assist the cycles

@revhtree

 

[brandon429]

no moderator I'm too crustified for me it really would be fun to work some tanks though. legit really it would reinforce all our own reefs to field the nineteen ways someone feels their cycle is bad but make their tanks work correctly and they see RtR = good assist place.


working tanks live time increases ability to preserve home systems its online studies plus in person studies its a great use of forums.


I wish Rev would make a social media post on Want reef2reef to fix up your cycle, post here!

something like that sure would be fun. fun.

the key is that release under the RtR social network, lighting blast mode.

 

[MnFish1]

no moderator I'm too crustified for me it really would be fun to work some tanks though. legit really it would reinforce all our own reefs to field the nineteen ways someone feels their cycle is bad but make their tanks work correctly and they see RtR = good assist place.


working tanks live time increases ability to preserve home systems its online studies plus in person studies its a great use of forums.


I wish Rev would make a social media post on Want reef2reef to fix up your cycle, post here!

something like that sure would be fun. fun.

I was actually seriously thinking that you have done a huge amount of work. It is scattered throughout multiple threads - and I think it would be awesome to have it all placed in one 'topic' - separate from the general reef discussion. Ditto for the QT debate that rages from time to time.

I personally find it extremely tiresome to read through 200 posts to get through a work thread - thats just me - but probably lots of other people as well. If the facts were just presented as a topic - with links people could look at - I think it would be a huge benefit. Though you think we are on 'opposite sides' - in fact - I believe I have said more than once that the cycling 'common wisdom' is probably incorrect given what is available in 2021.

 

[MnFish1]

PS - by the way the reason to separate the discussion is not to discount the work threads - but a way to say: Person xxx has a question - the answer - check out this topic on R2R - its all there. If you have a specific question - post it. If there is a fish disease forum - there could certainly be a cycling forum IMHO

 

[Soren]

no moderator I'm too crustified for me it really would be fun to work some tanks though. legit really it would reinforce all our own reefs to field the nineteen ways someone feels their cycle is bad but make their tanks work correctly and they see RtR = good assist place.


working tanks live time increases ability to preserve home systems its online studies plus in person studies its a great use of forums.


I wish Rev would make a social media post on Want reef2reef to fix up your cycle, post here!

something like that sure would be fun. fun.

the key is that release under the RtR social network, lighting blast mode.

I was actually seriously thinking that you have done a huge amount of work. It is scattered throughout multiple threads - and I think it would be awesome to have it all placed in one 'topic' - separate from the general reef discussion. Ditto for the QT debate that rages from time to time.

I personally find it extremely tiresome to read through 200 posts to get through a work thread - thats just me - but probably lots of other people as well. If the facts were just presented as a topic - with links people could look at - I think it would be a huge benefit. Though you think we are on 'opposite sides' - in fact - I believe I have said more than once that the cycling 'common wisdom' is probably incorrect given what is available in 2021.

and @LRT
Maybe the information should be compiled as an article on R2R. This seems to be a good way to split information from the discussion as a linkable resource.

I'm not sure how the writing of the article would be moderated or who would do it, but it could be very useful having a few specific methods of cycling and the critical data and time periods for those methods while touching on the nuances that can make each situation different.

...then, to back up the article, we start some recorded experiments by whomever is able to do them and counterbalance the information with critical review from each other, especially where slight differences in opinion come in.

My personal thought is that counterpoints can strengthen an argument if they are addressed properly. I hate the term "agree to disagree" when it comes to scientific experiments, though I understand that it is applicable when it comes down to specific opinions on which path one chooses to take. It seems to me that the science on this thread is agreed upon by all and the differences come mostly from smaller nuances or misunderstandings, really.

I am sure some cycling articles already exist, but new or revised articles are justified by new understanding and technology, though I also want to keep the information easy for a beginner to access and utilize.

 

[LRT]

A potential issue with the using the Seneye for ultra low ammonia levels occurs to me. What if the low level readings are actually in error and the true level is 0? How does that affect the work threads? Has the following issue been discussed elsewhere?

I deal with in metrology issues daily. Seneye's mfg rates the accuracy of the unit for ammonia @ .005 (NH3). That's a span of .01. Having no other data to validate its accuracy, let's go with that. I wouldn't make any decision or conclusion based on a measurement when the instrument used has an accuracy rating that is five times greater. A .001 reading on a Seneye could be 0 or it could even be .006. A .005 reading could be 0 or .01. And that's if the Mfg's rating is accurate... which is often a best case rating and not easily reproduceable in the field.

Great points. Id love to see graphs of how low concentrations of seneye nh3 track out with lab grade equipment. Im sure seneye has to have that and wish they would share it. Maybe they have somewhere.
Here's why I dont put much weight to that in this particular application.
Where I love seneye is Peaks and Valleys with minimal feedings. It records what it records regardless of whether its .003 .006 or .010. But tracks it back to .001.
I've never actually seen a 0 reading with seneye only .001
Here's the kicker of it all. What ive done is confirm 0 reading with API ammonia test kit of all kits hahaha
Its not hard to get a true 0 Api ammonia test with minimal light feedings in a new tank set up with cured rubble. Ive seen it a few times now and enough to know it lines up what im seeing in tracking with seneye.
Furthermore nothing goes in my tank until it tracks back to 0 confirmed lower concentrations. At least twice. That's been the magic number honestly.
Where I dont trust Api is accurate enough is in the higher concentrations.
Tracking it back down the Api kit lags and show much higher concentrations for at least 1 or 2 days sometimes more and I can't explain it. Api measures ppm. If the concentrations are closer to the higher ppm I believe it reads higher ppm as opposed to lower ppm and probably vice versa honestly.
I feel like that would explain lag or stuck cycle time.

 

[MnFish1]

and @LRT
Maybe the information should be compiled as an article on R2R. This seems to be a good way to split information from the discussion as a linkable resource.

I'm not sure how the writing of the article would be moderated or who would do it, but it could be very useful having a few specific methods of cycling and the critical data and time periods for those methods while touching on the nuances that can make each situation different.

...then, to back up the article, we start some recorded experiments by whomever is able to do them and counterbalance the information with critical review from each other, especially where slight differences in opinion come in.

My personal thought is that counterpoints can strengthen an argument if they are addressed properly. I hate the term "agree to disagree" when it comes to scientific experiments, though I understand that it is applicable when it comes down to specific opinions on which path one chooses to take. It seems to me that the science on this thread is agreed upon by all and the differences come mostly from smaller nuances or misunderstandings, really.

I am sure some cycling articles already exist, but new or revised articles are justified by new understanding and technology, though I also want to keep the information easy for a beginner to access and utilize.

Excellent idea!!!!

 

[LRT]

and @LRT
Maybe the information should be compiled as an article on R2R. This seems to be a good way to split information from the discussion as a linkable resource.

I'm not sure how the writing of the article would be moderated or who would do it, but it could be very useful having a few specific methods of cycling and the critical data and time periods for those methods while touching on the nuances that can make each situation different.

...then, to back up the article, we start some recorded experiments by whomever is able to do them and counterbalance the information with critical review from each other, especially where slight differences in opinion come in.

My personal thought is that counterpoints can strengthen an argument if they are addressed properly. I hate the term "agree to disagree" when it comes to scientific experiments, though I understand that it is applicable when it comes down to specific opinions on which path one chooses to take. It seems to me that the science on this thread is agreed upon by all and the differences come mostly from smaller nuances or misunderstandings, really.

I am sure some cycling articles already exist, but new or revised articles are justified by new understanding and technology, though I also want to keep the information easy for a beginner to access and utilize.

Hi Soren your a good man. Honestly I'm down for whatever the community feels will be helpful to make all this useful for folks.
I have to be totally real and honest with this. Ive been super patient and dignified with certain folks in this thread and was open for any critical thinking with said people to the point of exhaustion honestly.
A line was crossed though and any reader can look back at last 10 pages of this thread and literally see certain folks attempting to dismiss, demean and belittle certain folks that took the time to test ammonia, record and chart findings without required experiments to back up those claims of belittlement and dismissal.
That parts not ok with me and never will be.

 

[DrZoidburg]

the Zoid doctor belittling the seneye nh3 findings

You want to drag me in again. If your asking. The seneye ph was wrong. Completely obvious to any one with a clue. If you want me to get back to prime thread. There is many things wrong with their tests. Some addressed some not. I was guilty of some bias. However there can still be flaws pointed out. Also your friend taricha privately messaged me about one thing. How they were not finding something. In short it came down to them making a math error. Which I told them how it was done wrong, and how to fix. (not relevant) A seneye chemist might make this very very simple mistake, not a real one without figuring it out eventually. Also to further fuel the findings let me remind you this definition.
What is an example of Confirmation bias?
Confirmation biases impact how we gather information, but they also influence how we interpret and recall information. For example, people who support or oppose a particular issue will not only seek information to support it, they will also interpret new information in a way that upholds their existing ideas.
How does Confirmation bias affect decision making?
Confirmation bias leads to statistical errors, as it influences the way people gather information and interpret it. Confirmation bias is a type of cognitive bias that leads to poor decision making. It often blinds us when we are looking at a situation. This is all your guys problems. Then leads to a huge arguement. What I see here is a bunch of bolognea to support a manufactured cause that has toothpics for a foundation. Chart from circa 1890's. Then to support this you use "mumbo-mumbo" anything that effects your mumbo mumbo like prime...effects seneye, test kits...effects seneye...any anomaly that affects seneye, or anyone who disagrees with anything you attack relentlessly, try to make them look stupid. Another flaw in this device besides occasional error that it doesn't measure both. Ph matters, temp, salinity, even atmospheric pressure to a degree, the ideal gas law.... almost all like mentioned above. Its only hobby device. As long as there is decaying organics with nitrogen there will be both N4, and NH3. Never zero. It also reacts strangely to chemicals. Then seems some facts are ignored or purposefully left out. Omit things, quick to dismiss, and argue (for nothing without anything real) Do not remain objective until the end. As well as in some cases that can be found here to put people in harms way. Not really looking at the future or consequences. Every single brand new member manufactured? or sincere you jump on them. Blast anyone else who says anything otherwise Then say lets see your work threads (which would not be based on confirmation bias).. Then you say we fix millions of tanks for ten years...but currently there is only 153,000 members? Also you look back at the beginning it didn't really start 10 years ago? I figure it this way. You guys are doing everything to get a defined start date chart. (cool but not really possible safely without better performance on your end) This you have to push seneye on every one(can have issues, nothing stays perfect forever especially ph meters submersed in corrosive liquid, known to drift over time, and other electronics lab grade or not), what interferes with seneye(many things we see here), bash test kits, test kit mis read (both can be mitigated), throw ammonia reducers out cause they mess with test kits, and they are toxic(not as true), bad kit etc..., certain bacteria ..blah blah blah. Its all because anything that interferes with your end goal you attack relentlessly. I commend you for this to a degree, but its all wrong. Please don't mind the run on sentence.

 

[LRT]

You want to drag me in again. If your asking. The seneye ph was wrong. Completely obvious to any one with a clue. If you want me to get back to prime thread. There is many things wrong with their tests. Some addressed some not. I was guilty of some bias. However there can still be flaws pointed out. Also your friend taricha privately messaged me about one thing. How they were not finding something. In short it came down to them making a math error. Which I told them how it was done wrong, and how to fix. (not relevant) A seneye chemist might make this very very simple mistake, not a real one without figuring it out eventually. Also to further fuel the findings let me remind you this definition.
What is an example of Confirmation bias?
Confirmation biases impact how we gather information, but they also influence how we interpret and recall information. For example, people who support or oppose a particular issue will not only seek information to support it, they will also interpret new information in a way that upholds their existing ideas.
How does Confirmation bias affect decision making?
Confirmation bias leads to statistical errors, as it influences the way people gather information and interpret it. Confirmation bias is a type of cognitive bias that leads to poor decision making. It often blinds us when we are looking at a situation. This is all your guys problems. Then leads to a huge arguement. What I see here is a bunch of bolognea to support a manufactured cause that has toothpics for a foundation. Chart from circa 1890's. Then to support this you use "mumbo-mumbo" anything that effects your mumbo mumbo like prime...effects seneye, test kits...effects seneye...any anomaly that affects seneye, or anyone who disagrees with anything you attack relentlessly, try to make them look stupid. Another flaw in this device besides occasional error that it doesn't measure both. Ph matters, temp, salinity, even atmospheric pressure to a degree, the ideal gas law.... almost all like mentioned above. Its only hobby device. As long as there is decaying organics with nitrogen there will be both N4, and NH3. Never zero. It also reacts strangely to chemicals. Then seems some facts are ignored or purposefully left out. Omit things, quick to dismiss, and argue (for nothing without anything real) Do not remain objective until the end. As well as in some cases that can be found here to put people in harms way. Not really looking at the future or consequences. Every single brand new member manufactured? or sincere you jump on them. Blast anyone else who says anything otherwise Then say lets see your work threads (which would not be based on confirmation bias).. Then you say we fix millions of tanks for ten years...but currently there is only 153,000 members? Also you look back at the beginning it didn't really start 10 years ago? I figure it this way. You guys are doing everything to get a defined start date chart. (cool but not really possible safely without better performance on your end) This you have to push seneye on every one(can have issues, nothing stays perfect forever especially ph meters submersed in corrosive liquid, known to drift over time, and other electronics lab grade or not), what interferes with seneye(many things we see here), bash test kits, test kit mis read (both can be mitigated), throw ammonia reducers out cause they mess with test kits, and they are toxic(not as true), bad kit etc..., certain bacteria ..blah blah blah. Its all because anything that interferes with your end goal you attack relentlessly. I commend you for this to a degree, but its all wrong. Please don't mind the run on sentence.

The run on sentence was totally not needed.
You absoloutely did belittle and try to dismiss real actual work threads with built charts and tracked data to the point it was made frivolous like it wasn't work at all.
Totally disrespectful to the folks that built the charts and totally dangerous to the folks that seen you doing it.
I've been present every page and every post of this thread and I know alot of others have too.
There's no cleaning that up in my eyes. I don't care how long your sentence magically extends you can't side talk your way out of any of it.
It is what it is I've already spoke my piece on it.
Same goes for you-
Until you can bring me a proofed experiment to back up your words of belittlement and dismissal of other folks work its literally all talk. Burden of proof is on you to prove your right. Not the other way around.

Until then I'm going with the charts and tracked data and my own observations.

 

[MnFish1]

I'm tired of reading critical opinions, I want to see something that someone has predicted in the past linked here to see if I want to believe them now about a particular angle.

Another false narrative. You must have missed my predictions that I've posted not once - but perhaps 3 times. No one that I'm aware of has disagreed with any of your work threads. Except @Lasse with regards to nitrite. Get over it. No one cares that the Seneye is more sensitive than the API test - get over it. Everyone believes you. What exactly are you trying to prove here. FOR THE HOBBY. Its more like your own ego. Lets go back and look at your posts over the last week - how many of them are helping people - as compared to repeating the same mantra over and over and over. I'll put my posts up against yours any day lol.

 

[Paul B]

OMG, I am just glad I got out of this thread a long time ago.

All the animosity over a hobby.

 

[Lasse]

@Lasse are you saying we are lieing and or not being truthful when we say we have confirmed .001 nh3 readings with seneye?

No - I´m not saying you are lying when you say that you have read 0.001 with Seneye I´m saying that there is no prove that Seneye have this precision. What you do not understand is if this was totally true - the company behind this would not work with a small niche as the aquarium hobby. They would be World leading in free ammonia measurements. As I know it - there is no professional equipment that can analyze these low NH3 figures whatever - not even in the same county - with maybe an exclusion of expensive medical equipment.

You just 100% believe in a figure given to you by a hobby equipment. We do not totally know which method Seneye use - we do not know which ions that will interfere with the result, We do not know how particles will interfere and much more uncertainty ahead. As I understand it seneye is basically a colour test that is read by a reflection of a light beam - with other words a spectrophotometric method.

All of the work threads with seneye have one source of data that´s (in that thread) is assumed to be the true figure - namely the readings of Seneye itself.

Seneye's mfg rates the accuracy of the unit for ammonia @ .005 (NH3). That's a span of .01. Having no other data to validate its accuracy, let's go with that. I wouldn't make any decision or conclusion based on a measurement when the instrument used has an accuracy rating that is five times greater. A .001 reading on a Seneye could be 0 or it could even be .006. A .005 reading could be 0 or .01. And that's if the Mfg's rating is accurate... which is often a best case rating and not easily reproduceable in the field.

Exactly my point.

Here's the kicker of it all. What ive done is confirm 0 reading with API ammonia test kit of all kits hahaha
Its not hard to get a true 0 Api ammonia test with minimal light feedings in a new tank set up with cured rubble. Ive seen it a few times now and enough to know it lines up what im seeing in tracking with seneye.
Furthermore nothing goes in my tank until it tracks back to 0 confirmed lower concentrations. At least twice. That's been the magic number honestly.

API measure ppm NH4 - Seneye measure ppm NH3 - apples and pears.

My bold is important - this is IMO the safest method to use. I would even accept values below 0.5 ppm total ammonia. Why? We know that API and other colour based tests show total ammonia. There is a lot of scientific reports that deal with the conversion of total ammonia (NH3+NH) to free ammonia (NH3 - the toxic form) at different ph, temperatures, salinities and altitudes. It is easy to calculate the amount of free ammonia (NH3) from this total ammonia reading. Even if API (or other total ammonia tests) should have an accuracy of 0.5 ppm total ammonia (I´m not aware of any accuracy figure from these tests when the reading is done by the human eye - it is only an example) - it would be a better method in order to do a risk assessment.

There is equipment today like the mastertronic and reef boot that use these different hobby colour tests together with a spectrophotometric method that removes the uncertainty of color assessment from the human eye.

In a always changing environment like an aquarium (pH, temperature ans so on) is IMO better to know the total ammonia content than just the snapshot of free ammonia in the actual moment. Total ammonia is normally constant during day and no feeding periods but the free ammonia can vary during the day caused of changed temperatures, pH and so on. Seneye have a pH meter included - but we have seen that at least the pH measure method by Seneye is worrying.

The run on sentence was totally not needed.
You absoloutely did belittle and try to dismiss real actual work threads with built charts and tracked data to the point it was made frivolous like it wasn't work at all.
Totally disrespectful to the folks that built the charts and totally dangerous to the folks that seen you doing it.
I've been present every page and every post of this thread and I know alot of others have too.
There's no cleaning that up in my eyes. I don't care how long your sentence magically extends you can't side talk your way out of any of it.
It is what it is I've already spoke my piece on it.
Same goes for you-
Until you can bring me a proofed experiment to back up your words of belittlement and dismissal of other folks work its literally all talk. Burden of proof is on you to prove your right. Not the other way around.

Until then I'm going with the charts and tracked data and my own observations.

You still not get it - no one here dismiss any works that have been done of anyone - what I (and others) do is to to make a huge question mark around the conclusions done by you and others.

When I argue against both Randy, Hans-Werner and Jay about importance of nitrite readings - I do not dismiss their works at all - I just discuss and explain why I find it important in my husbandry of my aquariums. I simply not have the same standpoint but we all at least try to base our disagreements with the help of scientific methods and thinking. We do not say it is like that (if not backed up with rock solid science) instead the words in my opinion is used.

I will not be offended if someone refutes my evidence-based considerations with scientific facts or questions them with other experiences - that´s the way an understanding develops

Sincerely Lasse

 

[brandon429]

ReefGeezer

thats a non issue, those spreads don’t matter in safe starts

what matters is the drop that’s gets us to .001-.006, and by what predictable date in any arrangement

the ending doesn’t matter. Our hobby has yet to prove or define what reefs run at, the endpoint doesn’t matter


that all reefs land in the same general range after ten days on seneye is what matters, it’s what allows us to make outstanding start date predictions that meet the expectations of the tank owner. Before seneye it was madness, we can search on Google “stalled reef tank cycle” and see the madness, none of them were stalled. Not owning seneye caused that panic, and resulting purchases of more repeat bottle bac and other unneeded supports and delays.

what matters is using the patterns on file we can and have been collecting accurate start dates for any reef

why not disavow api, red sea? we couldn’t discern ending rates better with those, and those misreport the drop dates routinely and are the kits everyone bases start dates on.

evaluations would change if two hundred people showed up with cycles expecting accurate start dates, till then anyone’s opinion seems like it carries weight because if the opinion is wrong nobody is actually putting an investment on the line to find out.

Seneye shows an inherent link and timing among all reef cycles such that cycles not using seneye can be guided by the posted patterns of those that do use seneye. This sounds ludicrous to people who do not make or manage work threads.

Reef animals are far too sensitive to keep surviving if this pattern was unrealistic, we’d have two or three fails

 

[brandon429]

Dr. Z

in reading your post history I’m not seeing where someone was given a start date by you and then we got feedback from them


Im not able to see where you helped clear out a cycle, has there been a time I missed in reading all posts? If we could see a few cycles you managed it would help to give a big picture to your writing on other peoples threads

I noticed in your nitrite thread you made, no cycle testing was done, where’s the live time testing so I can ask the participant for feedback?

 

[LRT]

OMG, I am just glad I got out of this thread a long time ago.

All the animosity over a hobby.

I know sir how do you think I feel hahaha I started this thread to ask questions and maybe get folks to think about different things hoping some useful stuff would come out of it. We have gotten some really good stuff and I'm glad some of my favorite people have participated.
We did also get 30 pages of nonsense, conspiracy,Haters,doubt,naysayers, trolling, derailing to the point of exhaustion.
And for what I wonder. If anyone has any doubts about anything ive proposed here. All they need to do is look at shroom lagoon to see it working. In real time. just updated build thread yesterday

 

[ReefGeezer]

ReefGeezer

thats a non issue, those spreads don’t matter in safe starts...

In this discussion, very low levels of NH3 were being measured. I was wondering if accuracy limitations had been considered and how it affected the conclusions. I was casting no shade on anyone, just furthering the discussion.

 

[brandon429]

Agreed

I fully believe the final accuracy on where cycles land is in process of measure. I bet our hobby won’t reach a consensus until 2 or more devices become available to benchmark the seneye and its timelines

its prudent to remain skeptical until more than one meter can show thousandths and hundredths. Until then I like how at least we are seeing statistically significant tie ins between animal behavior and longevity when comparing today’s quicker ammonia drop dates/ quicker than usual fish addition dates to the classic wait for three parameter compliance cycle that always takes weeks and months longer. I think we are getting only peeks and clues about dynamics we will know well by 2025