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

[LRT]

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.

Hi Geezer I'm super glad your here man!
Through all the nonsense of 40 pages your the only person that bothered to ask the most important questions of them all
What is nh3? How do we derive 0 to no values of nh3 and how is the use of seneye, with confirmation of 0 values from test kits so beneficial for its application here?
I love it. Thats all anyone had to ask and I appreciate you did

 

[Garf]

Hi Geezer I'm super glad your here man!
Through all the nonsense of 40 pages your the only person that bothered to ask the most important questions of them all
What is nh3? How do we derive 0 to no values of nh3 and how is the use of seneye, with confirmation of 0 values from test kits so beneficial for its application here?
I love it. Thats all anyone had to ask and I appreciate you did

Do you see any blips, after feeding? I’ve seen a few steady 001, 002ppm steady lines on this site and It would concern me that the slide would develop a bacterial film, preventing NH3 effecting the slide over time. Altering the detecting reading like allowing algae growth on a ph meter bulb. Obviously, if you see blips, that would appear not to be much of a concern, if at all. I would note that Randy has posted that ammonia levels in the wild vary greatly.

 

[LRT]

Do you see any blips, after feeding? I’ve seen a few steady 001, 002ppm steady lines on this site and It would concern me that the slide would develop a bacterial film, preventing NH3 effecting the slide over time. Altering the detecting reading like allowing algae growth on a ph meter bulb. Obviously, if you see blips, that would appear not to be much of a concern, if at all. I would note that Randy has posted that ammonia levels in the wild vary greatly.

Yessir.
Same measured feedings register same or close to same measured blips as initial feed. Usually register within first half hour and gone within the hour but have seen it take a cpl hrs to measure back down the .001 again. My measured feeding have never measured more than .006 to start with. And like I said in earlier post I have confirmed the 0 values with at least Api through the process. Ive done that with new slide,old slide as well as non calibrated seneye.

 

[NeonRabbit221B]

Going to unfollow this as its gotten too heated and finger pointing... but will leave you with this.

People don't understand the difference between precision and accuracy. Seneye is very precise but not accurate without trimming. You can easily nail down cycle times down to the hour and verify it with any standard test kit 95% of the time. I could back this up with data but you can always use the search function and find what I posted before....

You can absolutely track feedings with Seneye depending on tank size and stocking @Garf. Havn't run it in a tank for a few months but I remember being able to go back and see the days I fed my corals (heavier feeding).

If anyone wants me to run some experiments with Seneye you can post in my ongoing thread the ideas of PM me.

Stop arguing and getting hostile...

 

[brandon429]

Well said

 

[LRT]

Thanks @NeonRabbit221B
Yessir id appreciate that all the nonsense stops here.
If anyone wants to question the validity of the methods I've discussed in this thread. Head over to my build thread and you can argue me until blue in face while we see it all working in real time daily.
Its not fair to ruin this thread with ridiculousness when all I ever intended to do was start a thread to share my experiences and maybe do something useful for the community.

 

[CnidaChris]

So after numerous back and forth that doesn’t really do anything let’s postulate a testable hypothesis and setup the parameters needed to perform the experiment. Otherwise we aren’t really going to make any progress.

 

[LRT]

So after numerous back and forth that doesn’t really do anything let’s postulate a testable hypothesis and setup the parameters needed to perform the experiment. Otherwise we aren’t really going to make any progress.

Agreed honestly I started a challenge thread on a whim as an absoloute joke as you can see in the first post.
Id love to see any of what I've said challenged. We can use the following thread for it-

Instacycle Challenge Thread Anyone?

Don't know where. Don't know when. Don't care with what. Let's figure out the details:D Brs did one in 48 hrs fully stocked. I've done one in 24 hrs. Just putting the feelers out there to see if I can get a few players. I dont care what tools you use. Ill be using fully mature, cycled and...

www.reef2reef.com

Let's put our money where our mouths are i already have. See my build thread for my proofs

Let's try and keep this one useful as it was intended.

 

[LRT]

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

I like this. Only thing I'm going to add is if we are going to trust Api for end all results why not trust Api is telling the truth with the 0 readings that i and others have confirmed to seneye on many occasions? If your going to trust Api you have to trust seneye .001 concentrations here and and vice versa.
Don't trust only my opinion trust the numbers tracked in the charts. Trust that others are telling the truth that they have confirmed same observations.
Definetely don't cast shade and doubt on the numbers and observations many have observed.
If you dont believe we are telling the truth or it is incorrect. Set up a tank and test the observations, chart your findings and show us we are all wrong.

 

[brandon429]

I have truly seen api register zero complete yellow on some cycles and then light green far past the cycle end date on others

the handler matters, api never stumbles Dan or T for sure. Natural chemistry inclinations help tremendously on streamlining api reports

api has more mixed results on day 30 wait than any other brand, Red Sea may tie it perhaps. The test takers and relayed interpretation (TAN factor before stating ammonia levels) probably accounts for the majority of claimed api fouls.

 

[LRT]

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.



Exactly my point.



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.


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

Hi Lasse all im going to say is if we are going to trust Api test kit. Why not trust that its telling the truth when in same tank at same time with seneye I have confirmed seneye .001 readings with 0 Api test results?
Its really not that hard to confirm these results with a seneye, Api test kit, 10 gallon tank, a little cured rubble, some saltwater, a few cuc and few pieces of mysis shrimp.

 

[Soren]

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.

I'm not trying to change the route of this thread or challenge anyone for the posts here, just intending to come to some conclusion on more specific information on different cycling routes for new setups and how those routes can be measured for cycling. Backing up the conclusions with testable hypotheses, as @CnidaChris mentioned and what I intended with my comment, will strengthen and validate the value of the information.

This would mean setting up multiple methods and using multiple means of measuring results. What I think we are lacking here and what is causing the misunderstandings is that we have no agreed-upon standard, either in terminology or hypothesis testing, which just leads us to feel like we disagree when we really are agreeing on almost everything here with slight differences in how we apply the information or what we choose to focus on as most important. If we are going to rethink and refine means and methods for cycling tanks, we need to be able to come together as a scientific (albeit volunteer-basis and hobby-driven) community and fairly peer-review our differences through standardized experimentation.
...unless my understanding of the scientific method is wrong...
Otherwise, we are still stuck at the same point with too much information with each using only personal opinion and personal experience to draw the conclusions for others to follow.

To clarify what I said about counterpoints and "agree to disagree" (sorry, not intended as a slam to you, I did not notice that shortly before my post you used the same words, which makes my post look like a retaliation against you with this wording), there is an appropriate way for us to be scientific peers and hold each other accountable. In order to do so, we have to be able to be clear in our own hypotheses and the exact steps we are testing while specifically addressing the counterpoints and incorporating them into the evidence of the test, either concession or rebuttal. We need to be careful not to consider some difference in opinion on some points as a complete disagreement with all points.

I've dealt with this often with others in my own experiences. When I disagree with a point, I bring up the counterpoint to help refine the idea into a better idea, but the other person takes my counterpoint as an attempt to completely overturn his/her idea and spread incredulity on his/her character. My intent is always about improving myself and others through the discussion of ideas, never for personal attacks and pointless belittlement.

In this particular thread, where I have seen similar tendencies, it seems like most of it comes from mixing up the large amount of information from many different posters and from being unable to explain our entire mind when discussing our own intents, since we have not (as far as I've read) made any specific plans for hypotheses and testing methods, though there has been a lot of information about portions of the hypotheses and methods all intermingled together. I do think you have stated some of your own purposes clearly, and I also think that some of the others have been clear with their stances on certain points. Maybe some of what I am sharing about on this thread needs to be split to another thread to avoid too much information about too many methods all tangled together.

I hope we can keep this thread focused on what your specific hypotheses and testing methods are, properly address counterpoints with specific scientific intent, keep each other accountable with our scientific means and a civil discourse, and separate some of this information into other threads or an article about different methods and the intent and proof behind them. We need to be careful not to take the discussion personally or be too dismissive of the different points, either the counterpoints of others or the clarification and explanation of our own points.

Sorry for the long post, and I hope this does not derail the thread. Also, none of this this is meant to be a jab at any member in particular who has posted on this thread. As I believe we all do, I have all sorts of judgements in my mind on each member based on the member's contributions to the discussion here, but I will not share such personal opinion until both I can give enough time and consideration to validate my own opinion and until there is a relevant reason for me to share my own opinion about some other member here, which is very unlikely to be the case. A lot of the issues here show the difficulty of an internet forum for scientific research as opposed to being together in person in a controlled environment.

When I am ready to do my own experimentation, I will try to be clear on my own hypotheses and methods with very specific details to be true to the request I am making for others.

 

[brandon429]

Wouldn’t an acceptable substitute for rigid experiment be hundreds of cycles with an assigned start date we can track after completion? These animals are so sensitive their survival is a fine measure, and it won’t be hard to set a comparative if someone wants to make a fish tank with all dry rocks and sand, no cycle, add two clowns and some cuc and feed them

do it in a nano like half our logged cycles are in nanos


that contrast in outcome establishes fine proof. Not four examples, that could be luck

but four hundred pages is different, that cant be luck it’s not possible. We are able to land any cycle within total comfort levels for any animals involved and though no counter testing digitally is available, today’s only present digital nh3 meter that registers out to thousandths agrees in solid pattern.

I think we have retro data available for proofing. New data isn’t needed


something that’s been underway for years doesn’t need to be validated today.

 

[LRT]

I'm not trying to change the route of this thread or challenge anyone for the posts here, just intending to come to some conclusion on more specific information on different cycling routes for new setups and how those routes can be measured for cycling. Backing up the conclusions with testable hypotheses, as @CnidaChris mentioned and what I intended with my comment, will strengthen and validate the value of the information.

This would mean setting up multiple methods and using multiple means of measuring results. What I think we are lacking here and what is causing the misunderstandings is that we have no agreed-upon standard, either in terminology or hypothesis testing, which just leads us to feel like we disagree when we really are agreeing on almost everything here with slight differences in how we apply the information or what we choose to focus on as most important. If we are going to rethink and refine means and methods for cycling tanks, we need to be able to come together as a scientific (albeit volunteer-basis and hobby-driven) community and fairly peer-review our differences through standardized experimentation.
...unless my understanding of the scientific method is wrong...
Otherwise, we are still stuck at the same point with too much information with each using only personal opinion and personal experience to draw the conclusions for others to follow.

To clarify what I said about counterpoints and "agree to disagree" (sorry, not intended as a slam to you, I did not notice that shortly before my post you used the same words, which makes my post look like a retaliation against you with this wording), there is an appropriate way for us to be scientific peers and hold each other accountable. In order to do so, we have to be able to be clear in our own hypotheses and the exact steps we are testing while specifically addressing the counterpoints and incorporating them into the evidence of the test, either concession or rebuttal. We need to be careful not to consider some difference in opinion on some points as a complete disagreement with all points.

I've dealt with this often with others in my own experiences. When I disagree with a point, I bring up the counterpoint to help refine the idea into a better idea, but the other person takes my counterpoint as an attempt to completely overturn his/her idea and spread incredulity on his/her character. My intent is always about improving myself and others through the discussion of ideas, never for personal attacks and pointless belittlement.

In this particular thread, where I have seen similar tendencies, it seems like most of it comes from mixing up the large amount of information from many different posters and from being unable to explain our entire mind when discussing our own intents, since we have not (as far as I've read) made any specific plans for hypotheses and testing methods, though there has been a lot of information about portions of the hypotheses and methods all intermingled together. I do think you have stated some of your own purposes clearly, and I also think that some of the others have been clear with their stances on certain points. Maybe some of what I am sharing about on this thread needs to be split to another thread to avoid too much information about too many methods all tangled together.

I hope we can keep this thread focused on what your specific hypotheses and testing methods are, properly address counterpoints with specific scientific intent, keep each other accountable with our scientific means and a civil discourse, and separate some of this information into other threads or an article about different methods and the intent and proof behind them. We need to be careful not to take the discussion personally or be too dismissive of the different points, either the counterpoints of others or the clarification and explanation of our own points.

Sorry for the long post, and I hope this does not derail the thread. Also, none of this this is meant to be a jab at any member in particular who has posted on this thread. As I believe we all do, I have all sorts of judgements in my mind on each member based on the member's contributions to the discussion here, but I will not share such personal opinion until both I can give enough time and consideration to validate my own opinion and until there is a relevant reason for me to share my own opinion about some other member here, which is very unlikely to be the case. A lot of the issues here show the difficulty of an internet forum for scientific research as opposed to being together in person in a controlled environment.

When I am ready to do my own experimentation, I will try to be clear on my own hypotheses and methods with very specific details to be true to the request I am making for others.

Hi Soren I fully understand where your at no need to explain.
Id love to see everything you say happen. I posted challenge thread hoping to make that happen honestly.
Its come to a point with a few in this thread that talk has become super cheap right down to the slamming of other folks findings and my digs are meant only for those few that decided to come into this thread and totally derail it with nonsense.

Id love to see thoeries tested out here.
Id love to hear from folks finding this useful.
And love to get into more critical thinking conversations as well as I've learned alot here

 

[Soren]

I like this. Only thing I'm going to add is if we are going to trust Api for end all results why not trust Api is telling the truth with the 0 readings that i and others have confirmed to seneye on many occasions? If your going to trust Api you have to trust seneye .001 concentrations here and and vice versa.
Don't trust only my opinion trust the numbers tracked in the charts. Trust that others are telling the truth that they have confirmed same observations.
Definetely don't cast shade and doubt on the numbers and observations many have observed.
If you dont believe we are telling the truth or it is incorrect. Set up a tank and test the observations, chart your findings and show us we are all wrong.

I think this is where some of the trouble comes from: what method is being used to test the precision of the Seneye down to .001 concentrations? Accuracy may be proveable by results (i.e. close enough to zero to not cause problems in the reef), but proving precision (specific level of detail that the measurement can be proven to show).
For clarity, why does the Seneye only measure down to .001 and not .00001? How do we test or prove the precision? Obviously, color-matching is not extremely precise for reagent tests, but what is the proof behind the fine level of precision of the Seneye and how is this balanced with many potential issues made worse by user error or need for calibration?

I have truly seen api register zero complete yellow on some cycles and then light green far past the cycle end date on others

the handler matters, api never stumbles Dan or T for sure. Natural chemistry inclinations help tremendously on streamlining api reports

api has more mixed results on day 30 wait than any other brand, Red Sea may tie it perhaps. The test takers and relayed interpretation (TAN factor before stating ammonia levels) probably accounts for the majority of claimed api fouls.

This relates to the same "precision vs accuracy" question that others have brought up before in this thread and I am asking about above in this post. How do we prove the validity of the precision of any of our measurements? I'm not saying we cannot do so, just asking what method we use to prove it and if that method is accepted as reliable in the "scientific community". Also, how do we limit or rule out user error and confirmation bias in our use of threads to support our own opinion vs disprove the opinions of others?

Hi Lasse all im going to say is if we are going to trust Api test kit. Why not trust that its telling the truth when in same tank at same time with seneye I have confirmed seneye .001 readings with 0 Api test results?
Its really not that hard to confirm these results with a seneye, Api test kit, 10 gallon tank, a little cured rubble, some saltwater, a few cuc and few pieces of mysis shrimp.

I may be confused/ignorant here. What API test are we talking about? Is it the color-chart kit after use of reagent? If so, comparing this to the Seneye may confirm general accuracy good-enough for our purposes, but does not seem to me that it proves precision of .001. There is a big difference between good-enough for the purpose and exact science.

 

[MnFish1]

So after numerous back and forth that doesn’t really do anything let’s postulate a testable hypothesis and setup the parameters needed to perform the experiment. Otherwise we aren’t really going to make any progress.

It seems like the hypothesis has become 'a tank will be cycled, independent of method, bioload, etc'. This is a difficult! hypothesis to prove given all of the variables. But you asked

Here are a couple of possible experiments - note I'm not asking anyone to do these - I'm not proposing to do them. I know others have proposed to do them - and my guess is that somewhere out there @taricha has done many of them (except the ones's with fish) - and I'd be interested in his and Dan's, etc comments:

*Note - there are lots of 'holes' in these - for example - positive and negative controls, replication, etc. So if they were actually going to be done - there would have to be consideration as to those issues. There are also multiple conclusions that could be drawn - especially the ones using fish. Also - the number of fish, gallon size of tanks, etc etc . were just used as examples. I limited the ammonia to 2 ppm - because thats the recommended dose per many of the bottled bacteria makers.

*Note 2 - I'm not asking anyone to 'kill fish' for an experiment. So - hopefully we can get through that debate? The fish experiments were used as examples of what COULD be done

Experiment 1 - Testing bacteria and immediate addition of fish (Hypothesis being - You can add fish immediately with dry rock and bacteria (Fritz)), and any bump in ammonia will be processed in 10 days - with an additional question - can prime detoxify ammonia (I believe the hypothesis will be proven 'true' - and that the bioload will be more than most people think possible:

1. Use a Seneye, and a 40 gallon breeder
2. Add Dry rock, and bacteria (lets say Fritz 9000) on Day 0 - with water made up to correct parameters/directions and a standardizable amount of surface area.
3. Have 2 observers - one that sees the Seneye, the other that sees the tank.
4. Put in 5 saltwater baitfish on day 1 and monitor, feed a standard amount of food per # of fish in the tank. The person monitoring the tank watches for any signs of 'ammonia distress' - continue watching. The person monitoring the Seneye reports any ammonia level thats dangerous, if not, keep watching for 14 days - stop after 14 days.
5. If you really wanted to be 'interesting' IF on Seneye or observation, there was evidence of an ammonia problem, add Prime and continue observation.

Compare 1) if there is any change in ammonia at all (theoretically, there should be little if any if the hypothesis is correct - up to a certain bioload). 2) if there is a change in ammonia - is it toxic, when does it occur and when does it go to safe levels. 3) Does Prime prevent toxicity? 4)does any 'cycle' end by ten days (i.e. 'zero' ammonia)

If there is toxicity by Seneye OR observation - stop and remove the fish, continue monitoring, unblind the experiment at 14 days and analyze. If there is no change in ammonia - REPEAT the exact experiment using lets say 10 baitfish on day 1 - and observe. using the same criteria. And keep doing so until you have a bioload where ammonia rises to levels either where on the Seneye or observation within the 14 days. If so - remove the fish, and see if the cycle is completed in 10 days.

After doing this - some conclusions should be able to be drawn - and in the 'real world' the experiments would each be replicated.

1. Can you add fish an bacteria on day 1 with little risk
2. Can observation alone predict ammonia toxicity as well, better or worse than a measured value
3. Can Prime mitigate what should be 'toxic' levels of ammonia.
4. What amount of bioload can be added on day 1 (my guess its substantially MORE than the average person adds)
5. A sense of the time-frame of a 'cycle with fish' - which may be completely different than a cycle without fish.

Experiment 2 Using a Seneye, Dry rock, and nothing else.
Hypothesis - even without ammonia, using just rock, a tank will 'cycle on its own' (I do not believe this hypothesis will be proven true - except with an extremely long time-frame)

1. Take 4 5 gallon tank saltwater, same Temp, parameters as experiment 1. equal filtration and surface area
2. Add nothing else
3. Using the Seneye - how long does it take (if ever) for ammonia to rise? After 2 weeks add 2 ppm total ammonia (to tank 1) - how long does it take to be processed. If not in a day, fail. In 4 weeks add 2 ppm ammonia to tank 2, it not processed in a day - fail. Continue with tank 3 in 6 weeks, and tank 4, 8 weeks. Conclusion - when (if ever) can a tank with no ammonia or bacteria or food added process 2 ppm ammonia)

Experiment 3 Using a Seneye, Dry Rock, Ammonia - and nothing else how long does a cycle take (with the definition being - ammonia down to zero). Hypothesis - it is predictably 10 days - independent of bioload (I think this is likely true - EDIT - I DO NOT think this is likely true).

1. 4 10 gallon tanks - identical water, parameters, filtration, surface area Tank 1, .5 ppm ammonia Tank 2, 1 ppm ammonia, Tank 3, 2 ppm ammonia, add every other day to each tank.
2. Use the Seneye - how long does it take for each tank to get to "Zero". Theoretically, if the hypothesis is true, though the rate might be different, the time to zero should be the same.

Experiment 4. Hypothesis - independent of method and bioload, a 'cycle' will be complete in 10 days. This experiment is more like adding fish with a different bioload to each tank.
1. 4 10 gallon tanks, identical water, parameters, filtration, surface area.
2. Day 0 add 0.1 ppm ammonia to Tank 1, add 0.2 ppm ammonia to Tank 2, add 0.4 ppm ammonia to Tank 1, add 0.5 ppm ammonia to Tank 4.
3. Continue to add ammonia same amount - to each tank each day
4. Day 14 - do all the cycles finish by day 10?


Experiments 5 and 6 - Hypothesis - with added bacteria on day 0, using a Seneye (or liquid testing) adds no benefit, and - do all cycles end by day 10.

1. Same set ups as experiments 3 and 4 - except add Fritz 9000 per directions to each tank.
2. Do all the tanks 'cycle' by day 10?
3. Did the Seneye add any useful information (i.e. with bacteria added - did ammonia ever rise to toxic levels?

Experiment 7 and 8. Hypothesis corals that photosynthesize can produce a cycle equivalent to bottled bacteria with or without fish.

1. 2 5 gallon tanks, same filtration, parameters, temp, etc.
2. Add coral (a large amount -lets say a cheap coral like GSP). same size
3. 1 tank - add Fritz 9000. Second tank add nothing else
4. Use Seneye to compare ammonia changes - if any.

Experiment 8 - same as #7 - except add 1-2 saltwater baitfish.

 

[LRT]

I think this is where some of the trouble comes from: what method is being used to test the precision of the Seneye down to .001 concentrations? Accuracy may be proveable by results (i.e. close enough to zero to not cause problems in the reef), but proving precision (specific level of detail that the measurement can be proven to show).
For clarity, why does the Seneye only measure down to .001 and not .00001? How do we test or prove the precision? Obviously, color-matching is not extremely precise for reagent tests, but what is the proof behind the fine level of precision of the Seneye and how is this balanced with many potential issues made worse by user error or need for calibration?


This relates to the same "precision vs accuracy" question that others have brought up before in this thread and I am asking about above in this post. How do we prove the validity of the precision of any of our measurements? I'm not saying we cannot do so, just asking what method we use to prove it and if that method is accepted as reliable in the "scientific community". Also, how do we limit or rule out user error and confirmation bias in our use of threads to support our own opinion vs disprove the opinions of others?


I may be confused/ignorant here. What API test are we talking about? Is it the color-chart kit after use of reagent? If so, comparing this to the Seneye may confirm general accuracy good-enough for our purposes, but does not seem to me that it proves precision of .001. There is a big difference between good-enough for the purpose and exact science.

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.

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.

Hi Geezer I'm super glad your here man!
Through all the nonsense of 40 pages your the only person that bothered to ask the most important questions of them all
What is nh3? How do we derive 0 to no values of nh3 and how is the use of seneye, with confirmation of 0 values from test kits so beneficial for its application here?
I love it. Thats all anyone had to ask and I appreciate you did

Do you see any blips, after feeding? I’ve seen a few steady 001, 002ppm steady lines on this site and It would concern me that the slide would develop a bacterial film, preventing NH3 effecting the slide over time. Altering the detecting reading like allowing algae growth on a ph meter bulb. Obviously, if you see blips, that would appear not to be much of a concern, if at all. I would note that Randy has posted that ammonia levels in the wild vary greatly.

Yessir.
Same measured feedings register same or close to same measured blips as initial feed. Usually register within first half hour and gone within the hour but have seen it take a cpl hrs to measure back down the .001 again. My measured feeding have never measured more than .006 to start with. And like I said in earlier post I have confirmed the 0 values with at least Api through the process. Ive done that with new slide,old slide as well as non calibrated seneye.

Going to unfollow this as its gotten too heated and finger pointing... but will leave you with this.

People don't understand the difference between precision and accuracy. Seneye is very precise but not accurate without trimming. You can easily nail down cycle times down to the hour and verify it with any standard test kit 95% of the time. I could back this up with data but you can always use the search function and find what I posted before....

You can absolutely track feedings with Seneye depending on tank size and stocking @Garf. Havn't run it in a tank for a few months but I remember being able to go back and see the days I fed my corals (heavier feeding).

If anyone wants me to run some experiments with Seneye you can post in my ongoing thread the ideas of PM me.

Stop arguing and getting hostile...

I like this. Only thing I'm going to add is if we are going to trust Api for end all results why not trust Api is telling the truth with the 0 readings that i and others have confirmed to seneye on many occasions? If your going to trust Api you have to trust seneye .001 concentrations here and and vice versa.
Don't trust only my opinion trust the numbers tracked in the charts. Trust that others are telling the truth that they have confirmed same observations.
Definetely don't cast shade and doubt on the numbers and observations many have observed.
If you dont believe we are telling the truth or it is incorrect. Set up a tank and test the observations, chart your findings and show us we are all wrong.

I have truly seen api register zero complete yellow on some cycles and then light green far past the cycle end date on others

the handler matters, api never stumbles Dan or T for sure. Natural chemistry inclinations help tremendously on streamlining api reports

api has more mixed results on day 30 wait than any other brand, Red Sea may tie it perhaps. The test takers and relayed interpretation (TAN factor before stating ammonia levels) probably accounts for the majority of claimed api fouls.

Hi Soren thank you for asking sir.
I've quoted the super pertinent answers to alot of the questions you, garf and geezer have asked here.
As well as simple methodology and instructions for anyone to confirm seneye nh3 results with 0 Api ammonia test kit results.
Super glad to have you along

 

[Soren]

Wouldn’t an acceptable substitute for rigid experiment be hundreds of cycles with an assigned start date we can track after completion? These animals are so sensitive their survival is a fine measure, and it won’t be hard to set a comparative if someone wants to make a fish tank with all dry rocks and sand, no cycle, add two clowns and some cuc and feed them

do it in a nano like half our logged cycles are in nanos


that contrast in outcome establishes fine proof. Not four examples, that could be luck

but four hundred pages is different, that cant be luck it’s not possible. We are able to land any cycle within total comfort levels for any animals involved and though no counter testing digitally is available, today’s only present digital nh3 meter that registers out to thousandths agrees in solid pattern.

I think we have retro data available for proofing. New data isn’t needed


something that’s been underway for years doesn’t need to be validated today.

The new experiments are not about proving whether people have been successful in the past with exceedingly uncontrolled/unregulated data collection, but rather to test different points in a controlled environment under regulated data collection.

Unless there is a standard, both in terminology and in data testing/measuring, it is very difficult to come to specific scientific results when collected by hobbyists at random under unregulated testing parameters/variables.

Even in the "work threads" and "logged cycles", I think the only "proof" we can obtain is personal opinion about what is good enough to be successful, not an absolute answer to what is best practice or the final answer on how something should be done.

Without controlled data, we have little way to differentiate between opinion and accepted fact.

 

[brandon429]

I would expect some fails in the anecdotal works if they left room for fails or were on a continuum of harms where only some cycles worked

the pattern is the proof of dates, toxicity, animal behavior and long term outcome tracking compliance.

Do you consider this a study of accuracy vs anecdote:

Bacteria in a bottle, Myth or Fact

Call me old school, back in the day we placed a deli shrimp in a tank to kick start the cycle. When tank reached 1.5-2 ppm ammonia we pulled it out and waited sometimes weeks to months for bacteria to colonize and drop ammonia and nitrites down to 0 to make tank safe for livestock. With recent...

www.reef2reef.com

 

[brandon429]

From that thread, we accept the end date of the cycle, the bioload carry date, as the date of wait where a full water change can’t undo filtration.



and even before completion, it’s ethical to carry fish with bottle bac because work done in suspension before surface adherence still handles ammonia


Maturation continues in all systems after the cycle ends. End of cycle=can begin reefing ethically with no harm to animals, can do water changes and normal tank care, and animal behavior shows no harm on a consistent basis

so until a better thread exists, that’s the current accepted terminology as I see it. yes I know Lasse does not agree


that thread meets exactly the terms of a valid experiment, best as possible for at least setting completion expectations for different brands of bacteria.