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

Status
Not open for further replies.
OP
OP
LRT

LRT

10K Club member
View Badges
Joined
Feb 20, 2020
Messages
10,196
Reaction score
42,134
Location
mesa arizona
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
I'm not at all embarrassed. By the way just so you know - the main topic on a discussion board is 'a thread'. So - when you say things like this above - I have no clue what you're talking about. This board doesn't have 'sub-threads' - it leads to misunderstandings about who is saying what to whom - especially when one of the posters never quotes to whom he is replying. So there was no 'thread' where I belittled anyone with Dr. Z. Period. There is only one thread here Its your thread. But - I'm happy to say I will be using your suggestion:).
Sure is what it looked like for all to see.
Apologies are most definetely in order for sure at the very least thats the least that could be done for those that did the work and provided the data.
 

Lasse

10K Club member
View Badges
Joined
Mar 20, 2016
Messages
10,830
Reaction score
29,794
Location
Källarliden 14 D Bohus, Sweden
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Sure is what it looked like for all to see.
Apologies are most definetely in order for sure at the very least thats the least that could be done for those that did the work and provided the data.
Which data? In these threads I do not see any data supporting their findings and especially not in all of Brandons post

Sincerely Lasse
 

Lasse

10K Club member
View Badges
Joined
Mar 20, 2016
Messages
10,830
Reaction score
29,794
Location
Källarliden 14 D Bohus, Sweden
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Great question ive never tested for nitrites and tried to ask if anyone with lab grade equipment could explain how it looks in relationship to ammonia in a healthy thriving reef and didn't see an answer.
This is not true - you have get the numbers from me and got an answer on the second question - but not the one you want.

sincerely Lasse
 
OP
OP
LRT

LRT

10K Club member
View Badges
Joined
Feb 20, 2020
Messages
10,196
Reaction score
42,134
Location
mesa arizona
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Which data? In these threads I do not see any data supporting their findings and especially not in all of Brandons post

Sincerely Lasse
@NeonRabbit221B for one and specifically nh3 readings called out to confirmed miniscule/.001 levels.
I have given respect and signifance to all you contributed here. Ive learned alot Lasse.
Nobody else name has to be mentioned. This is not about anyone or anything else.
Its principal now.
We are talking specifically about that alone. And what you quoted here was in direct response to those folks that were demeaning and belittling the data that many of us have collected and observed.
 
OP
OP
LRT

LRT

10K Club member
View Badges
Joined
Feb 20, 2020
Messages
10,196
Reaction score
42,134
Location
mesa arizona
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
@Lasse are you saying we are lieing and or not being truthful when we say we have confirmed .001 nh3 readings with seneye?
 

brandon429

why did you put a reef in that
View Badges
Joined
Dec 9, 2014
Messages
29,494
Reaction score
23,574
Location
tejas
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Lasse you're still withholding direct links that show aquarium studies saying we can't reach that level.


we see it routinely, and now you're applying past aquaculture experience in place of links that show you making a countermeasure, and I can't wait to see what device you use.

So your opinion noted is, we never hit .001 in giant 100 gallon setups that dont get much of an initial dose and still have a tang swimming around?

Again Ill state, we don't need the .001 to be accurate to accomplish these repeating goals, that you can't post being part of:

-timed start dates. Ill name for you any date a given reef tank can carry bioload, you actually test it, report back using your gear.


-no need for nitrite. See anything Randy's ever posted, and re summarized above. I don't choose your side over nitrite.


-happy fish, ability to carry bioload without water cloud, able to handle acceptable feeding from the bioload and stay within range of toxicity that behavior will show, and all believable test kit settings reflecting average nh3 rates. make your case, with something you create (for once)

-I focus on fish disease prevention to the degree you care about nitrite measurement. I have rolls of tanks testing my method, hundreds. post any counter work threads you may have for your patterned claims.

**if these are things you've seen back when you were doing daily aquaculture then I accept that relay of info as valid.

and even if you don't believe everyone's method, you could work on validating at least some of the new patterns emerging.

if we reach .001 or its really .009 the whole time, nobody cares, we attain total control over cycling and you claim it to be so variable nobody can every name a bankable start date.

*whatever the functioning eventual nh3 turnover rate is for the perfect reef, we're hitting that 90% accuracy or better at all times in assigned start dates, we get spot checked by the only meters able to even hopefully get .001 right. you're mad new cycling science passes is what's really going on :)


You can repay me by managing an entire reef convention one day, aligning all those starts with no stalls. Once you do that, I will validate any posts you make that don't come with huge pattern work threads I can read for myself.


Spot check any cycle I do on a meter you trust. If you honestly tell me its bad/too high nh3 on my start date I will listen but you post Taricha-quality pics and documentation of nh3 burn that would certainly be harming a fish too.
 
Last edited:
  • 2 Thumbs
Reactions: LRT
OP
OP
LRT

LRT

10K Club member
View Badges
Joined
Feb 20, 2020
Messages
10,196
Reaction score
42,134
Location
mesa arizona
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
This is not true - you have get the numbers from me and got an answer on the second question - but not the one you want.

sincerely Lasse
Ok maybe I misunderstood is it "seemless" and what does that exactly mean? Is it .02- .05 nitrites but what does nh3 look like with that?
 

MnFish1

10K Club member
View Badges
Joined
Dec 28, 2016
Messages
22,561
Reaction score
21,791
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Lasse you're still withholding direct links that show aquarium studies saying we can't reach that level.


we see it routinely, and now you're applying past aquaculture experience with any links that show you making a countermeasure, and I can't wait to see what device you use.

So your opinion noted is, we never hit .001 in giant 100 gallon setups that dont get much of an initial dose and still have a tang swimming around?

Again Ill state, we don't need the .001 to be accurate to accomplish these repeating goals, that you can't post being part of:

-timed start dates. Ill name for you any date a given reef tank can carry bioload, you actually test it, report back using your gear.


-no need for nitrite. See anything Randy's ever post, and re summarized above. I don't choose your side over nitrite.


-happy fish, ability to carry bioload without water cloud, able to handle acceptable feeding from the bioload and stay within range of toxicity that behavior will show, and all believable test kit settings reflecting average nh3 rates. make your case, with something you create (for once)
No one is disagreeing with the fact that the Seneye is more sensitive than API tests (for example) - you are totally mis-stating what everyone is saying - so you can pretend to be a martyr. Your posts IMHO - are vague - for example - this one - what is 'bioload' - ANY bioload? I have not seen that experiment - with dry rock - if you have a so-called 'work thread' - post that for everyone to see. But - make sure there are hundreds of examples - not from one poster - because thats what you claim - right?

By the way - I have already given you multiple examples of tanks I've set up - using dry rock and a (relatively) full bioload on day 1 - @Lasse has done the same - using a longer period - Again - I'm awaiting for the new miracle science here - AND I'm specifically waiting for the example where either @Lasse or I said anything anyone else said was 'wrong'. It just hasn't happened - except perhaps in your mind?
 
OP
OP
LRT

LRT

10K Club member
View Badges
Joined
Feb 20, 2020
Messages
10,196
Reaction score
42,134
Location
mesa arizona
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
I personally can't believe anyone would come in here and act like the data and information provided in this thread or any of the work tables in the other threads can legitimately say seneye is not reading nh3 at .001 or close to it especially after many of us have said we have observed that.
Are we lieing?
Why would I make that up?
Why would we belittle and demean work folks are trying to achieve for the betterment of the community?
And why would we defend anyone that did?
 

MnFish1

10K Club member
View Badges
Joined
Dec 28, 2016
Messages
22,561
Reaction score
21,791
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Lasse you're still withholding direct links that show aquarium studies saying we can't reach that level.
Sorry - I meant to quote only this in the last post. NO ONE has said, suggested or anything similar to those words stating that you can't reach that level - you're making up a story - I fully believe every piece of Seneye data - except the one a couple days ago - where the guy posted his results - including a pH of 7.06 - which all of the 'expert cyclers' ignored. To me that is an example of a Seneye Fail - (because that particular user did not follow directions). I was the one that posted the article showing the errors in pH with Seneye - and the OP of that thread realized he had made a mistake. I believe he also had some thoughts for your 'advice'
 

brandon429

why did you put a reef in that
View Badges
Joined
Dec 9, 2014
Messages
29,494
Reaction score
23,574
Location
tejas
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Please, readers of the world, spot check us on this with your meters en masse

if you have a facebook page and that page has seneye owners, send them here to sign up for rtr, post an aquarium assembly question, spot check it with seneyes and post back.


we'll either be assembling huge amounts of really good, or bad data. put new cycling science to the test, live time.

we assign the start dates for any arrangement, the world spot checks us on seneye. the conjecture here is snoozeful, let's get some reefing bucks on the line for start date calls. someone use metabook, and send out your seneye owners here for testing. its calisthenics by type coming up. lemme get my inhaler brb. post up some challenges for cycling/world.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LRT

MnFish1

10K Club member
View Badges
Joined
Dec 28, 2016
Messages
22,561
Reaction score
21,791
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Please, readers of the world, spot check us on this with your meters en masse

if you have a facebook page and that page has seneye owners, send them here to sign up for rtr, post an aquarium assembly question, spot check it with seneyes and post back.


we'll either be assembling huge amounts of really good, or bad data. put new cycling science to the test, live time.

we assign the start dates for any arrangement, the world spot checks us on seneye. the conjecture here is snoozeful, let's get some reefing bucks on the line for start date calls. someone use metabook, and send out your seneye owners here for testing. its calisthenics by type coming up. lemme get my inhaler brb. post up some challenges for cycling/world.
No one disagrees with the Seneye data posted already - what is your thing here?
 
OP
OP
LRT

LRT

10K Club member
View Badges
Joined
Feb 20, 2020
Messages
10,196
Reaction score
42,134
Location
mesa arizona
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
I personally can't believe anyone would come in here and act like the data and information provided in this thread or any of the work tables in the other threads can legitimately say seneye is not reading nh3 at .001 or close to it especially after many of us have said we have observed that.
Are we lieing?
Why would I make that up?
Why would we belittle and demean work folks are trying to achieve for the betterment of the community?
And why would we defend anyone that did?
I want an answer to this seriously im going to bump it until I get one.
Absoloute madness that anyone would demean the work and observances of folks reporting there is a better more accurate device to check nh3.
I dont care about differences of opinion here but how is putting down and belittling of that work acceptable without an experiment showing its false?
Are we making all this up?
Did folks plug bad data into the charts?
Are we making it up when we say we have confirmed .001 to miniscule levels?
I'm at a loss and would love to know this answer.
 
OP
OP
LRT

LRT

10K Club member
View Badges
Joined
Feb 20, 2020
Messages
10,196
Reaction score
42,134
Location
mesa arizona
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Lasse you're still withholding direct links that show aquarium studies saying we can't reach that level.


we see it routinely, and now you're applying past aquaculture experience in place of links that show you making a countermeasure, and I can't wait to see what device you use.

So your opinion noted is, we never hit .001 in giant 100 gallon setups that dont get much of an initial dose and still have a tang swimming around?

Again Ill state, we don't need the .001 to be accurate to accomplish these repeating goals, that you can't post being part of:

-timed start dates. Ill name for you any date a given reef tank can carry bioload, you actually test it, report back using your gear.


-no need for nitrite. See anything Randy's ever posted, and re summarized above. I don't choose your side over nitrite.


-happy fish, ability to carry bioload without water cloud, able to handle acceptable feeding from the bioload and stay within range of toxicity that behavior will show, and all believable test kit settings reflecting average nh3 rates. make your case, with something you create (for once)

-I focus on fish disease prevention to the degree you care about nitrite measurement. I have rolls of tanks testing my method, hundreds. post any counter work threads you may have for your patterned claims.

**if these are things you've seen back when you were doing daily aquaculture then I accept that relay of info as valid.

and even if you don't believe everyone's method, you could work on validating at least some of the new patterns emerging.

if we reach .001 or its really .009 the whole time, nobody cares, we attain total control over cycling and you claim it to be so variable nobody can every name a bankable start date.

*whatever the functioning eventual nh3 turnover rate is for the perfect reef, we're hitting that 90% accuracy or better at all times in assigned start dates, we get spot checked by the only meters able to even hopefully get .001 right. you're mad new cycling science passes is what's really going on :)


You can repay me by managing an entire reef convention one day, aligning all those starts with no stalls. Once you do that, I will validate any posts you make that don't come with huge pattern work threads I can read for myself.


Spot check any cycle I do on a meter you trust. If you honestly tell me its bad/too high nh3 on my start date I will listen but you post Taricha-quality pics and documentation of nh3 burn that would certainly be harming a fish too.
I know Lasse knows.
I asked the correct question..
He just doesn't want to give real answer.
I'm ok with that.
Principal is i dont care why or whether that's because he disagrees with you, Randy, Hans Werner or anyone else.
Doesn't give anyone the right to imply information that's been observed is false, overlook, belittle or demean someone else work without works to prove it.
 

brandon429

why did you put a reef in that
View Badges
Joined
Dec 9, 2014
Messages
29,494
Reaction score
23,574
Location
tejas
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
I was thinking how funny it would be if a barrage of cycling help showed up here such that 25 more pages were bumped out, that'd be some data. good or bad, patterns would be present in a clear manner.

lets do actual jobs where if you tell people their system will carry life and it doesn't, you're in social trouble.

send some cycling work/challenges and especially stalls this way
 
  • Like
Reactions: LRT

MnFish1

10K Club member
View Badges
Joined
Dec 28, 2016
Messages
22,561
Reaction score
21,791
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
I have had a busy few days and not willing to read 38 pages of posts tonight… what data are you looking for?
He is looking for data to 'prove' what everyone already agrees is 'proven' - for some unclear reason
 
OP
OP
LRT

LRT

10K Club member
View Badges
Joined
Feb 20, 2020
Messages
10,196
Reaction score
42,134
Location
mesa arizona
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
I have had a busy few days and not willing to read 38 pages of posts tonight… what data are you looking for?
None your charts are all I need showing Peaks and Valleys back to .001
That and your post on page 6 or 7 where you stated exactly what ive observed.
Doesn't even matter if its calibrated. Its tracks nh3 back to .001 even with minimal confirmation.
You've already done the work and charted your findings. I believe them. Apparently there's a few folks doubting our observances haha
Thank you sir
 

brandon429

why did you put a reef in that
View Badges
Joined
Dec 9, 2014
Messages
29,494
Reaction score
23,574
Location
tejas
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
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
 

ReefGeezer

Valuable Member
View Badges
Joined
Nov 9, 2009
Messages
1,972
Reaction score
2,849
Location
Wichita, KS
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
I personally can't believe anyone would come in here and act like the data and information provided in this thread or any of the work tables in the other threads can legitimately say seneye is not reading nh3 at .001 or close to it especially after many of us have said we have observed that...
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Mastering the art of locking and unlocking water pathways: What type of valves do you have on your aquarium plumbing?

  • Ball valves.

    Votes: 66 51.6%
  • Gate valves.

    Votes: 67 52.3%
  • Check valves.

    Votes: 32 25.0%
  • None.

    Votes: 29 22.7%
  • Other.

    Votes: 9 7.0%
Back
Top