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
Last edited:
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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'.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
@revhtreeRev 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
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.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.
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.
and @LRTI 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.
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.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.
Excellent idea!!!!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.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.
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.the Zoid doctor belittling the seneye nh3 findings
The run on sentence was totally not needed.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.
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.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.
@Lasse are you saying we are lieing and or not being truthful when we say we have confirmed .001 nh3 readings with seneye?
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.
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.
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.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.
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.OMG, I am just glad I got out of this thread a long time ago.
All the animosity over a hobby.
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.ReefGeezer
thats a non issue, those spreads don’t matter in safe starts...