A thread tracking pure skip cycle instant reefs, no bottle bac

[brandon429]

My more specific point: every crash warning comes from a warner who has not seen, isn't that amazing

In science, we should be readily able to link all manner of reef tank outcomes. Isn't it patently amazing, when you ask to see crashes, meeting that tight criteria from the thread: nobody has some.

What does that mean about warnings


Agreed: eel vs few pebbles isn't a filter. But if we apply a crash warning to specifically reefing: no umpires have been in a thread where that happened. Pressing for specifics gets amazing results when sampling, I'm seeing.

For sure myriad examples exist for fish kills from disease and hardware tank crashes.

 

[brandon429]

the reason that thread applies here it because it gives boundaries to what we're doing (that the collective public has seen and can show)

what we do here isn't a notable crash risk, it never has been. if I'd stated that myself, a 1st person testimony is easy to discount

but what if I poll a top scientist on the board, consulted ten thousand times in searchable posts for the last 25 years, and the most angry pressing mob out to disprove anything I type? heck if they haven't seen a crash... a boundary is established.

 

[Ben's Pico Reefing]

My more specific point: every crash warning comes from a warner who has not seen, isn't that amazing

In science, we should be readily able to link all manner of reef tank outcomes. Isn't it patently amazing, when you ask to see crashes, meeting that tight criteria from the thread: nobody has some.

What does that mean about warnings


Agreed: eel vs few pebbles isn't a filter. But if we apply a crash warning to specifically reefing: no umpires have been in a thread where that happened. Pressing for specifics gets amazing results when sampling, I'm seeing.

For sure myriad examples exist for fish kills from disease and hardware tank crashes.

Ammonia in an established tank detected first Google search or second result:

How do you get rid of Ammonia in an established tank - Reef Central Online Community

How do you get rid of Ammonia in an established tank Reef Discussion

www.reefcentral.com

The other issue as I have seen is when someone does find ammonia you automatically dismiss it as a false reading. Even if the person retests and uses different kits, you will say it's false. Use a seneye to test and comes up you will say it's not calibrated correctly.

Ammonia can be produced or introduced to detectable or even extreme levels in an established reef tank. While it may not be detrimental at low levels or caused by outside source such as an equipment failure, doesn't dismiss it can happen. The source should be treated first then followed up by maintenance.

 

[brandon429]

*from the thread

-a direct request not to search out, and link back cycle issues resulting from test kits from threads you weren't part of. please make the reference a newly cycling tank and make it a thread you were personally driving/consulting.

anyone can search out a thread titled crash, that doesn't mean it crashed. that guy dosed something in his tank to treat flatworms, no application here. all we collect here is new tank data.

if that was a skip cycle setup, that you guided, and recalled that it matched needs here, the link would be valid.

the whole point of the thread linked was to restrict down the qualifications for posting a crash: it had to be from a thread the pro was in, at the time. very simple rule

and that stopped all linkable examples.


but to avoid sidetracking: I for sure get what you mean.

as stated prior page: nobody has seen crashes in reef tank cycles, at least none to pattern. we almost always succeed, using any means. the greater tie-in: disease planning is where ALL warnings should be at. not the cycle. all umpires have seen disease crashes, so that's what they should be relaying. not the phantom things

 

[Ben's Pico Reefing]

So you asked for examples. When you provide you dismiss and call it off topic? The point is if an established tank can be overloaded to where ammonia is detectable then there is also a possibility to where even if dropping established love rock in a tank you can still overload.

The dosing still caused an issue and drove ammonia in an established tank.

There are some threads googling and researching showing that the cycle did indeed fail. But you will just dismiss and because I wasn't apart of it it doesn't count.

I am not sure how you want people to contribute when you have the requirements agree with me or meet this , this, this, this and this and have scientific data published, printed and nobel prize.

I am a huge support of pre established bacteria using love rocks to avoid cycle and agree this is probably the best method for setting up.

I don't agree with the view of never failing, but not allowing the evidence to be added or supported due to some arbitrary rules you put in place is not going to further anything.
I am no scientist
I have only setup my own tanks,
I have not published anything,
This automatically makes me not allowed and dismisses anything I post positive or negative. As well as many others.
This also dismisses peoples experience as well making it bull and void.

How can people have a conversation when most do not meet your requirements and things are just dismissed based on this?

 

[MnFish1]

That old cycling rule was made up to answer the reason perfectly cycled tanks showed light green on api

The light green on API was probably misread (i.e. the instructions not followed) - slightly light green is still read as 0 ammonia according to API instructions (you pick whatever color your sample is closest to if its in the middle of any of the color chart). If the sample is closer to 0 than to 0.25, the result is 0 for example, not 0.125

 

[brandon429]

that's unfortunate. I'm not in your posts, arguing.

yes I did set tight parameters for collecting examples of crashes, that way we couldn't devolve into arguing as quickly. please, don't continue if at all possible, if you're offended, I can't see why.

I specifically excluded examples that could include confusing API test panics. I had a method for that request, don't let passion outweigh thoughtfulness. if you are mad, don't insert it here pls/you can see that's a gradient problem here. treat me like I've treated you for about two years now, in your threads.

 

[BeanAnimal]

My more specific point: every crash warning comes from a warner who has not seen, isn't that amazing

IMHO - Refocussing every conversation about cycling and nitrification to this point indicates that you are not listening and more interested in pulling up your proverbial soapbox than actually helping people learn.

"Crash predictions" are not driving any of these conversations and attempting to portray them as such is creating more confusion than it is actually helping people or your points.

In science,

In my view, you are not practicing science. You are ignoring information that is contrary to your views and creating "rules" that are contrary to actual science -- your "new science". Do you understand the repeated pushback?

But if we apply a crash warning to specifically reefing: no umpires

There is no need to continually label people that disagree with you in veiled language that is meant to be disparaging or convey disdain. That, along with the coined terminology only serves to obfuscate clear communication and create contentious exchanges.

 

[MnFish1]

How can people have a conversation when most do not meet your requirements and things are just dismissed based on this?

I am not sure a conversation is what is desired here - but rather choose examples that agree with the underlying premise - and ignore those that do not. No offense to anyone - but many times I have no clue what ideas are being presented or discussed due to terminology which is not standard English or 'Reefing language'. I don't feel that There is any reason to use a Seneye (Which, though I have no objection to it) very few use to test ammonia. API tests for me have been just as accurate as any of the others - other people have not had a similar experience - but quite a few of these people are merely repeating what they have heard - as compared to actually using the test itself.

 

[BeanAnimal]

that's unfortunate. I'm not in your posts, arguing.

He did not come here to argue. He posted, basically supporting you and some of your underlying points.

You went right back to crash predictions and absolutes that had nothing to do with his point. .

 

[Lasse]

Same tank, same time - different locations. Flow through the DSB - around 0.3 times the volume of the DT.

The NH3/NH4 production below the DSB is a function of bacterial breakdown of DOC and POC. DOC addition between 0.6 - 1,3 ml/H of 8% Ethanol

NH3/NH4 measured with Hanna Marin Master ammonia method. A blank is done and show 0.06 mg/L Values above is corrected with - 0.06 mg/L

Just image if one or two of my largest fish will die in some caves there I can´t reach them.

Sincerely Lasse

 

[brandon429]

thanks Lasse for the input. reading it now

if you had a fish die, your live rock would handle it fine is the answer.

 

[brandon429]

its for sandbed dynamics: very cool read. I don't think I've seen that studied before/good details there.

 

[brandon429]

what ammonia tester did you use for that graph

 

[BeanAnimal]

its for sandbed dynamics: very cool read. I don't think I've seen that studied before/good details there.

I think you are circling the barn here without looking in...

The data and his response are making several points (at least 3) that are contrary to the "rules" that you keep repeating.

1 - there can be measurable ammonia in "stable" systems.
2 - ammonia processing is not "instant" as variables change.
3 - given 1 and 2 - it is not impossible for a reasonably scaled event to create an ammonia spike.

So again - the prediction here is not "crash" or what actual level of ammonia becomes dangerous, or if that level will be reached -- it is just a simple illustration that your rules are not actual rules.

 

[brandon429]

again I'll ask

what tester was used to make that graph, since we're talking response times and I can relate that to seneye resolve rates, from large threads already on file showing 10 min resolve rates for large liquid doses of ammonia.

Does anyone dose ammonia and/or how would one try?

So, after an interesting discussion on nitrate dosing and looking at my Walt Disney coral and seeing it slightly less colorful than I have seen it in others tanks, I have decided I want to learn about and then try dosing ammonia instead of buying 20 damsels. Nitrate additives I see abound and...

www.reef2reef.com

that shows reef tank ability to process large ammonia loads, quickly.

interestingly that's using the exact tester I said was aligned for this thread, my links are relevant hopefully at least for the stated examples I'm wanting here, so that we stay on track.

Lasse's findings need to be in line with those in my opinion, since that's a bunch of testers aligned in a common way for the matter of resolve rates. I'm checking to see how well his graph aligns with theirs.

 

[brandon429]

is it true: Lasse is measuring data from below a DSB

and that giant thread I posted is ammonia load testing, of the rocks?

I can assess a relevance factor once I get that clarity

 

[BeanAnimal]

is it true: Lasse is measuring data from below a DSB
...again I'll ask
...what tester was used to make that graph,
I can assess a relevance factor once I get that clarity

How can you formulate a response to his post, let alone assess relevance if you do not appear to have even read or analyzed his post to begin with -- where both of those pieces of information are very clearly presented, if not the entire underpinning of his post?

 

[Lasse]

@brandon429 Read the post - its not in Swedish! I think it is in English! In the graph - clearly stated. It show both below the DSB and in the tank

NH3/NH4 below the DSB/ In the DT 2024

I use both Italic and bold - you may understand what I´m saying

NH3/NH4 measured with Hanna Marin Master ammonia method. A blank is done and show 0.06 mg/L Values above is corrected with - 0.06 mg/L

Sincerely Lasse

 

[brandon429]

Hanna checker, got it. thats better than api, and within a thread where I've asked repeatedly only to source or include seneye, that's an acceptable forced offer/again.


Is that a graph of how fast live rock resolved ammonia loading?

the link I posted was measuring that. That's our scope for this thread.

when I read the data I posted, it gave me peace of mind that all reef displays can resolve atypical ammonia loading. looking to see if your chart offers that exact same takeaway, so relevant here.

I'm trying to figure out how your chart, among our results and that counter thread, conveys a risk to my approach here.