Carbon Limited VS Carbon Balanced - Ugly Stage

[Dan_P]

Just as a side note you should know that once I’m happy with the initial results I can stop dosing organic carbon and silica and observe the difference, meaning that this tank will become a control,

Nope, this system won’t function as a control but will be another experimental starting point with an incompletely defined initial state with all the short comings of the first study. The plan is more like a meandering path through factor space with most of the factors unknown, uncontrolled and unmeasured.

 

[sixty_reefer]

Nope, this system won’t function as a control but will be another experimental starting point with an incompletely defined initial state with all the short comings of the first study. The plan is more like a meandering path through factor space with most of the factors unknown, uncontrolled and unmeasured.

In your opinion?

 

[Dan_P]

In your opinion?

Nope, it is the standard way good experiments are designed. I think you have already pointed out that what you are doing is not an an experiment but a let’s-see-what-happens exercise. This short of fishing exercise is sometimes a first step, or a way to get your feet wet.

 

[sixty_reefer]

Nope, it is the standard way good experiments are designed. I think you have already pointed out that what you are doing is not an an experiment but a let’s-see-what-happens exercise. This short of fishing exercise is sometimes a first step, or a way to get your feet wet.

Algae Growth. Dead v Live Rock

This is just an interesting demonstration. I placed 200 mL aquarium water in each of two identical plastic 0.25 L containers. In one container I placed a piece of clean aragonite rubble and in the other a piece of aragonite rubble that has been in my aquarium some months. The containers were...

www.reef2reef.com

From all folks posting I did expect more from you, if you would like to see a idea of how a control would look like this link should illustrate that. Just as this thread they both share a fishing exercise.

 

[BeanAnimal]

At the end of the day I don’t need to know how a combustion engine is build or works to drive a car.
Meaning that I would not have to know all the pathways to evaluate a result on the input of two nutrients.

Yes—let’s stick with that analogy, shall we?

The rub here is that you present yourself as an engineer, confidently explaining that feeding an engine a specific ratio of fuel, air, and heat can be used to control the torque curve and determine tailpipe emissions.

The rest of us are trying to explain that there are countless other variables from ignition timing and compression, to engine load, and more that actually control the torque curve and emissions. You’re misapplying the fuel-air ratio concept to draw conclusions that simply can’t be drawn.

Each time we challenge your claims, you propose a new theory, equally misguided, and the discussion wanders as you continue to pretend to be an engineer. You toss around terms like camshafts, valve springs, and push rods to sound informed, but it’s obvious you have no real understanding of how these components interact to affect horsepower, or what they have to do with fuel-air ratios.

In reality, your understanding of an internal combustion engine boils down to knowing it burns fuel, needs air, and has some internal moving parts. The actual engineering and physics governing these systems is far more complex than you acknowledge or seem to grasp.

 

[Dan_P]

Algae Growth. Dead v Live Rock

This is just an interesting demonstration. I placed 200 mL aquarium water in each of two identical plastic 0.25 L containers. In one container I placed a piece of clean aragonite rubble and in the other a piece of aragonite rubble that has been in my aquarium some months. The containers were...

www.reef2reef.com

From all folks posting I did expect more from you, if you would like to see a idea of how a control would look like this link should illustrate that. Just as this thread they both share a fishing exercise.

I think this post is good lesson for you about how to take advantage of questions and challenges. This is also a good example of how limited the knowledge you obtain from these types of demonstrations. It was any early step, just did not learn much except from the questions and critiques.

 

[Dan_P]

Yes—let’s stick with that analogy, shall we?

The rub here is that you present yourself as an engineer, confidently explaining that feeding an engine a specific ratio of fuel, air, and heat can be used to control the torque curve and determine tailpipe emissions.

The rest of us are trying to explain that there are countless other variables from ignition timing and compression, to engine load, and more that actually control the torque curve and emissions. You’re misapplying the fuel-air ratio concept to draw conclusions that simply can’t be drawn.

Each time we challenge your claims, you propose a new theory, equally misguided, and the discussion wanders as you continue to pretend to be an engineer. You toss around terms like camshafts, valve springs, and push rods to sound informed, but it’s obvious you have no real understanding of how these components interact to affect horsepower, or what they have to do with fuel-air ratios.

In reality, your understanding of an internal combustion engine boils down to knowing it burns fuel, needs air, and has some internal moving parts. The actual engineering and physics governing these systems is far more complex than you acknowledge or seem to grasp.

This seems like a fair assessment.

 

[sixty_reefer]

I think this post is good lesson for you about how to take advantage of questions and challenges. This is also a good example of how limited the knowledge you obtain from these types of demonstrations. It was any early step, just did not learn much except from the questions and critiques.

We’ll leave the discussion here for now, let the results speak for itself.

Just as a recap.

I’m going to avoid the ugly stage altogether while maintaining a high nutrient system, nitrates 10mg/l phosphate 0.4 mg/l and strong light, I’m going to do it by using nutrients to influence biological pathways of my choosing that affect mainly non-nitrate nitrogen compounds.

The criticism is not really going to stop this experiment from being completed.

 

[twentyleagues]

We’ll leave the discussion here for now, let the results speak for itself.

Just as a recap.

I’m going to avoid the ugly stage altogether while maintaining a high nutrient system, nitrates 10mg/l phosphate 0.4 mg/l and strong light, I’m going to do it by using nutrients to influence biological pathways of my choosing that affect mainly non-nitrate nitrogen compounds.

The criticism is not really going to stop this experiment from being completed.

Criticism shouldn't stop an experiment. It could/should help define it though.

 

[sixty_reefer]

Criticism shouldn't stop an experiment. It could/should help define it though.

True, although the only positive criticism I’ve had is lack of control. But is a control really that important once there is plenty of examples of what a control would look like?



There’s 12 examples of what a control could look like above, although I would argue that all of them could of had positive results if nutrients were to be taken into account.
Rock that has phosphate bound to it will always outperform rock that doesn’t bind phosphate such as man made live rock and some dead rock.

The same happens with aquabiomics test on live rock, from the Nitrate chart given, I can identify were live rock a had a possible phosphate depletion.
That translates to less bacteria in the final result.

 

[Dan_P]

We’ll leave the discussion here for now, let the results speak for itself.

Just as a recap.

I’m going to avoid the ugly stage altogether while maintaining a high nutrient system, nitrates 10mg/l phosphate 0.4 mg/l and strong light, I’m going to do it by using nutrients to influence biological pathways of my choosing that affect mainly non-nitrate nitrogen compounds.

The criticism is not really going to stop this experiment from being completed.

Don’t play the martyr. No one is trying to discourage your curiosity.

The below is the clearest description of your intent so far. The last sentence is unnecessarily vague and not completely correct since there is 10 ppm nitrate present.

I’m going to avoid the ugly stage altogether while maintaining a high nutrient system, nitrates 10mg/l phosphate 0.4 mg/l and strong light, I’m going to do it by using nutrients to influence biological pathways of my choosing that affect mainly non-nitrate nitrogen compounds.

Good luck and looking forwards to the results.

 

[Dan_P]

True, although the only positive criticism I’ve had is lack of control. But is a control really that important once there is plenty of examples of what a control would look like?

No, you’ve garnered criticism beyond not having a control, which include but not limited to making things up, not controlling factors in the experiment, avoiding discussing short comings in the experiment design and your logic.

There’s 12 examples of what a control could look like above, although I would argue that all of them could of had positive results if nutrients were to be taken into account.
Rock that has phosphate bound to it will always outperform rock that doesn’t bind phosphate such as man made live rock and some dead rock.

The same happens with aquabiomics test on live rock, from the Nitrate chart given, I can identify were live rock a had a possible phosphate depletion.
That translates to less bacteria in the final result.

You site two good examples why whole aquarium studies never provide clear cut results. They are not replicated, do not have proper controls, fail to control important factors in treatment systems and the results have never been shown to be repriducubke. The amount of hand waving needed to make sense of the results from theses demonstrations is ridiculous. And just as important is the issue of conflict of interest in both cases. Both conveniently produce experimental results that support selling products.

 

[twentyleagues]

True, although the only positive criticism I’ve had is lack of control. But is a control really that important once there is plenty of examples of what a control would look like?



There’s 12 examples of what a control could look like above, although I would argue that all of them could of had positive results if nutrients were to be taken into account.
Rock that has phosphate bound to it will always outperform rock that doesn’t bind phosphate such as man made live rock and some dead rock.

The same happens with aquabiomics test on live rock, from the Nitrate chart given, I can identify were live rock a had a possible phosphate depletion.
That translates to less bacteria in the final result.

To be a true experiment? Yes. To be an "experiment" no. I think like other have said you will see something happen. What is actually happening though? If in the end you dont have a bad or any "ugly stage" you hit your goal.
jfyi I have had the same outcome using dry rock/sand tank started in january no ugly stage. I did not do anything special or crazy and my n and p never bottomed out other than at the very beginning obviously.

 

[sixty_reefer]

Don’t play the martyr. No one is trying to discourage your curiosity.

The below is the clearest description of your intent so far. The last sentence is unnecessarily vague and not completely correct since there is 10 ppm nitrate present.

I’m going to avoid the ugly stage altogether while maintaining a high nutrient system, nitrates 10mg/l phosphate 0.4 mg/l and strong light, I’m going to do it by using nutrients to influence biological pathways of my choosing that affect mainly non-nitrate nitrogen compounds.

Good luck and looking forwards to the results.

It’s a shady area at the moment, I’m not sure if you remember from the dark test that as nitrate was reduced alkalinity increased and as nitrate was maintained alkalinity stayed stable.

I am suspecting at the moment (can’t prove) that the current implementation is only using non-nitrate nitrogen (ammonia and organic nutrients) only once those get depleted they start reducing Nitrate and by effect raising alkalinity.

It’s possible that non-nitrate nitrogen is not being converted into nitrate, hence maintaining a stable parameter

 

[sixty_reefer]

To be a true experiment? Yes. To be an "experiment" no. I think like other have said you will see something happen. What is actually happening though? If in the end you dont have a bad or any "ugly stage" you hit your goal.
jfyi I have had the same outcome using dry rock/sand tank started in january no ugly stage. I did not do anything special or crazy and my n and p never bottomed out other than at the very beginning obviously.

The goal here is to remove some of the guessing.
As you may have observed in your tank, the rock itself may have little to no influence on the ugly stage.

 

[sixty_reefer]

No, you’ve garnered criticism beyond not having a control, which include but not limited to making things up, not controlling factors in the experiment, avoiding discussing short comings in the experiment design and your logic.



You site two good examples why whole aquarium studies never provide clear cut results. They are not replicated, do not have proper controls, fail to control important factors in treatment systems and the results have never been shown to be repriducubke. The amount of hand waving needed to make sense of the results from theses demonstrations is ridiculous. And just as important is the issue of conflict of interest in both cases. Both conveniently produce experimental results that support selling products.

If they were to have presented a full description of phosphate and nitrate a more clear picture would have been made from that experiment. The DNA results alone couldn’t tell much of what’s happening.

 

[twentyleagues]

The goal here is to remove some of the guessing.
As you may have observed in your tank, the rock itself may have little to no influence on the ugly stage.

Yes in my circumstance it had no influence on the ugly stage. While a tank I set up using lfs live rock (that was in sumps for years) had a large ugly stage in another tank. There was no special testing or procedures done with either tank and no control to judge against, so I can not say that the live rock crowd is not correct about lr being the only real way to stop the ugly stage.