Cycling issue??
- Thread starter Brian mcguirt
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Can't wait for the fish. Since I don't know much at all about chemistry my main angle is presentation pattern of the masses: everyone's fish lives in conditions the books (tests too) say are lethal.
I could understand if symptomatic fish were part and parcel of the cycling community... people saving their stressed fish in the nick of time with a remedying action for ammonia
but complete and total initial bioload carry acting normal on day one is the certain pattern on file, the summation of all cycle help posts ever made in forums imo
Agreed fully about dead bac existing, loss of the concentration benefit. The endpoint presentation still exists though in the posted logs of cycles so something makes up for that low presentation %
And I claim it'll be raw dilution initially. Merely adding a fish or two, most starting bioloads are two clowns, and their feed begins a classic cycle the charts show us take about 10 days, even if dead bac were present. The fish may experience discomfort in that instance, but I've never seen it as a pattern in what the masses post over the years
The dilution carry offset must be strong, and the incidence of dead bac is low, as a non chemistry angle it seems those inferences are fair.
I could understand if symptomatic fish were part and parcel of the cycling community... people saving their stressed fish in the nick of time with a remedying action for ammonia
but complete and total initial bioload carry acting normal on day one is the certain pattern on file, the summation of all cycle help posts ever made in forums imo
Agreed fully about dead bac existing, loss of the concentration benefit. The endpoint presentation still exists though in the posted logs of cycles so something makes up for that low presentation %
And I claim it'll be raw dilution initially. Merely adding a fish or two, most starting bioloads are two clowns, and their feed begins a classic cycle the charts show us take about 10 days, even if dead bac were present. The fish may experience discomfort in that instance, but I've never seen it as a pattern in what the masses post over the years
The dilution carry offset must be strong, and the incidence of dead bac is low, as a non chemistry angle it seems those inferences are fair.
Team look at this video it's relevant
www.reef2reef.com
Mr Swr gets .19 nh3 in an Instagram quality reef
Summation on hanna: I've seen 4x readings now, none were zero (bc it reads hundredths and reefs run at thousandths ppm nh3)
Readouts were wildly varying
I believe api now over Hannah. If someone reports an api reading, math it into nh3 and the concerns go away. Here, a digital meter is just way way off x100
[VIDEO] ▶ HANNA AMMONIA Checker - Mr. Saltwater Tank RUF
[VIDEO] HANNA Marine AMMONIA Checker - Mr. Saltwater Tank - Raw, Uncut, and First Impressions In this episode of our series, Mr. Saltwater Tank - Raw, Uncut, and First Impressions (RUF), Mark will look at the Marine Ammonia Checker from Hanna Instruments. Join us as we share when we'd use an...
www.reef2reef.com
Mr Swr gets .19 nh3 in an Instagram quality reef
Summation on hanna: I've seen 4x readings now, none were zero (bc it reads hundredths and reefs run at thousandths ppm nh3)
Readouts were wildly varying
I believe api now over Hannah. If someone reports an api reading, math it into nh3 and the concerns go away. Here, a digital meter is just way way off x100
*update, Garf posted the instructions to the kit. the meter seems decent, although still not buying 2.5 ppm and without a fish test there's no decision on this post at all.
it reads as nh4 just like api, then we convert it off the charts and off ph ESTIMATES (few on any reefkeeping site are measuring pH 100% accurate, it's still an estimate portion of the conversion math)
if Mr Saltwater's reef was 79 degrees and 8.0 ph his .19 reading on that meter is about .01 ppm nh3
and if he's at 79 degrees and 7.8 ph it's .007 ppm nh3 which is now .001 units away from matching the upper end of what a seneye would read, nicely done for $59 meter vs $180.
readings must be converted by estimate.
it reads as nh4 just like api, then we convert it off the charts and off ph ESTIMATES (few on any reefkeeping site are measuring pH 100% accurate, it's still an estimate portion of the conversion math)
if Mr Saltwater's reef was 79 degrees and 8.0 ph his .19 reading on that meter is about .01 ppm nh3
and if he's at 79 degrees and 7.8 ph it's .007 ppm nh3 which is now .001 units away from matching the upper end of what a seneye would read, nicely done for $59 meter vs $180.
readings must be converted by estimate.
- Joined
- May 22, 2016
- Messages
- 6,970
- Reaction score
- 10,769
This is the correct interpretation.
You should take the hanna 0.1-0.2 ppm total ammonia reading in exactly the same way as you take the API splash of green "soft zero".
Set it = 0.
Here it is on my display tank.
@Dan_P or I can go into more detail on the factors that might cause the slight positive detection result from established tanks with the total ammonia chemistry, but the short answer is it's slightly sensitive to organic N, which established reefs contain in decent amounts (see Triton N-DOC).
You are correct Brandon, that it is (mostly) not real ammonia. And even if it were, that level of total ammonia would be of no concern.
None of this explains away the OP's maxed out reading. If it's blue-green, my money says it's real. And that's where Brandon and I agree to disagree.
We never got the fish test promised Tuesday. The cliffhanger remains: a test kit says a reef isn't cycled where we have forty pages of similar tanks carrying fish claiming # of days underwater is a better measure of ammonia control establishment. this is always how it goes down, there are no cycling cavaliers willing to carve a new path against the grain of cycling incompletion fear 
We are simply trained to never, ever, never question a test kit. 2.5 converted to nh3/ disagree bc it's so far out of pattern for cycled tanks, on seneye, same date and arrangement.
The reason this thread is great for our false stuck ammonia alert thread: that one is page eight of zero symptom alert posts, among a test kit claiming cycle stuck. The cliffhanger here was that fish were going to live just fine if added/ like the others/ and skipping that final proof is what keeps false cycle stall science going... by rumor
This tank has too much inoculated surface area dead center flow, past day ten on a cycling chart, to get to claim a stuck cycle without having to post seneye and without having to fish test. This thread is every stuck cycle thread on the web: no loss, just a test reading unquestioned.
We are simply trained to never, ever, never question a test kit. 2.5 converted to nh3/ disagree bc it's so far out of pattern for cycled tanks, on seneye, same date and arrangement.The reason this thread is great for our false stuck ammonia alert thread: that one is page eight of zero symptom alert posts, among a test kit claiming cycle stuck. The cliffhanger here was that fish were going to live just fine if added/ like the others/ and skipping that final proof is what keeps false cycle stall science going... by rumor
This tank has too much inoculated surface area dead center flow, past day ten on a cycling chart, to get to claim a stuck cycle without having to post seneye and without having to fish test. This thread is every stuck cycle thread on the web: no loss, just a test reading unquestioned.
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2018
- Messages
- 7,571
- Reaction score
- 7,962
The only way that I can think of how to produce a high false positive, a blue green color, is via the nitroprusside catalyst (it is what makes this test irritatingly yellow or yellow green), but I am not sure that such a reaction can happen in this situation. So, unless the reagents are bad, @taricha reading of this situation is right, probably high ammonia.This is the correct interpretation.
You should take the hanna 0.1-0.2 ppm total ammonia reading in exactly the same way as you take the API splash of green "soft zero".
Set it = 0.
Here it is on my display tank.
@Dan_P or I can go into more detail on the factors that might cause the slight positive detection result from established tanks with the total ammonia chemistry, but the short answer is it's slightly sensitive to organic N, which established reefs contain in decent amounts (see Triton N-DOC).
You are correct Brandon, that it is (mostly) not real ammonia. And even if it were, that level of total ammonia would be of no concern.
None of this explains away the OP's maxed out reading. If it's blue-green, my money says it's real. And that's where Brandon and I agree to disagree.
kevgib67
10K Club member
On the edge of the cliff here waiting for the conclusion. I think he posted he/she was going to the lfs for the clown on Wednesday ( today).We never got the fish test promised Tuesday. The cliffhanger remains: a test kit says a reef isn't cycled where we have forty pages of similar tanks carrying fish claiming # of days underwater is a better measure of ammonia control establishment. this is always how it goes down, there are no cycling cavaliers willing to carve a new path against the grain of cycling incompletion fear
The reason this thread is great for our false stuck ammonia alert thread: that one is page eight of zero symptom alert posts, among a test kit claiming cycle stuck. The cliffhanger here was that fish were going to live just fine if added/ like the others/ and skipping that final proof is what keeps false cycle stall science going... by rumor
This tank has too much inoculated surface area dead center flow, past day ten on a cycling chart, to get to claim a stuck cycle without having to post seneye and without having to fish test. This thread is every stuck cycle thread on the web: no loss, just a test reading unquestioned.
I rushed to judge then, having said there were no cycling rogues willing to rock and roll.
The truth is, even if the fish is fine that's no proof there isn't free ammonia above what a cycled reef would run at. All it shows is that we're below a toxicity threshold but actual level isn't known in my opinion
I'm going back to read: did he add additives in reaction to perceived ammonia stall_any amquel or prime? (adulterant potential)
The truth is, even if the fish is fine that's no proof there isn't free ammonia above what a cycled reef would run at. All it shows is that we're below a toxicity threshold but actual level isn't known in my opinion
I'm going back to read: did he add additives in reaction to perceived ammonia stall_any amquel or prime? (adulterant potential)
