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.
Shine buddies! I ordered some of the stuff for the shine, didnt have all of the 300 dollars to start out.Still working on bringing the alk up. 7.3 as of this afternoon. Now the calcium is at 400. So I turned off the alk and added some calcium. Will test it all again tomorrow am and pm.
Worse case I can just do a few water changes before I leave. Then when I get home it's gonna be a icp test and then starting the shine. Oh and a battlebox or 2.
I am gonna see what the test says and get what I need first then go from there.Shine buddies! I ordered some of the stuff for the shine, didnt have all of the 300 dollars to start out.
I actually started reading it and then it got way to "scientific" for me. I used to write articles for journals wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyy back when. You always would start with a NULL hypothesis and disprove it. This one seemed like a bunch of data that got mashed up together to prove their point. Which isn't scientifically the way you do it. But regardless, it was interesting. I am not really that anal about which way to test is "righter". I admire the effort they put in and the time it took them to do all the work, it's not an easy feat. I also commend them on their presentation albeit lengthy. They should consider submitting their findings to see if they can get themselves published.Since y'all talking about shining, take a look at the article that was posted yesterday I believe about reliability of ICP tests versus home colorometers. There's a lot of good information there. My key takeaway was that it seems you can do a lot of the core ICP values, more accurately yourself.
I don't know what all required trace elements shiners have to use, but I was thinking about that method specifically while reading the article.
To be honest, a fair bit went over my head but I think I was able to retain the gist.I actually started reading it and then it got way to "scientific" for me. I used to write articles for journals wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyy back when. You always would start with a NULL hypothesis and disprove it. This one seemed like a bunch of data that got mashed up together to prove their point. Which isn't scientifically the way you do it. But regardless, it was interesting. I am not really that anal about which way to test is "righter". I admire the effort they put in and the time it took them to do all the work, it's not an easy feat. I also commend them on their presentation albeit lengthy. They should consider submitting their findings to see if they can get themselves published.
I concur Doctor.To be honest, a fair bit went over my head but I think I was able to retain the gist.
I concur Doctor.


I prefer a Havalon but you have to be very careful because they're super sharp!There are many ways to skin the cat it just depends what knife to use to waste the least meat. Too much time on their hands. I guess I look at it as test kits aren't perfect, nothing is. There is always some degree of forgiveness. I test once a week and if things don't seem right I retest. Consistency has always what I have tried for. I like the idea of having a test I can send out that gives me a bigger picture and tells me if I'm off somewhere. Moonshiners is just my way of playing mad scientist. I don't want to have to test everything myself. I'm lazy like that.
I think what they did was great. Just not my bag.


