lduncan

Oh well. Guess Hanna must have no idea how accurate their own meter is then.

Interesting that you still haven't pick up on the mistake I made in this thread. I would have thought you would have been all over it. Maybe you actually don't understand the significance of the number you get. Layton

Well, it's up to you. But you seem to be the closed minded one not me. It's unfortunate. Layton

exactly, as have many many people. It was sarcasm, I wasn't serious. Layton

Agreed. If they are healthy (not skinny), and the tank is clean, and appropriately size, there's no need to medicate.

you call it hype. It's reality. If you don't trust or respect what I have to say, ask Randy what it means then, or Hanna themselves for that matter. You haven't answered any of my questions. (Including the other thread where you claimed levels of 0.003 where dangerously low) Layton

So what do you think it means then?

Wasp, all I'm trying to do it to get you to understand what the number you get from the Hanna meter actually means based on the specs of the device, which the manufacturer provides. Layton

Still can't answer the question? How about how it works?

How do you interpret that then. What is the most accurate reading you can get from it?

... Or even the difference between precision and accuracy for that matter.

still can't answer the questions... How can you have an opinion on the accuracy of the device, without knowing what the specifications are, or how it works? Layton

It's not an attack, the manufacture gives it's precision and accuracy. Plus if you know how they work, then you can see why they have the accuracy they do. All i've said is that it's no more useful in getting accurate measurements than Salifert kits. This "confident disparagement" comes directly from the specifications of the device, coupled with a knowledge of how it works. How about answering my questions: What's the difference between precision and accuracy? (This is fundamental in interpreting any measured value) Layton

[sarcasm] Won't reducing nutrients by over 80% in a few minutes cause TN though? It can sometimes happen to people running zeovit when they reduce nutrients over a period of months. Doing that much in a period of a few minutes is bound to kill corals. [/sarcasm] :roll:

Where did this number of 0.003 come from? Is it just hearsay on zeovit.com? Have you verified it? Healthy reef ranges from 0.1 to 0.01 uM/L equivalent phosphorous. This is far from starving corals of phosphate. Layton

:roll: yet more personal attacks and assumptions from people who don't know what they are talking about. Can you guys not discuss something civilly, without having to resort to slinging mud when I ask a few questions. You really should grow up. Layton

humour me, answer mine for once.

as usual can't answer the questions.

You still don't get it do you. It is possible to know how something works without ever using it. It is also possible to use something without even knowing how it works. Tell me how the Hanna meter works, what it's constructed from, the physics behind it's operation. Explain what has to potential to bias the readings you get from it. Then explain to me how you can trust a reading from a device of 0.02 (when the accuracy of it is only +/- 0.04) more than the salifert test kit. The true value could lie anywhere between 0.06 and 0.008 Explain the difference to me between precision and accuracy. Salifert test kits and the Hanna meter are of similar usefulness. Just because there is an electronic device giving you a number does not necessarily make it more accurate.

Might help fund the upgrade.

Maybe I should auction off the rights on trademe.

dunno what the exact requirements are for CO2.

Reef usually has Tunze ones available cheaper than BOC, they also come with a needle valve which can be surprisingly expensive separately.

Bacteria and detritus, potentially, not sure though. My real aim is to avoid using carbon, and remove waste more efficiently.