dogmatix Posted October 9, 2006 Report Share Posted October 9, 2006 rofl bad luck Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chimera Posted October 9, 2006 Report Share Posted October 9, 2006 :lol: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bychineva Posted October 9, 2006 Report Share Posted October 9, 2006 Thought I was gunna read a thread that would help me with phosphate issues but other than the first post I have wasted 15 minutes of my time. :lol: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jetskisteve Posted October 9, 2006 Report Share Posted October 9, 2006 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wasp Posted October 9, 2006 Report Share Posted October 9, 2006 Never seen anyone have a running fight with Warren before! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warren Posted October 9, 2006 Report Share Posted October 9, 2006 I'm not having a running fight. I'm simply expressing my displeasure at having to intervene in many of the threads or pointless weak arguments between the same member or few members. I fail to see what use these silly arguements are and what they accomplish. Of course, every now and then there are some valid points but what you have to wade through to find them staggers me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chimera Posted October 9, 2006 Report Share Posted October 9, 2006 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lduncan Posted October 9, 2006 Report Share Posted October 9, 2006 Convenient timing: http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showt ... did=946479 These guys must be being argumentative for the sake of it too wasp, of course they're only saying that because they know you own one. :roll: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warren Posted October 9, 2006 Report Share Posted October 9, 2006 Actually, it's a very good thread. If you cannot see the difference between what has gone on in this thread and what has happened on the reef central thread then this is the problem... I see no arguments about silly trivial numbers that pretty much mean nothing on reef central. All I see here is pointless arguments about a couple of numbers and the whole point of the thread has been lost/destroyed instead of being helpful. Surely it's plain to see the difference... (He sits shaking his head in disbelief). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wasp Posted October 9, 2006 Report Share Posted October 9, 2006 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lduncan Posted October 9, 2006 Report Share Posted October 9, 2006 Funny thing is, this thread probably would have ended up the same, if wasp hadn't persisted in making those inaccurate baseless claims. Layton Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wasp Posted October 9, 2006 Report Share Posted October 9, 2006 Oh, just give it a rest... :roll: :roll: :roll: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pies Posted October 9, 2006 Report Share Posted October 9, 2006 if wasp hadn't persisted in making those inaccurate baseless claims. WOW! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Feelers Posted October 10, 2006 Report Share Posted October 10, 2006 Well Layton I dont own a Salifert test kit, so at least the Endowment effect is not at play on me. As for anecdotal evidence... defined as -Casual observations or indications rather than rigorous or scientific analysis -Non-scientific observations or studies, which do not provide proof but may assist research efforts I selected those two because they indicate that anecdotal evidence while not standing up to scientific standards, can none the less be useful sometimes. The picture that I get from people who use the salifert test is that it is consistant with their observations of the tank. Many who use the tests like the ULTRA skim tanks nearly always show up as undetectable, and do not show up as 0.05. If I were to put my life on the line for an accurate reading from a salifert test kit your damn sure I wouldn't put it on being more accurate than +- .05, but what if those kits are say within 0.01 accuracy 80% of the time? What I would be interested in is a fair test - say 100 tests at increasing phosphate levels ten at each 0.00 0.01 0.02 etc. I would be really interested in the results, but so far as I'm aware noone has tried this? I imagine that there would be outliers, but I'd also be interested to see if they could be removed using conventional stastical techniques. Anyone know if this has been done anywhere? It wouldnt be took expensive to carry out. At least Wasp has provided some evidence/"evidence", I might try to analyise his results! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lduncan Posted October 10, 2006 Report Share Posted October 10, 2006 I selected those two because they indicate that anecdotal evidence while not standing up to scientific standards, can none the less be useful sometimes. They also indicate that anecdotal evidence is only used as motivation for true research. Once that research is done and conclusive, anecdotal evidence becomes completely irrelevant... as is the case here. What I would be interested in is a fair test - say 100 tests at increasing phosphate levels ten at each 0.00 0.01 0.02 etc. I would be really interested in the results, but so far as I'm aware noone has tried this? I imagine that there would be outliers, but I'd also be interested to see if they could be removed using conventional stastical techniques. Anyone know if this has been done anywhere? It wouldnt be took expensive to carry out. At least Wasp has provided some evidence/"evidence", I might try to analyise his results! Why bother? This sort of statistical analysis has been done (extensively) for the PBM phosphate test method. Just ask the manufacturers. They prepare all this as part of the ISO 8466-1 standard certification. Typically: Standard Deviation of around +/- 0.035 mg/L Variation Coefficient of method +/- 1.5% 95% Confidence interval +/- 0.07mg/L Layton Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chimera Posted October 10, 2006 Report Share Posted October 10, 2006 and on the 8th day, god created phosphate and god placed that phosphate in the sea with all the fish and all the corals. but god was a jovial chap so he decided not to add too much phosphate. a considerable time later, god created layton. and god said to layton, you shall be the bearer of trivial numbers and scientific babble Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lduncan Posted October 10, 2006 Report Share Posted October 10, 2006 People demand proof. Then when you give it to them they dismiss it at babble / insignificant / trivial. But it sure beat all the what ifs, mights, maybes etc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chimera Posted October 10, 2006 Report Share Posted October 10, 2006 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jetskisteve Posted October 10, 2006 Report Share Posted October 10, 2006 DIE DIE DIE thread Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDM Posted October 10, 2006 Report Share Posted October 10, 2006 i like it chimera, :lol: :lol: :lol: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skippy Posted October 10, 2006 Report Share Posted October 10, 2006 This thread is very funny. Big thumbs up to all who have contributed to the sniping, bitching and general slagging off of each other. Makes amusing reading for those of us who have no idea what you are on about. Bottom line is - is it really so important whether you can detect down to 7 decimal places in this instance (ie in a tank) Going to that level of detection is pointless so why all the theory? If things are still swimming and growing it is OK. If you are getting to the point where you are debating the pros and cons of whether the accuracy of a scientific instrument is +/- 0.005 parts per million your water is probably pretty good. IT DOESN"T MATTER THAT MUCH Jetski wrote: DIE DIE DIE thread All hail Jetskisteve Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evilknieval69 Posted October 10, 2006 Report Share Posted October 10, 2006 skippy wrote Makes amusing reading for those of us who have no idea what you are on about. They just get more and more violent :lol: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lduncan Posted October 10, 2006 Report Share Posted October 10, 2006 There is a lot of bullshit logic/advice/information spread in this hobby, some is harder to descern than other. Sometimes it takes someone who has some idea what to look for to spot it. Layton Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chimera Posted October 10, 2006 Report Share Posted October 10, 2006 only when the explanations are written with trivial numbers and scientific babble. from what i've seen, most take any advice with caution and learn from their own experience. case in point - when you can't test phosphates at such low levels without expensive equipment, it's babble to the hobbyist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lduncan Posted October 10, 2006 Report Share Posted October 10, 2006 Well my points started off simple enough: • 0.04ppm is not an extremely low phosphate level as far as corals are concerned. (Contrary to what the article implied) • Why spend money on an electronic meter when the reality is, they don't give you any more useful information than a normal test kit? • Phosphate test kits (including colorimeters) are useless for telling you how good phosphate levels are. They aren't accurate enough to do that. Instead you have to rely on bioindicators to monitor changes in phosphate below a certain point. The (impractical) alternative is expensive equipment. Then wasp started claiming stuff which was inaccurate, so then I presented the real information to support my point. Which was then dismissed as trivial babble. Presumably because no one actually understands what they mean, in which case, I question why some insist on disputing it? Layton Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.