Bolus dosing

[Lasse]

I got trough all your posts in this thread. This is the 3 graphs you have posted.

I start with number 3 of the 12 jun. It shown a sudden speak around 12:99 where the pH rise from around 8,14 to 8.2. I suppose its after a bolus dose of your alk solution. For me - its the expected rise after a massive NaHCO3 (or mix) dose.

However in graph 1 that shows pH between 8 and 14/6 - I cant see the responding rise the 12:th. Why?

Graph 2 shows your KH 11/7 - not the 12/7 Why?

Is this because of bad software for the graphs or something else?

Sincerely Lasse

 

[carbl]

Middle alk readings following a single bolus dose of 600ml, which I thought was around 0.75dKH at the time and others think it is 0.4

This is where it starts, Mo. The basis of how much of what is dosed is not known.
I remember the experiment by the guy from Germany. According to the instructions, the KH should increase by 2.5, but in fact the increase was only 1.9.
I repeated the experiment for myself and came to the same result. I will now leave the whole thing for a few more days and check whether the KH increases afterwards.
Do you have any idea how to explain this? Or how do you arrive at the KH specification of faunamarin if mainly bicarbonate is used?
The experiment also shows that the bolus dosage immediately leads to an increase in KH, as expected.
How does this fit in with the other statements that bolus dosing has no significant effect on the KH value immediately after dosing?
Somehow it all doesn't fit together.

 

[Mo.]

yup. when you blatantly break the TOS, ill call you out.

OH no some random person on the internet doesnt like me, whatever shall i do?

sounds like a personal issue with how you view the world to me..... if you think everyone else is out against you, they have a word for that..... its Paranoid. Nobody really cares enough about you to "want to prevent you from having an opinion". get over yourself.

Ok- thanks for clarifying your position and your views on my mental state.

Can we get back to point of the thread?

 

[GlassMunky]

I don’t consistently cry to the mods like many have been doing in the background.

No. When did I say that?

So now this switched to a load of personal attacks for some reason?!

Carry on if that suits you. I’ve had worse.

I’m still here. You divert as much as you like.

Cheers
Mo

right here...... but again this will probably go right over your head like evrything else in this thread

 

[Mo.]

you mean get back to everyone focusing on you and your points and how you are right and we are all wrong and everyone is misinterpreting things besides you..... RIIIIGGGHT........

No.


I’ve already said I came her me for somebody wiser than me to tell me about the alk and Ph observations.

In fact, I’ve said that several times.

Nobody can, so the usual tactic is insult him and he goes away.

I’m still here. Keep it up.

You still Need to explain the findings rather divert to personal insults.

The personal insults I’m guessing is because you have no explanation for the pH and all readings shown. Apart from user and instrument error maybe?

Which is fine, if that’s what you hang your hat on.

 

[Mo.]

right here...... but again this will probably go right over your head like evrything else in this thread

Why did it go over my head?
You don’t seem to have followed the thread yourself. So go the basic ad hominem attacks.

That speaks for itself?!

 

[GlassMunky]

No.


I’ve already said I came her me for somebody wiser than me to tell me about the alk and Ph observations.

In fact, I’ve said that several times.

Nobody can, so the usual tactic is insult him and he goes away.

I’m still here. Keep it up.

You still Need to explain the findings rather divert to personal insults.

The personal insults I’m guessing is because you have no explanation for the pH and all readings shown. Apart from user and instrument error maybe?

Which is fine, if that’s what you hang your hat on.

 

[GlassMunky]

No.


I’ve already said I came her me for somebody wiser than me to tell me about the alk and Ph observations.

In fact, I’ve said that several times.

Nobody can, so the usual tactic is insult him and he goes away.

I’m still here. Keep it up.

You still Need to explain the findings rather divert to personal insults.

The personal insults I’m guessing is because you have no explanation for the pH and all readings shown. Apart from user and instrument error maybe?

Which is fine, if that’s what you hang your hat on.

randy and others have explained it you you yet you refuse to believe them, so you're just arguing. you aren't trying to get info, you're trying to prove you are right and a know it all and know more than the other people have have already given you what you asked for you just don't like it so you're acting like a child throwing a temper tantrum saying "nu-uh no i'm not" over and over again.

 

[Mo.]

I got trough all your posts in this thread. This is the 3 graphs you have posted.

I start with number 3 of the 12 jun. It shown a sudden speak around 12:99 where the pH rise from around 8,14 to 8.2. I suppose its after a bolus dose of your alk solution. For me - its the expected rise after a massive NaHCO3 (or mix) dose.

However in graph 1 that shows pH between 8 and 14/6 - I cant see the responding rise the 12:th. Why?

Graph 2 shows your KH 11/7 - not the 12/7 Why?

Is this because of bad software for the graphs or something else?

Sincerely Lasse

Hi lasse

The resolution on the graph you circled wasn’t enough, so you I zoomed in in the 3rd photo. My phone was difficult to select the exact date and I posted a different day, but the graph in the same.

I can repost all on the exact same days, but they are the same and I would need to get back to a desktop probably.

I had explained that to Randy previously.

I took this snapshots from my phone. Apologies for that.

Apparently there is no carbonate in the mix only bicarb

My surprise was the apparent stable alk readings. Which I wasn’t expecting.

Cheers
Mo

 

[Mo.]

randy and others have explained it you you yet you refuse to believe them, so you're just arguing. you aren't trying to get info, you're trying to prove you are right and a know it all and know more than the other people have have already given you what you asked for you just don't like it so you're acting like a child throwing a temper tantrum saying "nu-uh no i'm not" over and over again.

They haven’t. Thats the point.

Instrument and user error is not the answer.

Because it has been replicated many times and in many different systems.

On that basis l, there has to be another explanation.

User error is a poor excuse. Which is why I was showing that this isn’t going over my head…..

But as a crowd, you have no respect for somebody who disagrees and are resorting to ad hominem and personal insults.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Measured with what?? Dipping your little finger in and tasting it??

And you guys question my techniques of measurement and suggesting the alk trend was within error range of the measures, rather than a possible effect of dosing 600ml of Alk when you ran your reef and gained your experience with almost nothing?

The 600 mL comment is certainly not an appropriate way to assess whether a test result is near the limit of error of any method. Of course the alk changed some. No one is saying it didn’t. But the larger the volume of tank water, the smaller the alk change, and no matter the method used, adding 600 mL of alk supplement to larger and large volumes of water will at some tank size become undetectable.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

If I understand you right - my very small changes can be an effect of the method in use? Could be that way - but should not the effect be the opposite if my small changes is pH/CO2 depended? Below - it is a typical pH swing curve for my aquarium.

I understand your standpoint that there is no way to explain this (a possible delay between dose and reading) with help of pure chemistry but could it be a biological way to explain this? However - its only an observation in a rather special aquarium and it could be an artefact as you pointed out


Reading or hear things like this in a discussion where it does not matter make me always want to play this on my record player. This time I played it 5 times

Sincerely Lasse

If one wants to know an effect in alk from dosing, one also needs to know two things:

1. What happens to alk in the same system at the same times of day, and then subtract out that effect.

2. When ones adds something to boost alk in your system (something that you believe boosts alk instantly, assuming you have such a belief) how long does it take for that alk to be detected.

These sorts of controls would be important to understand your graphs.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

But you knew that right? Because it’s the FM method that they have been talking about from the start.

There was a discussion of whether other components were bolus dosed or not. That is what I was addressing. Its not all bolus, so no, neither I, nor I think others discussing it, were sure what the bolus dose terminology applied to.

In any case, it is now clear.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

What is the error range? I believe the measurements at my dosing are detectably different, so I don’t agree.

You’ve made an assumption about my water volume based on advertised system volume and rounded it up, to suit your argument. I already told you my estimated alk dose was much higher than your proposed dose, based on the water volume error you used.

It also can’t translate to a biological effect, if you’re saying that my dosing could be as little as zero due to this “presumed” calculation error. The proposed measurement error needs to be biologically believable too?!




There is nothing magic- it’s this thread that says that FM claimed it was. It’s just that it is unusual and reproducible in many different systems.

I was only looking for an explanation…..

I don’t know. I know what they claim, but they also seem to use the words precision and accuracy interchangeably and since that isn’t true, it make me uncertain. Other companies (such as Hanna) give error ranges, but it also appears that reefers reproducibility sometimes seems higher.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

As I’ve said many times, only came to get an answer for the alk and pH trends I keep seeing.

The rest is irrelevant to me.

Whether it’s better or worse will
Come out in the wash, but some claim it is.

All I said is that it’s comparable to any other method I’ve used in terms of running a successful reef tank, which I have done over many years.

breaking that statement down and asking for clarification of what those terms mean is irrelevant to the question.

Why do the alk and pH graphs look
Like that consistently and why when separating the doses as normal dosing are the curves different with less stable alk readings. If the readings look different between the methods, then clearly the test as enough sensitivity to repeatedly show a difference.

The rest is up to FM and their testers to show whether it’s better than other techniques.

Well, I have no opinion on what alk dosing schemes are best for corals, other than trying to integrate the experiences of many people posted over the years, but that doesn’t allow me to say conclusively what is best, especially when there are many different endpoints one might consider, including color, growth, and health, of many different corals.

 

[Lasse]

If one wants to know an effect in alk from dosing, one also needs to know two things:

1. What happens to alk in the same system at the same times of day, and then subtract out that effect.

2. When ones adds something to boost alk in your system (something that you believe boosts alk instantly, assuming you have such a belief) how long does it take for that alk to be detected.

These sorts of controls would be important to understand your graphs.

Long time ago - I did a test that shown that I lose around 1.5 dKH in one day if I did not dose, But I´m not sure that this is relevant today - I think its lesser.

I´ll will do a test that slowly rise my alk to 8.5 - 8.7 and after that stop my dosing regime for a day and calculate the loss in dKH without dosing. Set my KH director to measure every second hour when I rise the alkalinity - when I stop - measurements every hour. When this test is done - test with larger doses and 8.5 in pH as over limit - try to have that pH through night - does this seem as a good plan?

Sincerely Lasse

 

[GARRIGA]

its not ONLY alk that is deliverd true bolus

Again this is talked about in there vids why its called bolus

Saw his vid but don’t remember yet Bolus literally means single dose of medicine being my point and why this likely best find a new name

 

[GARRIGA]

Bolus is also used in modeling. True about carbon dosing. I for example dose x4 the recommended amount of TMElimiNP but I divide it to 8. Other no it is better to keep the bacteria happy and stable

What doesn’t it mean in modeling?

 

[GARRIGA]

So what? I don’t think that’s important.

It is to me as this topic is to you.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Hey Lasse

You’re absolutely correct about sodium carbonate dosing, which is why I suspect FM suggest not to use that or competing products that might.

The question is- do they have a little in their mix or is the higher pH and the stable alkna property of something else.

Or an error in the readings, which aren’t there with lower doses…..

On that point, I have a couple of bits of information that were supplied by an expert chemist friend reading this thread but not participating.

1. He took 303.9 mg of FM Carbonate mix in 1 L of ultrapure water. Alkalinity titration (in duplicate) of that solution revealed 10.02 dKH.

303.9 mg of sodium bicarbonate would give an alk of 10.13 dKH
303.9 mg of sodium carbonate would give an alk of 16.05 dKH

Thus, it looks to be pure bicarbonate unless it has a lot of moisture or other nonalk components in it as well (which cannot be ruled out entirely)

2. He took an FT-IR of both high purity NaHCO3 and FM "Carbonate Mix". They are indistinguishable and fit sodium bicarbonate and not sodium carbonate, although there may possibly be a very small amount of carbonate in each one.