HOBBY GRADE TEST KITS CAN OUTPERFORM ICP MEASUREMENTS…REALLY??

[jda]

It is best to pay attention to what people are tying to say, rather than what they do. If you cannot tell, then just let it go. Exceptions to this are if actual pros are typing and then you can take law vs truth vs fact at face value from a pHD in Chemistry when you probably should not from some random message board poster.

When I see fact/truth from most random posters, I usually lean towards something that somebody else told them that they also believe.

People also say truth when discussing unknowns, even though acccurate. I do this a lot. I should probably stop. I often say that it is true that there is no evidence for set points for raw elements in a reef tank. I should probably just say that there is not any evidence and keep truth out of it.

In all cases, a bit of nuance goes a long way even if it takes an extra minute of typing.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

I use the term truth and reality interchangeably. Maybe others use them differently.

IMO, science strives to understand truth/reality. It’s a big job and often falls short of full understanding, but that is its root goal.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

To suggest that there are topics that “science cannot investigate” seems totally incorrect to me.

 

[Thales]

It is best to pay attention to what people are tying to say, rather than what they do. If you cannot tell, then just let it go. Exceptions to this are if actual pros are typing and then you can take law vs truth vs fact at face value from a pHD in Chemistry when you probably should not from some random message board poster.

When I see fact/truth from most random posters, I usually lean towards something that somebody else told them that they also believe.

People also say truth when discussing unknowns, even though acccurate. I do this a lot. I should probably stop. I often say that it is true that there is no evidence for set points for raw elements in a reef tank. I should probably just say that there is not any evidence and keep truth out of it.

In all cases, a bit of nuance goes a long way even if it takes an extra minute of typing.

I try to say 'I see no compelling evidence' to avoid the side track of folks saying there is evidence, you just don't like it.

 

[Thales]

I use the term truth and reality interchangeably. Maybe others use them differently.

IMO, science strives to understand truth/reality. It’s a big job and often falls short of full understanding, but that is its root goal.

I think this kind of spllit in the discussion comes from differing base assumptions about objective truth and reality. For me, just because we say something is true now doesn't mean it will be true later given compelling evidence. For other people something that is 'true' can never change.

 

[BeanAnimal]

I use the term truth and reality interchangeably. Maybe others use them differently.

IMO, science strives to understand truth/reality. It’s a big job and often falls short of full understanding, but that is its root goal.

I agree.

I always saw science as the pursuit of the truth, with that 'truth' being the very best explanation that we have at the time. The science of the ancients provided that the earth was the center of the universe and that was the truth until it wasn't, that light had no mass and was therefore not subject to gravitational fields, until it wasn't, etc. Our TRUTH now may be wholly or partially discredited in the future, but to the best of our ability and according to the scientific method, it is the truth now.

So science is not truth, but rather the act of verifying what is true and what is not, to the best of our abilities, by and given the body of truths that precede what ever is being verified.

 

[jda]

In the end it takes smart people.

If you think that analytical thinking or data is any better than science, you are wrong.

Data is worthless, but you have to have it. It is just numbers and a few surrounding bits of things that start to form something. It truly means nothing even though people like to think more of it. Worthless on it's own.

Information is good, but it took people who are smart to take that data and those bits to make sense of them. These people can be using experience or knowledge of other things to do this. When people say that they have "data about something" they usually mean some data with one viewpoint about it, which is a form of information. Certainly not all information is good.

Knowledge is what you want. This is when many smart people who have information get together and figure stuff out that nearly nobody has an issue with. This is many, many steps beyond data and even well beyond information.

Knowledge is not always right, but the smart people who come up with it will ALWAYS consider more information and change or make retractions if they need to. This ability to adapt is what makes knowledge so powerful... and much more powerful than information which can get siloed or stovepiped... and why data is worthless even though you have to have it.

Science does all of these things too with different names like hypothesis, theory, study, etc. There is much overlap. In the end, trust and learn from the smart people until you are among them and then let your mind wander a bit.

 

[Reefahholic]

The last 3, good or bad? You dose them or just don’t want them? I am sure they are in seawater but tin? Tungsten? and Neodymium?
Can you even unintentionally accumulate the last two? I guess you could put AP round in A tank and get Tungsten!!!!

Neodymium is usually elevated from Wavemaker/ pump magnets or frag rack magnets breaking down.

Some Heater element’s are made from Tungsten.

Tin comes in from a number of things, but a lot of times it’s seen from rusty stand hinges flaking off into the sump. Also, some reefers mount stuff above their sump on the ceiling of the stand where is begins to break down and fall into the water.

 

[Reefahholic]

What is this chart saying?

You’re in the group, you can search it there. I don’t want to discredit any companies here. It basically comes down to a few products that we already suspected to be higher in certain elements. Now it’s confirmed.

 

[Reefahholic]

So it may not be the particular method that is generating 'success', but the attention to the system that is generating success.

No, it’s the particular method, because I’ve helped several reefers completely recover their systems using ICP data to dose what is missing and remove undesirables.

 

[taricha]

Just in case we're still talking about ICP results in here ;-)

....

What I'm thinking is if the hobbyist chooses to use ICP for whatever reason then they are better off using the same vendor. It would also be in their best interest to collect the sample the same way, time, and with the same procedures to be consistent as possible on their side

Yes, this is true on average. Vendor-to-vendor variations tend to be larger than single-vendor-over-time variations.
And variations between vendors in the absolute values of elements are generally larger than the variations between vendors on their assessments of the trends of those elements.
What I mean is that you probably get better data if you ask ICP about trends of your elements than ask about the raw levels of those same elements.

One thing I want to point out about Plasma Interfaces.

Fauna is using a dual side radial view for their seawater testing. OCEAMO is using a axial plasma view....

I love the detailed tech specs.
But I haven't seen anything that justifies the notion that differences in machines between say FM and ATI is large enough to show up in the data they produce. Which suggests that sources of variation outside of the machine are larger and thus more important than the limitations imposed by the specs of the machine itself.
Maybe some ICP vendor does have a machine of so low quality that its limitations shine through, but I've seen no evidence of that.

Also, we expected way back when we started investigating ICP vendors that the american labs would have an advantage over european ones for obvious reasons of sample ship time. This has never proven to be the case.
Data from european labs has generally been as good or better than that received from American labs. Other sources of variation are apparently more important than the differences in ship time.

 

[Reefahholic]

I think it should be of concern to all of us that we often buy into pseudoscience results that are filled with anecdotal observations and poorly designed experiments.

Many things we know in this hobby come from anecdotal evidence.

How would you classify this experiment done on these 8 elements? Are you implying it was completely controlled in a lab setting without any variables? We may need to look into this experiment more.

 

[Reefahholic]

Just to nitpick “Science and truth” don’t go together.
In science you have law, theories, hypothesis etc….
Here is a quote from the net that explains it better:

Searching for Truth is something different.

Correct. Science changes. In Science there’s often NOT absolute certainty.

 

[Reefahholic]

Seriously, can anybody who is not a fanboy let me know if a single element that is actually proven to provide value in elemental form

Jda, you have a nice well established system (probably north of 10 years old). Pick any common colony and let’s compare the colors with Andre’s. He’s dosing all elemental from of every element.

 

[Reefahholic]

Exactly - even if we could measure 40+ parameters with 100% certainty and precision of NSW and our tanks and dose the difference, is there proof that this is beneficial?

Yes, let’s compare your corals also. You and Jda pick a common colony and let’s look at the colors comparing with Andre who started the method, and uses ICP data to supplement what’s or low all in elemental form.

 

[BeanAnimal]

Lol did you just yank that from my website? That is the graphic I built for my heater article. 10-12 years ago.

 

[Reefahholic]

I love the detailed tech specs.
But I haven't seen anything that justifies the notion that differences in machines between say FM and ATI is large enough to show up in the data they produce.

You haven’t looked at enough OES data. Some ultra trace are showing up and some are aren’t. To name one…Cobalt.

 

[Reefahholic]

Lol did you just yank that from my website? That is the graphic I built my heater article.

Yes I did, I figure I’d get your attention.

Yours was one of the first to pop up when I was looking for a good heater element pic. So thank you for that. Lol

 

[BeanAnimal]

Yes, let’s compare your corals also. You and Jda pick a common colony and let’s look at the colors comparing with Andre who started the method, and uses ICP data to supplement what’s or low all in elemental form.

Respectfully - as has been pointed out, I don’t think the results (one way or the other) can be narrowed to ICP based trace dosing. There are simply too many variables.

To that end, I just recently started keeping SPS again after a 7 year break where the tank ran on autopilot with fish and some softies and a brain that survived with zero water changes, no dosing, no feeding, no skimmer etc. during at least 5 years of that period.

 

[BeanAnimal]

I would also say that I am not against the whole concept of moonshiners or similar methods and have been on the fence about trying. The results presented in this very thread have added to my hesitation to invest the time and money.