• You are viewing the forum as a Guest, please login (you can use your Facebook, Twitter, Google or Microsoft account to login) or register using this link: Log in or Sign Up

PPS pro

It's not possible to discuss with you. When I present my own data, I'm being accused of not acting scientifically (not doing at least three repetitive tests etc.). When I present scientific data, I'm accused of not presenting my own data. When I present scientific data showing that some aquatic plant species have a critical point (above which there is the luxurious uptake) far above the upper values recommended by EI, again this is (somehow) in accordance with EI. So whether the non-limiting nutrient values are 100 ppm NO3 and 15 ppm PO4, or 10 ppm NO3 and 0.5 ppm PO4, still EI is right ... because T.Barr knows it the best. He did tons of tests, and even though he did not share them with us, we all know he's right. Everyone who wants to verify his so called "estimates" is doomed to failure.

This is not a place where one can discuss something seriously.
 
I think you should stick to one idea and then try proof it or falsify but I think for that you have to know exactly what you want to find out.

I get the feeli g that you just want to proof Tom is wrong but you are not sure how. In the end the idea is to be able to keep a nice plante tank. Thanks to him more people can do it know, in a cheap way. Hes taken more time to explain things than most have.

nothing of what youve said falsifies the main idea which is; you can keep a planted tank with excess nutrients which is algae free.

Also you refuse to recognise that all you are saying is that high nutrients feed algae. I dont think anyone has a doubt about this being true.


So, what are we really discussing here? I believe ive lost track.
 
Last edited:
I agree with Ardjuna that Tom Barr is a bit sketchy with data. Exactly where in the Barr Report is it? Do I need to pay for it?

That said, I think what Tom Barr and his EI really have done to help the hobby is spread the idea that test kits are hopeless for hobbyists. We can roughly estimate our nutrient levels simply by knowing the amounts we dose, and then 'reset' it with water changes.

For me, I'm sticking with EI, good (I hope) CO2 and LOW light (~20PAR). If or when I get algae, I'll have to reconsider things.

Reading the previously linked thread, it seems that Mr Barr et al. say that if you get algae, its because of poor CO2 and too high light- not nutrients. My own experience suggests to me that light and CO2 are the most important things, however, these are the hardest things to get right whereas dosing ferts is easy. Hardly any hobbyists have PAR meters and many lights (T5 and LED) in their default configuration produce way too much intensity if you don't have your CO2 perfect.

So whilst you are getting CO2 and lighting sorted, what harm can it do to use lower levels of nutrients if you wish?

P
 
pepedopolous said:
I agree with Ardjuna that Tom Barr is a bit sketchy with data. Exactly where in the Barr Report is it? Do I need to pay for it?

That said, I think what Tom Barr and his EI really have done to help the hobby is spread the idea that test kits are hopeless for hobbyists. We can roughly estimate our nutrient levels simply by knowing the amounts we dose, and then 'reset' it with water changes.

For me, I'm sticking with EI, good (I hope) CO2 and LOW light (~20PAR). If or when I get algae, I'll have to reconsider things.

Reading the previously linked thread, it seems that Mr Barr et al. say that if you get algae, its because of poor CO2 and too high light- not nutrients. My own experience suggests to me that light and CO2 are the most important things, however, these are the hardest things to get right whereas dosing ferts is easy. Hardly any hobbyists have PAR meters and many lights (T5 and LED) in their default configuration produce way too much intensity if you don't have your CO2 perfect.

So whilst you are getting CO2 and lighting sorted, what harm can it do to use lower levels of nutrients if you wish?

P
Click to expand...

You don't have to pay for it. You have to pay for the members section on Barrreport but if you search hard enough across the web you can find the information you want to find. I think some people are expecting it to be collated in a library like most scientific papers. Tom is all over the net giving advice for free but I don't think people should be expecting him to index all his stuff for free. Go search yourselves.

As for what Tom has done I pretty much agree with the test kit part. What Tom did was stop people obsessing about dialling things in to exact levels and to stop them from taking hobby test kit readings as gospel. People who are trying to be scientists and perfect their dosing with hobby kits more often than not are chasing red herrings from false readings. Tom has never said 'don't test trust me'. He says 'You are free to test but why bother? And if you do test you should be using Laboratory quality tests such as Lamotte.' There is nothing stopping people using quality test kits at all. However for the majority of people who want to do this hobby it means that following ranges rather than trusting false readings means a higher success rate in terms of getting that algae free tank.

What you will often find with Tom is that his manner is direct and he doesn't beat about the bush. Some people can take his style as aggressive or confrontational but it is quite simply putting the facts out there and not wasting words. I still don't understand why people think he is defending EI. He doesn't defend EI. He just challenges people who say adding nutrients CAUSES algae when it doesn't. Organic wastes do may cause algae but inorganic ones (The ones that we add) don't.

p.s. Light is not hard to get right. Just go by middling WPG (2WPG or so) or 1.5WPG of LED and you can grow anything. Concentrate on CO2 issues whether that be from injection rates or circulation / flow. In non CO2 tanks use 1.5WPG (<1WPG LED) and steer clear of harder to grow plants. Light really is the easiest thing to control and doesn't really need as much focus as it is given in the hobby. CO2 is the hard one. Easy to buy the stuff. Easy to get it into the tank. Hard to keep it there.
 
At the moment I'm using floaters to let me know if my nutrients are enough or not, no fuss just common sense, if the grow and look healthy everything should be okay, if not, add (more) ferts. this method takes CO2 out of the aquasion. I am using a of the shelf fertilizer in my small tank at the moment, before I used EI but this showed salt crystal on top of the floaters (a sure sign of to much ferts to me), now I have no more problems...I didn't change anything else.
I'm not saying that EI is bad (not at all, I still think its a good method), it just didn't seem to do it for this tank.
 
WPG is that old very simple rule much maligned. It isn't accurate at all which is pretty much on point with this thread. You don't need to do any fancy PAR readings or calculations. Quite simply go by the WPG rule and reduce it for LED lighting. Not exact but simple 🙂

PAR meters are cool for people who really want to dial things in or even just for interest in a similar way to people being interested in nutrient delivery and dialling that in.

If you really want to know what your light is the the Seneye meter is only £60 and whilst many think it isn't accurate I have read quite a lot of threads and posts on it and the overall message is that it is pretty close in readings to the Apogee so go for it.
 
Hi SuperColey1,

I've got a Seneye for that reason. Is it accurate? Maybe. It turns out that it simply takes a LUX reading and divides that number by 37 to give PAR. I kinda feel cheated but I guess you get what you pay for!

P
 
Isn't that what the Apogee does too? I know people use the apogee sensor with a multimeter and then do the multiplication themselves.

When there was a side by side test with Apogee and Seneye they were within 10% or so of each other. From what I hear the Apogee has some critics regarding its inaccuracy for certain colourations too.

Anyway the gist I got what that the Seneye is easily accurate enough to use. This pic is take from the following thread (Seneye = Yellow, Apogee = Red :
http://www.nano-reef.com/topic/287754-seneye-reef-aquarium-monitor/page-2

ftsparreadings.jpg
 
Apologies to the OP for going so off-topic...


I think if you search on 'tomato' growing forums, there are reliable lux to PAR conversion factors from various types of light but NOT LED.

http://www.apogeeinstruments.co.uk/aquarium-par-meters/

In the above link, even Apogee themselves say that you need to apply error correction factors to their PAR results depending on the type of light or colour of LED.

What if your LED unit has various LED colour channels driven at different intensities?

So, if Seneye works, I think it's just a convenient fudge. On their website they only recommend that you use the Seneye light meter for comparing with other Seneye measurements.

http://answers.seneye.com/en/Aquarium_help/what_is_PAR_?

Cheers,

P
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top