Article Discussion: New Salt Study
- Thread starter NaH2O
- Start date
Help Support Reef Aquarium & Tank Building Forum:
Boomer
Well-known member
Ron's test was bomb and he knows it and is just affraid to admit it :lol:
I completely agree with Dr. Shimek when he says The composition was irrelevent - only the survival was relevent
This is nonsense from Ron, whose whole study was based on composition and its relevents.
I completely agree with Dr. Shimek when he says The composition was irrelevent - only the survival was relevent
This is nonsense from Ron, whose whole study was based on composition and its relevents.
Boomer said:
Boomer:
That may be so, but the fact remains that not only survival but thriving animals is what counts in terms of practicality. Most of us will never know what the exact effect of each of the ingredients is on the animals and more so the combination at the proportion the artificial salts have it. Knowing the exact composition of the salts is a good guideline in which to pick, but I am sure that each of the manufacturers change it from time to time for a number of reasons. I also doubt the quality of production is so close that you and I get almost exactly the same every time we open a bucket of IO or your salt of preference.
I am not taking sides here, but it is a point. Too many unanswered questions though not only from his study, but fromt his ones too. Everytime you do a study based on one sample alone, you are going to have so much left open to guessing and assumptions. But it is impractical and unrealistic for anyone to invest in what it would take to make a study with several hundred samples of each salt. Even more so, what do you really do with the results? If they all turn out to be consitant within a resonable margin of error, you are left with the same questions as this one study. IF they show so much variation from sample to sample, you are left with the same questions as this study and the added conclusion that they are inconsistant in production too.
Scooterman
Well-known member
Yea & then what, you discover that every manufacturer is inconsistent to exacting methods so without a costly quality control your left with the very same bucket everyone is already using & it works for most practical purposes, am I right? That is if this is true, commenting on Alberto that is, so enough with the salt test.
Boomer
Well-known member
dg
I would agree on your point of view in that frame work 100 %. I knew what your point really was but just had to pick on Ron. That statement by Ron was his attempt to get himself out of the hole he dug with that article and all the trouble he caused reefers. Ron's test really proved nothing and was tacky to say the least, although it looked impressive. Every time some asked Ron a important question on the way he ran his tests and the answers he gave, he more or less told people to shut-up. That is something you will never see me doing I hope and for sure, not Randy Holmes Farlley. When you are wrong you are wrong.... period...and defending such wrongness, as Ron likes to do, just lowers ones credit rating IMHO.
I also doubt the quality of production is so close that you and I get almost exactly the same every time we open a bucket of IO or your salt of preference.
Guaranteed never to happen, unless we saw the bag #2 get packed from the same mixer right behind bag #1 :lol:
I wonder what his reason was for leaving RC :lol:
The whole point of any salt test has always revolved around which one is closest to NSW. And nowhere can it be found that even NSW is the best. It is just a guide as you stated but really does not mean much, other than the fact NSW does a pretty good job. Salt tests have only been interesting to me so I could see who put what in salt x, y or z. Any particular salt brad does not guarantee a reefer anything on success. It is mostly the "reefer" that brings about success in most cases
You ca be successful with a number of the salts out there. Pick one and try to stay with it. Changing salt brands all the time is not good idea.
I would agree on your point of view in that frame work 100 %. I knew what your point really was but just had to pick on Ron. That statement by Ron was his attempt to get himself out of the hole he dug with that article and all the trouble he caused reefers. Ron's test really proved nothing and was tacky to say the least, although it looked impressive. Every time some asked Ron a important question on the way he ran his tests and the answers he gave, he more or less told people to shut-up. That is something you will never see me doing I hope and for sure, not Randy Holmes Farlley. When you are wrong you are wrong.... period...and defending such wrongness, as Ron likes to do, just lowers ones credit rating IMHO.
I also doubt the quality of production is so close that you and I get almost exactly the same every time we open a bucket of IO or your salt of preference.
Guaranteed never to happen, unless we saw the bag #2 get packed from the same mixer right behind bag #1 :lol:
I wonder what his reason was for leaving RC :lol:
The whole point of any salt test has always revolved around which one is closest to NSW. And nowhere can it be found that even NSW is the best. It is just a guide as you stated but really does not mean much, other than the fact NSW does a pretty good job. Salt tests have only been interesting to me so I could see who put what in salt x, y or z. Any particular salt brad does not guarantee a reefer anything on success. It is mostly the "reefer" that brings about success in most cases
You ca be successful with a number of the salts out there. Pick one and try to stay with it. Changing salt brands all the time is not good idea.
Skimmy
SKIM FU
im going to puke on myself if ron does any more salt tests.
worthless.....
it would be nice if a real labratory somewhere had about $500,000 and 1-2 years to make a study worth a damn
worthless.....
it would be nice if a real labratory somewhere had about $500,000 and 1-2 years to make a study worth a damn
Casperson
Active member
Go Instant Ocean!:razz:
Tom C
Tom C
