aaronnorth said:...through innacurate 4dkh.
This statement isn't true at all. It's easy to tell if you have overdosed CO2. just look at the fish. They'll tell you right away. You don't need a dropchecker for that. Using a dropchecker is all about making sure that you are within the range of what is enough CO2, but again, as J. Starkey mentioned, the measurement is used to corroborate your observations. If there is a conflict between what you observe and what the dropchecker says then that means the dropchecker is wrong.bugs said:I had a CO2 kit from when I did high-tech etc so thought I would just see what is told me. I realise measuring CO2 in a high-tech is more about avoiding overdose but was just curious to see what was happening.
...making sure that you are within the range of what is enough CO2,
the measurement is used to corroborate your observations.
Yes I agree. It's always better to be literal in scientific discussions. Subtlety is often the servant of confusion.bugs said:Lucky I'm not the sensitive sort... It was an opinion - perhaps I should have been more literal. The point I was making around questioning the validity of using a drop-checker for a low-tech versus a high-tech was perhaps too subtle.
But this is not the key difference. Let me explain to you the key difference:bugs said:Assume for one moment that you can measure the concentration of CO2 in both a high-tech and low-tech. It follows then, that the person testing would be...
Whilst obviously......making sure that you are within the range of what is enough CO2,
the measurement is used to corroborate your observations.
So, when challenging why someone would want to test a low-tech whilst accepting that it perfectly normal to test high-tech is it not reasonable to cite that one key difference is you can overdose on a high-tech, thus making testing on a high-tech significantly more meaningful in this respect?