New Hanna magnesium NOT CONSISTENT?

[Fishingandreefing]

I was so excited like most of you about this but then tested 5 times and only two were consistent!

 

[Fishingandreefing]

Salifert was tested at 1350

 

[Fishingandreefing]

Just tested again and what the heck. Dealing with their customer service now.

 

[rtparty]

I'm really not trying to be negative, but it has become my opinion that buying new Hanna testers is nothing more than playing beta testers for them. Almost all of them have major failures early on. This one is no exception as most reviews are coming in that it reads high. Like 2-300ppm high

 

[Alexraptor]

Question: Are the nozzles firmly attached to the syringes? I just got this kit myself, and mine aren't producing a tight seal. Some of them are falling off, and when they don't, they allow air to be sucked into the syringe as well, throwing the results from improper reagent ratios.

 

[Potatohead]

Just tested again and what the heck. Dealing with their customer service now.

You realize it is accurate to within +/- 5%?

Meaning if your magnesium is actually 1380 a reading between 1310 and 1450 is acceptable. That is assuming you performed the test exactly the same each time.

 

[Fishingandreefing]

Question: Are the nozzles firmly attached to the syringes? I just got this kit myself, and mine aren't producing a tight seal. Some of them are falling off, and when they don't, they allow air to be sucked into the syringe as well, throwing the results from improper reagent ratios.

Yup

 

[Fishingandreefing]

You realize it is accurate to within +/- 5%?

Meaning if your magnesium is actually 1380 a reading between 1310 and 1450 is acceptable. That is assuming you performed the test exactly the same each time.

Can you do the math for 1610 and 1360? Don’t think that’s 5%

 

[Fishingandreefing]

I'm really not trying to be negative, but it has become my opinion that buying new Hanna testers is nothing more than playing beta testers for them. Almost all of them have major failures early on. This one is no exception as most reviews are coming in that it reads high. Like 2-300ppm high

I hear you. I am sending it back for a replacement. Will keep the community updated once I get it back.

 

[Potatohead]

Can you do the math for 1610 and 1360? Don’t think that’s 5%

That's why I quoted your second post, which shows 1410 and 1480. And again, that is assuming you are performing the test the exact same way, with the same vials.

 

[Alexraptor]

Yeah that's about a 16% differential.

 

[Lavey29]

You realize it is accurate to within +/- 5%?

Meaning if your magnesium is actually 1380 a reading between 1310 and 1450 is acceptable. That is assuming you performed the test exactly the same each time.

Correct, they are not precision instruments and should be used as a general guideline tool.

 

[LeftyReefer]

Too many steps with this one... doesn't look to be any more accurate, nor any easier to use than my current Red Sea MG test.
Glad I didn't jump the gun and pre-order this one. would not have been happy.

Hanna's good units are the ones that just takes a single reagent, mixed with tank water, a single step, then give me a number....
ALK, HR Nitrate, Phosphate, Copper, etc.. those are good ones. The others like the LR Nitrate, magnesium, etc have too many steps and just don't seem any easier or more accurate than what I'm already using.

 

[Potatohead]

Yeah that's about a 16% differential.

Which is +/- 8%

Too many steps with this one... doesn't look to be any more accurate, nor any easier to use than my current Red Sea MG test.
Glad I didn't jump the gun and pre-order this one. would not have been happy.

Hanna's good units are the ones that just takes a single reagent, mixed with tank water, a single step, then give me a number....
ALK, HR Nitrate, Phosphate, Copper, etc.. those are good ones. The others like the LR Nitrate, magnesium, etc have too many steps and just don't seem any easier or more accurate than what I'm already using.

Agree completely. Too many steps just leads to user error. Same reason the calcium checker was kind of looked down upon compared to some others before these newer ones (nitrate, mag) came out more recently.

 

[Garf]

Which is +/- 8%

Reproducibility should be better than that surely, even if the actual figure is off by 5%.

 

[Potatohead]

Reproducibility should be better than that surely, even if the actual figure is off by 5%.

It probably is. But as discussed above I don't believe the people using it are doing the test the exact same way each time. This isn't a knock on the OP, it's just a reality that more steps and measurements leads to more errors.

 

[Fishingandreefing]

This is from my other tank that usually at 1350. Hopefully I will get a “working” one but I was told it’s on back ordered smh

 

[Fishingandreefing]

It probably is. But as discussed above I don't believe the people using it are doing the test the exact same way each time. This isn't a knock on the OP, it's just a reality that more steps and measurements leads to more errors.

I am doing my test consistently.

 

[Fishingandreefing]

This is from my other tank that usually at 1350. Hopefully I will get a “working” one but I was told it’s on back ordered smh

1000?

 

[A_Blind_Reefer]

I was so excited like most of you about this but then tested 5 times and only two were consistent!

Thanks for the review. Hopefully it gets straightened out. Digital testers may seem like a toy to a lot of reefers but they’re a quite a few of us out there that can’t perform titration tests with our eyes so these really become a necessity. I’ve been holding off getting one until more reviews come in. Man, if you think that’s inconsistent try having non-reefers try and perform titration tests for you….ha