Trident accuracy

[Reefer Matt Verified Media Partner]

Let’s hope it’s not just getting drain water. It is open to the whole sump, but the reef mat is kind of blocking a little bit. There was not much flow in that area though.

I also just put on the Triton sample line filter. Do I need to do anything once I put it on?

I hope the ATO wasn’t pumping water all over the place lol!

For a sanity check, you could test the water at that spot and in the display with the hanna to see if they are the same. Luckily my ato is just a doser, but yup, on the rug it went! I haven’t used the filter myself, so I am curious on how well they work.

 

[Reef Devils]

For a sanity check, you could test the water at that spot and in the display with the hanna to see if they are the same. Luckily my ato is just a doser, but yup, on the rug it went! I haven’t used the filter myself, so I am curious on how well they work.

Ok I might test in that spot tomorrow. I’ve done enough testing for today!

 

[Reef Devils]

I’ve been using the sample water calibration method. I test my water using Hanna kits and then calibrate the trident to those values. Been happy so far with the results.

So, instead of using the calibration solution, that comes with the reagents, you test your tank water with Hanna checkers and when you go to calibrate your trident, you put in the numbers you got from your Hannah and calibrate with those?

 

[ti_lavender]

So, instead of using the calibration solution, that comes with the reagents, you test your tank water with Hanna checkers and when you go to calibrate your trident, you put in the numbers you got from your Hannah and calibrate with those?

Yep! That's exactly what I do.

 

[Reef Devils]

Yep! That's exactly what I do.

Then what is the point of the numbers on calibration solution?

 

[rtparty]

Those are so close it doesn’t matter. Both are plenty good for our use.

The Trident accuracy numbers are ludicrous though. They aren’t nearly that accurate and precise.

But again does it matter if your alkalinity is 8.4 or 8.7dkh? Nope. Just try keep your alkalinity around 8.5dkh with the Trident and spot check with the Hanna every once in a while. Same for calcium. 420 and 460 are so close it doesn’t matter. Calcium can basically range from 380-500 and you will see no difference in the tank. It’s likely safe to go higher than 500 even. Magnesium is a pointless test from any of them IMO. Use good salt, do you water changes, and magnesium will be taken care of. I really wish I could switch out magnesium for phosphate on my Trident but no dice. The calcium and magnesium tests are connected with a Trident. If you watch your graphs they always inverse with one another.

 

[Reef Devils]

Those are so close it doesn’t matter. Both are plenty good for our use.

The Trident accuracy numbers are ludicrous though. They aren’t nearly that accurate and precise.

But again does it matter if your alkalinity is 8.4 or 8.7dkh? Nope. Just try keep your alkalinity around 8.5dkh with the Trident and spot check with the Hanna every once in a while. Same for calcium. 420 and 460 are so close it doesn’t matter. Calcium can basically range from 380-500 and you will see no difference in the tank. It’s likely safe to go higher than 500 even. Magnesium is a pointless test from any of them IMO. Use good salt, do you water changes, and magnesium will be taken care of. I really wish I could switch out magnesium for phosphate on my Trident but no dice. The calcium and magnesium tests are connected with a Trident. If you watch your graphs they always inverse with one another.

Very helpful thanks

 

[ReefKeeperElite]

Good to know. Thanks

One more question. Do you think this is a good spot for the water sample line?

Don't know about the ReefMat, but I have a Clarisea, and it creates micro bubbles when the water flows through the fleece and out to the sump. If those tiny bubbles go into the sample line, it would skew the trident results.

 

[Reef Devils]

Don't know about the ReefMat, but I have a Clarisea, and it creates micro bubbles when the water flows through the fleece and out to the sump. If those tiny bubbles go into the sample line, it would skew the trident results.

Well, maybe it was a good idea that I but the sample line filter on.

 

[areefer01]

So, instead of using the calibration solution, that comes with the reagents, you test your tank water with Hanna checkers and when you go to calibrate your trident, you put in the numbers you got from your Hannah and calibrate with those?

You are assuming that the Hanna results are better than the calibration solution. Seems like an odd way to do it. To be blunt don't chase numbers regardless of the tool you are using. It will drive you crazy. These are all hobby grade solutions be it automated or manual at the end of the day.

Manual test
Automated test
ICP tests
ICP type, vendor
People doing the tests
Calibration of equipment

See the pattern? Focus on what you can control. @rtparty gave a sound recommendation as did @Reefer Matt on the 2nd post. Your numbers are good after using the Neptune calibration solution. Let the Trident be the source of record since that is why you purchased it. You didn't purchase it to follow up with a battery of manual tests then compare and contrast - that would be wasteful.

You can spot check and some of us do. We'll collect a water sample from the same area the Trident draws from a few minutes before a combined test. If it isn't scheduled then we'll collect the sample then run a combined test. This way we are at the same time of day, water location, etc. Furthermore if we send off an ICP sample then add that to the mix and collect enough water for everything at that time. This way we have the water sample and time of day close enough and rule that out.

Again as already noted the Trident is going to give you data. Data you can trend over time. Add some photos and you now have beautiful data to assess and pictures to go with it. Plus a full head of hear because you are no longer pulling it out wondering which test kit or result is more accurate.

Edit: @Reef Devils I replied everything to you - my apologies. I only meant to talk about the using Hanna results for calibration. The rest was just general reply.

 

[Reef Devils]

You are assuming that the Hanna results are better than the calibration solution. Seems like an odd way to do it. To be blunt don't chase numbers regardless of the tool you are using. It will drive you crazy. These are all hobby grade solutions be it automated or manual at the end of the day.

Manual test
Automated test
ICP tests
ICP type, vendor
People doing the tests
Calibration of equipment

See the pattern? Focus on what you can control. @rtparty gave a sound recommendation as did @Reefer Matt on the 2nd post. Your numbers are good after using the Neptune calibration solution. Let the Trident be the source of record since that is why you purchased it. You didn't purchase it to follow up with a battery of manual tests then compare and contrast - that would be wasteful.

You can spot check and some of us do. We'll collect a water sample from the same area the Trident draws from a few minutes before a combined test. If it isn't scheduled then we'll collect the sample then run a combined test. This way we are at the same time of day, water location, etc. Furthermore if we send off an ICP sample then add that to the mix and collect enough water for everything at that time. This way we have the water sample and time of day close enough and rule that out.

Again as already noted the Trident is going to give you data. Data you can trend over time. Add some photos and you now have beautiful data to assess and pictures to go with it. Plus a full head of hear because you are no longer pulling it out wondering which test kit or result is more accurate.

Edit: @Reef Devils I replied everything to you - my apologies. I only meant to talk about the using Hanna results for calibration. The rest was just general reply.

Yes, you made a great point.

You are assuming that the Hanna results are better than the calibration solution. Seems like an odd way to do it. To be blunt don't chase numbers regardless of the tool you are using. It will drive you crazy. These are all hobby grade solutions be it automated or manual at the end of the day.

Manual test
Automated test
ICP tests
ICP type, vendor
People doing the tests
Calibration of equipment

See the pattern? Focus on what you can control. @rtparty gave a sound recommendation as did @Reefer Matt on the 2nd post. Your numbers are good after using the Neptune calibration solution. Let the Trident be the source of record since that is why you purchased it. You didn't purchase it to follow up with a battery of manual tests then compare and contrast - that would be wasteful.

You can spot check and some of us do. We'll collect a water sample from the same area the Trident draws from a few minutes before a combined test. If it isn't scheduled then we'll collect the sample then run a combined test. This way we are at the same time of day, water location, etc. Furthermore if we send off an ICP sample then add that to the mix and collect enough water for everything at that time. This way we have the water sample and time of day close enough and rule that out.

Again as already noted the Trident is going to give you data. Data you can trend over time. Add some photos and you now have beautiful data to assess and pictures to go with it. Plus a full head of hear because you are no longer pulling it out wondering which test kit or result is more accurate.

Edit: @Reef Devils I replied everything to you - my apologies. I only meant to talk about the using Hanna results for calibration. The rest was just general reply.

No worries. You made a great point. Thanks for the helpful post.

Do you think it would be worth it to re calibrate it now with my Hanna test numbers?