Trident Owners - Do You Still Test Manually?

[45ZoaGarden]

I wish that I had thought of your given example because that’s a great explanation of why I intend to continue manual tests, even if less often than I currently perform them.

I build software for a living, and I know how challenging it can be, even before integrating it with hardware that is responsible for maintaining a healthy aquarium. If there’s a large discrepancy between my Trident and other test kits, then it will spur me to find the cause. If it’s a simple user error, then that’s easy to rectify. However, if it’s not a user error, then I may be able to save my system from potential disaster.

I’m not worried about a difference of 0.5dKH, or even 1dKH, if the results are precise. I simply want to monitor trends and ensure that I am able to catch potential issues early.

+1 Thats exactly why I am still testing.

 

[Sleepydoc]

Ok - that makes more sense. You’re really wondering how reliable the system (and the built in calibration) is, not how accurate or precise the results are.

 

[ca1ore]

The Trident for me isn't about chasing a specific number - it's about keeping things stable at whatever number my tank happens to be at given all that I've got set up. For that reason, using a different testing method would actually be counter to my goal. Or rather; it would only be testing the testing method - not telling me anything useful about my tank.

That's fine, but what if the Trident were gradually drifting over time - how would you know that? Maybe the calibration process catches that .... maybe. There's supposed to be an annual health check, but what if folks skip that, or don't realize it's supposed to be part of ensuring performance. I suppose you could use the appearance of your corals as a proxy, but sometimes that may be too late. I will continue to 'check' my trident, at least for alkalinity, on an occasional basis. It's neither expensive nor time consuming. I do fail to see how some kind of validation testing runs counter to the goal of stability though.

 

[User1]

That's fine, but what if the Trident were gradually drifting over time - how would you know that? Maybe the calibration process catches that .... maybe. There's supposed to be an annual health check, but what if folks skip that, or don't realize it's supposed to be part of ensuring performance. I suppose you could use the appearance of your corals as a proxy, but sometimes that may be too late. I will continue to 'check' my trident, at least for alkalinity, on an occasional basis. I do fail to see how some kind of validation testing runs counter to the goal of stability though.

Some said they are testing a couple times a week. That would sort of defeat any automated testing platform. Checking periodically is a different story. Checks and balances are a good thing. At least that is how I read it earlier.

Still on my first cup of coffee this morning. I'm not going to lie.

 

[amoore311]

I cross check Alkalinity every 14ish days with a Hanna Checker to make sure everything is straight. I check calcium and Mag Monthly for the same reason.

Blind Faith in Technology leads to avoidable accidents.

 

[thewackyreefer]

This is a genius idea love it! @Terence any chance we could get this in production. I would love to calibrate my system more than the one time per chemical swap out.

That's the product manager in me. I'm sure they've thought of it, but there may be a reason it's not necessary or wasn't included.

 

[45ZoaGarden]

That's the product manager in me. I'm sure they've thought of it, but there may be a reason it's not necessary or wasn't included.

It’s because once the calibration fluid bottle is opened, if a little bit of that fluid evaporates, the calibration fluid no longer has the same parameters. That’s why the bottle says to calibrate upon opening, not a week later.

 

[thewackyreefer]

It’s because once the calibration fluid bottle is opened, if a little bit of that fluid evaporates, the calibration fluid no longer has the same parameters. That’s why the bottle says to calibrate upon opening, not a week later.

Then wouldn't that also apply to the other 3 reagents? I'm sure if any bit of them evaporate it would also affect results. If they treated the calibration fluid like the other 3, capped, etc. I don't think it would have that issue.

 

[User1]

It’s because once the calibration fluid bottle is opened, if a little bit of that fluid evaporates, the calibration fluid no longer has the same parameters. That’s why the bottle says to calibrate upon opening, not a week later.

Great point. Also on that note some actually use this calibration fluid to test their manual kits. This way you sort of get validate on those kits as well.

 

[45ZoaGarden]

Then wouldn't that also apply to the other 3 reagents? I'm sure if any bit of them evaporate it would also affect results. If they treated the calibration fluid like the other 3, capped, etc. I don't think it would have that issue.

It does apply to the reagents as well. That’s why they only last 2 months after opened.

 

[45ZoaGarden]

Just like the alk bottles only last one month.

 

[45ZoaGarden]

Great point. Also on that note some actually use this calibration fluid to test their manual kits. This way you sort of get validate on those kits as well.

That is a good idea. I’m going to have to test that when I buy reagents next month

 

[Sleepydoc]

That is a good idea. I’m going to have to test that when I buy reagents next month

That may or may not work - people assume calibration fluid is essentially salt water with a known alkalinity but there are other ways to calibrate depending on how the testing is done.

 

[ca1ore]

It’s because once the calibration fluid bottle is opened, if a little bit of that fluid evaporates, the calibration fluid no longer has the same parameters. That’s why the bottle says to calibrate upon opening, not a week later.

Just recap it then. I tested a bottle of calibration solution after one month with all three trident tests .... guess what! Not saying it’s a good idea to reuse the calibration solution, but it’s not like it’s way off.

 

[45ZoaGarden]

Just recap it then. I tested a bottle of calibration solution after one month with all three trident tests .... guess what! Not saying it’s a good idea to reuse the calibration solution, but it’s not like it’s way off.

They could test and compensate for evaporation. Say alk is 8.0 normally. One week later it is 8.5, they could program the trident to compensate and predict the difference in levels from evaporation.

 

[Sleepydoc]

They could test and compensate for evaporation. Say alk is 8.0 normally. One week later it is 8.5, they could program the trident to compensate and predict the difference in levels from evaporation.

That would be virtually impossible for them to do at the factory - there’s no way they could account for the effects of different conditions, humidity, etc.

Think about what would happen if Neptune stated one could do as @ca1ore suggests - reuse calibration fluid even though the results start to drift. They would get skewered in chat rooms like this because their machine was inaccurate. There is no incentive and a lot of downsides to doing so. They already take enough heat for things like the limited Trident availability.

Dates on calibration fluid and reagents in general are kind of like the ‘best if used by’ date on a box of cereal. They don’t instantly become unusable the day after the date on the bottle but the risk of them giving inaccurate results starts to increase. When a company like Neptune sells a test, they are, to varying degrees, guaranteeing the results of that test. With calibration fluid the ante is actually upped because if the calibration is wrong, all subsequent results are affected.

 

[45ZoaGarden]

That would be virtually impossible for them to do at the factory - there’s no way they could account for the effects of different conditions, humidity, etc.

Think about what would happen if Neptune stated one could do as @ca1ore suggests - reuse calibration fluid even though the results start to drift. They would get skewered in chat rooms like this because their machine was inaccurate. There is no incentive and a lot of downsides to doing so. They already take enough heat for things like the limited Trident availability.

Dates on calibration fluid and reagents in general are kind of like the ‘best if used by’ date on a box of cereal. They don’t instantly become unusable the day after the date on the bottle but the risk of them giving inaccurate results starts to increase. When a company like Neptune sells a test, they are, to varying degrees, guaranteeing the results of that test. With calibration fluid the ante is actually upped because if the calibration is wrong, all subsequent results are affected.

It would actually be relatively easy if they were to test. Scientific tests in a controlled laboratory would yield pretty consistent numbers. Consistent temperature in an aquarium stand would maintain pretty ideal conditions for low evaporation. Little to no air movement, constant temperature...

 

[Sleepydoc]

It would actually be relatively easy if they were to test. Scientific tests in a controlled laboratory would yield pretty consistent numbers. Consistent temperature in an aquarium stand would maintain pretty ideal conditions for low evaporation. Little to no air movement, constant temperature...

Except you assume everyone stores theirs in the same place and that that place has steady conditions. Just as an example, if I were to get a trident it would be outside my stand. The ambient conditions range from 65º and 20% humidity in the winter to 78º and 60% humidity in the summer.

 

[ca1ore]

Think about what would happen if Neptune stated one could do as @ca1ore suggests - reuse calibration fluid even though the results start to drift.

For the record, that’s not what I said. I said that having tested some calibration solution after a month, it retained its levels; but that it’d NOT be a good idea to reuse it.

 

[DocPaulo]

I havent even calibrated my tank and im on reagent box 3..

Checked my hanna once and it was close..

I dont care of its off by 0.5dkh.. its the consistency that matters