Trident Owners - Do You Still Test Manually?

[Sleepydoc]

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.

Sorry - didn't mean to put words in your mouth. My main point is that Neptune has absolutely nothing to gain by trying to extend the longevity of calibration solution at the risk of accuracy.

 

[DLHDesign]

That's fine, but what if the Trident were gradually drifting over time - how would you know that?

What would cause it to drift? Or - more specifically; what would cause it to drift that would not also occur in another testing method? Evaporation of reagents happens in both situations, for example, so that's not something that testing with a secondary source would eliminate. Alter the parameters of; sure - but not eliminate.

I think your question gets back to the (or "a", at least) point of the thread - how much do you trust the Trident? This is a personal question, of course - there is no right or wrong.
For myself; I trust the results from the Trident enough to forgo manual testing - until/unless something unusual occurs, of course. As an example; last night my tank went from 8.5dKh to 9.8dKh. I have been tweaking my dosing rates little by little and had recently adjusted them down (less additions), so it was odd to see my numbers go up. My first reaction was to test the dKh with my Hanna checker. I simultaneously ran an Alk test on the Trident. Both numbers came out within acceptable margins of error of each other, so I had ruled out a false reading problem in my mind.

I had manually dosed in some additive based on a calculator value, and I suspect I mis-keyed a number and failed to double-check my results. That's a common problem for me - and even knowing it is hasn't seemed to change anything (read: I'm a slow learner, I guess?). But that's also why I tend to trust things like the Trident - because computers don't make stupid human mistakes. By design, they do what they are told the same way, every time. Doesn't make them perfect (far from it), but it does make them more consistent than me in considering repetitive tasks.

 

[ca1ore]

What would cause it to drift? Or - more specifically; what would cause it to drift that would not also occur in another testing method? Evaporation of reagents happens in both situations, for example, so that's not something that testing with a secondary source would eliminate. Alter the parameters of; sure - but not eliminate.

Neptune had originally said that the trident needed a ‘health check’ at about a year. I’ve not inspected the inside, but presumably there are vials that can get stained or tubing that can degrade. Some will degrade faster that others just given typical manufacturing tolerances. Some people will forget to do the maintenance. Other testing methods have inherent inaccuracies also, but there is no logical reason to think they will drift in exactly the same way. Evaporation of reagents isn’t an issue for most tests, though aging of reagents is. Occasionally validating, or not validating as the case may be, just strikes me as a prudent thing to do and I shall continue to do it. That other folks make a different choice is up to them. Maybe it matters; maybe it doesn’t.

 

[bar|none]

I own a Trident and a Reefbot, so no. However I test PO4 every day and NO3 every few days. So if I didn't have the Reefbot, I would test those manually.

I could sell the Trident and be happy with just a Reefbot as I can test PO4, NO2, N03, Alk and Ca with the available slots. The NO2 I would not use but its there because the test kit is NO2/NO3.

The Trident has some advantages with the tests it does. I got it first and will keep it for a bit and see. Main advantages are long times between refills and does not use much tank water per test and no RODI water. Plus the great integration with APEX.

 

[Sleepydoc]

But that's also why I tend to trust things like the Trident - because computers don't make stupid human mistakes.

you’re funny! Computers are excellent at making stupid human mistakes! Remember, they are programmed by people and follow the instructions blindly whether they make sense or not. If the programmer made a stupid human mistake the computer will do so over, and over, and over...

a friend had a bumper sticker that said Tom err is human. To really mess things up use a computer!’

 

[DLHDesign]

they are programmed by people and follow the instructions blindly whether they make sense or not.

That's my point; yes - thank you. A computer will - given the same inputs - do the same thing every time (barring some kind of intentionally random injection; which isn't the case here). Remember that my goal is stability - doing the same thing over and over in the same way is kind of a requirement for that.

In the case of the Trident, the process for testing is the same every time, which includes the process of outcome determination. While several mechanical influences do exist in the testing process, it's fair to assume that the error introduced by those are minor compared to the manual influences - and they are generally going to be linear, to boot.

Part of my trust in the Trident is that I trust Neptune to have rigorous testing of their software that will catch a high majority of any issues introduced by the human component. I like to believe that they have a significant collection of semi-automated unit tests in place to identify functional drift. I am sure that they have ad-hock testing procedures in place. The combination (if such does indeed exist) is going to be better able to capture mistakes than whatever things I do to prevent them in my manual testing.
Beyond my general hopes and beliefs; Neptune has a good track record of solid programming. Not perfect - I don't expect perfection. But certainly good enough that I built my entire tank's control system based on their products.

 

[User1]

you’re funny! Computers are excellent at making stupid human mistakes! Remember, they are programmed by people and follow the instructions blindly whether they make sense or not. If the programmer made a stupid human mistake the computer will do so over, and over, and over...

a friend had a bumper sticker that said Tom err is human. To really mess things up use a computer!’

I'm still picturing the faces in my mind of the poor souls at NASA and Lockheed Martin Astronautics who missed the little nugget of not taking into account who used imperial vs metric Not really saying computers are dumb but sometimes they do what you tell them to and it is the person behind the keyboard who totaled a $130 million dollar probe...

Side note - I had to take off my Tridents case / cover. It isn't bad at all and I believe the self service will be the way to go. In fact I'll wager Neptune will be doing some small videos on it as this progresses. Solid little unit really. The designer should get a bonus the more I learn about it.

 

[JimWelsh]

I just want to pop in and say what a genuine delight it is reading this thread!

 

[Jose A Venereo]

Maybe once a month when Ca and Mg accuracy starts to drop because reagent are less than 50%

 

[bar|none]

Maybe once a month when Ca and Mg accuracy starts to drop because reagent are less than 50%

I'm curious why accuracy would drop in this situation.

 

[Og_Reef]

Would the trident work without the apex system?

 

[mtnrunner]

I understand completely your concern and you said you will continue to test manually. I have stopped testing manually. With the Fusion dashboard, I can see everything I need to feel comfortable all is going good. I know the base amounts of Alk and Ca that I have set to dose to stay within my desired ranges.

I am very pleased with the Trident and I t truly is a positive game changer for keeping a reef tank.

I would be curious to know if you continue to manually test or if you eventually stop.

thanks

 

[PHXReefguy]

After reading this thread I see a lot of people asking “what’s the point?”. And some people saying they see no benefit or reason to running a manual test. There is one highly beneficial reason mentioned by other intelligent individuals in this thread.

Redundancy.

In my field of work I use a PH pen and an EC meter every day. I also run about 10 bluelab combo meters that always monitor ec/ph of reservoirs. If I trusted these overseas made electronic devices to never fail or become faulty I would have sent hundreds of thousands of dollars down the drain with my job.

The point of redundancy is to get the same number as your overseas made electronic device that some people here believe will never fail or break. The number you get from manual hand test only needs to match your electronic device. If it doesn’t you find and fix the error.

Redundancy is something scientists don’t go without. And for reefers to think it’s pointless or a waste of time will be the ones in for a rude awakening while the smart ones test for redundancy.

 

[Jay Tosi]

I will only test if needed, for example recently I have been having crazy readings for calcium like 512 at midnight and 385 at noon today , I think they are expired but new ones are coming in a few days

 

[RedSea500MaxS]

sorry I am a Trident Newbie.

Just installed my Trident yesterday. Install and Set up very easy.

First results...spot on 8.4dKh, 453 Ca and 1353 Mg.

BUT...today Alkalinity is 539, but my Salifert test kit still shows at 450.

WHAT DO I DO?

Calibration says to NOT calibrate until after 48 hours, and not to calibrate if the results numbers are incorrect???????

No response from Neptune online, no answer on call in line.

HELP....thank you.

 

[Radman73]

I do not. I bought the Trident precisely because I hated testing manually and hardly ever did it, with predictable results lol! I look for trends and changes. At the end of the day, I'm aiming for consistency, not a particular number. At least not yet. Now, if they'd release a Trident Jr that tests for phosphate and nitrate I'd be set.

I do test my water change water now, thanks to the Trident lol!

 

[DQM5]

bought the trident and never test again gonna risk it all lol

 

[Radman73]

sorry I am a Trident Newbie.

Just installed my Trident yesterday. Install and Set up very easy.

First results...spot on 8.4dKh, 453 Ca and 1353 Mg.

BUT...today Alkalinity is 539, but my Salifert test kit still shows at 450.

WHAT DO I DO?

Calibration says to NOT calibrate until after 48 hours, and not to calibrate if the results numbers are incorrect???????

No response from Neptune online, no answer on call in line.

HELP....thank you.

I wouldn't worry until the 48 hours is up and you calibrate. Mine actually changed a fair bit upon calibration. There's nothing really to do until you've done the calibration. Just make sure to prime the sample line before running the calibration.

 

[Dave Cureton]

I agree with the post above. Mine will give a bad reading once in a while. Maybe 4 or 5 times in the 2 months I have owned it. My guess is air getting into the intake or something along that line. I wouldn't be concerned.

 

[RedSea500MaxS]

I wouldn't worry until the 48 hours is up and you calibrate. Mine actually changed a fair bit upon calibration. There's nothing really to do until you've done the calibration. Just make sure to prime the sample line before running the calibration.

Thx!