Trident reagent A empty notification...almost 100mL left in bottle

[BZOFIQ]

Actually it doesn't really make sense. To be able to use titration, the machine has to know exactly how much was used in each test. So it should have the capability to calculate how much has been used to date and know how much reagent is left. So the 1/3 leftover reagent actually makes less sense.

You're right it doesnt make sense given the technology in use but Neptune will probably come up with something along the lines "From the get go it was designed to do that" - Wait what?

That was the answer given to similar question in a recent video.

 

[ca1ore]

Or perhaps future software updates will add smart-reagent usage capabilities ……

 

[Entz]

Or perhaps future software updates will add smart-reagent usage capabilities ……

That is my hope as well. It could easily be one of those things where a developer/engineer said hey should make this all smart and fancy and they looked at the time required to implement it into fusion and test it and decided against it prior to release to get it out the door.

 

[brett.sizeland]

The Trident doesn't use the titration method to determine the dKH it works the same way as the Hanna so will use the same amount of reagent for every test. It won't matter what you run your dKH at it will use the same amount of reagent

 

[roberthu526]

Remaining volume of reagent is a common feature among other alk testers and dosing pumps, maybe it'll get added in an update?

Edit - if it's tracking the amount of waste maybe it's counting it somewhere? Or the waste could be an estimate from # tests. As with everything else Trident, answers directly from the source would be appreciated

Yeah it would be nice if someone from Neptune could chime in. But I think they intentionally avoid getting this kind of discussions.

 

[Water Dog]

The Trident doesn't use the titration method to determine the dKH it works the same way as the Hanna so will use the same amount of reagent for every test. It won't matter what you run your dKH at it will use the same amount of reagent

Really!?! From everything I’ve read, including in the Trident FAQs thread, it uses tritration testing. Can anybody else corroborate that it tests like a Hanna checker and not through tritration testing?

 

[roberthu526]

The Trident doesn't use the titration method to determine the dKH it works the same way as the Hanna so will use the same amount of reagent for every test. It won't matter what you run your dKH at it will use the same amount of reagent

Either way the machine is capable to measure how much is used obviously. So having 1/3 reagent left when showing "empty" is baffling to me.

 

[Caravanshaka]

Good point. @Caravanshaka - what is your testing frequency? Are you testing at the minimum frequency of 4/2/2 or more?

Sorry for the delay, been out of town for work.

I ran 6/3/3 for 2 days after setup to get a good baseline before calibration. After calibration it has been 4/2/2 ever since.

 

[Caravanshaka]

After approximately 45 days, here are my reagent usages when changing reagents at the recommended time on a 4/2/2 schedule:

Reagent A - first bottle used 208/300ml
Reagent A - second bottle used 143/300ml
Reagent B - used 249/300ml
Reagent C - used 252/300ml

 

[Water Dog]

I appreciate the follow up... invaluable information and insight.

 

[BZOFIQ]

This is all I'm going to add at the moment - whoever did your backslash did a very neat job.

 

[Fiesty]

I understand being curious about this but honestly I find this whole discussion a bit laughable. You aren't buying a specific quantity of reagent, you are buying reagent for a specific number of tests. Overfilling the bottles to ensure that your customers get those specific number of tests is good customer service while trying to package as little as possible in the bottles and risking the customer running out would be bad business. You are spending $xx per month for it to test, it doesn't matter if the reagent comes in gallon bottles or ml bottles as long as it does the required number of tests and the cost is the same.

And this is nothing against the OP. What started as a question and a curiosity has devolved into much more than that. For people to say that they are forcing you to buy reagents early to make more money is absurd as long as you got the XX number of tests they promised out of it up front. They've been very clear about it and it's quite simple....... The Trident cost $xxx dollars. The reagents cost $XX dollars. You get XXX number of tests out of the reagents you bought. If there is reagent left over it doesn't change either one of those 3 facts and it should be a non-issue.

Thanks for applying common sense and stated what has been going through my mind as I read all the overly complainy post! Geez people calm down. I have a Trident and it works great! I will be happy to buy more reagent packs from Neptune because ............ it works great. Just got my first Reagent A empty message and I just easily reset it. Will let run old bottle for a few more days based on others ledtovers anount and then change out bottles. No real worries and this way I get more test than promised. Thanks Neptune.

 

[Caravanshaka]

Thanks for applying common sense and stated what has been going through my mind as I read all the overly complainy post! Geez people calm down. I have a Trident and it works great! I will be happy to buy more reagent packs from Neptune because ............ it works great. Just got my first Reagent A empty message and I just easily reset it. Will let run old bottle for a few more days based on others ledtovers anount and then change out bottles. No real worries and this way I get more test than promised. Thanks Neptune.

Just because you are happy doesn’t mean that others can’t voice displeasures.

Btw, thought mine was working great as well, but after running calibration again with the new reagent set, I’m frustrated with how far out of calibration it got.

Trident was telling me that my calcium slowly creeped up from 430 to as high as 480. For the last 3 weeks or so it’s been 460-480, even after the new reagent was added prior to calibrating. Due to this, I added dosing on top of my calcium reactor and dialed the reactor down a tad so I could dose alk with the reactor to keep that stable while also dropping calcium. After calibration, my Alk is showing a drop of 0.2 from prior readings which isn’t a big deal...but calcium went from 480 down to 415. Turns out I never should have adjusted my reactor and dosing, as it caused calcium to get below what I wanted. Pretty big fail to get out of calibration by 65ppm in 45 days.

Graph of the last few days. Highlighted point was last reading before calibration...spike was during calibration...415 reading on first test post calibration.

 

[Water Dog]

Thanks for applying common sense and stated what has been going through my mind as I read all the overly complainy post! Geez people calm down. I have a Trident and it works great! I will be happy to buy more reagent packs from Neptune because ............ it works great. Just got my first Reagent A empty message and I just easily reset it. Will let run old bottle for a few more days based on others ledtovers anount and then change out bottles. No real worries and this way I get more test than promised. Thanks Neptune.

Part of the reason for these threads is for early adopters to share their experiences, good, bad or indifferent. It helps other Apex owners make informed decisions based on early adopters’ experiences.

Please forgive us for asking questions about the Trident.

 

[Fiesty]

Part of the reason for these threads is for early adopters to share their experiences, good, bad or indifferent. It helps other Apex owners make informed decisions based on early adopters experiences.

Please forgive us for asking questions about the Trident.

But wait, I'm an early adopter. Feel free to ask me questions. Im here for questions and answers as well as long as it not just making complaints about extra reagent! Lol

Its just hard to sort through the endless pages of people needlessly complaining about Neptune providing "too much reagent." And not referring to the origional OP's question (which was a good one) but some followup post knocking Neptune for this. Not sure why people see that as a "problem" when its obviously istheir answer to prevent problems (suking air) and maintain accurate reliable testing but adding extra. Even with my old red sea test kits id usually end up with extra of one thing or other and have to throw out when purchased new test. Really no different.

 

[Caravanshaka]

But wait, I'm an early adopter. Feel free to ask me questions. Im here for questions and answers as well as long as it not just making complaints about extra reagent! Lol

Its just hard to sort through the endless pages of people needlessly complaining about Neptune providing "too much reagent." Not sure why people see that as a "problem" when its obviously their answer to prevent problems (suking air) and maintain accurate reliable testing. Even with my old red sea test kits id usually end up with extra of one thing or other and have to throw out when purchased new test. Really no different.

In my case, it’s not enough reagent. 45 days on a 60 day supply.

 

[Fiesty]

Just because you are happy doesn’t mean that others can’t voice displeasures.

Btw, thought mine was working great as well, but after running calibration again with the new reagent set, I’m frustrated with how far out of calibration it got.

Trident was telling me that my calcium slowly creeped up from 430 to as high as 480. For the last 3 weeks or so it’s been 460-480, even after the new reagent was added prior to calibrating. Due to this, I added dosing on top of my calcium reactor and dialed the reactor down a tad so I could dose alk with the reactor to keep that stable while also dropping calcium. After calibration, my Alk is showing a drop of 0.2 from prior readings which isn’t a big deal...but calcium went from 480 down to 415. Turns out I never should have adjusted my reactor and dosing, as it caused calcium to get below what I wanted. Pretty big fail to get out of calibration by 65ppm in 45 days.

Graph of the last few days. Highlighted point was last reading before calibration...spike was during calibration...415 reading on first test post calibration.

Well, your post with a valid issue is why im here and what i was trying to read this thread for. So I can know what to look out for with using my Trident. Since it is a new product. But was hard to get through all the "too much reagent leftover" complaints. Maybe u misread my post and the post I quoted, which were about the extra reagent complaint? Either way thanks for the info about your real issue. I did keep my original calibration fluid and used it to run a test (just like u would tank water) to just check calibration last week and mine came out right on. This was after several weeks of testing post origional calibration.

 

[Fiesty]

In my case, it’s not enough reagent. 45 days on a 60 day supply.

Did u do more than the standard low setting? Or was that only 45 days on minimum testing schedule???

 

[Caravanshaka]

Well, your post with a valid issue is why im here and what i was trying to read this thread for. So I can know what to look out for with using my Trident. Since it is a new product. But was hard to get through all the "too much reagent leftover" complaints. Maybe u misread my post and the post I quoted, which were about the extra reagent complaint? Either way thanks for the info about your real issue. I did keep my original calibration fluid and used it to run a test (just like u would tank water) to just check calibration last week and mine came out right on. This was after several weeks of testing post origional calibration.

I was one of the ones stating that a change in coding could make the reagent last longer if they aren’t already using it....so I assumed I was in that category. I think the goal is to use 250/300ml based on B and C results, but using only 350ml out of 600ml of A leaves a lot to be desired. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to use 90% of a bottle and not worry about bubbles.

Did u do more than the standard low setting? Or was that only 45 days on minimum testing schedule???

2 days of 6/3/3 initially until first calibration, then 4/2/2 the rest of the way with no manual tests.

It was turned on May 11th, and was out of reagents b/c on June 24th. That is 45 days. Add in 2 days of 6/3/3 and it is equivalent to 46 days at minimum testing.

 

[Fiesty]

I was one of the ones stating that a change in coding could make the reagent last longer if they aren’t already using it....so I assumed I was in that category. I think the goal is to use 250/300ml based on B and C results, but using only 350ml out of 600ml of A leaves a lot to be desired. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to use 90% of a bottle and not worry about bubbles.



2 days of 6/3/3 initially until first calibration, then 4/2/2 the rest of the way with no manual tests.

It was turned on May 11th, and was out of b/c on June 24th. That is 45 days. Add in 2 days of 6/3/3 and it is equivalent to 46 days at minimum testing.

That does seem VERY unsatisfactory to only get that anount of days. Something seems off on that for sure.