Has anyone that pre-ordered seen their ION Director yet?

[email protected]

Well-Known Member
Review score
+0 /0 /-0
View Badges
Joined
Jul 27, 2016
Messages
958
Reaction score
1,292
Review score
+0 /0 /-0
For what it is worth, I made a table of results using these tests, each one being performed immediately after the prior one:
RUN #1: Tested sample with "Regular" Precision
RUN #2: Tested sample with "Regular Precision
RUN #3: Tested sample with "High Precision"
RUN #4: Tested sample with "High Precision"
Next Row in Table shows Salfert test results on same sample (and *ICP result from 5 weeks ago for Na, just out of curiosity)
RUN # 5: Multi-Reference Solution (High Precision)
RUN #6: Multi-Reference Solution (High Precision)
Multi-Reference Solution's Reference numbers.


PARAMETERCAMGKNaNO3
1st Run (Reg)454137043510,7546
2nd Run (Reg)454136743510,7543
3d Run (High Precision)
441

1311

429

10,605

12
4th Run (High Precision)
445

1317

430

10,621

5
SALIFERT/ICP*440133539010,269*1
MULTI-REF
(TEST #1)

411

1317

382

10,610

11
MULTI-REF
(TEST #2)

427

1384

388

10,729

4
MULTI-REF
(REFERENCE VALUES)

420

1300

390

10,700

11

What numbers are you expecting to see from the IOND?

Are you expecting a near 1:1 match from a hobby grade kit?
It won't happen. Different technology, different measurement process.

Are you expecting a near 1:1 match from an ICP test?
It won't happen. Different technology, different measurement process and other variables.

Do you know if the ICP lab is following the necessary maintenance schedules on their machine for optimal performance? What is the tolerance level of their ICP machine? Do you know if the test you received is within said tolerance?

Did your impressions take into account the tolerances of multi-reference fluid and IOND device itself?

Based on the IOND numbers you shared, those are spot on and very consistent. :)

Because of the different technology behind the IOND, ICP and conventional kits, comparing them with each other as a reference is not ideal. It's like comparing apples to oranges to pears. We've seen this kind of comparisons done with other auto testing machines too and there's always the question of "why the difference?". The answer is always the same. Different technology and different measurement process. As @CEReefer said, it's going to take some getting used to the new way of looking at the data.

At the end of the day, in reef tanks, it's the consistency within a desired range that matters most. Take nitrate for example. Some will tell you to keep it between 2-5, others 5-15. Each person will have their own set of desired values they aim for. Unfortunately, some get fixated on the numbers and feel that "something is wrong" when the result is not the number they expect to see. With the IOND, some may even feel something is "wrong" when the past number is not 1:1 with the new IOND result. It is especially important to know and take the tolerances of the device into account when formulating initial impressions. Unfortunately, the tolerances of measuring devices are often overlooked.

In order to really understand the numbers behind each IOND result, it's important to also understand how multi-ion sensors detect these 5 parameters in your sample of water. I'm going to try to put is in as short words as possible...
In our tanks, we have a sea (no pun intended) of ions. Within that pool you have Sodium, Magnesium, Calcium, Potassium and Nitrate. The more ions present in the water, the "easier" it is to detect. Take Sodium for example. We measure this in the 10,000. Now let's compare that to Mg which is measured in 1,000. Compare that to Ca and K which is measured in 100s. Lastly, NO3 which is measured in 1s and 10s. As we make our way to measuring NO3, we can say that there are significantly less NO3 ions in the water than Ca, K, Mg and Na. For an MUI sensor, measuring NO3 ions in a sample of water is like finding a hair in a haystack. It can be done, but it requires a higher degree of sensitivity. Hence the NO3 tolerance of +/- 2ppm (HP mode) and +/- 3ppm (Standard mode).

You can see an NO3 value of 11, then do another test and get 8 or 14.
Does this mean the IOND is wrong? No, not necessarily. It could mean two things. The device is performing within the specified tolerances or NO3 changed from 11 to 14 in a day (it is possible). In the end, whether the "real" NO3 is 8, 11, or 14...will the coral's health decline because of it? Unlikely.

It's the consistency within the desired range considering tolerances that matter most.

Of course, if one really wanted to get their IOND numbers to match the parameter values of the Multi-Ref solution 1:1 or another more trusted source, they have the option to do that with the offset feature.
 

CEReefer

Well-Known Member
Review score
+0 /0 /-0
View Badges
Joined
Sep 7, 2019
Messages
547
Reaction score
310
Review score
+0 /0 /-0
What numbers are you expecting to see from the IOND?

Are you expecting a near 1:1 match from a hobby grade kit?
It won't happen. Different technology, different measurement process.

Are you expecting a near 1:1 match from an ICP test?
It won't happen. Different technology, different measurement process and other variables.

Do you know if the ICP lab is following the necessary maintenance schedules on their machine for optimal performance? What is the tolerance level of their ICP machine? Do you know if the test you received is within said tolerance?

Did your impressions take into account the tolerances of multi-reference fluid and IOND device itself?

Based on the IOND numbers you shared, those are spot on and very consistent. :)

Because of the different technology behind the IOND, ICP and conventional kits, comparing them with each other as a reference is not ideal. It's like comparing apples to oranges to pears. We've seen this kind of comparisons done with other auto testing machines too and there's always the question of "why the difference?". The answer is always the same. Different technology and different measurement process. As @CEReefer said, it's going to take some getting used to the new way of looking at the data.

At the end of the day, in reef tanks, it's the consistency within a desired range that matters most. Take nitrate for example. Some will tell you to keep it between 2-5, others 5-15. Each person will have their own set of desired values they aim for. Unfortunately, some get fixated on the numbers and feel that "something is wrong" when the result is not the number they expect to see. With the IOND, some may even feel something is "wrong" when the past number is not 1:1 with the new IOND result. It is especially important to know and take the tolerances of the device into account when formulating initial impressions. Unfortunately, the tolerances of measuring devices are often overlooked.

In order to really understand the numbers behind each IOND result, it's important to also understand how multi-ion sensors detect these 5 parameters in your sample of water. I'm going to try to put is in as short words as possible...
In our tanks, we have a sea (no pun intended) of ions. Within that pool you have Sodium, Magnesium, Calcium, Potassium and Nitrate. The more ions present in the water, the "easier" it is to detect. Take Sodium for example. We measure this in the 10,000. Now let's compare that to Mg which is measured in 1,000. Compare that to Ca and K which is measured in 100s. Lastly, NO3 which is measured in 1s and 10s. As we make our way to measuring NO3, we can say that there are significantly less NO3 ions in the water than Ca, K, Mg and Na. For an MUI sensor, measuring NO3 ions in a sample of water is like finding a hair in a haystack. It can be done, but it requires a higher degree of sensitivity. Hence the NO3 tolerance of +/- 2ppm (HP mode) and +/- 3ppm (Standard mode).

You can see an NO3 value of 11, then do another test and get 8 or 14.
Does this mean the IOND is wrong? No, not necessarily. It could mean two things. The device is performing within the specified tolerances or NO3 changed from 11 to 14 in a day (it is possible). In the end, whether the "real" NO3 is 8, 11, or 14...will the coral's health decline because of it? Unlikely.

It's the consistency within the desired range considering tolerances that matter most.

Of course, if one really wanted to get their IOND numbers to match the parameter values of the Multi-Ref solution 1:1 or another more trusted source, they have the option to do that with the offset feature.
100% agree with this, thank you Vinny for chiming in!
 

Dr. Jim

Valuable Member
Review score
+0 /0 /-0
View Badges
Joined
Nov 30, 2019
Messages
1,105
Reaction score
873
Review score
+0 /0 /-0
Location
Jupiter, FL
I acknowledged that we shouldn't compare the IOND values to the test kits. But, again, since it is the test kits I've been relying on all these years, it is meaningful to me to see how the IOND values compare. I'm not saying which values are right and that doesn't matter (but consistency does matter).

The two parameters to be concerned with are accuracy and consistency. There is no way I can comment on accuracy because I have no way of knowing which values are the most "true": IOND, ICP, or test kit values. (Again, that is not real important). What I am more concerned with is consistency. I want to be sure I'm getting consistent readings, i.e. if the true NO3 value is 3, will I get 3, (or close to it), with consecutive tests. I only ran 4 tests on the same sample, and admitted that this is not a statistically significant number of tests from which to draw solid conclusions. I got NO3 values of 3, 5, 6, and 12. The first three are fine, but there is a 4 fold increase between 3 and 12. I would just feel a little better if the 12 never happened! :) And, the two NO3 tests on the Multi Solution showed 4 and 11 (when it would have been nice if both showed 11). Again, two tests is not significant, and I only wanted to report my results so others can think what they want. I'm very confident that if I run multiple NO3 tests with Salifert, they will all be identical.

Again, I'm not complaining about anything......just reporting numbers. I wouldn't be surprised if some of these variances are due to the fact that the unit is new and maybe needs to work out some micro bubbles or something. :)

Now I'm feeling obligated to run a whole lot of tests in a row, just to fix this mess I started! :rolleyes:
 

CEReefer

Well-Known Member
Review score
+0 /0 /-0
View Badges
Joined
Sep 7, 2019
Messages
547
Reaction score
310
Review score
+0 /0 /-0
I acknowledged that we shouldn't compare the IOND values to the test kits. But, again, since it is the test kits I've been relying on all these years, it is meaningful to me to see how the IOND values compare. I'm not saying which values are right and that doesn't matter (but consistency does matter).

The two parameters to be concerned with are accuracy and consistency. There is no way I can comment on accuracy because I have no way of knowing which values are the most "true": IOND, ICP, or test kit values. (Again, that is not real important). What I am more concerned with is consistency. I want to be sure I'm getting consistent readings, i.e. if the true NO3 value is 3, will I get 3, (or close to it), with consecutive tests. I only ran 4 tests on the same sample, and admitted that this is not a statistically significant number of tests from which to draw solid conclusions. I got NO3 values of 3, 5, 6, and 12. The first three are fine, but there is a 4 fold increase between 3 and 12. I would just feel a little better if the 12 never happened! :) And, the two NO3 tests on the Multi Solution showed 4 and 11 (when it would have been nice if both showed 11). Again, two tests is not significant, and I only wanted to report my results so others can think what they want. I'm very confident that if I run multiple NO3 tests with Salifert, they will all be identical.

Again, I'm not complaining about anything......just reporting numbers. I wouldn't be surprised if some of these variances are due to the fact that the unit is new and maybe needs to work out some micro bubbles or something. :)

Now I'm feeling obligated to run a whole lot of tests in a row, just to fix this mess I started! :rolleyes:
To be honest with you my IOND has been up for a while and I run 3 tests of multireference and got 3x 8. So potentially the microbubbles or new unit may play a role.
 

[email protected]

Well-Known Member
Review score
+0 /0 /-0
View Badges
Joined
Jul 27, 2016
Messages
958
Reaction score
1,292
Review score
+0 /0 /-0
To be honest with you my IOND has been up for a while and I run 3 tests of multireference and got 3x 8. So potentially the microbubbles or new unit may play a role.
Getting 8 from the Multi-Ref is good. It's within the tolerances. At that point, it's up to the user to decide if they want to keep it as-is or tighten up the result a bit more with the offset feature.

The possibility of micro bubbles is exactly why we decided to include a "double-check" feature to counter instances where bubbles may find their way into the sample.
 

areefer01

Well-Known Member
Review score
+0 /0 /-0
View Badges
Joined
Jun 28, 2021
Messages
622
Reaction score
685
Review score
+0 /0 /-0
Location
Ca
I acknowledged that we shouldn't compare the IOND values to the test kits. But, again, since it is the test kits I've been relying on all these years, it is meaningful to me to see how the IOND values compare. I'm not saying which values are right and that doesn't matter (but consistency does matter).

The two parameters to be concerned with are accuracy and consistency. There is no way I can comment on accuracy because I have no way of knowing which values are the most "true": IOND, ICP, or test kit values. (Again, that is not real important). What I am more concerned with is consistency. I want to be sure I'm getting consistent readings, i.e. if the true NO3 value is 3, will I get 3, (or close to it), with consecutive tests. I only ran 4 tests on the same sample, and admitted that this is not a statistically significant number of tests from which to draw solid conclusions. I got NO3 values of 3, 5, 6, and 12. The first three are fine, but there is a 4 fold increase between 3 and 12. I would just feel a little better if the 12 never happened! :) And, the two NO3 tests on the Multi Solution showed 4 and 11 (when it would have been nice if both showed 11). Again, two tests is not significant, and I only wanted to report my results so others can think what they want. I'm very confident that if I run multiple NO3 tests with Salifert, they will all be identical.

Again, I'm not complaining about anything......just reporting numbers. I wouldn't be surprised if some of these variances are due to the fact that the unit is new and maybe needs to work out some micro bubbles or something. :)

Now I'm feeling obligated to run a whole lot of tests in a row, just to fix this mess I started! :rolleyes:

Coming from another automated perspective all I can say or recommend is don't chase numbers. Use one source of record. I don't care which one it is but stick with it. Otherwise you are going down a rabbit hole you don't really want to and it has no bottom. ICP tests, depending on source, are a nice outside view in but it shouldn't be the source of record. Just a pulse if you will.

When @[email protected] said: We've seen this kind of comparisons done with other auto testing machines too and there's always the question of "why the difference?" it is the honest to goodness truth. We used to see this all the time with the Trident.

You know your system the best. Use the test results from your tool as a reference. Then visually check. Set alerts and warnings that it allows. You will be fine when everything is all said and done. In my opinion anyway.

All the best and enjoy the new kit!
 

Waynerock

2500 Club Member
Review score
+0 /0 /-0
View Badges
Joined
Jul 4, 2018
Messages
2,549
Reaction score
5,132
Review score
+0 /0 /-0
GHL knows there stuff. This is bleeding edge tech and amazing that we can do something like this at home. Super jealous of everyone who has one. From everything I have read other places this thing is on point and borderline magical. My left Kidney is about ready to be harvested and I will soon join y’all can’t wait. No complaints from me I promise
 

DJF

The key to a successful reef is to never leave
Review score
+0 /0 /-0
View Badges
Joined
Feb 21, 2017
Messages
410
Reaction score
577
Review score
+0 /0 /-0
Location
SD
I finally got mine :)

image.jpg
 

Scdell

Valuable Member
Review score
+0 /0 /-0
View Badges
Joined
May 31, 2017
Messages
1,886
Reaction score
2,019
Review score
+0 /0 /-0
Let's see now.........

Each tester gives it's own results. Whether it's automated or manual.
We're supposed to use each one and adjust to the tester?????
According to the information on here no one really knows where the parameters are in their tank.
Its basically an educated guess at this point.
Wonderful..........
I really don't see the need to spend 1k for a tester that's not really accurate or going to tell me where my parameters are at accurately.
People make money by everyone chasing #'s

There's people that can look at their tank and know what it needs. I'm not quite there yet but I'm getting close.
Good luck letting these so called testers control you.
 

FishyFishFish

Valuable Member
Review score
+0 /0 /-0
View Badges
Joined
Feb 10, 2021
Messages
1,586
Reaction score
1,664
Review score
+0 /0 /-0
Location
Texas
I know you’re just saying that to try and have another dig at GHL, but the truth is that even 1K is still ‘hobby level’ prices. I’m guessing not many people buy the Ion Director because they think it is as accurate as lab-grade testers. I, for example, would buy it because it appears accurate enough to tell me my parameters without me having to do anything.

Does my KHD match my Hanna Checker? No. Which one is closer to the real value in my tank? I have no idea but I know that if I keep my KHD value stable then all is good. I’m sure it’s the same for the Ion Director and when they become available without the long pre-order (or they start appearing on the used market) then I will probably buy one.
 

Scdell

Valuable Member
Review score
+0 /0 /-0
View Badges
Joined
May 31, 2017
Messages
1,886
Reaction score
2,019
Review score
+0 /0 /-0
I'm done having my dig at GHL.
You admit you don't know which tester tells you the truth.
Every one do what you want. I'll do what I want.
I'm not going to spend big money to not be able to rely on a tester I don't know for sure that's right.
Every tester out there gives you a plus, minus accuracy rate.
No one knows the accuracy of any of them.
Its speculative at the best.
I bought into GHL originally because of the lights. I bought a P4 for the sole reason of running my mp40's better than what vortech offered. Was it worth it? Hell yeah! I despised vorthech programming. Do I use the P4 for all it's worth? No. I don't need it to tell me how to run my tank.
I use things for what they are good at.
Most of which are good at a few select things.
I'm not buying into all this. Obviously neither are you unless the price is right. Nuff said.
 

FishyFishFish

Valuable Member
Review score
+0 /0 /-0
View Badges
Joined
Feb 10, 2021
Messages
1,586
Reaction score
1,664
Review score
+0 /0 /-0
Location
Texas
Indeed, but they advertised their accuracy when they released the product. So far, it seems that all of the results posted by end users are within their defined parameters.

You ordered one based on those accuracy rates and nothing has changed. This just comes across as sour grapes.

Edit: I’m not buying into it yet, simply because I don’t want to pre-order. I most likely will buy one when they are available off the shelf as, so far, it appears to be doing exactly what they said it would.
 

Scdell

Valuable Member
Review score
+0 /0 /-0
View Badges
Joined
May 31, 2017
Messages
1,886
Reaction score
2,019
Review score
+0 /0 /-0
Indeed, but they advertised their accuracy when they released the product. So far, it seems that all of the results posted by end users are within their defined parameters.

You ordered one based on those accuracy rates and nothing has changed. This just comes across as sour grapes.

Edit: I’m not buying into it yet, simply because I don’t want to pre-order. I most likely will buy one when they are available off the shelf as, so far, it appears to be doing exactly what they said it would.
I ordered one because I bought into the hype at the time.
Vinnies response on this thread leaves much to be imagined.
GHL leaves much to be imagined.
I'm glad I don't have one. I don't want one now.
I thank GHL's omnipotence for denying me.
They've showed me what they are as a company and I've decided I don't like them for that.
Y'all buy into it or don't. No skin of my........
 

timry2

Community Member
Review score
+0 /0 /-0
View Badges
Joined
Nov 13, 2012
Messages
57
Reaction score
27
Review score
+0 /0 /-0
Location
Madera, CA
Nope, ordered it in August 2020, I get COVID, but man Ive never had a 2 year pre-order. As a former Apexer, I am happy with the quality of my equipment. So im sticking with GHL, Just getting impatient.
 

How often do you buy coral from other hobbyists?

  • Very Often

    Votes: 67 22.3%
  • Occasionally

    Votes: 104 34.6%
  • Very Rare

    Votes: 60 19.9%
  • Never

    Votes: 61 20.3%
  • Other (please explain)

    Votes: 9 3.0%
Zoanthids.com
Top