Has anyone that pre-ordered seen their ION Director yet?
- Thread starter Macca_75
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)
areefer01
2500 Club Member
Depends at what point in the various threads we are talking about. The conversation you are in I believe you are correct. One person.
As far as wishing for failure I didn't read it that way. Thus me saying people are sort of committed at this point. Several people have been waiting a long while now so it is a moot point. Regardless we, as hobbyists, should support our fellow hobbyist in need.
Lord knows we all need it in today's times.
DAY 6 and STILL NO SOLUTION: I thought for sure that after waiting all weekend for today (Monday), I would have gotten this problem resolved. I am a fairly calm, reasonable and patient individual but I am getting a bit frustrated now.
I had a few quick emails back and forth this morning with Vinny, but that abruptly ended. At this point, I need more than people telling me to "read the manual." I know I made a mistake by starting the "Prime Measurement Cell" with the Sample Tube empty (which led to the error and red bar) but nothing I've done since has worked. I've read the Manual several times and am confident that I'm doing everything right now. But, I might be missing something because I don't understand 3 things Vinny asked me for and perhaps somebody can help me with these questions:
1) Did you provide the voltages of your sensor?
2) Did you run a new test afterwards and provide the updated voltages? (I ran several tests but none registered anything)
What is meant by these questions regarding"voltages" and where/how do I do this?
Is this something that has to be done with the App? (I've been doing everything on GCC)
3) Press (i) icon beside the sensor health and attach the info to your ticket. Where do I find this "(i) icon beside the sensor health?"
------------
--When I click on the box next to the Sensor Performance, I get the message: "Bad condition; no more measurements possible; replace sensor" That doesn't sound too good to me! (Is this the icon Vinny mentioned?)
------------
I apologize for taking up so many posts on this thread...... Thank you for your help. Jim
I had a few quick emails back and forth this morning with Vinny, but that abruptly ended. At this point, I need more than people telling me to "read the manual." I know I made a mistake by starting the "Prime Measurement Cell" with the Sample Tube empty (which led to the error and red bar) but nothing I've done since has worked. I've read the Manual several times and am confident that I'm doing everything right now. But, I might be missing something because I don't understand 3 things Vinny asked me for and perhaps somebody can help me with these questions:
1) Did you provide the voltages of your sensor?
2) Did you run a new test afterwards and provide the updated voltages? (I ran several tests but none registered anything)
What is meant by these questions regarding"voltages" and where/how do I do this?
Is this something that has to be done with the App? (I've been doing everything on GCC)
3) Press (i) icon beside the sensor health and attach the info to your ticket. Where do I find this "(i) icon beside the sensor health?"
------------
--When I click on the box next to the Sensor Performance, I get the message: "Bad condition; no more measurements possible; replace sensor" That doesn't sound too good to me! (Is this the icon Vinny mentioned?)
------------
I apologize for taking up so many posts on this thread...... Thank you for your help. Jim
FishyFishFish
Valuable Member
Have you managed to get through the ‘prepare measurement cell’ phase?
And all of the pumps are working correctly and priming/filling the measurement cell? (i.e. the probe has had the 12 hours to stabilise in the fluid).
And after that, you get the ‘bad condition’ error when you try to run a test?
On this video, you can briefly see the voltage page (albeit this is on GHL connect, but presumably you should also be able to see that on GCC somewhere).
There is also a troubleshooting page here: https://www.aquariumcomputer.com/knowledge-base/ion-director-tips-maintenance-and-troubleshooting/
It doesn’t specifically mention your error but it does mention poor probe health indications caused by air in the system. I have read that other people have had this problem.
It could be that the sensor is faulty, but I’m guessing GHL will want to try to rule out everything else first.
And all of the pumps are working correctly and priming/filling the measurement cell? (i.e. the probe has had the 12 hours to stabilise in the fluid).
And after that, you get the ‘bad condition’ error when you try to run a test?
On this video, you can briefly see the voltage page (albeit this is on GHL connect, but presumably you should also be able to see that on GCC somewhere).
There is also a troubleshooting page here: https://www.aquariumcomputer.com/knowledge-base/ion-director-tips-maintenance-and-troubleshooting/
It doesn’t specifically mention your error but it does mention poor probe health indications caused by air in the system. I have read that other people have had this problem.
It could be that the sensor is faulty, but I’m guessing GHL will want to try to rule out everything else first.
"Yes" to all your questions. I've seen the trouble-shooting page (and Vinny sent that to me, too) as well as the video.
I tightened the probe-holding screw to eliminate air and ran the test again (after another "Priming").
I also suspect that GHL will want to R/O everything first, which is understandable, but I hope it can be done at a faster pace than one thing per day!
(I wonder if running the test with the chamber "dry" would be enough to ruin the sensor. I hope not, because that is the only thing I would be responsible for if the probe is faulty).
Thanks for helping. -Jim
AquaLifeStudio
Well-Known Member
Last edited by a moderator:
pigmo
Active Member
jim, i suggest you hire a professional. this thing takes some time but ur spending weeks on it lol. ghl needs to work on the plug n play concept.... a lot
WHAT??!! I'm only saying this for anybody new on this GHL forum (because all the "regulars" already know this):
Lasse is one of the most knowledgeable and helpful contributors you will encounter. He is always quick and willing to help others. (It is hard to imagine anybody "bad-mouthing" him!)
Let's end this bashing now and not derail this thread.
--------------
Quick update on my issue: GHL is sending me a new probe. They don't know if running it dry can ruin it vs the probe being bad when I received it. (In any case, it probably isn't a good idea to run it dry!)
I might also suggest to anybody ordering the Ion Director: Consider ordering the Multi Reference Solution at the same time (since this isn't part of the "kit"). You will need it if you want to verify accuracy.
Nema problema Dr.Jim - I´m only proud to be seen as an antimatter to the unsensitive persons - unsensitive is antimatter to sensitive as you know
Sincerely Lasse
I don't always agree with Lasse, but he is quite knowledgeable. He knows GHL pretty darn good. And I've never had the feeling he's talking down to anyone. If a person knows what he's talking about its best to listen. Especially if you dont know what you're talking about.
windemerejack
Valuable Member
I dont know about anybody else but i am getting sick and tired of the childish bickering and just general bad attitudes towards people, its happening more and more on this forum. Why do you have to resort to childishness or a personal attack just because someone has a different view or opinion to you? For the love of god people, GROW UP.
This is not aimed at a particular poster, just in general.
This is not aimed at a particular poster, just in general.
AquaLifeStudio
Well-Known Member
I'm looking forward to contributing to this thread as soon as I get to our Ion Director. Very exciting!
I just received the replacement probe yesterday and am running tests now, but thank you for your offer to help.
It seems to be running fine. The problem was obviously a bad probe. I suspect there was something wrong with the plug because it didn't insert as easily as I think it should have, and had a slight wiggle afterwards. The new plug pushed in firmly like I suspect it should.
I will make a table and post my results (hopefully tomorrow). I am performing 5 runs: Two "regular"; two "high precision" and one with the Multi Reference. I also ran Salifert tests at the same time with the Ca, Mg, NO3 and K kits, (and will comment on recent ICP tests for Na).
I always run high precision, the difference in reference solution usage is so little, that it doesn't make sense to run normal tests. I ran 3 multi reference test in a row, to make sure results were appropriate, the only parameter that was slightly deranged was nitrate 3 below (reference is 11, reading at 8). the rest was pretty spot on. Don't bother with salifert, the precision of an ionic probe vs. a reagent test is on 2 different planets.
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.
I know that there aren't enough tests performed to make any of this statistically significant, but some may find some of this interesting. My thoughts on these limited tests:
1) The first two runs ("Low Precision) yielded excellent results.
2) The next two "High Precision" RUNS seem acceptable, but the high NO3 of 12 is a little disappointing.
3) I know we aren't supposed to compare these readings to test kits but it has been test kits that I have been relying on for many years to target levels that have given me much success. It doesn't hurt to compare them and keep in mind the differences, going forward, at least for me. (I have compared many brands of test kits with many ICP tests over the years and have found the Salifert kits to correlate fairly well with them).
4) I know that comparing Na to a ICP test from 5 weeks ago is of minimal significance, but I will say that my ICP Na results have historically always been a little low.
4) I'm a little disappointed that the two tests on the Multi-Reference solution are not closer to being the same for Ca, Mg, and NO3; and, that some of the parameters aren't closer to the Reference Values used to make the Multi-Reference Solution. The fact that there are these differences makes me wonder if it can be said that the IOND is more accurate than ICP testing.
5) For me, the IOND is an interesting "toy" to play with but I would never use it to control dosing (nor would I do that with the KH Director). I will probably use the IOND once a week and continue comparing it to my test kits until I am comfortable with a trend, if a steady one develops. Like with any instrument, one must always be leery of it's accuracy. And, as @CEReefer suggested, I see no reason to NOT always run the tests on the High Precision mode.
6) When I purchased the IOND, I was mostly interested in the NO3 monitoring, and this is the one parameter that I have the least confidence in after these limited trials which is a little disappointing. But, if the IOND NO3 values are accurate, then they are much higher than the Salifert NO3 results that I have been monitoring for years! (But the big question: which values are the accurate ones considering the range I got?!)
All in all, I'm glad that I have this instrument. I will continue to monitor it and repeat some of these "comparison tests" again in the near future. I would guess that it might take a little time for the unit to "break in" and possibly rid itself of some unseen microbubbles that may be in the tubing of a new set-up.
Hope this is of some interest to any of you!
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.
| PARAMETER | CA | MG | K | Na | NO3 |
| 1st Run (Reg) | 454 | 1370 | 435 | 10,754 | 6 |
| 2nd Run (Reg) | 454 | 1367 | 435 | 10,754 | 3 |
| 3d Run (High Precision) | 441 | 1311 | 429 | 10,605 | 12 |
| 4th Run (High Precision) | 445 | 1317 | 430 | 10,621 | 5 |
| SALIFERT/ICP* | 440 | 1335 | 390 | 10,269* | 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 |
I know that there aren't enough tests performed to make any of this statistically significant, but some may find some of this interesting. My thoughts on these limited tests:
1) The first two runs ("Low Precision) yielded excellent results.
2) The next two "High Precision" RUNS seem acceptable, but the high NO3 of 12 is a little disappointing.
3) I know we aren't supposed to compare these readings to test kits but it has been test kits that I have been relying on for many years to target levels that have given me much success. It doesn't hurt to compare them and keep in mind the differences, going forward, at least for me. (I have compared many brands of test kits with many ICP tests over the years and have found the Salifert kits to correlate fairly well with them).
4) I know that comparing Na to a ICP test from 5 weeks ago is of minimal significance, but I will say that my ICP Na results have historically always been a little low.
4) I'm a little disappointed that the two tests on the Multi-Reference solution are not closer to being the same for Ca, Mg, and NO3; and, that some of the parameters aren't closer to the Reference Values used to make the Multi-Reference Solution. The fact that there are these differences makes me wonder if it can be said that the IOND is more accurate than ICP testing.
5) For me, the IOND is an interesting "toy" to play with but I would never use it to control dosing (nor would I do that with the KH Director). I will probably use the IOND once a week and continue comparing it to my test kits until I am comfortable with a trend, if a steady one develops. Like with any instrument, one must always be leery of it's accuracy. And, as @CEReefer suggested, I see no reason to NOT always run the tests on the High Precision mode.
6) When I purchased the IOND, I was mostly interested in the NO3 monitoring, and this is the one parameter that I have the least confidence in after these limited trials which is a little disappointing. But, if the IOND NO3 values are accurate, then they are much higher than the Salifert NO3 results that I have been monitoring for years! (But the big question: which values are the accurate ones considering the range I got?!)
All in all, I'm glad that I have this instrument. I will continue to monitor it and repeat some of these "comparison tests" again in the near future. I would guess that it might take a little time for the unit to "break in" and possibly rid itself of some unseen microbubbles that may be in the tubing of a new set-up.
Hope this is of some interest to any of you!
Last edited:
I think the IOND nitrate measures definitely higher than the Red Sea Pro nitrate test kit. If we all adjusted our carbon dosing (or whatever nutrient export method) based on the colorimetric test kits, and our tanks are doing fine, I am not sure it's wise to modify our approach. It would be interesting to see @Vinny@GHLUSA chime in, maybe they know why nitrate on IOND seems to read higher than on different test kits/ICP? I don't think it's an issue per se, it's more getting used to a different way to look at it.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.
PARAMETER CA MG K Na NO3 1st Run (Reg) 454 1370 435 10,754 6 2nd Run (Reg) 454 1367 435 10,754 3 3d Run (High Precision)
441
1311
429
10,605
124th Run (High Precision)
445
1317
430
10,621
5SALIFERT/ICP* 440 1335 390 10,269* 1 MULTI-REF
(TEST #1)
411
1317
382
10,610
11MULTI-REF
(TEST #2)
427
1384
388
10,729
4MULTI-REF
(REFERENCE VALUES)
420
1300
390
10,700
11
I know that there aren't enough tests performed to make any of this statistically significant, but some may find some of this interesting. My thoughts on these limited tests:
1) The first two runs ("Low Precision) yielded excellent results.
2) The next two "High Precision" RUNS seem acceptable, but the high NO3 of 12 is a little disappointing.
3) I know we aren't supposed to compare these readings to test kits but it has been test kits that I have been relying on for many years to target levels that have given me much success. It doesn't hurt to compare them and keep in mind the differences, going forward, at least for me. (I have compared many brands of test kits with many ICP tests over the years and have found the Salifert kits to correlate fairly well with them).
4) I know that comparing Na to a ICP test from 5 weeks ago is of minimal significance, but I will say that my ICP Na results have historically always been a little low.
4) I'm a little disappointed that the two tests on the Multi-Reference solution are not closer to being the same for Ca, Mg, and NO3; and, that some of the parameters aren't closer to the Reference Values used to make the Multi-Reference Solution. The fact that there are these differences makes me wonder if it can be said that the IOND is more accurate than ICP testing.
5) For me, the IOND is an interesting "toy" to play with but I would never use it to control dosing (nor would I do that with the KH Director). I will probably use the IOND once a week and continue comparing it to my test kits until I am comfortable with a trend, if a steady one develops. Like with any instrument, one must always be leery of it's accuracy. And, as @CEReefer suggested, I see no reason to NOT always run the tests on the High Precision mode.
6) When I purchased the IOND, I was mostly interested in the NO3 monitoring, and this is the one parameter that I have the least confidence in after these limited trials which is a little disappointing. But, if the IOND NO3 values are accurate, then they are much higher than the Salifert NO3 results that I have been monitoring for years! (But the big question: which values are the accurate ones considering the range I got?!)
All in all, I'm glad that I have this instrument. I will continue to monitor it and repeat some of these "comparison tests" again in the near future. I would guess that it might take a little time for the unit to "break in" and possibly rid itself of some unseen microbubbles that may be in the tubing of a new set-up.
Hope this is of some interest to any of you!
Similar threads
Live Goods SPONSOR
POTOs Black Friday Auction Special - All Auction Orders will Receive a Free ReefnBid T-Shirt and $30 gift card!
- Price: 5-1300
- Shipping Available
New Posts
-
Magnesium sulfate dosing calculation- Latest: Randy Holmes-Farley
-
-
-
