Neptune trident

[MnFish1]

I am completely baffled where you came up with every 5 tests there will be one bad test?? They released the accuracy to; Let me quote this.. "how accurate is it?
The Trident produces amazingly consistent results. Alkalinity is +/- 0.05 dKH and both Calcium and Magnesium are +/- 10ppm"

There is not a every 5 tests will be 1 bad data point.

Reread what I said Jordan. I never said that out of 5 tests there would be 1 bad test.

 

[MnFish1]

I am not following where you got the shelf life is specifically 2 months?? Neptune, rather than releasing, a Week or a month of reagent. They find it better for there benefit, to sell 2 months worth, There is no specific data on shelf life released yet.

Check out Neptune's post in the other forum. Interpret it how you wish.

 

[MnFish1]

I think it ultimately comes down to whether YOU as a hobbyist prefer or do not prefer to test that often. THAT will determine whether or not the more frequent testing actually "pays for itself" or not. For you, these tests are "useless," but many hobbyists apparently do not share that sentiment (as evidenced by those excited about the equipment's capabilities for more frequent testing).

I agree. There is perceived value. Im curious MDbannister - besides the fact that they are included, what is the usefulness of 2x/day magnesium readings. Will that help your reef keeping? Before you answer, its clear there is no benefit. There is no doubt that some people want to test more often. No problem with that logic. But when someone wants to say 'its cheaper to use Trident than (insert your testing product here)', as the user to whom I was replying tried to do, one has to use some kind of benchmark to decide the number of tests that provide adequate animal husbandry and the science behind that. When someone lumps 2/day Mg and Ca testing and tries to say 'the price/test is xxx' compared to (insert testing company name here), its faulty logic - which is the basis of my response.

 

[Zaffor]

Perhaps the device is easier to maintain when all 3 reags are replaced simultaneously. Maybe it requires purging reag fluid lines and being that it does all its work with just one motor this could be the reason. Maybe testing mag/cal 2x a day was figured as a good middle ground to supplement the alk testing.

I have no idea on what maintenance or replacing reags will entail, but I think it would be easier if done all at once.

 

[Terence]

I will briefly chime in here.

We would not have invested so heavily in such a product if there had not been a great deal of interest over the years from our customers to have multiple tests a day - in fact most wanted quasi-continuous monitoring.

Also, there is much we do not know simply because no one really tests this frequently and regularly over time and correlates the data. That remains to be seen when we have hundreds of these running out there in the wild.

Many are probably also not thinking through the level of capability for automatically dosing, controlling your Calcium Reactor, etc. that will be able to be done - but not just done - done safely as you have a history of the tank uptake and can have safety stops in place with alerts, etc.

Again, this is what our customers have asked for - personally I have spoken, face to face, to many hundreds who specifically asked for such a capability.

In the end, if it is a cost issue, and we "force" customers to do at least one test a day of each (and for some reason they decide not to look at them because it is unimportant), well then their cost per weekly test they look at is still only about $0.50-0.60 per. I think most would love to have that at that price just for the automation.

For many this will not make sense. Just as for many having an Apex makes no sense to them. And that's OK.

 

[MnFish1]

I am not following where you got the shelf life is specifically 2 months?? Neptune, rather than releasing, a Week or a month of reagent. They find it better for there benefit, to sell 2 months worth, There is no specific data on shelf life released yet.

This is a year away from release. We have not yet learned of how long the regent will last. ONLY that they are selling 2 month kits. BASED ON USING 4x/2x/2x Per day.

This is from Neptune:

Can I test more or less frequently than that?
Yes, within limits. There are operational limits on both ends. Obviously the test takes time so only so many can be fit in a day. Also, once unsealed, the reagents will have a more shortened lifespan. That said we are fairly confident that you should be able to run less tests and get two months out of one set of reagents.

Terrence then added (answering a question about longer shelf life than what is stated above): There is more to longevity than how long they last in the bottles. I gave the value above that we think will hold up. If it gets stretched more than that, at this point, we don't know the impact.

This means that (at least currently) their research suggests that 1 set of reagents can be stretched from 1 month to 2 months if one tests less frequently - and that they don't know beyond 2 months. My understanding is that Neptune is selling 2 months worth of reagents in 2 divided doses (1 month/each) to improve reagent quality.

 

[Daniel@R2R]

I agree. There is perceived value. Im curious MDbannister - besides the fact that they are included, what is the usefulness of 2x/day magnesium readings. Will that help your reef keeping? Before you answer, its clear there is no benefit. There is no doubt that some people want to test more often. No problem with that logic. But when someone wants to say 'its cheaper to use Trident than (insert your testing product here)', as the user to whom I was replying tried to do, one has to use some kind of benchmark to decide the number of tests that provide adequate animal husbandry and the science behind that. When someone lumps 2/day Mg and Ca testing and tries to say 'the price/test is xxx' compared to (insert testing company name here), its faulty logic - which is the basis of my response.

I disagree that the validity of test to test cost comparison is based on whether or not added testing benefits the reef...particularly since testing does not in itself benefit a reef...but rather it's what the user does with that info that will benefit (or harm) a reef...which actually introduces a lot of variables to the equation if we go that route. Ultimately, how much "benefit" the tests give will be determined by the skill of the reefer receiving the results. For this reason, the cost comparison must be conducted based on how often a reefer actually WANTS to test their tank. If they desire to test on the 4/2/2 regimen (or something similar), then the value is there. If they only wish to test once a week (or less), then the additional tests are a waste (unless the reefer's perspective changes at some point).

 

[Mr.Rocc]

To each his own. Wait for the reviews and buy if you want it

 

[MnFish1]

I will briefly chime in here.

We would not have invested so heavily in such a product if there had not been a great deal of interest over the years from our customers to have multiple tests a day - in fact most wanted quasi-continuous monitoring.

Also, there is much we do not know simply because no one really tests this frequently and regularly over time and correlates the data. That remains to be seen when we have hundreds of these running out there in the wild.

Many are probably also not thinking through the level of capability for automatically dosing, controlling your Calcium Reactor, etc. that will be able to be done - but not just done - done safely as you have a history of the tank uptake and can have safety stops in place with alerts, etc.

Again, this is what our customers have asked for - personally I have spoken, face to face, to many hundreds who specifically asked for such a capability.

In the end, if it is a cost issue, and we "force" customers to do at least one test a day of each (and for some reason they decide not to look at them because it is unimportant), well then their cost per weekly test they look at is still only about $0.50-0.60 per. I think most would love to have that at that price just for the automation.

For many this will not make sense. Just as for many having an Apex makes no sense to them. And that's OK.

Thanks for this. Just to be clear - I wasn't arguing against the product. It was the logic being used. It all comes down to convenience and reliability and at the price point you quote above The trident will be a massive 'hit' and a great asset to the reefing community, and again thanks for responding!

 

[Daniel@R2R]

I'll also add that testing is not always done in order to make changes or even to benefit the reef at all. Some people (though these are probably not the "average" reefer) are excited about the ability to monitor by running tests multiple times per day ("giddy" may not be too strong of a word) simply because they like to look at the test results. It's fun for them and satisfies their curiosity. For them, it's kind of like looking at the reef at a different time of day or from a different angle...it's not about benefits or corrections, but rather it's just another part of the hobby.

 

[VelocityTech]

I will briefly chime in here.

We would not have invested so heavily in such a product if there had not been a great deal of interest over the years from our customers to have multiple tests a day - in fact most wanted quasi-continuous monitoring.

Also, there is much we do not know simply because no one really tests this frequently and regularly over time and correlates the data. That remains to be seen when we have hundreds of these running out there in the wild.

Many are probably also not thinking through the level of capability for automatically dosing, controlling your Calcium Reactor, etc. that will be able to be done - but not just done - done safely as you have a history of the tank uptake and can have safety stops in place with alerts, etc.

Again, this is what our customers have asked for - personally I have spoken, face to face, to many hundreds who specifically asked for such a capability.

In the end, if it is a cost issue, and we "force" customers to do at least one test a day of each (and for some reason they decide not to look at them because it is unimportant), well then their cost per weekly test they look at is still only about $0.50-0.60 per. I think most would love to have that at that price just for the automation.

For many this will not make sense. Just as for many having an Apex makes no sense to them. And that's OK.

Well said! There is a big mystery to this hobby, and after all its mainly the hobbyist that lay down the "guide book".

Hardware like the trident, will absolutely help advance our "Guidelines " we follow today.

I personally know a few reefers that we're in 'Awe', over hearing of trident. Excited. There worst fears are dosing and inaccurate readings.

I couldn't tell ya how many people test twice. This takes the human eye out of the equation.

We all must pay for a premium. Some, don't care for a premium. More of a; "If it works, it works".


This pays for itself in many ways. Ofcourse the opening cost is high, but your OVERALL target costs seem very competitive. In fact cheaper.

 

[Daniel@R2R]

I personally know a few reefers that we're in 'Awe', over hearing of trident. Excited. There worst fears are dosing and inaccurate readings.

I couldn't tell ya how many people test twice. This takes the human eye out of the equation.

I think this right here is probably my biggest draw to the Trident and similar devices. It's the idea of having higher accuracy than my eye or my Hanna checker can give me. It removes the weakest link from my testing process...me.

 

[VelocityTech]

I think this right here is probably my biggest draw to the Trident and similar devices. It's the idea of having higher accuracy than my eye or my Hanna checker can give me. It removes the weakest link from my testing process...me.

Lol I agree. When i get a random reading. OUT OF NO WHERE. i double test.

I have had my Magnesoum drop 500 in 5 days. And my alk drop 2 points in less than 48 hours. (Tested alk with hannah, mag with redsea)

I couldn't say that's normal. But couldn't trust my eyes. So there goes "Me" Triple checking.

I will absolutely pay for that lol.

 

[VelocityTech]

Im going to love to see the data when i do 20% water changes!

 

[Mr.Rocc]

I think this right here is probably my biggest draw to the Trident and similar devices. It's the idea of having higher accuracy than my eye or my Hanna checker can give me. It removes the weakest link from my testing process...me.

I'm right there with ya. Plus I hate cleaning the vials. I pollute my test before I even start.

 

[Sharvey103]

What is the accuracy? Are there beta testers using it to compare actual results too? If it is accurate I will definitely add one.

 

[Daniel@R2R]

What is the accuracy? Are there beta testers using it to compare actual results too? If it is accurate I will definitely add one.

Per @Terence's FAQ thread, this will be EXTREMELY accurate (I don't remember the alk number specifically...I THINK it was 0.05...but cal and mag were within 10 ppm), which is one of the biggest draws to the unit.

 

[XNavyDiver]

Lol I agree. When i get a random reading. OUT OF NO WHERE. i double test.

I have had my Magnesoum drop 500 in 5 days. And my alk drop 2 points in less than 48 hours. (Tested alk with hannah, mag with redsea)

I couldn't say that's normal. But couldn't trust my eyes. So there goes "Me" Triple checking.

I will absolutely pay for that lol.

I'm in the same boat, steering it hell bent for leather, towards that beautiful rainbow... wondering what's at the end of it.

 

[MnFish1]

One interesting question is the quoted accuracy of an individual test. I would be interested (and Im sure Neptune will provide this data) to see on what this claim is based. Usually when stating a test is accurate to xxx degree, there is a gold standard test to which the other test is compared. Im not sure what that is in the case of Trident. If the Trident is accurate to within .05 dKH, I guess that means that if one takes 3 samples of the same water, all three measurements will come within .05 dKH of each other. However, is that the same as saying that the dKH is within .05 of the 'actual' dKH of the sampled water?

I'm actually kind of surprised that there isn't more questioning of the meaning of these figures. Is there any proven benefit to knowing the dKH to .xx vs. .x or x.0? (Hopefully the Trident will answer this question). I tried to google to find data to see what the variation in dKH in a natural reef over the course of a day is. There is scant data. What was interesting is that there are studies stating that compared to keeping the alkalinity constant at a certain value, corals grow BETTER when there is a diurnal variation in pH/Alk. This surprised me given the number of people who choose to dose their alk at night so as to decrease diurnal variation in pH. This type of question will definitely be helped by measuring Alk in the home aquarium multiple times/day with the Trident and other methods

 

[MnFish1]

PS - To the person that stated their 'Mg dropped 500 in 5 days'. was it a testing error - or why do you think your Mg dropped so much. Unless it was a nano tank, I would be surprised that any normal physiology would cause such a drop.