Poll: Alkalinity Monitoring Options

[Terence]

I've been tracking the new products with intetest but amazes me how people are arguing about which one is best when they've not even been released. Also some may be better for some and not for others due to different set ups, equipment they already have and also the biggy for most of us the cost, running cost and reliability as to me for one spending so much money on one piece of equipment is a major investment. Then there's not only the product itself but just as important is the support. No point buying something then never been able to get hold of anyone at the company to help if anything goes wrong. These are mostly new pieces of tech and even with the best will in the world they can't test them in every scenario so there will be bugs and issues so that person on the end of the phone or who actually answers your emails is worth its weight in gold.
How can anyone say this is better than that as new ones are popping up seemingly daily but only the KHG has been released with very good results so that is the benchmark at the moment.
So I will reserve judgement on aĺl until they are released as until then we won't exactly know their functionality or results.
Anthony

I think this a great perspective.

Thanks Randy, so the tank snapshot would need to encompass a good number of parameters, but at least we may eventually have a way to check the accuracy of this thing, even if there are a few of us leaning on you for some serious maths

The issue with a snapshot is just that - it is a snapshot and with ICP (which I think is an awesome tool), that snapshot will be old by the time you get the results back. So, any calculations to compare to recorded carbonate alk would have to be done with the measurement taken back when the ICP sample was pulled. Certainly this could be done, but it seems like a long way to have a gut check of your automated device when all the other devices measure dKH and simply require you to take out your favorite manual titration test and run it a couple of times to do the comparison.

Again, not saying that carbonate alk is not a good thing to measure. Just that the method to get it needs to be solid and that with any device that measures anything automatically, the hobbyist should be able to do a manual test to compare to know it is relatively on track.

 

[needbiggertanks]

In no particular order:
GHL
Kore 7th
Alkatronic

Split on all 3 for different reasons. To be honest, i wish there werent so many options.

 

[agent462]

I didn't realize the KH Guardian monitor and Pro are compatible with apex, but based on a few earlier posts it sounds like this is the case? From what I understand, the difference between monitor and pro is pro has onboard "control" (I.e. Dosing) while the monitor does not, but if you connect the monitor version to an apex can you then get that functionality via dosing pumps controlled by the apex?

There is a new module, AIM, that uses a pH input on any controller. The downside is the conversion from digital -> analog -> digital causes additional error variance you would see in the monitoring device. For example, KHG reports 8dKH, the Apex might show 7.75 after all the conversions are done. The upside is that this difference, in my experience, stays constant so it's just a mental calculation to real pH. Different controllers circuitry can cause different error variances.

You are correct in the differences between the units along with the Pro having the actual dosing pump.

You can program an Apex based on the input from the AIM module to do your own dosing. You just need to factor in the calculations and error scenarios that the KHG has all built in. For example, if you get a "false reading", for whatever reason", you don't want the Apex to dose. The KHG has a setting to consider a difference in X based on the last reading should be considered error. This way you don't end up dumping solution in your tank when it reads 1.5 lower than the last reading. There are other safety things built into the KHG around dosing. Read back to my scenario I posted earlier and you'll see one of the safety settings on max amount of solution to dose at any given reading.

 

[Amoo]

The issue with a snapshot is just that - it is a snapshot and with ICP (which I think is an awesome tool), that snapshot will be old by the time you get the results back. So, any calculations to compare to recorded carbonate alk would have to be done with the measurement taken back when the ICP sample was pulled. Certainly this could be done, but it seems like a long way to have a gut check of your automated device when all the other devices measure dKH and simply require you to take out your favorite manual titration test and run it a couple of times to do the comparison.

Again, not saying that carbonate alk is not a good thing to measure. Just that the method to get it needs to be solid and that with any device that measures anything automatically, the hobbyist should be able to do a manual test to compare to know it is relatively on track.

I think we're just on a different page here Terrance. Just as an example, I ran 3 Alkalinity tests this morning on my tank (Keep in mind my wife and I own a vet clinic so I do know how to properly measure test amounts, dropper bubbles...etc) The reason I ran 3 tests is the first test I got a result I didn't expect. The First test came in at a dKH of 8.4, which was the same I had 3 days ago. The second test I ran was 8.2dKH. Both of these were performed with the Red Sea Kit I have. I decided to run a third with my Hanna Checker since I just got some new reagent in a few days ago and I got 8.0. So which test was right?

The way I see it the reality is my Alk is probably somewhere between 8.2 and 8.0 as both numbers are pretty close with where my Alkalinity should have dropped from since my last test. The reality is though I used the same titration kit, got 2 different results using the exact same method, then checked it against a different test and still got a different number. At the end of the day though, as long as things track consistently, even if my personal titration tracking has an error of +/- .1-.3dKH, I still have a number I can work with and work from.

Where I'm going with this in regards to mindstream is we do in fact have a way to check the accuracy of the system. I'm sure there will be tons of ICP tests done and compared to all of these systems values that can be tested for, including the Trident's Ca and Mg. If I'm running my Trident and it is telling me I have 400ppm Ca and I whip out my Red Sea Kit and it says 410ppm, then I panic and grab a sailfert and get 390ppm, then I send in an ICP test because I'm so worried and it says I'm at 405 now what? In the grand scheme of things as long as it is reasonably accurate and tracks consistently I'm sure many of us will be extremely happy with whatever option we choose.

We should also keep in mind that Alk and dKH should track at a 1:1 ratio. I think we all can agree there. If the mindstream or the trident or any other system starts throwing values that are outside of that ratio, then maybe we have something to look at. It's very easy for me to say, okay my mindstream is reading Carbonate Alkalinity of 7.8. I'm getting a Total Alkalinity of 8.2 with Red Sea and Seifert and Hanna. I now know in my tank what my ratio of Carbonate Alk to Total alk should be for every single disk I receive. Once a baseline is established and we can actually verify the testing device is accurate (ICP testing/test kits...etc) now we have a baseline we can judge all these systems against.

At the end of the day though, I don't think I'm going to notice any difference in my system at all if my dKH is 8.4 or 8.2 or 8.0 or if my Ca is 390 or 400 or 410. I just want repeat-ability and predictability and there are ways to do that with ALL of the systems being offered.

 

[Mark Gray]

Following

 

[chefjpaul]

I think we're just on a different page here Terrance. Just as an example, I ran 3 Alkalinity tests this morning on my tank (Keep in mind my wife and I own a vet clinic so I do know how to properly measure test amounts, dropper bubbles...etc) The reason I ran 3 tests is the first test I got a result I didn't expect. The First test came in at a dKH of 8.4, which was the same I had 3 days ago. The second test I ran was 8.2dKH. Both of these were performed with the Red Sea Kit I have. I decided to run a third with my Hanna Checker since I just got some new reagent in a few days ago and I got 8.0. So which test was right?

The way I see it the reality is my Alk is probably somewhere between 8.2 and 8.0 as both numbers are pretty close with where my Alkalinity should have dropped from since my last test. The reality is though I used the same titration kit, got 2 different results using the exact same method, then checked it against a different test and still got a different number. At the end of the day though, as long as things track consistently, even if my personal titration tracking has an error of +/- .1-.3dKH, I still have a number I can work with and work from.

Where I'm going with this in regards to mindstream is we do in fact have a way to check the accuracy of the system. I'm sure there will be tons of ICP tests done and compared to all of these systems values that can be tested for, including the Trident's Ca and Mg. If I'm running my Trident and it is telling me I have 400ppm Ca and I whip out my Red Sea Kit and it says 410ppm, then I panic and grab a sailfert and get 390ppm, then I send in an ICP test because I'm so worried and it says I'm at 405 now what? In the grand scheme of things as long as it is reasonably accurate and tracks consistently I'm sure many of us will be extremely happy with whatever option we choose.

We should also keep in mind that Alk and dKH should track at a 1:1 ratio. I think we all can agree there. If the mindstream or the trident or any other system starts throwing values that are outside of that ratio, then maybe we have something to look at. It's very easy for me to say, okay my mindstream is reading Carbonate Alkalinity of 7.8. I'm getting a Total Alkalinity of 8.2 with Red Sea and Seifert and Hanna. I now know in my tank what my ratio of Carbonate Alk to Total alk should be for every single disk I receive. Once a baseline is established and we can actually verify the testing device is accurate (ICP testing/test kits...etc) now we have a baseline we can judge all these systems against.

At the end of the day though, I don't think I'm going to notice any difference in my system at all if my dKH is 8.4 or 8.2 or 8.0 or if my Ca is 390 or 400 or 410. I just want repeat-ability and predictability and there are ways to do that with ALL of the systems being offered.

Exactly!
We just need more accuracy & little precision to get Stability.

 

[chefjpaul]

I've been tracking the new products with intetest but amazes me how people are arguing about which one is best when they've not even been released. Also some may be better for some and not for others due to different set ups, equipment they already have and also the biggy for most of us the cost, running cost and reliability as to me for one spending so much money on one piece of equipment is a major investment. Then there's not only the product itself but just as important is the support. No point buying something then never been able to get hold of anyone at the company to help if anything goes wrong. These are mostly new pieces of tech and even with the best will in the world they can't test them in every scenario so there will be bugs and issues so that person on the end of the phone or who actually answers your emails is worth its weight in gold.
How can anyone say this is better than that as new ones are popping up seemingly daily but only the KHG has been released with very good results so that is the benchmark at the moment.
So I will reserve judgement on aĺl until they are released as until then we won't exactly know their functionality or results.
Anthony

This[emoji651][emoji651][emoji651]
In all honesty I will probably go with GHL just to keep my system uniform and I appreciate their customer service most.

But in reality, Ill be waiting for the results of end users, exciting times either way.

 

[CoralWealth]

do we have a better timeline on when everything will be released and their prices? I think at this point that is pretty important for everyone to know here.

 

[JonasRoman]

@JonasRoman If Carbonate and Total Alkalinity track so similarly does it really matter which one you track as long as you are tracking one of them?, as you mentioned it's the stability we are looking for. My question is you mentioned "only measuring carbonate alkalinity with not so good precision", do we have that information yet as to how precise it is actually monitoring at?

Exactly that is What I said. You can measure both, as they follows each other. The importance is thus to measure that which is most easy to measure with cost and precision taking in count , and yes, in that case there is definitely a favour for methods measure total alkalinity. I promise you that. CO2 sensors with needed accuracy are very expensive and requieees maybe daily calibration and the concomitant ph measure for that method requires very high accuracy and still actually not get dKH precision more than maybe 0.1dkh. You have to have a ph precision of around 0.02-0.05 to achieve reasonable precision in dKH after some mathematical operations. That is of course feasible but expensive and not user friendly.

Regards
Jonas

 

[JonasRoman]

Th

I've been tracking the new products with intetest but amazes me how people are arguing about which one is best when they've not even been released. Also some may be better for some and not for others due to different set ups, equipment they already have and also the biggy for most of us the cost, running cost and reliability as to me for one spending so much money on one piece of equipment is a major investment. Then there's not only the product itself but just as important is the support. No point buying something then never been able to get hold of anyone at the company to help if anything goes wrong. These are mostly new pieces of tech and even with the best will in the world they can't test them in every scenario so there will be bugs and issues so that person on the end of the phone or who actually answers your emails is worth its weight in gold.
How can anyone say this is better than that as new ones are popping up seemingly daily but only the KHG has been released with very good results so that is the benchmark at the moment.
So I will reserve judgement on aĺl until they are released as until then we won't exactly know their functionality or results.
Anthony

That is a very good point. The results are the important things and that will be obvious after some time. That is the reason of that I always post and share my excel files and all results also during the prototype stage. But of course the customer at the end of the day have also to get experience themselves and that is always lacking when releasing new products. So of these reasons you mention it is not easy for a user to do the correct decisions. This is at least from my point of view the reason of trying to be as transparent as possible with our product.

/Jonas

 

[JonasRoman]

It may not be a common issue, but historically, at least, some salt mixes have had way, way more borate alk than seawater (10x for old Seachem salt mix, 3x for crystal Sea Marinemix), while some had almost none.

http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2005/11/aafeature1

http://web.archive.org/web/20001215...om/fish2/aqfm/1999/mar/features/1/default.asp

I know that Randy but honestly, that is probably historical data and I really do not think we today have use of split total alkalinity into their individual compositions. We even not know the exact values we want(within reasonable values of course) , we actually only knows that the stability is most important(and that probably very important). So I actually still thinks this is not really any issue, more a theoretical discussion
I and still believes that the reason of that a coral animal reacts so fast sometimes to decrease in alkalinity is not a sudden lack of building blocks (that should only lead to stop in growth but not dead) but something with intracellulair pH, and thus actually the total alkalinity is even more of interest than "only" the carbonatealkalinity-component

 

[Amoo]

Exactly that is What I said. You can measure both, as they follows each other. The importance is thus to measure that which is most easy to measure with cost and precision taking in count , and yes, in that case there is definitely a favour for methods measure total alkalinity. I promise you that. CO2 sensors with needed accuracy are very expensive and requieees maybe daily calibration and the concomitant ph measure for that method requires very high accuracy and still actually not get dKH precision more than maybe 0.1dkh. You have to have a ph precision of around 0.02-0.05 to achieve reasonable precision in dKH after some mathematical operations. That is of course feasible but expensive and not user friendly.

Regards
Jonas

I think my example I gave earlier Jonas probably sums up how, not just myself but a lot of people are going to feel. It sounds really great from a marketing and scientific perspective to say you can measure dKH with a precision of .05dKH or something really small like that. I'm also sure there will be some people who buy whichever one of these systems can measure dKH with the greatest precision regardless of cost. The only point I have been making this whole time is, while super thin margins are great, what a lot of end users care about is practical accuracy/precision and most importantly reliability and repeat-ability.

I know all you guys participating in this from different companies have tanks, and I also know all you guys have products to sell. I think it is absolutely fantastic if we can one day in the next 5 years have any one of these systems or one not even dreamed up yet measuring down to 1ppb for literally all macro elements and nutrients. The practical usefulness for that though for every single parameter with the exception of phosphorus is .1 or even .2 on something like dKH is very limited. Again I'm all for being as precise as possible, and if I was at the vet clinic and looking to order one of these for a piece of equipment like our bloodwork machines, you can bet your bottom dollar ever ppb of precision is worth it's weight in gold. What all of these systems are going to show us is when peak uptake times are and how they relate to our lighting schedules, pH...etc. Not to pick on Neptune again here, but look how many people have already said, "Why would I need to measure dKH more then once a day?" There seems to be a real disconnect between the super sciencey people about these machines and the everyday end user. All of the marketing in the work isn't going to change the fact that at the end of the day if our tank drops .5dKH per day we need to add x amount of dosing. Info on when is optimal is great and that info will come out, but all a lot folks want to be able to do is dose "x" amount per day and move on.

 

[Amoo]

Here's a quick little anecdote that I didn't want to include in my response specifically Jonas but wanted to make as an overall and stand alone point.

Based on Austin Lefevre's Macna 2017 presentation and I've seen the recommendation on many of the probes that are sold for measuring things like pH, calibration should be done once every 30 days and replacement should happen about once a year. How many people actually calibrate their probes once every 30 days and replace them once a year are there vs how many people that calibrate them every now and then and as long as they are working and holding that calibration for a decent period of time keep rolling with those probes? That's the best chemistry real world example I can give or practical accuracy.

We care, but only to a certain point, and for many of us when Randy starts explaining things like the relationship between pH and ORP, our eyes are simply going to start rolling back into the back of our heads in attempt to keep our brain from exploding due to the overload of massive confusion. There is a lot of value and much to be learned from an explanation like Randy's and we're all glad he gives them, and we all try to learn as much as we can from things like that. At the end of the day though, many just want to know that the relationship is relatively inverse (Sorry if I failed the lesson Randy, I don't review that one often as I don't run Ozone). We very much appreciate that information on an in depth level and it's an invaluable service to the community, but many of us simply try to achieve a basic understanding and are happy with that.

That's what I feel a lot will want from these machines. A real world practical accuracy with good consistent repeat-ability.

 

[JonasRoman]

I think my example I gave earlier Jonas probably sums up how, not just myself but a lot of people are going to feel. It sounds really great from a marketing and scientific perspective to say you can measure dKH with a precision of .05dKH or something really small like that. I'm also sure there will be some people who buy whichever one of these systems can measure dKH with the greatest precision regardless of cost. The only point I have been making this whole time is, while super thin margins are great, what a lot of end users care about is practical accuracy/precision and most importantly reliability and repeat-ability.

I know all you guys participating in this from different companies have tanks, and I also know all you guys have products to sell. I think it is absolutely fantastic if we can one day in the next 5 years have any one of these systems or one not even dreamed up yet measuring down to 1ppb for literally all macro elements and nutrients. The practical usefulness for that though for every single parameter with the exception of phosphorus is .1 or even .2 on something like dKH is very limited. Again I'm all for being as precise as possible, and if I was at the vet clinic and looking to order one of these for a piece of equipment like our bloodwork machines, you can bet your bottom dollar ever ppb of precision is worth it's weight in gold. What all of these systems are going to show us is when peak uptake times are and how they relate to our lighting schedules, pH...etc. Not to pick on Neptune again here, but look how many people have already said, "Why would I need to measure dKH more then once a day?" There seems to be a real disconnect between the super sciencey people about these machines and the everyday end user. All of the marketing in the work isn't going to change the fact that at the end of the day if our tank drops .5dKH per day we need to add x amount of dosing. Info on when is optimal is great and that info will come out, but all a lot folks want to be able to do is dose "x" amount per day and move on.

I agree in much of What you say but think you forget the heaviest indication for these machines: The safetybelt which do actions when something goes really wrong. Thus you are on travel and the ca reactor CO2 is empty, solenoid is stuck, or Balling station empty or technical failure. These thing will happens. Then these machines interacts and minimise risk for this catastrophe. You will not take out the fire alarm in your house of reason that it have never alarmed. This is an insurance and one single avoided catastrophe the money are saved with margins.
One thing is not a guess but a true: a rapid , persistent and large drop in dKH will kill your corals. That is the main reason of at least our machine Alkatronic: act like a safebelt to minimise risk for these catastrophics.

 

[Amoo]

I agree in much of What you say but think you forget the heaviest indication for these machines: The safetybelt which do actions when something goes really wrong. Thus you are on travel and the ca reactor CO2 is empty, solenoid is stuck, or Balling station empty or technical failure. These thing will happens. Then these machines interacts and minimise risk for this catastrophe. You will not take out the fire alarm in your house of reason that it have never alarmed. This is an insurance and one single avoided catastrophe the money are saved with margins.
One thing is not a guess but a true: a rapid , persistent and large drop in dKH will kill your corals. That is the main reason of at least our machine Alkatronic: act like a safebelt to minimise risk for these catastrophics.

Very great point Jonas and I'm VERY glad you brought the automation part of this up. Some people definitely do want these machines to take data directly from their monitors and pass them to a controller or the monitor's controlling unit and act on these. Others just want these machines to monitor and they will take their own actions based on trends. Regardless I think selling safety and reliability and redundancy is much more practical and usable to most of us then going back and forth about who can measure the most ppb.

Thank you by the way for the discussion.

 

[JonasRoman]

Here's a quick little anecdote that I didn't want to include in my response specifically Jonas but wanted to make as an overall and stand alone point.

Based on Austin Lefevre's Macna 2017 presentation and I've seen the recommendation on many of the probes that are sold for measuring things like pH, calibration should be done once every 30 days and replacement should happen about once a year. How many people actually calibrate their probes once every 30 days and replace them once a year are there vs how many people that calibrate them every now and then and as long as they are working and holding that calibration for a decent period of time keep rolling with those probes? That's the best chemistry real world example I can give or practical accuracy.

We care, but only to a certain point, and for many of us when Randy starts explaining things like the relationship between pH and ORP, our eyes are simply going to start rolling back into the back of our heads in attempt to keep our brain from exploding due to the overload of massive confusion. There is a lot of value and much to be learned from an explanation like Randy's and we're all glad he gives them, and we all try to learn as much as we can from things like that. At the end of the day though, many just want to know that the relationship is relatively inverse (Sorry if I failed the lesson Randy, I don't review that one often as I don't run Ozone). We very much appreciate that information on an in depth level and it's an invaluable service to the community, but many of us simply try to achieve a basic understanding and are happy with that.

That's what I feel a lot will want from these machines. A real world practical accuracy with good consistent repeat-ability.

Quick answer: encourage you to read my PDF concerning ph probe in this special case. Calibration is needed every 6 month with margins. Our ph probe drifts 0.02 units in 7 months in this application and 0.02 has no effect at all in the results of dKH (well around 0.01-0.02dkh=nothing).
I have evidence for this as I have tested our electrode almost a year now. Calibrated once and still spot on. There are very big differences between different electrode.
And beside that, you can use different reagent to get different slope of titration curve to make this process less sensitive to small deviation in ph electrode. You have to believe me, (I hope;-)) I have worked and given this some thought 24/7 in a year so you will not be disappointed if you test that part.

I appreciate very much your comments. You have a good criticism thinking and that is good

Regards
Jonas

 

[JonasRoman]

Very great point Jonas and I'm VERY glad you brought the automation part of this up. Some people definitely do want these machines to take data directly from their monitors and pass them to a controller or the monitor's controlling unit and act on these. Others just want these machines to monitor and they will take their own actions based on trends. Regardless I think selling safety and reliability and redundancy is much more practical and usable to most of us then going back and forth about who can measure the most ppb.

Thank you by the way for the discussion.

I agree
Reliability is most important
And there the future will tell which machines achieves that best

I also appreciate your comments

Jonas

 

[Amoo]

Do you have a link to that pdf Jonas or is it available on your website. Sensor error and reliability is really what will make or break a lot of these units for many. Learning as much about that as we can will empower us all to make the best decision pre-purchase as possible.

 

[JonasRoman]

You find my discussion on Facebook
@Alkatronic

We can discuss it here also of course.
The ph electrode part is not the sensitive part in measure KH with this method of several reasons.

I can be back in this thread later and explain some more my view if you want

 

[birdman1979]

I think my example I gave earlier Jonas probably sums up how, not just myself but a lot of people are going to feel. It sounds really great from a marketing and scientific perspective to say you can measure dKH with a precision of .05dKH or something really small like that. I'm also sure there will be some people who buy whichever one of these systems can measure dKH with the greatest precision regardless of cost. The only point I have been making this whole time is, while super thin margins are great, what a lot of end users care about is practical accuracy/precision and most importantly reliability and repeat-ability.

I know all you guys participating in this from different companies have tanks, and I also know all you guys have products to sell. I think it is absolutely fantastic if we can one day in the next 5 years have any one of these systems or one not even dreamed up yet measuring down to 1ppb for literally all macro elements and nutrients. The practical usefulness for that though for every single parameter with the exception of phosphorus is .1 or even .2 on something like dKH is very limited. Again I'm all for being as precise as possible, and if I was at the vet clinic and looking to order one of these for a piece of equipment like our bloodwork machines, you can bet your bottom dollar ever ppb of precision is worth it's weight in gold. What all of these systems are going to show us is when peak uptake times are and how they relate to our lighting schedules, pH...etc. Not to pick on Neptune again here, but look how many people have already said, "Why would I need to measure dKH more then once a day?" There seems to be a real disconnect between the super sciencey people about these machines and the everyday end user. All of the marketing in the work isn't going to change the fact that at the end of the day if our tank drops .5dKH per day we need to add x amount of dosing. Info on when is optimal is great and that info will come out, but all a lot folks want to be able to do is dose "x" amount per day and move on.

I see lots of value in multiple tests... and doses per day... particularly with alkalinity. Many established reefs will pull a dKH of 9.5 below 7 in 24 hours. That would be an unacceptable daily variance without multiple doses per day.