Poll: Alkalinity Monitoring Options

[Eric Tang]

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.

this is the real reason behind device like ours, as an insurance in case something do go wrong and will go wrong based on chances.

 

[Terence]

this is the real reason behind device like ours, as an insurance in case something do go wrong and will go wrong based on chances.

Exactly, same reason we want to test frequently for calcium and magnesium. Not that they will change much under normal conditions, but when something goes wrong, you would want to know it as fast as possible.

 

[Eric Tang]

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.

link to Alkatronic Facebook page.

 

[leahfiish]

I am sort of following these devices but I think most of them are out of my budget. I'm having trouble with differentiating them and being able to tell which ones have which features, so if anyone has a comparison chart, let me know.

 

[Anthony Mckay]

If the unit matches Jonass' passion, knowledge and evident knowledge on the subject and equipment this will be the one to have !!!!

 

[JonasRoman]

If the unit matches Jonass' passion, knowledge and evident knowledge on the subject and equipment this will be the one to have !!!!

Thank you so much

 

[JimWelsh]

If the unit matches Jonass' passion, knowledge and evident knowledge on the subject and equipment this will be the one to have !!!!

So, what am I? Chopped liver?

 

[JimFuller]

So, what am I? Chopped liver?

No, Jim. All of us Jim's are chopped shrimp. That way we make our fish stand the incorrect parmeters of Alk, Calcium, and Mag. ;-)

 

[Anthony Mckay]

Sorry Jim I only know Jonas from his posts but you're probably wonderful too lol

 

[MnFish1]

I do not fully agree Randy.
1) First of all, the relationship, quote, between carbonatealkalinity and total alkalinity is quite stable so we can with no problem use total alkalinity as a very good measure of true carbonatealkalinity.
2) the need of an absolute ideal value of total alkalinity and/or carbonate alkalinity has not a narrow "window" at all. It is not important if you have 7.5 or 7.9 in dKH. No one knows so exact the ideal value and ideal value can be different in different system. Therefore the accuracy is actually not so important as precision. The important thing is the stability and there comes precision of the method in. So as accuracy is less important than precision in this case it is not important to differentiate the total alkalinity into true carbonate alkalinity. Especially not when the method for measuring only carbonatealkalinity is expensive and with not so good precision for the amount of money we are talking about
3) finaly I think also for the health of the cell biology in the marine system, it is actually of same importance to know total alkalinity as carbonatealkalinity. Thus, I actually thinks that a coral bothers also for Borate alkalinity as that influence the ability for cell to keep correct intracellulair pH etc.

So , I really do not see any need for knowing and/or measuring only carbonate alkalinity, even if you could do it with high precision to an affordable price.

Regards
Jonas Roman

Unless people are using buffers containing borate.

 

[MnFish1]

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?

Is there good data out there somewhere that it 'matters' if your DKH was 8.2 vs 8.4 vs. 8.0. My guess is there is Not good data out there. This is a red herring. Even f you could measure DKH the .000001. Doesn't mean that .000001 vs .0000003 is significant for the animals in our care? This whole debate is silly.... But some people want to believe that they can control these parameters to some magical number - which makes no difference. even if you could 'caluclute/measure/determine' that a .01 degree of DKH measurement +- matters to a given organism - to the vast majority it would make little or no difference.

 

[MnFish1]

Exactly, same reason we want to test frequently for calcium and magnesium. Not that they will change much under normal conditions, but when something goes wrong, you would want to know it as fast as possible.

Based on 'what'. So lets say - the Mg drops by 500/day. Would you immediately have a controller dump in a replacement? Same for Ca. The fact is, they dont change that much. It doesn't hurt to measure things, but you might as well measure urea concentrations in case a cat pees in a reef tank - because the likelyhood that an actionable increase/decreasae in MG occurring is about as likely as the cat peeing...

 

[Amoo]

Dude look, the only thing that seems silly is I have run across posts you have joined or been in and all it seems you want to do is argue over mundane points for the sake of argument. Every point you are making here has very easy and simpe answer which was already answered by the person you are quoting somewhere in this thread.

In my testing example, the reason I gave it is because that tank is only consuming .1-.2dKH per day, so a measurement error of .3 is pretty massive when you're trying to calculate dosing based on consumption and part of the reason why you can't just do it over a 24 hour period but follow extended trends. This is all very basic principles of dosing, but of coarse you find no value in the discussion so deem it "silly".

In regards to what Terrance said, you quoted the part of his post that answered the question you ask. Because IF and WHEN something goes wrong it could alert you to those problems faster. People dose Calcium literally every day, because it drops just as dKH a relatively large amount daily. If you have a dosing pump failure where it is stuck on, you're going to know about it. Maybe you have a MG dosing pump setup to dose a small amount of MG once a week.

In regards to how you would handle those problems, that's all on the end user and that's the point. What safeguards are the manufacturers putting in place on these all in one units, and what control will we have on the stand alone ones.

 

[chefjpaul]

Based on 'what'. So lets say - the Mg drops by 500/day. Would you immediately have a controller dump in a replacement? Same for Ca. The fact is, they dont change that much. It doesn't hurt to measure things, but you might as well measure urea concentrations in case a cat pees in a reef tank - because the likelyhood that an actionable increase/decreasae in MG occurring is about as likely as the cat peeing...

I believe this goes beyond this little testing scheme.
We, as hobbyist, have been asking for the trio monitoring device for quite some time. It is not, obviously the final destination in this process, but a great start to the innovation we have been craving.

Now, I particularly dont care for Apex, and dont personally think this device measuring all three is to the up-most importance compared to just KH, BUT we have to give them much due credit for the innovation and engineering to move this hobby and their competitors in this direction. Just think where this technology will be in a few more short years.

If this helps some measure to be more consistent, it will lead them to more accuracy, which will help them achieve stability.
Plus I love capitalism, and innovation and good for them to make money, so if someone doesn't want a product, they dont have to buy it.

 

[andrew james]

I've been running the kh guardian monitor for a week or so and I got to say it's not what I'd call a user friendly device. If Neptune can deliver a device that is more buttoned up and easy to use I will buy it.

 

[MnFish1]

Dude look, the only thing that seems silly is I have run across posts you have joined or been in and all it seems you want to do is argue over mundane points for the sake of argument. Every point you are making here has very easy and simpe answer which was already answered by the person you are quoting somewhere in this thread. In my testing example, the reason I gave it is because that tank is only consuming .1-.2dKH per day, so a measurement error of .3 is pretty massive when you're trying to calculate dosing based on consumption and part of the reason why you can't just do it over a 24 hour period but follow extended trends. This is all very basic principles of dosing, but of coarse you find no value in the discussion so deem it "silly".

I think usefulness of measuring precision and what a person does with those results are not mundane points. Also to make it clear, I never said the thread was silly - I said debating .1 changes of alkalinity and suggesting that this has real-world significance is silly. Seems that you have a problem because I dont agree with your points of view. I note that no one seems to want to answer the question as to the proven benefit to managing dKH on +/- 1-2 tenth basis. What I mean by that is the benefit to keeping the alkalinity and lets say 8.2 (Pick any number you like) and not letting it vary more than .1-.2 dKH - and trying to control it with dosing which is what you seem to be suggesting. Certainly having large swings in alkalinity are not good.

In regards to what Terrance said, you quoted the part of his post that answered the question you ask. Because IF and WHEN something goes wrong it could alert you to those problems faster. People dose Calcium literally every day, because it drops just as dKH a relatively large amount daily. If you have a dosing pump failure where it is stuck on, you're going to know about it. Maybe you have a MG dosing pump setup to dose a small amount of MG once a week.

I guess that I do things a little differently. I try to buy equipment and use in such a way that even if there is a problem, it will be a small one. (i.e. not using 5 gallon 2 part reservoirs in case a pump gets stuck on, not using automatic water changes or ATO (except a small reserviour/gravity fed, etc etc) IMHO most of the 'disasters' one reads about on this forum occur after someone has tried to control/automate there system with such complexity that the sheer number of possible failures makes it more likely for one to occur. My guess is that there is going to be a string of these types of issues once people have a lot more data over which they can mentally masturbate.

 

[Amoo]

I think usefulness of measuring precision and what a person does with those results are not mundane points. Also to make it clear, I never said the thread was silly - I said debating .1 changes of alkalinity and suggesting that this has real-world significance is silly. Seems that you have a problem because I dont agree with your points of view. I note that no one seems to want to answer the question as to the proven benefit to managing dKH on +/- 1-2 tenth basis. What I mean by that is the benefit to keeping the alkalinity and lets say 8.2 (Pick any number you like) and not letting it vary more than .1-.2 dKH - and trying to control it with dosing which is what you seem to be suggesting. Certainly having large swings in alkalinity are not good.

If you read back through everything I was posting, that is exactly what I was saying. The discussion started talking about the inaccuracy of the Mindstream and I countered that with discussion about how "real world" accuracy is what we need and pushing "well we can measure down to .05" while nice, isn't exactly a real world problem as we can't even check that with our hobbiest level kits.

As to the rest of your points, maybe if you could learn to have a discussion without sounding like you know everything and everybody else is an idiot by passively aggressively saying things like "mentally masturbate" and because you find no value in a part of the discussion you clearly didn't even get the whole point of as "silly" people might respond better to you. Mistakes happen, equipment fails, you can have double failures, you can have cascading failures. This forum is about learning and helping each other and encouraging good and thoughtful discussion, if you want to constantly be negative and passive aggressive you might find more friends over at that central place. Either way I'm out. Good luck.

 

[Anthony Mckay]

I like this thread because the people who know way more scientifically than i do, the ins and outs of salt water make up to a molecular level etc etc
But I'm just a hobbyist looking for a piece of equipment that is USER FRIENDLY and goes about its job to the best of its ability and helps me do the best I can for my reef.
To me having something that needs a doctorate in some science I can't even spell and makes my reef hobby into a science experiment is not what i'm looking for.
The hobby is about learning from successes and failures. Sharing these and helping each other.
If it comes to the point where everything is super automated its not really the hobby anymore. Your not getting in there getting your hands wet so to speak you've turned into a computer programming water chemist (appologies if thats someones career its probably great !)
If it gets to that stage you might aswell buy a year pass to your local aquarium and go there to look at the fish !!!
The challenge I see for the makers of these products is to make something that works and is a benefit. Something better than we've had before.
Something that helps our reefs thrive. Not just survive but flourish.
Then the biggy MAKE IT USER FRIENDLY! We can all learn complex stuff if we have too but why buy something thats going to make life more complicated with it than what you had before ? Thats defeating the point !!!!
And to most of us the last biggy the cost.
People have been keeping reefs very very successfully for many many years without this equipment. To me this will be a luxury item. I'll put money aside when I can and when I can afford it I'll spend my hard earned cash on the best one I can afford.
It may not be the best one out but to me it will be the best I can get.
So the challenge to all the companies is simple.
Give us something thats better than before. Thats reliable. That we can all use and that we don't have to sell body parts to afford!
Don't let you're reef become virtual the hobby is about more than just looking at your beautiful aquariums.

 

[Terence]

With measurements only happening 2-4x a day, a precision of +/-0.2 is not adequate as by the time you get enough data points to know that a 0.2 downtrend is not an anomaly, your tank could be 0.4 down a day later. The next day if it goes the other way, you are up 0.4. Many in this hobby want to maintain their alkalinity closer than that. You can argue the validity of that, but this tighter precision is something customers want - especially if, due to lax maintenance or other reasons the reality is that the real-world precision is double the manufacturers stated rating.

 

[Amoo]

With measurements only happening 2-4x a day, a precision of +/-0.2 is not adequate as by the time you get enough data points to know that a 0.2 downtrend is not an anomaly, your tank could be 0.4 down a day later. The next day if it goes the other way, you are up 0.4. Many in this hobby want to maintain their alkalinity closer than that. You can argue the validity of that, but this tighter precision is something customers want - especially if, due to lax maintenance or other reasons the reality is that the real-world precision is double the manufacturers stated rating.

I was talking accuracy Terrance not precision, I agree with you completely on the precision point. In these systems I view precision and consistency as kind of the same thing. If you have a different view on that I'd love to hear it.