Testing Trident Calibration Fluid, Results.

[robbyg]

I did my first calibration today. I waited about two weeks to calibrate as I was not all that worried about the accuracy for right now. As others have stated it is really not all that far off straight out of the box and I found that to be true.

I had to leave home after the calibration so I could not test the fluid using my other test kits right away. I ended up doing it about five hours after first opening the bottle. This should be ok based on Neptunes statement of 8 hours being the maximum time.

I had some mixed results and I am not sure if this is normal or if it was based on the five hour time period or what?

First of all I checked the Calcium and as you can see the results are pretty much dead on. Thanks to that great video on using the calcium checker properly I have honed my skills a lot more.

On The Alk side I was very puzzled by the results.

So that translates to 8.4 dKH ??
In all fairness my reagent was going to expire on 9/2020 and is almost finished. I got rooked on an Amazon order and got an older batch and just never bothered to return it. I am still not sure if that is the reason or maybe its the length of time the bottle was open or is it that the Hanna cannot read the Alk in the calibration fluid properly?


I then did the Magnesium test with the Red Sea Pro and that was also off by a lot.

Note: Before I could take the picture the color shifted back from Blue to purple.
The remaining fluid was .26 which I think translated on the chart to 1480

I did repeat the Alk test twice and the first time I got a slightly lower number but I was actually more careful on the second test, so that is the one I think is correct. Honestly I could not bother to do the Mg test again, I will do it on the tank water tomorrow.

So has anyone else had similar results or is your calibration fluid a match on everything?

 

[andrewey]

With regard to the magnesium result, I know many have reported erroneous results with their red sea magnesium test kits. I've certainly seen that be the case personally.

 

[robbyg]

With regard to the magnesium result, I know many have reported erroneous results with their red sea magnesium test kits. I've certainly seen that be the case personally.

Is there a better Mg test kit that you would recommend?
Also I soaked my closed bottle of calibration fluid in the sump to get a matching temperature with the tank, that is why the label looks so tattered. Does Neptune require the fluid to be at the same tank temp or is it not important?

 

[lakai]

These results are similiar when testing the calibration fluid. Last time I tested the fluid the Numbers are off by .7 dkH and 100+ on mag. Thats why I don't even calibrate to the fluid anymore. I just do manual tests for the tank water and enter those in during calibration phase since all calibration does is change the numbers to whatever you enter in the tab anyways. As for red sea mag test kit being inaccurate, I disagree since mag values between redsea kit and icp on the same sample water came out within 5ppm

 

[joseserrano]

This is pretty concerning. Has Neptune said anything?

 

[TheHarold]

The Hanna accuracy is +- .3 at 77 degrees, when the test is conducted perfectly by their experts. It’s not a precision instrument in that sense- I don’t see an issue here. The calibration fluid would be the correct one.

Even if you purchase the Hanna calibration check, the results must be within 90 and 110ppm-an over 1.1dkh range. So there, the acceptable “calibration check” for a well functioning unit is +- .55 DKH.

Hanna checkers are used to give repeatable results good enough for hobbyists, but are not accurate In comparison to Trident (+- .05 DKH)

HI755-11 Marine Alkalinity Calibration Check Set for HI755 Checker

Easily calibrate and test proper functionality of your Hanna Checker HI755 Alkalinity for marine water. Contains Standard A and Standard B Follow instructions in packaging Acceptable results must be between 90 and 110 ppm at 25°C Hanna Checker Instructions for Marine Alkalinity Standards...

www.bulkreefsupply.com

 

[lakai]

The Hanna accuracy is +- .3 at 77 degrees, when the test is conducted perfectly by their experts. It’s not a precision instrument in that sense- I don’t see an issue here. The calibration fluid would be the correct one.

Trident is +/- 0.05dKh in "precision" not accuracy. via https://www.neptunesystems.com/products/expansion-modules/trident/ meaning your test results if parameteres are exactly the same, should be repeatable within +/- 0.05dKh of each other.

The word "accuracy" isn't even anywhere to be found on the website anymore.

 

[TheHarold]

Trident is +/- 0.05dKh in "precision" not accuracy. via https://www.neptunesystems.com/products/expansion-modules/trident/ meaning your test results if parameteres are exactly the same, should be repeatable within +/- 0.05dKh of each other.

The word "accuracy" isn't even anywhere to be found on the website anymore.

I disagree, it’s on their site and clearly stated. I understand the difference, but they give the .05 dkh for both values.

From their FAQs:

https://www.neptunesystems.com/getstarted/trident/faq/

 

[lakai]

@TheHarold Stop baiting me. ;Joyful

 

[robbyg]

Hanna checkers are used to give repeatable results good enough for hobbyists, but are not accurate In comparison to Trident (+- .05 DKH)

I don't buy into the +/- .05 dKH number at all. A $10,000 Sunburst pH meter has .003 pH of Accuracy and even though that is a magnitude better than what Neptune would like to claim, there is no way at that price point Neptune can achieve that accuracy. You would need a super clean chamber and temperature stabilized samples and reagents to even start thinking about going from .5dKH to .05 dKH of Accuracy.

The fact that Neptune is stating Accuracy and Precision as one number is the clear indicator that it is bunk! On any real product Accuracy would be one number and Precision would be a completely different number. The odds of both being the same value are almost Zero. I have worked with companies that fudged numbers just like that. When we engineers used to complain the management would ask us if there was any easy way for the consumer to prove it to be wrong.

 

[TheHarold]

I don't buy into the +/- .05 dKH number at all. A $10,000 Sunburst pH meter has .003 pH of Accuracy and even though that is a magnitude better than what Neptune would like to claim, there is no way at that price point Neptune can achieve that accuracy. You would need a super clean chamber and temperature stabilized samples and reagents to even start thinking about going from .5dKH to .05 dKH of Accuracy.

The fact that Neptune is stating Accuracy and Precision as one number is the clear indicator that it is bunk! On any real product Accuracy would be one number and Precision would be a completely different number. The odds of both being the same value are almost Zero. I have worked with companies that fudged numbers just like that. When we engineers used to complain the management would ask us if there was any easy way for the consumer to prove it to be wrong.

There are zero reason (I know of) to compare the resolution of a random pH meter and these alkalinity monitors. They are measuring different things, with different units, using different methods. I can also count the number of fingers on my hand, and have an accuracy of +- .000000000000001 fingers. Doesn't make me a multi-million dollar testing machine.

If you think it is some grand scheme, compare it to other titration devices in the market. The Focustronic Alkatronic advertises +-.05 dkh, same as the apex Trident. GHL KH director advertises +-.1 dkh. The KH Guardian advertises +- .1dkh. Unless you area claiming that ALL of these companies are someone lying to consumers, there is no reason to describe any one of them as "bunk" without evidence.

 

[robbyg]

There are zero reason (I know of) to compare the resolution of a random pH meter and these alkalinity monitors. They are measuring different things, with different units, using different methods. I can also count the number of fingers on my hand, and have an accuracy of +- .000000000000001 fingers. Doesn't make me a multi-million dollar testing machine.

I think your confusing pure Digital applications like counting the fingers on your hand versus Analog to Digital. The nature of this Trident is to convert Analog information into a digital format. I would love you to point me to devices in that category that has .0000000000000001 units of Accuracy. Even a Fluke 8588A Reference voltmeter that costs several thousands of dollars and it used to calibrate high end Volt meters only posses an Accuracy of .0000027 Volts or 2.7 uV accuracy with a 95% rate of Precision. Almost anything that can quantify an analog measurement to the accuracy you stated is more than likely actually a multi million dollar testing machine. Many NASA instruments measure to that kind of level and yes they cost millions of dollars.

If you think it is some grand scheme, compare it to other titration devices in the market. The Focustronic Alkatronic advertises +-.05 dkh, same as the apex Trident. GHL KH director advertises +-.1 dkh. The KH Guardian advertises +- .1dkh. Unless you area claiming that ALL of these companies are someone lying to consumers, there is no reason to describe any one of them as "bunk" without evidence.

All of those devices are totally different in design from the Trident. As far as I know they all use pH probes to aid in testing. As far as I can see the KH Guardian and GHL are probably the most honest of the bunch as their number seems plausible as they are not only dosing the chemicals but in the case of the Guardian they are actually electronically counting the drops. The Alkatronic seem to be just using the known accuracy of a freshly calibrated pH probe and assuming that it translates into the final number. I also believe those Accuracy numbers are complete bunk in the case of all these pH probe based devices I would bet that the Accucracy is based on a freshly calibrated probe data. Within a few days of use the Accuracy will no doubt drop off by a lot.

BTW nothing new about this marketing style. If your competitor makes a claim that his device has an Accuracy of 99.5% it always seems to be the case that the next company will claim theirs is 99.8% accurate.

Back in the real world Ion Devices had better promise as the probes are calibrated before each use and I have been told by an engineer who uses them that Ion Probes are very accurate just after calibration.

 

[User1]

Back in the real world Ion Devices had better promise as the probes are calibrated before each use and I have been told by an engineer who uses them that Ion Probes are very accurate just after calibration.

Maybe but the jury is still out as is the product (as it related to our hobby). At the end of the day it doesn't matter other than the hobbyist and what they tend to trust. I personally do not get caught up chasing numbers or question what is right or wrong. I own a trident as you know so that is my source of record. So far over the course of ownership it has been pretty accurate be it compared to my manual test of alk (hanna checker) or using manual test (alk hanna again) and ATI's ICP test using the same water and time 5 minutes before the trident.

I do not test Ca or Mag manually since I don't seem to get repeatable numbers when I do it. I do with the alk test because it is easier. I'm not going to lie. I do remember BRS doing a video on this. They had 3 or 4 people all use the same test kit and run a series of tests back to back and none of them got the same results. I think that would hold true if we held a social distance party and did the same.

I am still surprised you picked one up personally but it doesn't really matter at the end of the day, right? You have it so use it as it was intended. Meaning it sounds like the numbers are close or what you would expect. Anything else maybe send the lads an email if questions and see what they say.

It really is a nice little unit and does what it is supposed to do. Outside a couple hickups I encountered my numbers seem to be what I would expect or have seen when I test alk and ati's icp.

Hope all is well with you and yours.

 

[TheHarold]

I think your confusing pure Digital applications like counting the fingers on your hand versus Analog to Digital. The nature of this Trident is to convert Analog information into a digital format. I would love you to point me to devices in that category that has .0000000000000001 units of Accuracy. Even a Fluke 8588A Reference voltmeter that costs several thousands of dollars and it used to calibrate high end Volt meters only posses an Accuracy of .0000027 Volts or 2.7 uV accuracy with a 95% rate of Precision. Almost anything that can quantify an analog measurement to the accuracy you stated is more than likely actually a multi million dollar testing machine. Many NASA instruments measure to that kind of level and yes they cost millions of dollars."

I suppose counting number of fingers was a bad example, I should have said counting a handful of rice or something. Accuracy applies both to analog and digital measurements. My point was one cannot just say "Because this tool costs a lot and has an accuracy of X, that tool (that measures something else using a different method) cannot have an accuracy of Y".

Neither you nor I are familiar with the theoretical resolution of the optical sensor they are using, the dilution of the reagents, resolution of the motor they are using to add reagent, etc.

BTW nothing new about this marketing style. If your competitor makes a claim that his device has an Accuracy of 99.5% it always seems to be the case that the next company will claim theirs is 99.8% accurate.

That we agree on for sure. I believe either they are all in the resolution of +-.1dkh, or none of them are.
As a random tidbit, Mindstream also advertised +-.1dkh haha.

Back in the real world Ion Devices had better promise as the probes are calibrated before each use and I have been told by an engineer who uses them that Ion Probes are very accurate just after calibration.

I would argue that "Zeroing" an optical sensor using the tank sample in the vial, (before adding the calibrated about of reagent), might achieve the same thing. The concentration of the reagent does not change over time (or would probably change similarly to the Ion calibration solution). But definitely interested in how the ion director turns out, its always good to incorporate new technology into the hobby- I am also interested in the Focustronic Mastertronic, for NO3, PO4, Ca, Mg.

But to the original point, if you are concerned about the calibration solution and do not want to attribute it to the low accuracy of the Hanna Checker, you should inquire how they come up with the calibration numbers. Pretty sure they are using some very accurate method to do so, or none of our results would come out as well as they do.

 

[robbyg]

Maybe but the jury is still out as is the product (as it related to our hobby). At the end of the day it doesn't matter other than the hobbyist and what they tend to trust. I personally do not get caught up chasing numbers or question what is right or wrong. I own a trident as you know so that is my source of record. So far over the course of ownership it has been pretty accurate be it compared to my manual test of alk (hanna checker) or using manual test (alk hanna again) and ATI's ICP test using the same water and time 5 minutes before the trident.

I do not test Ca or Mag manually since I don't seem to get repeatable numbers when I do it. I do with the alk test because it is easier. I'm not going to lie. I do remember BRS doing a video on this. They had 3 or 4 people all use the same test kit and run a series of tests back to back and none of them got the same results. I think that would hold true if we held a social distance party and did the same.

I am still surprised you picked one up personally but it doesn't really matter at the end of the day, right? You have it so use it as it was intended. Meaning it sounds like the numbers are close or what you would expect. Anything else maybe send the lads an email if questions and see what they say.

It really is a nice little unit and does what it is supposed to do. Outside a couple hickups I encountered my numbers seem to be what I would expect or have seen when I test alk and ati's icp.

Hope all is well with you and yours.

Don't get me wrong, I have no problems with the unit or it's accuracy, I just don't believe the numbers Neptune is throwing around! I am having a great time with it so far but I was a little surprised by the results I got on the Alk calibration fluid test. Prior to calibrating the Trident it was reading very close to my Hanna tester on Alk and my Red Sea on Mg.
Now after calibrating and testing the solution with the same test kits only the calcium is dead on. The point of my post was to find out if other people had issues with testing the Fluid or not.
For example my Aquatronica salinity probe is not calibrated using standardized SW. They specifically tell you that if you try to test the calibration fluid on a refractometer you will get a vastly different result. The probe works by using a magnetic field change in a coil due to salinity so I am pretty sure the fluid is just a chemical that replicates the field for 1.026 salinity and not its light reflecting properties. This makes sense to me since evaporation and contamination is not a serious issue with Aquatronica's calibration fluid. I was therefore wondering if something like that was going on with Tridents Cal fluid, maybe it only reacts correctly with their reagents and it could also explain why it maintains the same Alkalinity for months.


It's kind of odd that no one else has checked this before with their left over fluid. Anyway later I will check my water because now I am wondering if my calibration fluid was from a bad batch.

 

[Scubadoo4u]

As I was told, the Trident is more or less measuring the sample, which will have old H2O in line when drawing the next sample, and giving a representation of its consistency in graph form. Take "UR" base number, correlate it to what you are looking to achieve as a number and shoot for that....i.e. if Trident shows 8.3 kh and Hanna shows 8.5 then as long as your +/- .5 then UR number will be between 7.8 and 8.8 kh. I want to see 9.5 so 9-10 is good to me, especially when testing once a day can swing my tank an extreme amount when testing and dosing by hand. I have calibrated and tested with Hanna & Red Sea and have been respectably within tolerance. Now if I can only get off my **** and set that dang DOS up it may be even better.

 

[TheHarold]

As I was told, the Trident is more or less measuring the sample, which will have old H2O in line when drawing the next sample, and giving a representation of its consistency in graph form. Take "UR" base number, correlate it to what you are looking to achieve as a number and shoot for that....i.e. if Trident shows 8.3 kh and Hanna shows 8.5 then as long as your +/- .5 then UR number will be between 7.8 and 8.8 kh. I want to see 9.5 so 9-10 is good to me, especially when testing once a day can swing my tank an extreme amount when testing and dosing by hand. I have calibrated and tested with Hanna & Red Sea and have been respectably within tolerance. Now if I can only get off my **** and set that dang DOS up it may be even better.

It first fills the vial of “old” sample and pumps it directly to waste before obtaining a new one. You could call that the sample priming.

 

[User1]

It's kind of odd that no one else has checked this before. Anyway later I will check my water because now I am wondering if my calibration fluid was from a bad batch.

I have checked and also compared to ATI's ICP. This was a test back in December. ATI's water sample is pulled 5 minutes before the Trident's afternoon (12 PM) test. I can compare ATI's results then with the date the Trident recorded and time. Then look at the morning's test.

I thought I had a manual test and calibration but didn't see it. I know I have done it but can't seem to find it . I'm getting ready to send off another ATI ICP here at the end of June. I usually send off two a year just to take a holistic look at my water since I'm really bad at water changes.

 

[robbyg]

I suppose counting number of fingers was a bad example, I should have said counting a handful of rice or something. Accuracy applies both to analog and digital measurements. My point was one cannot just say "Because this tool costs a lot and has an accuracy of X, that tool (that measures something else using a different method) cannot have an accuracy of Y".

Neither you nor I are familiar with the theoretical resolution of the optical sensor they are using, the dilution of the reagents, resolution of the motor they are using to add reagent, etc.

I am not certain in what context your using "Digital Accuracy", the only Accuracy is in the analog values sampling. The Digital Resolution would be something to consider in certain applications.
As for X tool and Y tool, it is always pretty much the same thing, if you know about the industry you are dealing with then the price alone is often a good indicator of what your getting. Have you ever wondered why the Neptune uses a Plastic cuvette in Trident? Take a look at the price difference between a Glass and Plastic cuvette that have a port attachment. About 6 months ago I was pointed to a website that has an almost identical cuvette as the one in the Trident and the Plastic version was about $15 and the glass one was about $160. A glass cuvette would be much better in the Trident on so many levels but it would cost to much. Sensors and the Dosing pump are all under those same budget constraints.

That we agree on for sure. I believe either they are all in the resolution of +-.1dkh, or none of them are.
As a random tidbit, Mindstream also advertised +-.1dkh haha.

As I said, I had no issue with the KH Guardian and the GHL are probably correct with +/- .1dKH when the probe is freshly calibrated, so I have no issue with the Mindstream claim either.

The problem I find with discussions like this is that if a person is not into engineering design then they often do not appreciate why engineers freak out when they see an order of magnitude change in specifications. Supposed you built a Toy Electric Car and it went around the Track at 20 MPH. You get back and your boss says I love the car but I need it to go one order of magnitude faster. Well that toy car now needs run at 200 MPH !!

When it comes to Accuracy the same thing applies. To read an AA battery voltage down to 1.51V and have high accuracy in that reading is completely different than trying to read it down to 1.514V. The magnitude change in the reading while keeping the same accuracy makes it get a lot more complicated and expensive. That may be a bad example as volt meters will go out several more digits and remain accurate but that's not the case with something like water testing.

I would argue that "Zeroing" an optical sensor using the tank sample in the vial, (before adding the calibrated about of reagent), might achieve the same thing. The concentration of the reagent does not change over time (or would probably change similarly to the Ion calibration solution). But definitely interested in how the ion director turns out, its always good to incorporate new technology into the hobby- I am also interested in the Focustronic Mastertronic, for NO3, PO4, Ca, Mg.

Based on all the delays in the Ion Testing products I am getting a sinking feeling about it. My friend who messes with these probes says they work great once they are freshly calibrated but he has never used one for hundreds of tests in a row and has no idea how well they hold up over time.
We shall see what happens at the end of the year with GHL.

But to the original point, if you are concerned about the calibration solution and do not want to attribute it to the low accuracy of the Hanna Checker, you should inquire how they come up with the calibration numbers. Pretty sure they are using some very accurate method to do so, or none of our results would come out as well as they do.

Yeah I am pretty sure they use some multi thousand dollar equipment to check the calibration fluid but as I said in the post to SAF1 I am not sure if that fluid only reacts properly with the Trident reagents. That was why I was hoping someone else had run the same tests I had run.

 

[robbyg]

OK just did a test on the tank waters Alk.

Hanna is 8.96
Trident is 8.73

I guess within the margin of error but still not as close as I would like.