Trident FAQ

[TheHarold]

Thanks thats why I was asking. I didn't understand whether it was needed or not...... Appreciated

1Link= power+ data. Very convenient to use.

Aquabus = data

You also need to provide power if using aquabus. Same thing as DOS units :)

 

[Water Dog]

I’m curious... for NSI users, how have your Trident test results fared in comparison with traditional test kits like Salifert, Red Sea or even Hanna?

 

[Dr. Reef]

@MnFish1
Its marketing at it's best by Neptune.
First they told us to buy new brain 2016 so you can upgrade and use trident. Now if you only upgraded to a new brain 2016, it doesnt come with 1link port. So now you upgrade again to either a eb832 power strip or buy a 1link module. All this is for USA and Canada.
It will ship with 1link cable in these 2 countries weither you can use it out of box or not it's your problem. And if it's a problem then You are forced to upgrade to either a power bar or 1link module to have a 1link port or simply spend more money with Neptune and buy a USB aqubus cable along with a power supply to run the unit and knowing Neptune's price track record I bet the aquabus and power supply will probably be the cheapest route.
Eb832 cost $250
1link module $150
Aquabus 3ft cable is the cheapest at $13 and I can safely assume power supply to run trident will be about $35-50.

In international market eb832 is not available as it's designed to work only on US standards of 120v 60hz while most other countries run 220-240v 50hz.
Thus 1link module is also not available or possible for international customers as it would need 110-120v to operate and to pass on to equipment.
So in order to make sales internationally they are forced to sell it working out of box with aquabus cable for data and power supply which are pretty standard now 110-240v.
Great marketing example again.

 

[stacksoner]

His day job takes him in and around the area. He is very well versed in everything Northern California both good, bad, and, well, just flat out crazy town.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say thought to be honest because this has nothing to do with silicon valley. I've seen things built in a garage, taking to a major company and placed on the various exec's desk and seen them only to say no. Engineers pack up their goods, lave the company the next day, and start a new company. I've seen this with NCR, IBM, and a few startups that splintered.

For a long while I thought this product was a proof of concept that was overhyped and oversold before they knew whether or not it was possible to scale. It bothered me that the company departed so far from their brand's core competencies which disappointed me (control/transparency/communications/trust/dependability).

I think the reality is that it's more like the phenomenon of the 84% of funded Kickstarter projects that backers don't receive until years past the expected delivery date.

 

[Thales]

I’m curious... for NSI users, how have your Trident test results fared in comparison with traditional test kits like Salifert, Red Sea or even Hanna?

Fantastically.

 

[Water Dog]

Fantastically.

Do you have a general testing range as compared to Salifert test results?

 

[Thales]

I don't. I don't use Salifert, someone else tested my water with that kit.

 

[Caravanshaka]

Can we get an idea of how loud it might be? I’m using an Alkatronic, and the wife complains every time it runs, and it bothers me sometimes as well.

 

[Water Dog]

I don't. I don't use Salifert, someone else tested my water with that kit.

So what traditional test kit do you use and what range of variance are you getting when compared to the Trident? Sorry for all the questions, just trying to see how the Trident test results vary vs traditional test kits. Kinda like how Hanna seems to test slightly lower than Salifert or Red Sea when testing Alkalinity or when the same water sample gets set to two different ICP labs, the results often vary.

 

[Terence]

So what traditional test kit do you use and what range of variance are you getting when compared to the Trident? Sorry for all the questions, just trying to see how the Trident test results vary vs traditional test kits. Kinda like how Hanna seems to test slightly lower than Salifert or Red Sea when testing Alkalinity or when the same water sample gets set to two different ICP labs, the results often vary.

So you are asking to know how the Trident is doing letting you know if a test kit is good or not?

Seriously, I am really surprised how many people take as the verified source of truth the results obtained from a $15 test kit, with plastic lab testing parts mass produced in China that are then used with tons of human error, various interpretations of color changes and readings of syringes.

If you doubt me on this, do some sampling of people - same blind water sample - same exact test kit - different rooms with different lighting and different people. See what what your +/- is. Then do it all over again the next day with the same people.

What you will find is that the only thing you should be comparing Trident to, or any test kit or method for that matter, is one an experienced lab tech or scientist performs with proper methods and labware. Even then, some of these lab certified devices costing many thousands of dollars have incredible flaws. Just watch some BRS episodes from about a year or so ago and see what Ryan uncovered.

 

[Water Dog]

Wow, a little bit aggro IMO... no need to bash other test kit manufacturers. I just wanted to see how it compares to other test kits. There is a big thread by someone on one of the forums, either here or on RC comparing different results of the same water sample across multiple test kit brands. There have been reports of sending the same water sample to two different ICP test labs and getting different results. So in the same vein, I wanted to see how Triton compares test wise to other proven test kits like Salifert or Red Sea... sorry for asking.

 

[Terence]

Wow, a little bit aggro IMO... no need to bash other test kit manufacturers. I just wanted to see how it compares to other test kits. There is a big thread by Jason 2459 on one of the forums, either here or on RC comparing different results of the same water sample across multiple test kit brands. There have been reports of sending the same water sample to two different ICP test labs and getting different results. So in the same bein, I wanted to see how Triton compares test wise to other proven test kits like Salifert or Red Sea... sorry for asking.

Sorry. Wasn’t directed specifically at you. In fact it was actually piggy backing on your post to make a point.

And this is not bashing other test kits. I just think there needs to be a reset in terms of understanding what is a source of truth when it comes to measuring anything on our aquariums.

Ultimately what matters is finding a way to get consistent results. Precision. With reasonable and relative accuracy. And then replicating that for yourself to obtain consistency in your aquarium.

My point was simply that inexpensive test kits have their place in that world. As does the Trident or other devices. But none of these inexpensive test kits should be used to determine accuracy of another test kit or any automated device.

 

[Terence]

And one more thing. While some might think I should be elated, I am actually bit surprised when I see one of our NSI members confirm more than one of these numbers with these consumer test kits. It actually makes me suspect confirmation bias.

 

[Terence]

Can we get an idea of how loud it might be? I’m using an Alkatronic, and the wife complains every time it runs, and it bothers me sometimes as well.

Other NSI are free to reply, but for me it sounds like a whispering R2D2.

 

[spartanman22]

So you are asking to know how the Trident is doing letting you know if a test kit is good or not?

Seriously, I am really surprised how many people take as the verified source of truth the results obtained from a $15 test kit, with plastic lab testing parts mass produced in China that are then used with tons of human error, various interpretations of color changes and readings of syringes.

If you doubt me on this, do some sampling of people - same blind water sample - same exact test kit - different rooms with different lighting and different people. See what what your +/- is. Then do it all over again the next day with the same people.

What you will find is that the only thing you should be comparing Trident to, or any test kit or method for that matter, is one an experienced lab tech or scientist performs with proper methods and labware. Even then, some of these lab certified devices costing many thousands of dollars have incredible flaws. Just watch some BRS episodes from about a year or so ago and see what Ryan uncovered.

I really don't think it's unreasonable to pose the question as to how the data compares to currently available testing methods. Validity is a very important thing especially when the idealized plan is to regulate alkalinity dosing off of an instrument's result. I get that there's accuracy/precision concerns with your run of the mill alkalinity/calcium test kits, but they are not worthless. When operated per the SOP and performed consistently the enough the results are more than sufficient. If they weren't we wouldn't see so many successful SPS tanks that are controlled based on the alkalinity results from those kits. I personally, make adjustments based on my Salifert alkalinity test kit results, and consequently have a successful nano SPS tank.

As a water/wastewater chemist who has access to those "lab certified" instrumentation and equipment, I wholeheartedly disagree with your assessment that they contain "incredible flaws". I would argue there is little flaw in performing alkalinity analysis using either titration or spectrophotometric methods. As much as I love BRS' network of information and products, I would not consider them an overwhelmingly legitimate source of information with regards to analytical testing.

All that being said I think the basic Salifert kits work well enough when maintaining consistency with your operating procedure. End of the day is a simple color change end-point titration. Anyone with a chemistry background has done this a million times throughout their education and the results are fairly reproducible. Is a spectrometer better, sure; but Salifert is certainly reliable enough for the average aquarist.

 

[ajhudson15]

Sorry. Wasn’t directed specifically at you. In fact it was actually piggy backing on your post to make a point.

And this is not bashing other test kits. I just think there needs to be a reset in terms of understanding what is a source of truth when it comes to measuring anything on our aquariums.

Ultimately what matters is finding a way to get consistent results. Precision. With reasonable and relative accuracy. And then replicating that for yourself to obtain consistency in your aquarium.

My point was simply that inexpensive test kits have their place in that world. As does the Trident or other devices. But none of these inexpensive test kits should be used to determine accuracy of another test kit or any automated device.

I think he was just wondering if you guys have tested your trident results and compared them to some of the icp lab testings to see if the results were close

 

[Terence]

I really don't think it's unreasonable to pose the question as to how the data compares to currently available testing methods. Validity is a very important thing especially when the idealized plan is to regulate alkalinity dosing off of an instrument's result. I get that there's accuracy/precision concerns with your run of the mill alkalinity/calcium test kits, but they are not worthless. When operated per the SOP and performed consistently the enough the results are more than sufficient. If they weren't we wouldn't see so many successful SPS tanks that are controlled based on the alkalinity results from those kits. I personally, make adjustments based on my Salifert alkalinity test kit results, and consequently have a successful nano SPS tank.

As a water/wastewater chemist who has access to those "lab certified" instrumentation and equipment, I wholeheartedly disagree with your assessment that they contain "incredible flaws". I would argue there is little flaw in performing alkalinity analysis using either titration or spectrophotometric methods. As much as I love BRS' network of information and products, I would not consider them an overwhelmingly legitimate source of information with regards to analytical testing.

All that being said I think the basic Salifert kits work well enough when maintaining consistency with your operating procedure. End of the day is a simple color change end-point titration. Anyone with a chemistry background has done this a million times throughout their education and the results are fairly reproducible. Is a spectrometer better, sure; but Salifert is certainly reliable enough for the average aquarist.

I think you missed my point. Maybe in my follow up post. It basically said what you said.

And yes, we have confirmed serious flaws in some of these kits.

The point is, use them. They are close. They are close enough and have reasonable precision that they can be used successfully to have a great reef tank. However since the precision is not great due to many factors - including human ones- using them as a point of reference for another tests accuracy is problematic. If you have two thermometers, from two different companies, neither NIST, which is correct. Then you get a third. What does that say?

Did you see what BRS has found in their test equipment? The company-verified bugs they found?

And ICP is not much better either. Just look at the results from Marine Depots report.

 

[Thales]

I hate all testing, and I love the trident. Testing is filled with so many pitfalls from user error to big +/- . Comparing tests is nutty because how do you know what is rightest? All you can really hope for is ballpark trends, which can be really useful. The trident, and the apex, give you awesome trends. And the trident has been holding up to the testing we do at CAS - though I still don’t know which is rightest, but they are similar.
At home I use api all tests because it is simple and puts me in the ballpark. For salinity I am still deciding what I like (currently running a long term thing - the Misco is currently winning, but is 500 bucks with the lowest +/- and you calibrate with every use). For phosphate and nitrate I use a Hach dr890 and do the tests exactly the same way as much as I can. For all other tests, I generally use aquamedicwatertesting as they have almost always been comparable to the lab tests CAS, and they do the tests the same way every time with auto titrators/colorimiters to take out some human error - plus they use up to date reagents and calibrations (something that can be problematic for home testers). I also don’t see color well so titrations have always been frustrating.
The trident, testing all 4 times a day give me a lot of confidence in the trend. Twice a day for Mg and Ca give good trends as well. And, as I say, the results have been well in the ballpark of tests I have been able to trust over time.
I have not had the time or funds to set up repeatable testing of hobby test kits with certified standards, so I have no idea of how in the ball park popular test kits may be, but the +/- on some is large.
Trends are your friend. One off tests for specific numbers are not your friend. Trident is amazing for trends.

 

[spartanman22]

Ok sorry for the confusion. Yes I agree you should not compared results of trident to home test kits for terms of precision and accuracy validation.

However I will disagree in the flaws statement with lab certified equipment. Methods 310.1 and 310.2 (titration and colorimetric, respectively) have high degrees of precision and accuracy when measuring concentration of CaCO3, both methods applicable for saline environments. But Method 310.1 does have a higher degree of standard deviation (3.0 vs 0.5 mg/L).

Not sure what method BRS performed, not which laboratory they used to perform the analyses (if they did the methods themselves then I’d have suspicions about the quality of that data).

 

[Thales]

I think he was just wondering if you guys have tested your trident results and compared them to some of the icp lab testings to see if the results were close

I don’t really trust icp results, except within certain parameters. Wrote a whole article about it.