Trident reagent A empty notification...almost 100mL left in bottle

[Caravanshaka]

@Caravanshaka
I think there is your answer. Lower alk uses less reagent than higher, so for the same number of tests, your system used less reagent than a system running higher alk. Since the apex determines number of tests remaining by math not by measuring, and since there is overfill in each bottle of reagents to handle differences in amount needed for different systems, and since there is overfill by design to deal with issues around changing reagents (bother system and user issues), it totally makes sense to me that you had the extra reagent you did.
Is it a waste? Maybe- but run your system at 12 dkh and it won’t seems like a waste at all.

Or fix the code to trigger the alarm at an appropriate reagent level and not be wasteful no matter what dkH a system is kept at.

 

[Thales]

Or fix the code to trigger the alarm at an appropriate reagent level and not be wasteful no matter what dkH a system is kept at.

There is nothing to trigger, the number of tests remaining is calculated by number of tests per bottle (and there is overfill in each bottle to deal with different people testing different numbers of tests at different titration points). If you want that to change, I suspect that it would have made the Trident more expensive, added more that could go out of whack and added more potential problems for the user. It would be nice to have more accurate tracking of reagents, but it seems complicated and expensive. YMMV
BTW, have you contacted Neptune about this?

 

[Caravanshaka]

There is nothing to trigger, the number of tests remaining is calculated by number of tests per bottle (and there is overfill in each bottle to deal with different people testing different numbers of tests at different titration points). If you want that to change, I suspect that it would have made the Trident more expensive, added more that could go out of whack and added more potential problems for the user. It would be nice to have more accurate tracking of reagents, but it seems complicated and expensive. YMMV
BTW, have you contacted Neptune about this?

That's the inefficiency, it shouldn't be calculated on a flat number of tests when different dKh uses a different amount of reagent. What if someone runs their tank at 14 dKh, they'll run out of reagent before the alarm even triggers.

It's not at all complicated from a code standpoint. you have a variable that = 300mL for a full reagent bottle. Each test you run uses a certain amount of mL that is absolutely known already since the amount of reagent used is how the dKh is calculated. After each test you reduce the variable by the amount used. Trigger the alarm at ~10% reagent left to ensure you don't suck any bubbles in towards the end. Once the task is run to replace that reagent, the variable is set back to 300mL and the process repeats. In terms of time required, I could write something similar in one of my systems in ~5 minutes.

I have asked the question in their sub-forum as well as their Trident FAQ thread to get an answer. It is not stopping me from receiving results, so I did not want to take up their Customer Support time with a ticket and phonecalls when there are likely other people with more pressing issues.

 

[Thales]

That's the inefficiency, it shouldn't be calculated on a flat number of tests when different dKh uses a different amount of reagent. What if someone runs their tank at 14 dKh, they'll run out of reagent before the alarm even triggers.

It's not at all complicated from a code standpoint. you have a variable that = 300mL for a full reagent bottle. Each test you run uses a certain amount of mL that is absolutely known already since the amount of reagent used is how the dKh is calculated. After each test you reduce the variable by the amount used. Trigger the alarm at ~10% reagent left to ensure you don't suck any bubbles in towards the end. Once the task is run to replace that reagent, the variable is set back to 300mL and the process repeats. In terms of time required, I could write something similar in one of my systems in ~5 minutes.

I have asked the question in their sub-forum as well as their Trident FAQ thread to get an answer. It is not stopping me from receiving results, so I did not want to take up their Customer Support time with a ticket and phonecalls when there are likely other people with more pressing issues.

Thanks for the reply, and I hope you get an answer. Most of the time "This is easy" is missing information that the manufacturer has that we don't.

 

[MnFish1]

I guess I don't see how it contaminates it. its the same liquid used for the same thing. of course they don't want you to try and use it because they you wouldn't have to buy a new bottle as quick. I understand that the air cuts down on the shelf life but I don't think 1/3 of a bottle would make a big difference. especially if you were testing more than the minimum.

The solution is only supposed to be exposed to air for 2 months max to keep the machine within specs.

 

[MnFish1]

@Caravanshaka
I think there is your answer. Lower alk uses less reagent than higher, so for the same number of tests, your system used less reagent than a system running higher alk. Since the apex determines number of tests remaining by math not by measuring, and since there is overfill in each bottle of reagents to handle differences in amount needed for different systems, and since there is overfill by design to deal with issues around changing reagents (bother system and user issues), it totally makes sense to me that you had the extra reagent you did.
Is it a waste? Maybe- but run your system at 12 dkh and it won’t seems like a waste at all.

Im not debating - I was trying to find the post that explained why a high vs a low alkalinity would use more reagent - you dont have to point me to it if I explain it here myself (just guessing) - if the alk is x it takes less reagent to titrate as compared to if the alk is x+5? (or vice versa). Are they assuming that everyone is using the max amount of reagent each time - and thus there may be more or less left over depending on the alkalinity?

The amount used isnt based on the 'targeted alkalinity' - ie dosing - instead its calculated based on the actual alkalinity when the test is done?

 

[TTNuge]

Not to mention the variables of having high Alk and low calcium or some other combination that could cause one of the reagents to run out prior to the others. Until they decide to sell them separately, which probably won't happen, each and every reagent bottle has to have enough to get through 2 months regardless of what may be high or low or somewhere inbetween.

 

[Thales]

Im not debating - I was trying to find the post that explained why a high vs a low alkalinity would use more reagent - you dont have to point me to it if I explain it here myself (just guessing) - if the alk is x it takes less reagent to titrate as compared to if the alk is x+5? (or vice versa).

Yep, same reason you would use more from a drip kit if you alk was higher.

Are they assuming that everyone is using the max amount of reagent each time - and thus there may be more or less left over depending on the alkalinity?

That is what I would do if I were trying to keep costs low and make as many people as possible happy - knowing that you can't make everyone happy. I would much rather have extra reagent than not enough....same reason I change my DI resin before it is used up (and now that I think of it, the packet my DI resin comes in always has extra in it, I imagine for the same reasons).

The amount used isnt based on the 'targeted alkalinity' - ie dosing - instead its calculated based on the actual alkalinity when the test is done?

I would say yes. Testing is testing, and dosing is dosing. The trident is a testing device, dosers use info from the test to dose, but the dose doesn't impact the test - other than to require more or less reagents as values go up or down.

I don't know all that for sure, but I believe that is what is happening.

Except for the testing/dosing stuff I agree. I don't work for Neptune Systems...I reef, and I know things.

 

[Thales]

Not to mention the variables of having high Alk and low calcium or some other combination that could cause one of the reagents to run out prior to the others. Until they decide to sell them separately, which probably won't happen, each and every reagent bottle has to have enough to get through 2 months regardless of what may be high or low or somewhere inbetween.

Just to be pedantic - the 2 month reagent kit comes with 2 alks, because the baseline testing is for 4 alk a day, and 2 of each of the others. So you are changing alk reagents monthly (though you get a 2 month supply) and the other reagents every 2 months.

 

[ajhudson15]

so at what alk are the bottles capable of testing and still get the number of test or months out of the bottle.

 

[Brett S]

so at what alk are the bottles capable of testing and still get the number of test or months out of the bottle.

You get two Alk reagent bottles in each reagent kit and each bottle should last one month at 4 alk tests per day. As far as we know you will get the full 30 days at any alk level. This thread was from a concern that there seemed to be a lot of reagent left after the 30 days when you were at a low alk level.

 

[justingraham]

Yep, same reason you would use more from a drip kit if you alk was higher.



That is what I would do if I were trying to keep costs low and make as many people as possible happy - knowing that you can't make everyone happy. I would much rather have extra reagent than not enough....same reason I change my DI resin before it is used up (and now that I think of it, the packet my DI resin comes in always has extra in it, I imagine for the same reasons).



I would say yes. Testing is testing, and dosing is dosing. The trident is a testing device, dosers use info from the test to dose, but the dose doesn't impact the test - other than to require more or less reagents as values go up or down.


Except for the testing/dosing stuff I agree. I don't work for Neptune Systems...I reef, and I know things.

Pack that DI tighter it can fit everything but a teaspoon of it (from where u clean the top to fit the lid on) if ur getting it from Brs anyway

 

[User1]

@Caravanshaka
I think there is your answer. Lower alk uses less reagent than higher, so for the same number of tests, your system used less reagent than a system running higher alk. Since the apex determines number of tests remaining by math not by measuring, and since there is overfill in each bottle of reagents to handle differences in amount needed for different systems, and since there is overfill by design to deal with issues around changing reagents (bother system and user issues), it totally makes sense to me that you had the extra reagent you did.
Is it a waste? Maybe- but run your system at 12 dkh and it won’t seems like a waste at all.

You sir, are smart.

 

[ajhudson15]

You get two Alk reagent bottles in each reagent kit and each bottle should last one month at 4 alk tests per day. As far as we know you will get the full 30 days at any alk level. This thread was from a concern that there seemed to be a lot of reagent left after the 30 days when you were at a low alk level.

you wont get the same time out of different alk levels. if its titration like some of the calcium tests where you put so many drops in to reach an end point then people with higher alk will run out faster/ or slower depending on how the test run

 

[User1]

That's the inefficiency, it shouldn't be calculated on a flat number of tests when different dKh uses a different amount of reagent. What if someone runs their tank at 14 dKh, they'll run out of reagent before the alarm even triggers.

It's not at all complicated from a code standpoint. you have a variable that = 300mL for a full reagent bottle. Each test you run uses a certain amount of mL that is absolutely known already since the amount of reagent used is how the dKh is calculated. After each test you reduce the variable by the amount used. Trigger the alarm at ~10% reagent left to ensure you don't suck any bubbles in towards the end. Once the task is run to replace that reagent, the variable is set back to 300mL and the process repeats. In terms of time required, I could write something similar in one of my systems in ~5 minutes.

I have asked the question in their sub-forum as well as their Trident FAQ thread to get an answer. It is not stopping me from receiving results, so I did not want to take up their Customer Support time with a ticket and phonecalls when there are likely other people with more pressing issues.

You could send an email to support / create a ticket, and start this dialog with them and your concerns. That is why they prefer that route. They will determine the severity and get back to you. I believe the point(s) @Thales raised are pretty valid. Whether or not you agree is another story and it may help if you discuss with them.

I am pretty sure you are aware of this but it isn't if it can or cannot be coded to address your concern. It is if it makes sense to do so based on the current design and what it would take to implement your suggestion, if it would work, or if they would do it differently based on their knowledge, etc. When devs talk to me about what they can do I always come back and say yeah, you can...but should you?

Not to single you out but I'd like to see you submit the ticket if you are not busy and let us know what they say. If not you maybe someone else with a Trident and seeing similar can do it. Maybe they are aware, maybe not, maybe they just need it raised to the top of the queue to get noticed and acted upon. Outside of this sounds like it is working well for you.

 

[Brett S]

you wont get the same time out of different alk levels. if its titration like some of the calcium tests where you put so many drops in to reach an end point then people with higher alk will run out faster/ or slower depending on how the test run

Yes, we understand that, but the the whole point of this thread was that the OP had a lot of reagent left after the trident said that bottle was ‘empty’. Obviously no one really understands exactly how it works because Neptune hasn’t said, but the speculation is that the trident reports that the reagent is empty after a certain number of tests... not actually based on the amount of reagent in the bottle.

So if that’s the case then you will get the same number of tests whether you have a high alkalinity level in your tank or a low level... you’ll just wind up with more or less reagent left in the bottle at the end of the specified number of tests.

 

[ajhudson15]

Yes, we understand that, but the the whole point of this thread was that the OP had a lot of reagent left after the trident said that bottle was ‘empty’. Obviously no one really understands exactly how it works because Neptune hasn’t said, but the speculation is that the trident reports that the reagent is empty after a certain number of tests... not actually based on the amount of reagent in the bottle.

So if that’s the case then you will get the same number of tests whether you have a high alkalinity level in your tank or a low level... you’ll just wind up with more or less reagent left in the bottle at the end of the specified number of tests.

yea I get what your saying. this definitely needs to be fixed tho. Some one that runs 7.5 has to pay the same every 2 months than someone who runs 12 even tho the person who has 7.5 has a lot of reagent left and if they cant use it its a waste of money. I know they said you could trick the system into thinking it has more but then you run an uneccessary risk of running out and not knowing it right away and then have to get some more ordered.

I feel like there are still a lot of unknowns with this product and sometimes it seems like Neptune didn't think of it or communicate it when ti came out. had this been tested kinda like the Hannah checker does then everyone would use the same amount per test but idk how possible that is.

 

[MnFish1]

Yes, we understand that, but the the whole point of this thread was that the OP had a lot of reagent left after the trident said that bottle was ‘empty’. Obviously no one really understands exactly how it works because Neptune hasn’t said, but the speculation is that the trident reports that the reagent is empty after a certain number of tests... not actually based on the amount of reagent in the bottle.

So if that’s the case then you will get the same number of tests whether you have a high alkalinity level in your tank or a low level... you’ll just wind up with more or less reagent left in the bottle at the end of the specified number of tests.

Right - and I think Neptune has answered it on the Trident (FAQ) official thread - They also said you can try to use up all of the reagent but you risk air bubbles and inaccurate test results. They also said that they add extra to each bottle on purpose - to allow for calibration, etc. It seems to me that the longer the solution (alkalinity testing) is open to air maybe it becomes somewhat less consistent - and so after x tests - (which should be about a month of tests) the vial should be replaced.

 

[MnFish1]

yea I get what your saying. this definitely needs to be fixed tho. Some one that runs 7.5 has to pay the same every 2 months than someone who runs 12 even tho the person who has 7.5 has a lot of reagent left and if they cant use it its a waste of money. I know they said you could trick the system into thinking it has more but then you run an uneccessary risk of running out and not knowing it right away and then have to get some more ordered.

Unless I misunderstood what I read on other threads the goal is that each user get 1 month of tests per vial of reagent. So whether there is 100 cc or 1 cc left at the end of the month - supposedly the machine is more accurate being changed once a month. So - im not sure there will be any rush to 'fix this'. - But for example you could say doing 2 calcium tests/day is 'a waste of money', but thats how the machine works to keep it accurate. Ditto for Mg (which could be considered 'more of a waste of money).

 

[Brett S]

I feel like there are still a lot of unknowns with this product and sometimes it seems like Neptune didn't think of it or communicate it when ti came out.

I think Neptune did think things through, but I think there were other priorities above maximizing the use of the reagent.

There is the consideration that the reagent has a very short lifespan once opened, so if you are doing the minimum number of tests on a system with low alkalinity then it’s possible that the solution could expire before it’s all used up.

As mentioned above they did include some extra solution so you could do calibrations, so if you don’t calibrate then you might have extra left over.

There is also the fact that they only sell the reagent in sets with the alkalinity, calcium, and magnesium in one kit, so it’s necessary to make sure that you replace the reagents at the same time so you don’t wind up six months down the road with three extra calcium reagents, two magnesium reagents and no alkalinity reagents.

Obviously the last issue could be solved by making the reagents available separately, but I think they also put a high priority on ease of use and being as plug and play as possible. If you’re running the minimum number of tests you know that you need to replace reagents once a month. One month it’s just alkalinity and the next month it’s all three. I do think that a lot of people value the simplicity.