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

[MnFish1]

Obviously marketing is what marking is, so they’re gonna try to present things in the best possible light. But I don’t know that the 9 cents per test thing is meant to compare against salifert or something like that.

Instead I think the concern is that people are gonna see that it says “four tests per day” and think... wow... that’s gonna be crazy expensive. And they are trying to point out that it’s a pretty low cost per test even though the tests are run frequently.

Really, I think that comparing to salifert or other manual tests is a bit of apples to oranges because you can’t feasibly test that frequently with salifert. (Well, I mean you could, but you’d go nuts trying to do it for any length of time). I think there is a clear advantage to having regular and frequent tests that you don’t get with a regular manual test kit.

IMHO - AND - im on the waiting list at BRS - I think they are trying to say something like that. But - How do I know - I'm not them. (If I were them - I would try to make this claim from a business standpoint). Frankly - if they weren't trying to do this - why would they divide it out to 9 cents per test?

 

[MnFish1]

I am not telling you that because that isn't what is happening in this situation. You are paying for 120 tests per bottle, and you should be getting that regardless of the amount of fluid left if the container after 120 tests. The amount of reagent left over doesn't matter because you got your 120 tests (the reasons that there is extra fluid in the bottles has been covered in this thread a bunch, but I am happy to revisit it if you like). If you didn't get 120 tests, or close to that, you should contact Neptune Systems.

This is the complete answer. Pretend you are baking a cake - and you have to separate the yolks - and you throw away either the whites or the yolks - you're baking a cake - thats the recipe. Note - I have no clue how this analogy came to mind... But - @Thales to me answers the issue above (not that my opinion matters)

 

[MnFish1]

I think it was already addressed as stated above. You paid for 120 tests. If you do not get 120 but rather 115 or even fewer upon your first regent purchase then there may be an issue so reach out to Neptune and be done with it. They will assist you with trying to understand how that happened and if it is a bigger issue.

Bottom line is you paid for X amount of tests when you purchased the regents. If you get W instead there may be a problem. Hell I don't even own a trident (not from lack of trying) and I get this. Work with us a little bit here.

Edit: Or as you said we can disagree no harm no foul.

I'm surprised that no one has mentioned testing MORE than 4x alk/day. Then you have a bit extra... My guess is that this extra reagent is not only designed to keep the average person happy - but also the person that wants to test lets say 6x/day... Which brings up an interesting question - does the alert go 'off' differently in that scenario...?

 

[MnFish1]

are you stating that 15 is to high? even if someone ran at 15 they may still want to monitor it. im sure most people don't run that high but hey you never know anymore

Its too high... IMHO

 

[ajhudson15]

This is the complete answer. Pretend you are baking a cake - and you have to separate the yolks - and you throw away either the whites or the yolks - you're baking a cake - thats the recipe. Note - I have no clue how this analogy came to mind... But - @Thales to me answers the issue above (not that my opinion matters)

so I guess my question is. does cost matter to you. if you bought a $100 object and was told o you only get 2/3 use out of it your ok with that. I know I know you get 120 tests. I guess what im saying is the cost of the reagent if fairly cheap. but lets say the reagents costs $100. are you ok with 2/3 being dumped down the drain if the costs is higher?

 

[Brett S]

I'm surprised that no one has mentioned testing MORE than 4x alk/day. Then you have a bit extra... My guess is that this extra reagent is not only designed to keep the average person happy - but also the person that wants to test lets say 6x/day... Which brings up an interesting question - does the alert go 'off' differently in that scenario...?

No, it’s 120 tests for a bottle of all reagent, 120 tests for a bottle of ca/mg reagent. If you test more frequently you still get the same number of tests you just run out sooner.


Edited to correct my numbers. I originally said 30 and 60 tests, but it’s 120 tests for each bottle and 30/60 days worth of reagent at the minimum 4/2 test frequency.

 

[ajhudson15]

Sorry I meant 1/3

 

[MnFish1]

No, it’s 30 tests for a bottle of all reagent, 60 tests for a bottle of ca/mg reagent. If you test more frequently you still get the same number of tests you just run out sooner.

Well - actually - given the responses here - thats not true... In other words lets say you do 5 tests/day instead of 4. My guess is at the end of the month - you will still be fine with the overfill.... Hope you get my point... I've been called contentiousL

 

[Entz]

Randy mentioned on the last livestream they were going to do a detailed cost (and hopefully accuracy) comparison between the Trident and other test kits etc. So i guess we will see how truly accurate they are.

I still hope that the trident can be updated to be more accurate for both sides -- low dkh and high-- and that it was simply not implemented due to time constraints

 

[Brett S]

Well - actually - given the responses here - thats not true... In other words lets say you do 5 tests/day instead of 4. My guess is at the end of the month - you will still be fine with the overfill.... Hope you get my point... I've been called contentiousL

I understand what you’re saying, but it’s simply not the case, and is essentially the point of this thread. It would appear that the trident determines when a bottle of reagent is empty by test count... not by days and not by reagent volume. So, like I said, you get 120 tests with an alkalinity bottle. Whether that’s 4 tests a day for 30 days or 8 tests a day for 15 days.

 

[MnFish1]

so I guess my question is. does cost matter to you. if you bought a $100 object and was told o you only get 2/3 use out of it your ok with that. I know I know you get 120 tests. I guess what im saying is the cost of the reagent if fairly cheap. but lets say the reagents costs $100. are you ok with 2/3 being dumped down the drain if the costs is higher?

Yes cost matters too me.
That said - they are trying to figure out a volume that will satisfy the average user/month. If some have leftovers - great - others might not....

I was going to make a toilet paper analogy - but I thought it might be too gross....

 

[User1]

I'm surprised that no one has mentioned testing MORE than 4x alk/day. Then you have a bit extra... My guess is that this extra reagent is not only designed to keep the average person happy - but also the person that wants to test lets say 6x/day... Which brings up an interesting question - does the alert go 'off' differently in that scenario...?

No idea. The good news is that it is bring forth some good discussions. Some beta testers are replying with their information as are new product users. So as this information starts to roll and tickets get created (hint hint to OP to do so) we can start to get answers.

It wouldn't surprise me that as information starts to flow that maybe some things may change especially with regards to regents, shelf life, etc. Right now we are still fighting the uphill battle to even get one (not complaining - that horse has been beat dead dead - just saying more data will come).

 

[MnFish1]

No, it’s 30 tests for a bottle of all reagent, 60 tests for a bottle of ca/mg reagent. If you test more frequently you still get the same number of tests you just run out sooner.

I know what its supposed to be. But - in all honesty - your numbers dont match - the alk is tested 4x./day - that = 30 days x 4 test = 120 - not 30 tests/bottle (I assume you meant 30 days?) but your numbers still dont add up - because the numbers for Ca/MG are also incorrect (I think- but I might be misunderstanding) - ca and Mg last for 2 months. 2 tests/day x 30 days x 2 months = 120 tests. Again I might be wrong.

 

[Brett S]

I know what its supposed to be. But - in all honesty - your numbers dont match - the alk is tested 4x./day - that = 30 days x 4 test = 120 - not 30 tests/bottle (I assume you meant 30 days?) but your numbers still dont add up - because the numbers for Ca/MG are also incorrect (I think- but I might be misunderstanding) - ca and Mg last for 2 months. 2 tests/day x 30 days x 2 months = 120 tests. Again I might be wrong.

Yeah, I corrected my post above. I confused days and tests for a minute. But it’s 120 tests per bottle, which works out to 30 days for alk and 60 days for ca/mg at the minimum 4/2 test per day frequency.

 

[LobsterOfJustice]

How does this work with other test kits that you buy and how do you feel about those? Obviously I haven’t used all of the test kits out there but with a lot of them you’ll run out of one part before you run out of the other parts. For example with my salifert magnesium test I always run out of part 3 while I still have a lot of parts 1 and 2 left. Salifert doesn’t sell part 3 alone, so my only option is to throw out the extra parts 1 and 2 and buy a whole new kit.

Should I feel like I’m wasting my money because I paid for the extra parts 1 and 2 that I couldn’t use or should I be satisfied that I got the 50 tests that they advertise on the outside of the package?

Your analogy isn’t quite right. My understanding is that none of the reagents have actually run out in the trident scenario. In your example above, a comparable result is you are still left with fluid in all 3 bottles after 50 tests, but you throw away the kit and start using a new one (even though you have enough reagent to continue performing more tests).

 

[Thales]

I still hope that the trident can be updated to be more accurate for both sides -- low dkh and high-- and that it was simply not implemented due to time constraints

I am not sure I am following - what is more accurate?

 

[Entz]

I am not sure I am following - what is more accurate?

Reagent usage

 

[Thales]

Reagent usage

Oh. I don't think that would change without changing the unit completely and making it more expensive. The solution they came up with is really pretty elegant and keeps costs down. YMMV

 

[Gareth elliott]

Some programming logic could probably be added based on consumption math. But given this would be mathematically calculated you would always have to have extra left over, so not sure if would that many more tests even if they did this.

 

[MnFish1]

YMMV

And this means (HA)?