Trident Support Curiosity

[Jon M.]

Trident has been running since 6/5 at 2pm. For 80 hours straight I got readings for calc in the 320’s which is 100 ppm off my Hannah and Red Sea. 426, 428, 436, and 410-420. For the record all corals are growing and my back wall is coated in coralline algae. Tank is 1.5 years old and I have been monitoring calc that long. Test kits expire 2020.

I calibrated the Trident at about 9pm 6/9 and ran a manual test and alk and mag after calibration were the same as before calibration and calc was still reading 320’s. This was Neptune’s response today:

“What you are seeing can be normal when comparing color test kits to the Trident. The Hanna would be the closet to the the style of test we are doing but their calcium test kit is notorious way high. When I did my comparisons Hanna was always the highest out off the test kits and when I would do multiple tests back to back I could never get any of the results to match. The same goes for any of the color test kits as well my wife, my son and I all come up with different results that read any where from 20-80 ppm different.

What is the expiration date on the Hanna and Red Sea test kits?

At the end of the day if you wanting the Trident to read what your Hanna and Red Sea test kits then calibrate the Trident to those values, but do so knowing they might not be as accurate as the Trident, however the precision will always be there from the Trident


Please let us know if you have any other questions, or need any additional clarification.”

My gut does not like this answer and I am about to order an ICP test to try and verify closer. I just got off the phone with Neptune and he said the Trident is for precision first accuracy second.

I will keep this post updated. My main point I stressed to them was that if I trust the Trident as a new reefer, set my DOS to correct this issue and it IS off 100 ppm, I now have a tank with calc in the 500’s.

 

[Brett S]

Honestly, in the end I suspect that they may be right. If you take a step back and think about it the trident uses the same input tube for tank water, the same pumps, the same color sensor, and the same container for the alkalinity, magnesium, and calcium tests. So if you are satisfied that the results from the alkalinity and magnesium tests are correct then it doesn’t seem likely that there is a mechanical problem with the Trident.

The only things that are different about the calcium test is the calcium reagent itself and the intake tube for the calcium reagent. If the intake tube was an issue then it seems likely that the unit wouldn’t have been able to successfully calibrate, but it did.

I suppose there’s an outside chance that the calcium reagent is bad, but that certainly doesn’t seem to have been a common problem. And if that was the case then I would have expected the results to change after calibrating the unit with the bad reagent, but they didn’t.

You could try a new set of reagents and see if that makes a difference on the off chance that you did get a bad calcium reagent, but short of that I think I would trust the trident over the other test kits.

 

[Jon M.]

@Brett S I hear ya and did Neptune as well. Just seems way off based on tank health. Without the Trident I would continue to dose on these numbers and I guess be close enough? Hard to believe it would be doing so well with such low calc but who knows.

 

[Jon M.]

@Brett S I hear ya and did Neptune as well. Just seems way off based on tank health. Without the Trident I would continue to dose on these numbers and I guess be close enough? Hard to believe it would be doing so well with such low calc but who knows.

I am just blown away I suppose by their answer of how its precise not accurate. That’s why I bought it!!!!

 

[ca1ore]

That’s not what they said though. Something can be accurate and precise. Makes sense to prioritize consistency over absolute accuracy. Try testing the calibration solutions in your test kits and see what reading you get.

 

[DaneGer21]

That’s not what they said though.

Must have been a 3-way call...

 

[Jon M.]

That’s not what they said though. Something can be accurate and precise. Makes sense to prioritize consistency over absolute accuracy. Try testing the calibration solutions in your test kits and see what reading you get.

How do you calibrate test kits? Sorry forgot to mention he said it over the phone after this email. “The Trident is precise first accurate second.” When I asked if I did an ICP test and calc turned out to be 420 what I should do; I was told then I would just have to calibrate it to that number.

 

[DaneGer21]

When I asked if I did an ICP test and calc turned out to be 420 what I should do; I was told then I would just have to calibrate it to that number.

This is one thing that has me scratching my head. You purchase a product for testing in hopes to get the correct number. But, then you have to calibrate it to the number you want. Hmmm.

Why not just use a manual test and get the number the first time.(and yes I understand the ease of use, time saving, and tracking)

 

[Water Dog]

How do you calibrate test kits? Sorry forgot to mention he said it over the phone after this email. “The Trident is precise first accurate second.” When I asked if I did an ICP test and calc turned out to be 420 what I should do; I was told then I would just have to calibrate it to that number.

This is the calibration standard for your Hanna calcium checker...

https://www.bulkreefsupply.com/hi758-11-calcium-standards-for-hi758-hanna-checker-marine-water.html

 

[Jon M.]

This is the calibration standard for your Hanna calcium checker...

https://www.bulkreefsupply.com/hi758-11-calcium-standards-for-hi758-hanna-checker-marine-water.html

But to be clear I cannot calibrate Red Sea

 

[Water Dog]

But to be clear I cannot calibrate Red Sea

Nor can you actually calibrate the Hanna. The standard only verifies the accuracy of the Hanna checker. As far as the Red Sea, I wonder if @Randy Holmes-Farley has any insight as to how to make a standard testing solution for manual calcium titration tests.

 

[kiMxD]

That's an interesting post. I just installed my Trident last Saturday. I feel I still need to wait a little bit before I can chime in, but so far, my levels (I did not calibrate the Trident yet) seem to be right in comparison to my Hanna, Salifert and RedSea test kits, IF i consider a proper deviation. Maybe you had a bad batch of reagents? Or perhaps, you had you calibration solution bottle opened for too long (over an hour)? Just some quick thoughts from what I've heard...

 

[ajhudson15]

heres what I would do in my opinion. get a couple different calcium tests. average those and set your trident calibration to that number. then during that same time frame take an icp test and send it off. if the number comes back close enough then keep it there.

 

[ZaneTer]

Well it has been a long time since I stepped into a discussion but here goes...

There is a definite discrepancy between your trident and your other meters but you have no way of proving that the trident is incorrect at the moment. Their calibration solution tested correctly.

This leaves you with two choices: don’t trust it or get another sample of calibration fluid to check it against. I doubt the trident is incorrect. You either have bad calibration fluid or your tank water really is lacking in calcium.

The rant about expected accuracy is rubbish!! You need to provide reference points for almost all instrumentation before it can provide viable feedback hence the reason you must calibrate a pH probe. Uniquely temperature probes don’t require this as they work from a principle of increased resistance with temperature which happens to be very linear at the temperatures we normally use.

Hope this helps.

 

[Jon M.]

Well it has been a long time since I stepped into a discussion but here goes...

There is a definite discrepancy between your trident and your other meters but you have no way of proving that the trident is incorrect at the moment. Their calibration solution tested correctly.

This leaves you with two choices: don’t trust it or get another sample of calibration fluid to check it against. I doubt the trident is incorrect. You either have bad calibration fluid or your tank water really is lacking in calcium.

The rant about expected accuracy is rubbish!! You need to provide reference points for almost all instrumentation before it can provide viable feedback hence the reason you must calibrate a pH probe. Uniquely temperature probes don’t require this as they work from a principle of increased resistance with temperature which happens to be very linear at the temperatures we normally use.

Hope this helps.

I understand what you’re saying but expected accuracy is not rubbish. It is a major expectation from all hobbyists when spending $600 on a testing machine. You expect fairly close accuracy on all other test kits and Trident shouts from the rooftops on how close its tests are! Hence the graphic shown in their video.

The weird part here is I tested my vat of premixed water. Calc came in at 437. Hannah showed almost the same. Very odd how Hannah shows the same range despite two very different water sources. I am trusting the Trident at this point but talk about a mind love session.

 

[Brett S]

I am just blown away I suppose by their answer of how its precise not accurate. That’s why I bought it!!!!

Saying that they prioritized precision over accuracy is different than saying it’s not accurate.

Frankly both are reasonably important, but even if it’s not perfectly accurate think about it this way...

Say your alkalinity is really at 7.5. If you have an imprecise test kit you may get one measurement at 7.25, the next one at 7.75 and maybe one at 8.15. You’re going to think that your alkalinity level is bouncing all over and maybe even start to adjust your dosing to try to bring it back to where you want it to be... and that would actually cause your alkalinity level to start bounce around as you try to get a stable reading from your test kit.

On the other hand, if your alkalinity was really at 7.5 and you had a precise, but inaccurate test kit that read 8.25 for one test, 8.2 for the next test, and 8.27 for the next test then you would know that your alkalinity level was stable and really that’s the critical thing in this hobby. Corals can handle adapt to and handle a pretty wide range of alkalinity and calcium, but stability is key. In this case your alkalinity might be lower than you really think it is, but the corals will do fine there and the fact that you’re getting consistent results means that you’re not trying to adjust it and it stays stable.

Your tank will do much better in the second situation than the first because there is more stability even though the actual value is not what you think it is.

 

[ZaneTer]

If you have any salt on hand try mixing up a small batch of 1L. Run it through the trident and let us know the results.

I am keen to see this problem get resolved for you.

 

[tastyfish]

Trident has been running since 6/5 at 2pm. For 80 hours straight I got readings for calc in the 320’s which is 100 ppm off my Hannah and Red Sea. 426, 428, 436, and 410-420. For the record all corals are growing and my back wall is coated in coralline algae. Tank is 1.5 years old and I have been monitoring calc that long. Test kits expire 2020.

I calibrated the Trident at about 9pm 6/9 and ran a manual test and alk and mag after calibration were the same as before calibration and calc was still reading 320’s. This was Neptune’s response today:

“What you are seeing can be normal when comparing color test kits to the Trident. The Hanna would be the closet to the the style of test we are doing but their calcium test kit is notorious way high. When I did my comparisons Hanna was always the highest out off the test kits and when I would do multiple tests back to back I could never get any of the results to match. The same goes for any of the color test kits as well my wife, my son and I all come up with different results that read any where from 20-80 ppm different.

What is the expiration date on the Hanna and Red Sea test kits?

At the end of the day if you wanting the Trident to read what your Hanna and Red Sea test kits then calibrate the Trident to those values, but do so knowing they might not be as accurate as the Trident, however the precision will always be there from the Trident


Please let us know if you have any other questions, or need any additional clarification.”

My gut does not like this answer and I am about to order an ICP test to try and verify closer. I just got off the phone with Neptune and he said the Trident is for precision first accuracy second.

I will keep this post updated. My main point I stressed to them was that if I trust the Trident as a new reefer, set my DOS to correct this issue and it IS off 100 ppm, I now have a tank with calc in the 500’s.

I've queried these claims from Neptune previously (and not received a factual reply). For the record, I wouldn't trust the Hanna Ca test vs other test kits, it does get a poor rep. However, I do trust Hanna Alkalinity and TBH, Hanna are a very well respected and internationally accredited testing company. They operate in 65 countries and adhere to ISO9001 and UKAS certification standards, which they publish on their website, therefore a properly calibrated and administered Hanna test should perform within their stated tolerances, which they give, correctly as a % variance.

Neptune however seem to be pushing the whole accuracy vs precision thing. Recently, they have even claimed that the Trident is more accurate than Hanna and have given a fixed variance on Alkalinity of 0.02dkh and seemed to try to make light of it as a throw away comment (your email suggests this is not the case).

The benefit to the Trident is in repeatability and removal of human error. NOT in accuracy. AFAIK, Neptune have not subjected their testing to ISO9001 certification and are not UKAS certified either. Their main business is aquarium controllers, not certified testing or lab testing. (If they produce said testing certification and standards, then great!)

To claim that it is more accurate, however, quoting unverified and un-certified (to our knowledge) vriance is naughty and doesn't do their credibility any good to anyone willing to look beyond the level of marketing. (which I realise will be lapped up by fanbois)... :)

Presuming both the Hanna and the Trident are properly calibrated and tests conducted correctly, they should be within a tolerance range of each other. They may not match. The Trident should however be more consistent as it is automated.

So enjoy the fact that you have repeatable automated testing, that should be reasonably accurate, but also consistent.

 

[Thales]

Trying to test different tests against each other is a way to go mad. They are not the same, they don't test the same, they have different +/-. IMO, you have to pick one test and go with that because they aren't really going to match up. I wouldn't make the trident agree with another test kit, because I have no idea if the other test kit is right.

 

[User1]

Must have been a 3-way call...

Or maybe he has better reading comprehension?

From the OP: "My gut does not like this answer and I am about to order an ICP test to try and verify closer. I just got off the phone with Neptune and he said the Trident is for precision first accuracy second."