Trident vs Alkatronic vs KH Director vs kh guardian

[leepink23]

This may be a silly question but if one is running an Apex controller system, is there a way to use and integrate with the KH Director?

I think I’ve read that the KH director can be used as a stand-alone unit (please correct me if wrong). What I’d ideally like to do is to be able to view my Alk test results in Fusion and be able to control my Ca Rx.

From my current understanding (and looking for help in clarifying):
- Trident: obvious best integration with Apex
- Alkatronic: can visualize Alk results via BNC connection and then control/program in Apex
- KH guardian: believe one can visualize Alk results and then control/program in Apex - is this true?
- KH Director: can use as standalone (true?) but not visualize results in Fusion

Since I already have an Apex (classic version which I would need to upgrade if I go the Trident route), a key decision factor to me is to be able to track and control Alk via Fusion.

Cheers

This is correct. Kh director can be a sa, but not viewed in fusion, does have its own cloud to view data, right now the kh director isn’t graphing test results with SA mode.
Kh guardian and Alkatronic can be viewed in apex fusion via bnc cable.
Trident obviously best integrates with apex if you have apex el or 2016 full version.

 

[siggy]

Maintenance on the KH is done by the user, unlike the Trident you ship it in.
This is for a total of $1,384 .1816 per test or 18 cents per test.

I think the jury is still out on maintenance cost and who is capable. There will surly be a dozen you-tube videos on how to do this at home. To be fair I believe GHL would Offer this service in the US if they had a larger presence (hint). Also trident test cost is for all 3 tests/ ghl is just alk.
I am guessing but those doing auto-WC or at least doing regular WC do not need Ca and Mg testing (cost) is not really necessary, those who dont will benefit from all three.
NOW the most important, Trident is the Sexiest ..just saying

 

[shred5]

What about the Abex Xepta automated tester?
This seems to be the next step when it is released.

 

[chefjpaul]

What about the Abex Xepta automated tester?
This seems to be the next step when it is released.

That looks like it may have some very nice features, including nitrate, potassium with no fluids. etc... but the problem is majority have a blind allegiance to their controller company, is it compatible with any?

(Although GHL ION may have this as well, but then would require multiple machines, but they make the stuff SA anyway).

I think we definitely all need an individual icp-oes spectrometer and call it a day..... that's next.

 

[road_runner]

This may be a silly question but if one is running an Apex controller system, is there a way to use and integrate with the KH Director?

I think I’ve read that the KH director can be used as a stand-alone unit (please correct me if wrong). What I’d ideally like to do is to be able to view my Alk test results in Fusion and be able to control my Ca Rx.

From my current understanding (and looking for help in clarifying):
- Trident: obvious best integration with Apex
- Alkatronic: can visualize Alk results via BNC connection and then control/program in Apex
- KH guardian: believe one can visualize Alk results and then control/program in Apex - is this true?
- KH Director: can use as standalone (true?) but not visualize results in Fusion

Since I already have an Apex (classic version which I would need to upgrade if I go the Trident route), a key decision factor to me is to be able to track and control Alk via Fusion.

Cheers

Correct, with kh guardian it can connect to any controller like ghl, Apex or reef angel and you can view the results with the controller cloud app like fusion in apex, ghl connect in case of ghl.

 

[shred5]

That looks like it may have some very nice features, including nitrate, potassium with no fluids. etc... but the problem is majority have a blind allegiance to their controller company, is it compatible with any?

(Although GHL ION may have this as well, but then would require multiple machines, but they make the stuff SA anyway).

I think we definitely all need an individual icp-oes spectrometer and call it a day..... that's next.

There was a hint it will be compatible with the new Vertex controller when it releases if ever, so I am guessing they will make it compatible with other controllers. Coralvue is pretty good that way.

Yea I have no allegiance with companies, I use what I like, what fits my needs and is reliable. I have been in the hobby a long time and most likely the long haul.
I do not need the latest and greatest either and I do not fall for hype. I of coarse have manufacturers and retailers I would rather work with because they take care of problems or create a good product.
I just have never been a fanboy of any product even in video games with the whole console wars, I used to be a big gamer. I used the console or consoles that had the games I wanted to play. That hobby is loaded with fanboys.

 

[User1]

but the problem is majority have a blind allegiance to their controller company, is it compatible with any?

Cut post to focus on this one piece since the rest wasn't really applicable to my reply. The comment above isn't really accurate. It isn't blind allegiance or personal bias. More rather the investment of their ecosystem and the associated cost if they switch.

Most people with one or the other controllers, it doesn't matter which, will have a pretty substantial investment with additional components. They are not just going to put that aside and redo everything. That is a pretty large move of income to switch like that not to mention all of the time to get everything set up then more time to fine tune then yet more time to document in case others have to do something while away.

We all have bias I agree but in this particular case I do not see it getting in the way of making a proper decision based on your needs. If we, the hobbyist, make a pro and con list of what we need then any one of us can look at what the products offer and make a decision. The part that keeps tripping me up personally is people talking about the number of tests per day, calibration, and regent cost. If testing is that important to you then the talk about calibration should be moot since you want accurate and/or consistent numbers. Regent cost, well, is self explanatory. You would have to buy those if you are manually testing. Lastly, the number of tests per day. There are reasons why for each vendor. Don't fight the system rather understand and ask why it is such.

Now you can make your pro list, con list, and buy what works for you. The rest of this is just noise.

 

[leepink23]

Cut post to focus on this one piece since the rest wasn't really applicable to my reply. The comment above isn't really accurate. It isn't blind allegiance or personal bias. More rather the investment of their ecosystem and the associated cost if they switch.

Most people with one or the other controllers, it doesn't matter which, will have a pretty substantial investment with additional components. They are not just going to put that aside and redo everything. That is a pretty large move of income to switch like that not to mention all of the time to get everything set up then more time to fine tune then yet more time to document in case others have to do something while away.

We all have bias I agree but in this particular case I do not see it getting in the way of making a proper decision based on your needs. If we, the hobbyist, make a pro and con list of what we need then any one of us can look at what the products offer and make a decision. The part that keeps tripping me up personally is people talking about the number of tests per day, calibration, and regent cost. If testing is that important to you then the talk about calibration should be moot since you want accurate and/or consistent numbers. Regent cost, well, is self explanatory. You would have to buy those if you are manually testing. Lastly, the number of tests per day. There are reasons why for each vendor. Don't fight the system rather understand and ask why it is such.

Now you can make your pro list, con list, and buy what works for you. The rest of this is just noise.

The reason # of test per day is important to me is I don’t want something waking up my wife in the middle of the night when she is on call. Maybe not important to you but it is to me.

 

[road_runner]

Cut post to focus on this one piece since the rest wasn't really applicable to my reply. The comment above isn't really accurate. It isn't blind allegiance or personal bias. More rather the investment of their ecosystem and the associated cost if they switch.

Most people with one or the other controllers, it doesn't matter which, will have a pretty substantial investment with additional components. They are not just going to put that aside and redo everything. That is a pretty large move of income to switch like that not to mention all of the time to get everything set up then more time to fine tune then yet more time to document in case others have to do something while away.

We all have bias I agree but in this particular case I do not see it getting in the way of making a proper decision based on your needs. If we, the hobbyist, make a pro and con list of what we need then any one of us can look at what the products offer and make a decision. The part that keeps tripping me up personally is people talking about the number of tests per day, calibration, and regent cost. If testing is that important to you then the talk about calibration should be moot since you want accurate and/or consistent numbers. Regent cost, well, is self explanatory. You would have to buy those if you are manually testing. Lastly, the number of tests per day. There are reasons why for each vendor. Don't fight the system rather understand and ask why it is such.

Now you can make your pro list, con list, and buy what works for you. The rest of this is just noise.

That's why having a stand alone operation ability matters alot.
buying product just because we invested in an ecosystem can lead in to buying bad quality products.
Every single eco system since 10 years ago have had bad and good products.

I understand your rational and get it. But again, being invested I'm an ecosystem can be 2 edge sword. That's why I value stand alone functionality so I am not bound by the vendor or the ecosystem.

 

[Entz]

The reason # of test per day is important to me is I don’t want something waking up my wife in the middle of the night when she is on call. Maybe not important to you but it is to me.

WAF is #1 reason to do anything.

Testing frequency is the one reason why I am not totally sold on Trident (Please consider 2/1/1 )

What I am reading here though is that what we really need is a standards based API that all vendors can use to share information. So imagine if the Apex could access information from the KHD/IOD/KHG over IP and integrate it into its dosing schedule or the Profulux from the Trident (if they made a network based one)

 

[road_runner]

WAF is #1 reason to do anything.

Testing frequency is the one reason why I am not totally sold on Trident (Please consider 2/1/1 )

What I am reading here though is that what we really need is a standards based API that all vendors can use to share information. So imagine if the Apex could access information from the KHD/IOD/KHG over IP and integrate it into its dosing schedule or the Profulux from the Trident (if they made a network based one)

Standardized APIs...YES!

 

[User1]

The reason # of test per day is important to me is I don’t want something waking up my wife in the middle of the night when she is on call. Maybe not important to you but it is to me.

We'll get into a semantics discussion at this point but that isn't about the number of tests. If it is about noise level(s) and that is another discussion. However, since you raise it I would put that in your requirement list which will help you make your decision. If a product has noise then you have to decide if you can mitigate it or not. Most people will be able to mitigate it or it will be in a place such that they can't. Maybe you fall into the one that can't thus my requirement point.

Also note since you said it isn't important to me, this isn't about me. When I see the issue being raised about the number of tests yours was the first that tied it to sound abatement while the general comments are around the cost of running more tests per day while not understanding the solution and why they have a minimum requirement today.

 

[User1]

WAF is #1 reason to do anything.

Testing frequency is the one reason why I am not totally sold on Trident (Please consider 2/1/1 )

What I am reading here though is that what we really need is a standards based API that all vendors can use to share information. So imagine if the Apex could access information from the KHD/IOD/KHG over IP and integrate it into its dosing schedule or the Profulux from the Trident (if they made a network based one)

Common API - not sure. What the vendors choose to expose I'll leave to them. In fact, if this is something that is interesting enough to you there is a post here on the board whereas someone is taking the Apex / Fusion data and putting into Grafana. So a little bit of what you are talking about can already be done.

Standards though - totally agree. Much like what we see on Audio Video and Computer peripherals.

 

[Kyl]

Standardised API's won't happen in this industry, at least with the current market players. Had an opportunity this weekend to see R2D2 in person, noise wasn't bad, much better than the quite awful DOS operational noise.

 

[leepink23]

We'll get into a semantics discussion at this point but that isn't about the number of tests. If it is about noise level(s) and that is another discussion. However, since you raise it I would put that in your requirement list which will help you make your decision. If a product has noise then you have to decide if you can mitigate it or not. Most people will be able to mitigate it or it will be in a place such that they can't. Maybe you fall into the one that can't thus my requirement point.

Also note since you said it isn't important to me, this isn't about me. When I see the issue being raised about the number of tests yours was the first that tied it to sound abatement while the general comments are around the cost of running more tests per day while not understanding the solution and why they have a minimum requirement today.

You said it was tripping you up why people talk about frequency of testing, I let you know why I discussed it, if it was silent then you’re right it wouldn’t matter, but we can here the DOS so I am hesitant to add something with a fixed schedule that’s not silent. It definitely goes in my cons. I said it may not be important to you, possibly not important to many others related to being able to mitigate the sound. But I created the thread to figure out real facts from users so I could make a decision. I have learned a lot so far that is helping me with the decision. I would love for users to share db measurements of each device in use.

 

[leepink23]

Standardised API's won't happen in this industry, at least with the current market players. Had an opportunity this weekend to see R2D2 in person, noise wasn't bad, much better than the quite awful DOS operational noise.

That’s good to know!

 

[Entz]

I know it was wishful thinking but maybe someone will go first ... Really only needs a few pieces of information Sensor name, class (PH/ORP/DKH/MG etc), maybe a unit and value in a nice JSON list. Expose the endpoint with a token and boom.

Good to know about the noise.

 

[leepink23]

We'll get into a semantics discussion at this point but that isn't about the number of tests. If it is about noise level(s) and that is another discussion. However, since you raise it I would put that in your requirement list which will help you make your decision. If a product has noise then you have to decide if you can mitigate it or not. Most people will be able to mitigate it or it will be in a place such that they can't. Maybe you fall into the one that can't thus my requirement point.

Also note since you said it isn't important to me, this isn't about me. When I see the issue being raised about the number of tests yours was the first that tied it to sound abatement while the general comments are around the cost of running more tests per day while not understanding the solution and why they have a minimum requirement today.

I do think you are trying to help people think about what the issues are so I appreciate that. Through these questions I have discovered that even if I set the Alkatronic at 3x day, if it retest then my times will be off which could take away the benefits of noise late at night, the kh guardian and trident are minimum 4x day, I haven’t asked yet but I am curious if the kh director stays on schedule if it retests, hopefully someone can let me know.

 

[shred5]

Standardized APIs...YES!

Do not see it happening but I agree it would be nice.
I also think controllers are becoming less useful as equipment manufacturers spend more time adding more function to the controllers that comes with the piece of equipment. The equipment controllers add way more function than just the basic functions of controllers. These manufacturers are adding cloud support also.
Controllers do add the convenience of all the data in one spot though and not have 3 + apps/..

I think Neptune started to cross the line when they started making equipment to compete with the same manufacturers they need to support their controller.
It is different when you a filling a gap where some equipment is not available like with the flow meters or feeders. There was no manufacturers making them for the Apex.

 

[road_runner]

Do not see it happening but I agree it would be nice.
I also think controllers are becoming less useful as equipment manufacturers spend more time adding more function to the controllers that comes with the piece of equipment. The equipment controllers add way more function than just the basic functions of controllers. These manufacturers are adding cloud support also.
Controllers do add the convenience of all the data in one spot though and not have 3 + apps/..

I think Neptune started to cross the line when they started making equipment to compete with the same manufacturers they need to support their controller.
It is different when you a filling a gap where some equipment is not available like with the flow meters or feeders. There was no manufacturers making them for the Apex.

Agreed and to your point it has became loads of modules and wires and increased point of failure..