Trident vs Alkatronic vs KH Director vs kh guardian

[User1]

The inventor of Alkatronic states theirs is 0.04.

Not sure I'm understanding what the hub bub is about accuracy - accuracy and consistency will be visible based on the number of tests and the results/data that is logged. Will be clear to see and you can also compare to manual tests if you so choose along with calibration fluid. Seems someone in that reply is frustrated.

Trident's FAQ says:

• Alkalinity: +/- 0.05 dKH
• Calcium: +/- 15 ppm
• Magnesium: +/- 15 ppm

I think we have issues if we are not buying one product over another because of a .01 delta or that is what we are basing our purchase on. Buy what works for you and be happy.

 

[mitch91175]

I hear ya. Devil's always in the details, and details are in short supply. I don't imagine the swapped unit will be brand new LOL.

Hey @ca1ore I am going to be leaning on your overall assessment of the Trident before pulling the trigger (if I even decide to do so). I feel you'll be unbiased in your assessment.

 

[ca1ore]

Hey @ca1ore I am going to be leaning on your overall assessment of the Trident before pulling the trigger (if I even decide to do so). I feel you'll be unbiased in your assessment.

I shall certainly try.

 

[Brew12]

Not really a loaner is it - more like how you swap CO2 cylinders rather than just having ‘yours’ refilled. Having looked inside my trident, replacing all the tubes does look maddeningly fiddly though. Might be worth doing the send in. A couple of years off though .....

I don't think Neptune has figured out how they will handle this yet. It's one reason I would wait for more information. I've seen discussion of a loaner you would only use while yours was out. I've seen this type of exchange discussed but this would be a non-starter for me. A CO2 cylinder is one thing since they almost never fail, but unless each unit I received comes with a 2-year warranty to cover it until the next exchange I wouldn't be happy about this. Do the exchange and 14 months later the replacement unit fails. What happens then? These are questions that I feel should have been answered prior to the release and I would wait until they are answered.

Not sure I'm understanding what the hub bub is about accuracy - accuracy and consistency will be visible based on the number of tests and the results/data that is logged. Will be clear to see and you can also compare to manual tests if you so choose along with calibration fluid. Seems someone in that reply is frustrated.

Trident's FAQ says:

• Alkalinity: +/- 0.05 dKH
• Calcium: +/- 15 ppm
• Magnesium: +/- 15 ppm

I think we have issues if we are not buying one product over another because of a .01 delta or that is what we are basing our purchase on. Buy what works for you and be happy.

I feel the accuracy issue is over rated. I really don't care if my alk is off by 0.5 dkh let alone 0.05dkh. I would like the repeatability to be within 0.2 dkh which would still be better repeatability than most visual based test kits.

 

[leepink23]

Not sure I'm understanding what the hub bub is about accuracy - accuracy and consistency will be visible based on the number of tests and the results/data that is logged. Will be clear to see and you can also compare to manual tests if you so choose along with calibration fluid. Seems someone in that reply is frustrated.

Trident's FAQ says:

• Alkalinity: +/- 0.05 dKH
• Calcium: +/- 15 ppm
• Magnesium: +/- 15 ppm

I think we have issues if we are not buying one product over another because of a .01 delta or that is what we are basing our purchase on. Buy what works for you and be happy.

That definitely won’t be my deciding factor, I shared it because of a question about that. For me I will need something in the next few months because my sps are starting to consume more but still manageable by manual testing. I ultimately want to find what will best fit my needs.

 

[leepink23]

I shall certainly try.

I am interested in this as well.

 

[road_runner]

How can we say accuracy and consistency is overrated when we are talking about a test equipment? Accuracy is very important and part of what justify the investment.

Agreed that withen certain tolerance it should be ok. But knowing this tolerance is important not only when the test equipment is new but most importantly when the equipment is used and over time..
Everyone complains that salifert as an example start having more error margin after a while of usage..

Citing data sheet claims is not really the best approach here. Its like talking about the flow rate cited in pumps datasheet...80% of the pumps out there indicate a flow rate that is either inaccurate or have a caveat like head pressure..etc.
Unless we test you never know the truth.

 

[leepink23]

I don't think Neptune has figured out how they will handle this yet. It's one reason I would wait for more information. I've seen discussion of a loaner you would only use while yours was out. I've seen this type of exchange discussed but this would be a non-starter for me. A CO2 cylinder is one thing since they almost never fail, but unless each unit I received comes with a 2-year warranty to cover it until the next exchange I wouldn't be happy about this. Do the exchange and 14 months later the replacement unit fails. What happens then? These are questions that I feel should have been answered prior to the release and I would wait until they are answered.


I feel the accuracy issue is over rated. I really don't care if my alk is off by 0.5 dkh let alone 0.05dkh. I would like the repeatability to be within 0.2 dkh which would still be better repeatability than most visual based test kits.

I actually was thinking about this last night, do we get a new warranty with the swap out, that would certainly make it worth it to me.

 

[leepink23]

How can we say accuracy and consistency is overrated when we are talking about a test equipment? Accuracy is very important and part of what justify the investment.

Agreed that withen certain tolerance it should be ok. But knowing this tolerance is important not only when the test equipment is new but most importantly when the equipment is used and over time..
Everyone complains that salifert as an example start having more error margin after a while of usage..

Citing data sheet claims is not really the best approach here. Its like talking about the flow rate cited in pumps datasheet...80% of the pumps out there indicate a flow rate that is either inaccurate or have a caveat like head pressure..etc.
Unless we test you never know the truth.

I agree but since I don’t own one it’s the best I got , maybe someone that owns it can clarify its accuracy for you.

 

[road_runner]

I agree but since I don’t own one it’s the best I got , maybe someone that owns it can clarify its accuracy for you.

Agreed. Hence I am saying am intersted in knowing the real life measurments. Results will come and be known over time by users.
I remember how much inaccuracies DC pump vendors had when they first came out. Then over time people started reporting actual flow rates and you started seeing 40 and 50% of the claimed flow rate is achieved when there is head pressure...
Then we all started learning how important it was to know the real performance before purchasing.
Time will tell and user data will judge.

 

[User1]

Agreed. Hence I am saying am intersted in knowing the real life measurments. Results will come and be known over time by users.
I remember how much inaccuracies DC pump vendors had when they first came out. Then over time people started reporting actual flow rates and you started seeing 40 and 50% of the claimed flow rate is only achieved with head pressure.
Then we all started learning how important it was to understand the real performance before purchasing.
Time will tell and user data will judge.

Well, the data is there today for Trident users. All you have to do is ask the right person I guess and hope they will share it.

What I am not sure about is of the current trident users who is running manual tests randomly and comparing to include the use of calibration fluids. From what I have seen on a few threads around the web you can clearly see data change in as simple as a water change.

 

[road_runner]

I don't think Neptune has figured out how they will handle this yet. It's one reason I would wait for more information. I've seen discussion of a loaner you would only use while yours was out. I've seen this type of exchange discussed but this would be a non-starter for me. A CO2 cylinder is one thing since they almost never fail, but unless each unit I received comes with a 2-year warranty to cover it until the next exchange I wouldn't be happy about this. Do the exchange and 14 months later the replacement unit fails. What happens then? These are questions that I feel should have been answered prior to the release and I would wait until they are answered.


I feel the accuracy issue is over rated. I really don't care if my alk is off by 0.5 dkh let alone 0.05dkh. I would like the repeatability to be within 0.2 dkh which would still be better repeatability than most visual based test kits.

100% agreed. If results are accurate and repeatable withen ~0.2 it should be ok. Because that means your measurment can be between 8.4 to 8 if your real kh is 8.2.
What I am advocating for is knowing the tral error margin of the test equipment before ad an important metric for evaluating one.
Static test, or cross correlating against a reliable test kit immediatly after running thebtwst by the equipment are the only way to find the real answer.
Khg claimed at first accuracy is 0.05. But then actual measurments by users reported between 0.1 to 0.3kh.

 

[road_runner]

Well, the data is there today for Trident users. All you have to do is ask the right person I guess and hope they will share it.

What I am not sure about is of the current trident users who is running manual tests randomly and comparing to include the use of calibration fluids. From what I have seen on a few threads around the web you can clearly see data change in as simple as a water change.

Yup, all these test kits performance will be known and reported over time.
This discussion is not about trident only...

 

[Brew12]

100% agreed. If results are accurate and repeatable withen ~0.2 it should be ok. Because that means your measurment can be between 8.4 to 8 if your real kh is 8.2.
What I am advocating for is knowing the tral error margin of the test equipment before ad an important metric for evaluating one.
Static test, or cross correlating against a reliable test kit immediatly after running thebtwst by the equipment are the only way to find the real answer.
Khg claimed at first accuracy is 0.05. But then actual measurments by users reported between 0.1 to 0.3kh.

I do agree that precision matters, and to me it is much more important than the accuracy. I would be very happy with a precision of 0.1 dkh since I can't control much beyond that anyway. At least not without sampling 24 times a day and setting my dosers to run 96 times a day.

 

[mitch91175]

How can we say accuracy and consistency is overrated when we are talking about a test equipment? Accuracy is very important and part of what justify the investment.

Agreed that withen certain tolerance it should be ok. But knowing this tolerance is important not only when the test equipment is new but most importantly when the equipment is used and over time..
Everyone complains that salifert as an example start having more error margin after a while of usage..

Citing data sheet claims is not really the best approach here. Its like talking about the flow rate cited in pumps datasheet...80% of the pumps out there indicate a flow rate that is either inaccurate or have a caveat like head pressure..etc.
Unless we test you never know the truth.

Bro people like to justify a purchase that way by saying this or that. If it works it works and if it doesn’t it doesn’t. Wish that those with any of these units out there be stand-up about them. As long as we as consumers brush crap under-the-rug these companies will not make there stuff better.

 

[road_runner]

Bro people like to justify a purchase that way by saying this or that. If it works it works and if it doesn’t it doesn’t. Wish that those with any of these units out there be stand-up about them. As long as we as consumers brush crap under-the-rug these companies will not make there stuff better.

Ha ha agreed.
That's why only time will tell about all these testers.
Early reviews and early praises of any device can be biased.

 

[mitch91175]

Ha ha agreed.
That's why only time will tell about all these testers.
Early reviews and early praises of any devices can be biased.

Yeah agree the proof is in the pudding, lol.

 

[Brew12]

I've been happy with my KHD, but I don't think I would have gone this route if I didn't have the GHL controller.
Here is 5 months of data. I've only had it controlling Alk since after the spike down in March. It's worked surprisingly well other than a few mishaps. The first drop you see was from my calibrating the pH probe and not putting it back in all the way. The 3rd drop was due to a failed dosing head that feeds the unit. The 2nd drop? Well..... lets just say that the KHD doesn't read accurately at all if you raise the sensing line above the water level while cleaning your sump.
It only displays alk to a single decimal point, which is fine with me. I have a 7.5dkh reference solution and it read 7.5dkh on 5 straight tests. For me, that was more than good enough.

Anyway... here are 5 month of real world results for you.

 

[road_runner]

I've been happy with my KHD, but I don't think I would have gone this route if I didn't have the GHL controller.
Here is 5 months of data. I've only had it controlling Alk since after the spike down in March. It's worked surprisingly well other than a few mishaps. The first drop you see was from my calibrating the pH probe and not putting it back in all the way. The 3rd drop was due to a failed dosing head that feeds the unit. The 2nd drop? Well..... lets just say that the KHD doesn't read accurately at all if you raise the sensing line above the water level while cleaning your sump.
It only displays alk to a single decimal point, which is fine with me. I have a 7.5dkh reference solution and it read 7.5dkh on 5 straight tests. For me, that was more than good enough.

Anyway... here are 5 month of real world results for you.

Looks great.
You mentioned that you have a ref solutiom of 7.5 that you can get 5 convective tests to verify the khd on?
If that's the case, performance looks very good.

 

[leepink23]

I've been happy with my KHD, but I don't think I would have gone this route if I didn't have the GHL controller.
Here is 5 months of data. I've only had it controlling Alk since after the spike down in March. It's worked surprisingly well other than a few mishaps. The first drop you see was from my calibrating the pH probe and not putting it back in all the way. The 3rd drop was due to a failed dosing head that feeds the unit. The 2nd drop? Well..... lets just say that the KHD doesn't read accurately at all if you raise the sensing line above the water level while cleaning your sump.
It only displays alk to a single decimal point, which is fine with me. I have a 7.5dkh reference solution and it read 7.5dkh on 5 straight tests. For me, that was more than good enough.

Anyway... here are 5 month of real world results for you.

Out of curiosity why wouldn’t you go this route if you didn’t have the controller?