What automatic tester would you recommend

[The Ugly Phase]

i really really want the matertronic to be good but the reviews just prove its not i already have a alk tester whats apex like any good i hear mixed reviews on it but people do seem to say good things about it unlike the mastertronic

 

[Freenow54]

No Judgement I use Salifert manual kits

 

[Evil1]

No Judgement I use Salifert manual kits

Me too!

 

[edsbeaker]

I use a trident. I like it a lot when it’s working correctly, but IMO, it is a finicky piece of equipment that is constantly throwing some curveballs. For instance, when you change the reagents and then start it up again, you may get a notification…”Test A failed”. And it’s a matter of going through the process of checking if the tube is pinched in the drawer, or maybe the tube isn’t connected fully to the metal tube sitting in the bottle. Or when your readings start seeming off, and it’s a process of double checking with another test kit to verify that the results are either correct or the Trident results are off. From there, you will need to recalibrate it or figure out why it’s off.

I just think it’s important for people considering getting one to know that it does have faults and at times you will need to tinker with it to figure out the problem. If you are the type of person that doesn’t mind the tinkering, you’ll probably think it was worth it, but if you don’t it will probably be more frustrating to you than manually doing the testing with a test kit and I’d skip it.

 

[Nerdist Aquarist]

I can only comment on the Trident. Like what @edsbeaker mentioned, it seems to fail too frequently. I have to assume there are more reliable options. But after troubleshooting the Trident for a long time now, I know how to clean the optical sensor and clear clogged lines in under 10 minutes, which are the most common reasons for errors.

 

[BryanM]

I am awaiting the maven, which may never come to market, but all of the other mutli parameter automated tests have all proven unreliable.

 

[The Ugly Phase]

I am awaiting the maven, which may never come to market, but all of the other mutli parameter automated tests have all proven unreliable.

i think the maven is US and wont be available in the uk i would like the spa but same stuff DD don't seem to wanna bring the spa over here i do have the dd kh manager though kamoers kh carer but with dds name on it

 

[Dom]

i really really want the matertronic to be good but the reviews just prove its not i already have a alk tester whats apex like any good i hear mixed reviews on it but people do seem to say good things about it unlike the mastertronic

I don't recommend any.

Manual testing is the best way to keep your finger on the pulse of your system.

 

[The Ugly Phase]

I don't recommend any.

Manual testing is the best way to keep your finger on the pulse of your system.

i may have to just do that with calcium and mag i like the dd kh manager though keeps your alk nice and stable

 

[Biokabe]

I have a Trident and it's useful, but knowing what I know now I'm not sure that I'd recommend spending the money for it. I honestly think you're better off just getting a Hanna checker and getting in the habit of testing Alk 2-3 times a week.

What everyone else has said about the Trident is absolutely true. Right now, I think it's ballpark correct for Alk, somewhat undermeasuring on Mg, and drastically overmeasuring Ca. Or to put it into better perspective:

My last manual test showed Alk at 8.7, Ca at 395, and Mg at 1270. My Trident is currently reading Alk at 9, Ca at 590, and Mg at 1195. I'm not currently dosing anything, and my salt mix's levels are 9, 400 and 1350. So I'm almost positive that the Ca and Mg readings are significantly off from their real levels, leaving Alk as the only one that is close to accurate. There have been times when it's closer, but its current levels aren't exactly unusual.

 

[The Ugly Phase]

my calc is 460 mag is 1320 alk it WAS 6.7 but raising it back to 8.5 and the DD kh manager will keep it stable

 

[Dom]

i may have to just do that with calcium and mag i like the dd kh manager though keeps your alk nice and stable

@Randy Holmes-Farley suggests not to concern yourself with Mag testing, as home test kits for Mag can be inaccurate.

 

[The Ugly Phase]

i just need to get my sky high nitrates down lol i was doing 1% a day but it obv wasnt enough so doing 8 gallon a day untill it comes down

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

@Randy Holmes-Farley suggests not to concern yourself with Mag testing, as home test kits for Mag can be inaccurate.

This is an alternative to mag testing: dose mag based entirely off calcium dosed.

Thread 'Just say NO to magnesium testing: RMM is born'

Nov 8, 2023

OK, this thread has been many years in the making, and I'm posting it here since folks in the chem forum are probably already tired of all the threads relating to problematic magnesium testing.

I'm going to propose a method, let's call it the Randy Magnesium Method, or RMM for short. All good methods need a catchy name.

Here it is.

1. NEVER measure magnesium. If it comes free from an ICP, sure, take a look. It's probably fine anyway. Don't buy or use a kit. Chances are the results are not very reliable, and most of the time, if there is a value out of the...

• Randy Holmes-Farley
• Replies: 293
• Forum: Reef Aquarium Discussion

• 
• 
• 

 

[Freenow54]

I use a trident. I like it a lot when it’s working correctly, but IMO, it is a finicky piece of equipment that is constantly throwing some curveballs. For instance, when you change the reagents and then start it up again, you may get a notification…”Test A failed”. And it’s a matter of going through the process of checking if the tube is pinched in the drawer, or maybe the tube isn’t connected fully to the metal tube sitting in the bottle. Or when your readings start seeming off, and it’s a process of double checking with another test kit to verify that the results are either correct or the Trident results are off. From there, you will need to recalibrate it or figure out why it’s off.

I just think it’s important for people considering getting one to know that it does have faults and at times you will need to tinker with it to figure out the problem. If you are the type of person that doesn’t mind the tinkering, you’ll probably think it was worth it, but if you don’t it will probably be more frustrating to you than manually doing the testing with a test kit and I’d skip it.

That is the whole issue to me. If it fails once its too many . How can you trust any results then

 

[edsbeaker]

That is the whole issue to me. If it fails once its too many . How can you trust any results then

You can’t fully trust any test kits. They all have the potential to fail whether user error or expired reagents. With experience, I think it is obvious to a reefer when this happens.

I tend to use it more as a guideline, and still test ALK and calcium manually each week. For me , it’s more of a daily backup instead of testing manually each day. Definitely an overpriced luxury that isn’t completely reliable, but I think that’s the nature of a lot of our testing. They all fail, and that’s why smart reefers always have a backup to double check when something seems off.

 

[Freenow54]

You can’t fully trust any test kits. They all have the potential to fail whether user error or expired reagents. With experience, I think it is obvious to a reefer when this happens.

I tend to use it more as a guideline, and still test ALK and calcium manually each week. For me , it’s more of a daily backup instead of testing manually each day. Definitely an overpriced luxury that isn’t completely reliable, but I think that’s the nature of a lot of our testing. They all fail, and that’s why smart reefers always have a backup to double check when something seems off.

its like a post that I followed regarding Par meters. I bought into it completely , and purchased an apogee for 1200 . The advice ? Par is BS just observe and adjust . Guess what ? That works . Will still use the par meter for mapping the aquascape. I still like the fact it shows unaffected ( low/ no light intensity )spots that are not always apparent to the eye