My Trident Review

[User1]

Well, hopefully I'm close then. I'm pretty sure I was within the first 5 or 10 minutes in the thread they posted here. I'll have to keep an eye on emails now as well.

Thanks for the info.

 

[MnFish1]

Well, hopefully I'm close then. I'm pretty sure I was within the first 5 or 10 minutes in the thread they posted here. I'll have to keep an eye on emails now as well.

Thanks for the info.

HAHA - maybe they will give you mine. I decided to go with the mindstream

 

[chicago]

I am liking this unicorn.

 

[User1]

HAHA - maybe they will give you mine. I decided to go with the mindstream

I like the concept. I believe there was another thread where I made a few comments about it and the disc price. Never the less I am watching it also and hope they can sort out the cost a bit better (my opinion only). Maybe they can do something similar to NetFlix...who knows.

Once you get it though please let me know your thoughts. You have pretty unbiased feedback which is always nice to have.

 

[Sleepydoc]

A lot of people seem to be saying this but it is just noise. To put it into perspective how many test kits and regents would you have to buy in order to test 4 times/day? Please note that it isn't also just regents you are paying for, you have to pay your time as well. How much is your time worth? I don't know, say $30/hr? You just blew past that $275 year number easy - both are hypothetical numbers of course but just wanted to set the record straight. There isn't enough time for you, or I, to run that number of tests.

Beyond this, it’s very possible that the machine needs to run tests at a minimum frequency to keep the lines clear and/or the reagents will start to degrade after they are opened, meaning there is a certain replacement interval that needs to be followed, and testing less frequently would just end up wasting reagent.

I don’t know for sure, but these are certainly possible.

 

[MnFish1]

Beyond this, it’s very possible that the machine needs to run tests at a minimum frequency to keep the lines clear and/or the reagents will start to degrade after they are opened, meaning there is a certain replacement interval that needs to be followed, and testing less frequently would just end up wasting reagent.

I don’t know for sure, but these are certainly possible.

not sure what you mean

 

[anonomous09]

Is anyone running trident at the maximum 4’ distance it calls for? Wondering if this affects readings.

 

[chicago]

Bottom line for me.. loving this Trident.. I use to wake up and test in the am.. now I have more free time and love having the readings a few times a day.. I can understand on smaller scaled tank why others would not want to invest. However, my tank has been on going for decades. The amount of money invested in this hobby for me and my current tank well,,, this is not out of the ordinary and if it keeps my tank from having an alk crash or other disaster... worth more than what I paid and will pay..

 

[Sleepydoc]

not sure what you mean

I assume you don't understand my second point...

There is no benefit in reducing the test frequency below that which uses up the reagents before they expire. For example, you have a 100 ml bottle of reagent. Each test uses 1 ml and the reagent expires in 50 days. If you only do one test per day, you will only have used 50 ml of reagent by the time it expires and thus be wasting 50 ml so you might as well be doing 2 tests per day.

I know some people will argue that they use reagents past their expiration date all the time and don't have a problem. That may be true, but from Neptune's point of view, if people are using expired reagents and getting inaccurate results, the first thing most of them will do is blame Neptune for making a bad machine, not look at the expiration date on the bottle of reagent.

Again, I don't know if this is the case; I'm just guessing, but it's quite plausible.

 

[chicago]

I heard that Neptune is putting together a more economical package for the reagents where you can purchase a sixmonth supply at a discounted price.

 

[ca1ore]

Is anyone running trident at the maximum 4’ distance it calls for? Wondering if this affects readings.

Doesn't matter. The supply and waste lines must be used as is, so even if the trident is five inches form the water source you still are using the full length of the supply tube.

 

[ca1ore]

I heard that Neptune is putting together a more economical package for the reagents where you can purchase a sixmonth supply at a discounted price.

Yes, three sets of reagents/calibration for $99 as I recall. I don't personally find that a set of reagents lasts a full two months - more like 6 weeks - so for me its 18 weeks for $99. Still a significant reduction. So, for me, that'd be broadly $300 per year. Well worth it for the sweat equity savings.

 

[MnFish1]

I assume you don't understand my second point...

There is no benefit in reducing the test frequency below that which uses up the reagents before they expire. For example, you have a 100 ml bottle of reagent. Each test uses 1 ml and the reagent expires in 50 days. If you only do one test per day, you will only have used 50 ml of reagent by the time it expires and thus be wasting 50 ml so you might as well be doing 2 tests per day.

I know some people will argue that they use reagents past their expiration date all the time and don't have a problem. That may be true, but from Neptune's point of view, if people are using expired reagents and getting inaccurate results, the first thing most of them will do is blame Neptune for making a bad machine, not look at the expiration date on the bottle of reagent.

Again, I don't know if this is the case; I'm just guessing, but it's quite plausible.

Yes - thanks - I think Neptune has said this from the start.

 

[rkpetersen]

I've found that the numbers are much more consistent if I let it test 6X a day rather than the minimum of 4.
I don't need that much testing or anything close to it, but this seems to be a design limitation of the test and device.

 

[MnFish1]

I've found that the numbers are much more consistent if I let it test 6X a day rather than the minimum of 4.
I don't need that much testing or anything close to it, but this seems to be a design limitation of the test and device.

from a statistical standpoint - this would be clear. the more tests - the closer it would be to the real value.

 

[Sleepydoc]

from a statistical standpoint - this would be clear. the more tests - the closer it would be to the real value.

Not necessarily. What @rkpeterson is describing is increased precision (the amount of variability between measurements.) You're describing statistical averaging.

 

[MnFish1]

Not necessarily. What @rkpeterson is describing is increased precision (the amount of variability between measurements.) You're describing statistical averaging.

I think I'm discussing regression to the mean as well but in any case - The more values one has - the more likely one can determine whether any given one is a 'fluke' . For example if you test 1 x / week - and you have 4 values that are 6, 6, 6, and 7.5 you can be much less sure that the 7.5 is a potential error than if you tested every hour - and had 100 values that were 6 - and the last one 7.5

 

[User1]

Yes, three sets of reagents/calibration for $99 as I recall. I don't personally find that a set of reagents lasts a full two months - more like 6 weeks - so for me its 18 weeks for $99. Still a significant reduction. So, for me, that'd be broadly $300 per year. Well worth it for the sweat equity savings.

what is your frequency of testing?

I also like the idea of new package offering.

 

[User1]

I've found that the numbers are much more consistent if I let it test 6X a day rather than the minimum of 4.
I don't need that much testing or anything close to it, but this seems to be a design limitation of the test and device.

That is interesting and the first time I've read this. I was hoping to keep it at its lowest setting.

 

[Sleepydoc]

I think I'm discussing regression to the mean as well but in any case - The more values one has - the more likely one can determine whether any given one is a 'fluke' . For example if you test 1 x / week - and you have 4 values that are 6, 6, 6, and 7.5 you can be much less sure that the 7.5 is a potential error than if you tested every hour - and had 100 values that were 6 - and the last one 7.5

Thanks - regression to the mean was what I meant. It isn’t clear to me whether that’s what @rkpetersen meant or not. From his post, it sounded like he was talking about increased precision, but maybe not.

I’m sure it’s been done, but I haven’t seen an analysis of the actual accuracy and precision of the Trident’s measurements. Have you seen one? Along with that, it would be interesting to see if the accuracy and/or precision are affected by the testing interval.