Good review, I do think there is a rush to get these things to market and we the consumer are used as testers (not just aquarium tech either). Do you compare your Hanna checkers with the Hanna standards, so you can be confident they are giving you as precise and accurate results within the accuracies of the checker? I had a duff box of test powders a while back which Hanna dealt with very quickly, but they were giving spurious results.
Yes I do occasionally use the Hanna standards to make sure they are accurate, with any equipments it’s good to double check sometimes and make sure it’s running as expected. And I think you are right on the fact that they are using us as their test group, since posting this review they did replace one of my devices, labeling it as defective. The new one seems to read much closer to the Hanna checkers but still not quite right. Hopefully it they will continue to get better
Finally an honest review! The UA-cam algorithm needs to move this to the top! I am sorry you experienced this with your Trident NP. I ditched Apex myself and moved over to Hydros. I have a video on my channel that explains in greater detail why I no longer support BRS and Neptune Systems if you'd be interested in checking out! Great Content and I appreciate you keeping it honest with people. New Sub!!! Keep up the great work!
Thank you! Will definitely check it out! I’ve supported BRS and Neptune for years and this whole experience has been bad. Since posting the video I tried leaving a review of the device on BRS, and have been censored. Neptune said they could try to resolve the issue remotely by logging onto my apex and doing some updates, but from the sounds of it, other people have let them do this and the issues still persist. I’ve gotten negative readings on the device which I think further proves it DOES NOT WORK. In speaking with the hydros engineers at ReefAPalooza this year I learned of how thorough they are when designing the products and how everything is built on redundancy, I will definitely be trying their products on my next build as I have a lot more faith with them than Neptune at this point.
@@seateeaquaticswere you at RAP NY? If so, there’s a good chance we passed one another. Yes, BRS is accepting returns on these units but you have to fight with them to get them to do so. I have someone in my community on my Discord who finally got BRS to accept it as a return so I’m encouraging him to share screenshots of that convo on R2R in hopes it helps anyone else in the same situation . $700 on a device that does not work is quite expensive and to some, that’s a house payment. I also think it’s one of those things people can become discouraged over and end up leaving this hobby all together - depending on the person! At this point, it seems like Appeture cares more about making money versus offering a product that is solid and to better help reefers like you and I.
Spot on review. Mine read zero from day one. Did the calibration and same result. Put a request with Neptune and was told to do a factory reset. It then started to read but the tests were no where close to the Hanna testers. It would read 0.04 p04 then the next day 0.05. Actual Hanna readings were anywhere from .1 to .16. Nitrate is anywhere from 3 to 7 ppm out each test compared to Hanna. Well over 50% error. Had the Neptune rep email me back and said these readings were normal. Give me a break, Neptune hyped this up so hard as being super accurate and it’s definitely not even close. They said in the email that it’s to “track” trends. Well when nothing works what can you track? Your tank slowly crashing??? I didn’t spend 1000CAD$ for a useless item. Neptune has a real turd to deal with on this one …. The lack of accuracy is being voiced heavily on many message boards and I’m positive they know that the units are not operating correctly. Neptune had better get in the game or face real consequences on this one. Hydros looking better by the minute.
Thank you! It’s sad that they have this bad customer service where everyone is experiencing the same complaints and unfortunately from my experience their reps have no problem lying right to a persons face in order to make something seem ok, so I’m not surprised by that response. You’d think a company as big as them would try and fix something like this instead of trying to continue pushing the junk. But regardless, like you mentioned I definitely will be switching to Hydros. I’ve been doing a ton of research as I haven’t used their controllers, and from what I’ve seen, it’s hard to find complaints, and the devices seem rock solid. Plus from talking to their engineers at reef a palooza, they do thorough testing before releasing a product, so that they can avoid the problems Neptune has. They specifically look at the complaints Neptune has on their controllers to avoid incorporating the same issues into their devices. So it seems very very promising!
shame to see its not accurate. Do you run the original Trident? I've had one running for a few months and so far its been excellent. I had a very similar issue with a Reef Factory smart tester. It read zero all the time where as my Hanna would give different readings which followed my feedings. Ended up sending back and managed to get a refund. Will be holding off on the NP for now! Thanks for video
Yes I do use the original trident and those seem to work great! Any issues I’ve had with them have been a super easy fix as well! Usually neptune is pretty good
I have checked the values with the Hanna, and I would like to try and make my own calibration solution using those values, but unfortunately you cannot enter the values of the solution into the apex app. So there isn’t much anyone can do to change the way it’s reading
@@seateeaquatics something that might be worth doing is testing the calibration solution coming from different samples using other test kits. This way you would see if the calibration solution is stable enough to be considered as such
I had pre ordered 2 units, they shipped separately and it took a few extra days for the second one to get delivered. Neptune has since taken it back as defective
@@seateeaquatics direct copied email from support Thank you for that information. I'm sorry to hear how frustrated you are with this experience. Looking at your results between Hannah and the Trident-NP we don't really see an issue. You mentioned that the NO3 has a delta of 2 ppm between the TNP and Hannah, however, both the Hannah HI781 and HI782 have an accuracy of +/- 2 ppm (if you're diluting for HI781) while we report +/- 1 ppm giving a total delta of +/- 3 ppm for NO3 comparison between brands. For PO4 I see you're using the Phosphorus HI736 and using the equation (Phosphorus x 3.066) / 1,000 to determine PO4 in ppm. Hannah reports HI736 of having +/- 0.025 ppm while we report the TNP of having +/- 0.01 ppm giving a total delta of +/- 0.035 ppm for PO4 comparison between brands. Based off the different numbers you provided for the PO4 HI736 vs TNP you're generally having a delta of +/- 0.04 which would be reasonable. Also, looking at your graphed Hannah tests vs TNP PO4 tests the trends match almost identically just with an offset of about 0.04 ppm. Since it's widely accepted in the hobby to focus on trends rather than test per test comparison the Trident-NP appears to be doing it's job successfully. It shows you trends going up and going down.
Totally wrong interpretation of how the ulr Hi736 works. My email in return Hanna ulr is +/- 5ppb or 5% of the reading. So a Reading of 0.06 has a margin of error of 0.003 +\- not 0.01ppm. Today’s tests 7.4 Hanna nitrate, .13ppm phosphate. I do agree nitrate is within the margins and much less of a concern. The np just completed its phosphate test and it’s 0.05. That’s a margin of greater than 50% in comparison or 0.08 ppm out. There is a serious issue here and if you don’t care to address it with only a generic answer I will need someone else To talk to. I didn’t spend 1000$ to measure trends. Understand the level of accuracy is very bad. I can see by eye in the Hanna reagent when phosphate is higher just by the blue color. I also used a salifert test and it confirmed what I’m seeing. The answer that it’s acceptable isn’t acceptable. You’re going to have many people disappointed with this product that was advertised as accurate. With the train of thought today the test went up from 0.06 to .13 on the Hanna but only 0.01 on the trident …. I’m sorry but that’s not good enough at all
The math they list out in their explanation is technically correct, but it seems more a way to deflect the problem back on to you, because the actual numbers are still far enough off that their “delta of 0.04” is not correct. If you calculate .13ppm, the trident should read no less than .09… it’s not fair to everyone who has spent their hard earned money on these for them to do keep deflecting instead of helping. They should issue a recall, but I doubt they would ever do that. Hope they can fix something through software updates…
Thank you very much for a clear headed, honest opinion!
Wow!
Thanks for the honest review! I had one on order just canceled it.... maybe in the future I'll look at it again.
Glad I could help! I’m really hoping that over the next few weeks/months they can fix the issues with software updates. I’ll keep you updated
Good review, I do think there is a rush to get these things to market and we the consumer are used as testers (not just aquarium tech either). Do you compare your Hanna checkers with the Hanna standards, so you can be confident they are giving you as precise and accurate results within the accuracies of the checker? I had a duff box of test powders a while back which Hanna dealt with very quickly, but they were giving spurious results.
Yes I do occasionally use the Hanna standards to make sure they are accurate, with any equipments it’s good to double check sometimes and make sure it’s running as expected. And I think you are right on the fact that they are using us as their test group, since posting this review they did replace one of my devices, labeling it as defective. The new one seems to read much closer to the Hanna checkers but still not quite right. Hopefully it they will continue to get better
Great video, the trident is finally out!
Yes, but unfortunately it was over hyped and they under delivered
Finally an honest review! The UA-cam algorithm needs to move this to the top! I am sorry you experienced this with your Trident NP. I ditched Apex myself and moved over to Hydros. I have a video on my channel that explains in greater detail why I no longer support BRS and Neptune Systems if you'd be interested in checking out! Great Content and I appreciate you keeping it honest with people. New Sub!!! Keep up the great work!
Thank you! Will definitely check it out! I’ve supported BRS and Neptune for years and this whole experience has been bad. Since posting the video I tried leaving a review of the device on BRS, and have been censored. Neptune said they could try to resolve the issue remotely by logging onto my apex and doing some updates, but from the sounds of it, other people have let them do this and the issues still persist. I’ve gotten negative readings on the device which I think further proves it DOES NOT WORK. In speaking with the hydros engineers at ReefAPalooza this year I learned of how thorough they are when designing the products and how everything is built on redundancy, I will definitely be trying their products on my next build as I have a lot more faith with them than Neptune at this point.
@@seateeaquaticswere you at RAP NY? If so, there’s a good chance we passed one another. Yes, BRS is accepting returns on these units but you have to fight with them to get them to do so. I have someone in my community on my Discord who finally got BRS to accept it as a return so I’m encouraging him to share screenshots of that convo on R2R in hopes it helps anyone else in the same situation . $700 on a device that does not work is quite expensive and to some, that’s a house payment. I also think it’s one of those things people can become discouraged over and end up leaving this hobby all together - depending on the person! At this point, it seems like Appeture cares more about making money versus offering a product that is solid and to better help reefers like you and I.
Spot on review. Mine read zero from day one. Did the calibration and same result. Put a request with Neptune and was told to do a factory reset. It then started to read but the tests were no where close to the Hanna testers. It would read 0.04 p04 then the next day 0.05. Actual Hanna readings were anywhere from .1 to .16. Nitrate is anywhere from 3 to 7 ppm out each test compared to Hanna. Well over 50% error. Had the Neptune rep email me back and said these readings were normal. Give me a break, Neptune hyped this up so hard as being super accurate and it’s definitely not even close. They said in the email that it’s to “track” trends. Well when nothing works what can you track? Your tank slowly crashing??? I didn’t spend 1000CAD$ for a useless item. Neptune has a real turd to deal with on this one …. The lack of accuracy is being voiced heavily on many message boards and I’m positive they know that the units are not operating correctly. Neptune had better get in the game or face real consequences on this one. Hydros looking better by the minute.
Thank you! It’s sad that they have this bad customer service where everyone is experiencing the same complaints and unfortunately from my experience their reps have no problem lying right to a persons face in order to make something seem ok, so I’m not surprised by that response. You’d think a company as big as them would try and fix something like this instead of trying to continue pushing the junk. But regardless, like you mentioned I definitely will be switching to Hydros. I’ve been doing a ton of research as I haven’t used their controllers, and from what I’ve seen, it’s hard to find complaints, and the devices seem rock solid. Plus from talking to their engineers at reef a palooza, they do thorough testing before releasing a product, so that they can avoid the problems Neptune has. They specifically look at the complaints Neptune has on their controllers to avoid incorporating the same issues into their devices. So it seems very very promising!
shame to see its not accurate. Do you run the original Trident? I've had one running for a few months and so far its been excellent. I had a very similar issue with a Reef Factory smart tester. It read zero all the time where as my Hanna would give different readings which followed my feedings. Ended up sending back and managed to get a refund.
Will be holding off on the NP for now!
Thanks for video
Yes I do use the original trident and those seem to work great! Any issues I’ve had with them have been a super easy fix as well! Usually neptune is pretty good
Can u test the calibration solution with your hanna checkers to see if the values are correct?
I have checked the values with the Hanna, and I would like to try and make my own calibration solution using those values, but unfortunately you cannot enter the values of the solution into the apex app. So there isn’t much anyone can do to change the way it’s reading
@@seateeaquatics something that might be worth doing is testing the calibration solution coming from different samples using other test kits. This way you would see if the calibration solution is stable enough to be considered as such
so if you didn't like how its not accurate why did you buy a second one seems like its a huge flaw?
I had pre ordered 2 units, they shipped separately and it took a few extra days for the second one to get delivered. Neptune has since taken it back as defective
If you had issues with the first one why buy another
I had pre ordered 2 units, but they had a delay in shipping, the second unit was already on the way when I realized the first wasn’t working properly
It’s trash!
Day 1 adopter. Trident NP is trash. BRS has issued me labels for a return with a full refund due to a "defective" product.
At least they will give you a refund, I have 2 right now and they want to “work out a solution” instead of taking the products back for a refund
@@seateeaquatics direct copied email from support
Thank you for that information. I'm sorry to hear how frustrated you are with this experience. Looking at your results between Hannah and the Trident-NP we don't really see an issue.
You mentioned that the NO3 has a delta of 2 ppm between the TNP and Hannah, however, both the Hannah HI781 and HI782 have an accuracy of +/- 2 ppm (if you're diluting for HI781) while we report +/- 1 ppm giving a total delta of +/- 3 ppm for NO3 comparison between brands.
For PO4 I see you're using the Phosphorus HI736 and using the equation (Phosphorus x 3.066) / 1,000 to determine PO4 in ppm. Hannah reports HI736 of having +/- 0.025 ppm while we report the TNP of having +/- 0.01 ppm giving a total delta of +/- 0.035 ppm for PO4 comparison between brands.
Based off the different numbers you provided for the PO4 HI736 vs TNP you're generally having a delta of +/- 0.04 which would be reasonable. Also, looking at your graphed Hannah tests vs TNP PO4 tests the trends match almost identically just with an offset of about 0.04 ppm. Since it's widely accepted in the hobby to focus on trends rather than test per test comparison the Trident-NP appears to be doing it's job successfully. It shows you trends going up and going down.
Totally wrong interpretation of how the ulr Hi736 works.
My email in return
Hanna ulr is +/- 5ppb or 5% of the reading. So a Reading of 0.06 has a margin of error of 0.003 +\- not 0.01ppm. Today’s tests 7.4 Hanna nitrate, .13ppm phosphate. I do agree nitrate is within the margins and much less of a concern. The np just completed its phosphate test and it’s 0.05. That’s a margin of greater than 50% in comparison or 0.08 ppm out. There is a serious issue here and if you don’t care to address it with only a generic answer I will need someone else
To talk to. I didn’t spend 1000$ to measure trends. Understand the level of accuracy is very bad. I can see by eye in the Hanna reagent when phosphate is higher just by the blue color. I also used a salifert test and it confirmed what I’m seeing. The answer that it’s acceptable isn’t acceptable. You’re going to have many people disappointed with this product that was advertised as accurate. With the train of thought today the test went up from 0.06 to .13 on the Hanna but only 0.01 on the trident …. I’m sorry but that’s not good enough at all
The math they list out in their explanation is technically correct, but it seems more a way to deflect the problem back on to you, because the actual numbers are still far enough off that their “delta of 0.04” is not correct. If you calculate .13ppm, the trident should read no less than .09… it’s not fair to everyone who has spent their hard earned money on these for them to do keep deflecting instead of helping. They should issue a recall, but I doubt they would ever do that. Hope they can fix something through software updates…
@@seateeaquatics It was either a refund or a chargeback. A chargeback hurts them worse.