LaMotte 2056 ColorQ Pro 7 Digital Pool Water Test Kit
- Thread starter imureh
- Start date
I got a free one.. I take my Taylor over it anyway.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I have both the ColorQ and the TF-100. I use them both.
Reading posts on this site, you will find that they are not too well thought of here. Most people here say that the ColorQ is not accurate or consistent in its readings.
Could be that I just got a good one, but over the past several years, I have crossed checked the ColorQ with the TF-100 and found my readings to be basically the same.
The ColorQ runs a calibration routine on a clear sample of your pools water. After that you add reagents, to individual test tubes to test for FC, TC, pH, TA, CH, and CYA.
That said, the TF-100 (or Taylor K-2006C) is what almost everyone on the site uses. It makes sense to me, if I'm posting numbers here and asking for help, that I should post TF-100 numbers to reduce any confusion about the accuracy or reliability of the test kit used to generate the data.
I do find it amusing that if someone posts an obviously incorrect number using the TF-100, it has to be user error (which I agree with) but if the same thing happens using the ColorQ, it has to be the test device. In both systems, there are minor things that can be done by the user to throw off the readings.
One plus for the ColorQ is that you do not have to match colors when testing for pH. You also don't have to look for the "dot" when testing CYA.
One downside for the ColorQ is that you can't test FC above 10, so it is useless for doing a SLAM.
I could go on, but I'm sure by now several people are unlocking there gun cabinets..
Let me know if you have any specific questions.
Jim R.
Reading posts on this site, you will find that they are not too well thought of here. Most people here say that the ColorQ is not accurate or consistent in its readings.
Could be that I just got a good one, but over the past several years, I have crossed checked the ColorQ with the TF-100 and found my readings to be basically the same.
The ColorQ runs a calibration routine on a clear sample of your pools water. After that you add reagents, to individual test tubes to test for FC, TC, pH, TA, CH, and CYA.
That said, the TF-100 (or Taylor K-2006C) is what almost everyone on the site uses. It makes sense to me, if I'm posting numbers here and asking for help, that I should post TF-100 numbers to reduce any confusion about the accuracy or reliability of the test kit used to generate the data.
I do find it amusing that if someone posts an obviously incorrect number using the TF-100, it has to be user error (which I agree with) but if the same thing happens using the ColorQ, it has to be the test device. In both systems, there are minor things that can be done by the user to throw off the readings.
One plus for the ColorQ is that you do not have to match colors when testing for pH. You also don't have to look for the "dot" when testing CYA.
One downside for the ColorQ is that you can't test FC above 10, so it is useless for doing a SLAM.
I could go on, but I'm sure by now several people are unlocking there gun cabinets..
Let me know if you have any specific questions.
Jim R.
Jim. the big problem is this....it's the owners of the ColorQ that report accuracy issues. That's about the last group of folks you would expect to criticize the ColorQ but they do.
It's the owners findings that lead the forum to believe that the ColorQ is particularly troublesome with CYA and Calcium Hardness results.
The limit of 10 ppm FC is certainly a problem with what we teach so it's pretty hard to suggest a new member run out and buy one, don't you think?
It's the owners findings that lead the forum to believe that the ColorQ is particularly troublesome with CYA and Calcium Hardness results.
The limit of 10 ppm FC is certainly a problem with what we teach so it's pretty hard to suggest a new member run out and buy one, don't you think?
- May 23, 2015
- 24,379
- Pool Size
- 16000
- Surface
- Plaster
- Chlorine
- Salt Water Generator
- SWG Type
- Pentair Intellichlor IC-60
I have no issue with anyone that wants to use an electronic device. If that's what you want to use, then use it.....but it is incumbent upon the user of said digital/electronic device to ensure that the device is properly functioning and producing repeatable and accurate results. The ColorQ has proven itself to be unreliable over the years. Maybe this newer model is better, I simply don't have time to make the comparison. Those that own this newer Pro model perhaps should ban together and produce some comparative testing results to prove that it is working well.....the reagent-based test kits have thousands of users reporting good, consistent results all the time.
The huge advantage that the reagent-based testing has over the electronic devices is this - the entry costs and on-going expense costs of the test kit is A LOT lower. You also get way more bites at the apple with a good test kit. And, assuming the test kit owner follows the advice of this forum and the manufacturer and keeps their test kits indoors and properly stored, the reagents will last a long time. While the manufacturer has to put an expiration date on their products, the printed expiration date is a very, very conservative estimate....my reagents have lasted A LOT longer than the specified expiration dates.
The huge advantage that the reagent-based testing has over the electronic devices is this - the entry costs and on-going expense costs of the test kit is A LOT lower. You also get way more bites at the apple with a good test kit. And, assuming the test kit owner follows the advice of this forum and the manufacturer and keeps their test kits indoors and properly stored, the reagents will last a long time. While the manufacturer has to put an expiration date on their products, the printed expiration date is a very, very conservative estimate....my reagents have lasted A LOT longer than the specified expiration dates.
Duraleigh,
I did not tell the OP to run out and buy one, I just provided my experience. I will freely admit that if I could only have one test kit, it would be the TF-100, but I like the flexibility of having both of them.
Jim R.
I use the color q and the regional health inspector does. Not saying its the best but it's quick so I like it. I drain my tub every 3 or 2 weeks because of being a commercial tub. my pool stays pretty consistent so it's also an easy body of water to keep. Since I am commercial I have to test 3 times a day. a lot easier with the color q. I do admit the numbers are up to 20% off sometimes. But you can test an infinite amount of chlorine. You just need distilled water and a bit of math. The instructions on how to do that are included with the machine.
I won the Color Pro 7 and really like it. I am perfectly happy with the accuracy of the device as tested by independent labs. I have not found this lab test results for taylor, even after emailing them for it. I would be happy with the Taylor kits' accuracy as well. For me its ease of use is great.
This is not strictly true, as Abycat said. You can per LaMotte's tips do the following, which would give you a range to 50, well within the slam ranges published:
This is not strictly true, as Abycat said. You can per LaMotte's tips do the following, which would give you a range to 50, well within the slam ranges published:
Possibly, but diluting for SLAMs is not a normal activity and more than accurate enough for that purpose.
I had a color Q before I purchased a TF-100. I've have since gotten rid of the color Q. I used them both for one full season and my experience was that if you keep your tubes clean and perform careful testing it's consistent and accurate on most of the tests. The CL, PH and CYA tests always compared very, very close to the TF-100 kit, however the TA and CH read consistently high. Also, as many have stated, the color Q is only good up to 10 ppm for CL. For those reasons I decided to keep the TF-100...it's the one I trusted most. There was no reason for me to keep both when one did everything I needed.
my ch isn't the most accurate but the others are alot better. The most important things are to keep tubes clean and dry when testing. I ordered another 10 tubes so I can retire the older faded ones. I'll report back about accuracy and the new tubes.
- Sep 23, 2015
- 1,560
- Pool Size
- 20000
- Surface
- Plaster
- Chlorine
- Salt Water Generator
- SWG Type
- Astral Viron V25
I used the ColourQ for a couple of years before switching to a K2006. I can't compare accuracy between the two as my ColourQ was redundant before I started with TFP and the K2006. I have no regrets though, it was quick and easy to use, and at the time I had no reason to doubt it's accuracy. I always had more confidence it the ColourQ's results over store test results. I managed my pool for a couple of years without any drama or major incident directly related to testing.
The agents for LaMotte hear in Aussie where very helpful. When it was time for new reagents and cuvettes they offered to test its accuracy with their standards before re-stocking it and shipping it back. The cost of the new reagents, cuvettes and shipping was about the same as the K2006 which I opted for.
Lamotte produce a product called the Water Spin Lab which is common in a lot of my LPS and is kind of the big brother to the ColourQ. I don't know if there are any direct comparisons other than they are both similar tech from the same company but when I was between test kits and relying on store tests I was getting very different results from stores using the Spin Lab when compared to stores using Taylor tests and eventually my own testing.
The colourQ dosen't have a user calibration function. It runs a sample calibration every time it's used but that is to establish a sample base line prior to adding the reagents and not a true calibration using standard solutions. The Spin Lab uses an online calibration method which I think would add a huge margin of error.
The agents for LaMotte hear in Aussie where very helpful. When it was time for new reagents and cuvettes they offered to test its accuracy with their standards before re-stocking it and shipping it back. The cost of the new reagents, cuvettes and shipping was about the same as the K2006 which I opted for.
Lamotte produce a product called the Water Spin Lab which is common in a lot of my LPS and is kind of the big brother to the ColourQ. I don't know if there are any direct comparisons other than they are both similar tech from the same company but when I was between test kits and relying on store tests I was getting very different results from stores using the Spin Lab when compared to stores using Taylor tests and eventually my own testing.
The colourQ dosen't have a user calibration function. It runs a sample calibration every time it's used but that is to establish a sample base line prior to adding the reagents and not a true calibration using standard solutions. The Spin Lab uses an online calibration method which I think would add a huge margin of error.
Similar threads
