The ColorQ is known to have significant problems reading very high CH levels correctly.
LaMotte ColorQ Water Tester
- Thread starter donaldm823
- Start date
No, it should be acceptable, though not as precise as one might hope for, around 340. Problems become more common at 500+.
I was thinking of Richard320 and his old 1000+ levels when I wrote that.
I was thinking of Richard320 and his old 1000+ levels when I wrote that.
In your other post, you indicated that CYA tests are tough. The ColorQ seems to be tracking with the black dot tube with my measurements each time I take a measurement so far. I was kind of suprised that the FC measurement was so far off. Not suprised by the CH from all the old posts throughout mentioning that.
The ColorQ can often get perfectly good numbers, but it has some quirks that aren't obvious that can occasionally/often cause incorrect results. Even under ideal conditions it has less precision than the Taylor based drop tests on several of the tests. On the CYA test, the ColorQ is sensitive to the water temperature and the exact time allowed for the tablet to mix into the sample. Most people don't expect that and so it is relatively easy to make mistakes. On the other hand it is possible to get it right and have good results. The problem is that you don't usually know when there is a problem, so you trust the results even when they are wrong.
On the CH test, the range isn't quite what you would wish for and there isn't any indication when you go out of range. So if your CH level is actually very high you will get a false low reading and have no way of knowing that it is wrong. Worse, very high CH levels have also been known to cause the ColorQ to give invalid results on other tests, another problem people don't expect and can't usually figure out is happening.
Many of these issues were significantly worse with the 1.x version of the ColorQ. The 2.x version is better, but still has significant quirks. If you are aware of the quirks you can work around them, but if you aren't aware, you will occasionally get significant errors and won't always have any indication that there is a problem.
The Taylor tests are much more dependable across a wider range of circumstances. When something goes wrong with the Taylor chemistry there is much more likely to be some obvious symptom that nearly everyone will notice. About the only thing the Taylor tests can be really misleading on is the PH test with very high FC levels. The ColorQ fails in a wider range of situations. That doesn't by any means mean that it is wrong all of the time. It is often perfectly fine.
On the CYA test in particular, an inexperienced user with get slightly more precision out of the ColorQ compared to the black dot test most of the time, but will occasionally be way off (when they run into a quirk they don't understand). The same inexperienced user is much less likely to be way off with the black dot test, even though they often misread things and so are less precise most of the time. It is that occasionally way off problem that gets you. The lower precision due to inexperience is much less significant.
For an experienced user, the ColorQ quirks can usually be anticipated and avoided. But even then you are at best just as good as the black dot test, and will occasionally run into situations where you know the ColorQ is not able to get a reliable reading and you will be forced to use some other test anyway.
On the CH test, the range isn't quite what you would wish for and there isn't any indication when you go out of range. So if your CH level is actually very high you will get a false low reading and have no way of knowing that it is wrong. Worse, very high CH levels have also been known to cause the ColorQ to give invalid results on other tests, another problem people don't expect and can't usually figure out is happening.
Many of these issues were significantly worse with the 1.x version of the ColorQ. The 2.x version is better, but still has significant quirks. If you are aware of the quirks you can work around them, but if you aren't aware, you will occasionally get significant errors and won't always have any indication that there is a problem.
The Taylor tests are much more dependable across a wider range of circumstances. When something goes wrong with the Taylor chemistry there is much more likely to be some obvious symptom that nearly everyone will notice. About the only thing the Taylor tests can be really misleading on is the PH test with very high FC levels. The ColorQ fails in a wider range of situations. That doesn't by any means mean that it is wrong all of the time. It is often perfectly fine.
On the CYA test in particular, an inexperienced user with get slightly more precision out of the ColorQ compared to the black dot test most of the time, but will occasionally be way off (when they run into a quirk they don't understand). The same inexperienced user is much less likely to be way off with the black dot test, even though they often misread things and so are less precise most of the time. It is that occasionally way off problem that gets you. The lower precision due to inexperience is much less significant.
For an experienced user, the ColorQ quirks can usually be anticipated and avoided. But even then you are at best just as good as the black dot test, and will occasionally run into situations where you know the ColorQ is not able to get a reliable reading and you will be forced to use some other test anyway.
I got one last summer and so far so good. At first every month or so I'd have the pool store analyze my water, just for comparison. They were all pretty much in the parameters you mentioned. What's even better is using the pool software, knowing how much of what you need and in so doing saving some of your hard earned cash. I didn't realize how much I was giving to the pool man until I started substituting household chemicals.
Happy Swimming, WR
Happy Swimming, WR