Digital Pool Testors

[jhawk19]

Hello All,

I've been using a K-2006 by Taylor to test my water. I've seen apps and digital readers and I'm interested in a digital reader.

Anyone out there using some sort of digital reader to measure their chemicals?

I was looking at these:

eXact Micro 10 Photometer
TruTest AquaChek
6 in 1 Tester with ORP Electrode (http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00OXO992Y...=UTF8&colid=E8SN4JYOFPOR&coliid=IY5R876QHD0LN)

Any thoughts? Pros v Cons?

 

[woodyp]

http://www.troublefreepool.com/threads/20677-Digital-Testers

There's you one link on the forum and there are several others. Search is your friend!

 

[jhawk19]

Thanks WoodyP. I did read that thread, but it's 5 years old. I read about 5 other threads as well, using the suggested "search" function. Most of those results were 2-5 years old.

I figured with technology the way it is, things may have changed a bit.

Most threads only recommend one tester (ColorQ) and it's usually the same person. The only other one mentioned is the AquaChek, which they said wasn't accurate. That's cool, I like the ColorQ based on the research, but was hoping for more of a discussion or maybe some suggestions over the past 5 years.

 

[tim5055]

Is there a reason you want digital?

We have several members who are employed in areas that require the use of constant digital monitoring of liquids. If my memory serves me correctly (getting old you know) the primary reason digital has not made a significant jump to recreational applications is the calibration required to keep things running smoothly. There is no calibration in drop based testing.

The Color Q has received so so reviews here:

New T-F100 User vs ColorQ results

ColorQ vs. TF-100 (accuracy?)

Test kit subjectivity

I would suggest you take the money allocated for the digital tester and replace the Nature2 Fusion Soft with a SWCG & a TF-100 test kit. Once you get the chlorine dialed in you can back off testing to every few days for FC & pH, the other tests less often.

 

[jblizzle]

I am not sure I have ever seen a digital tester recommended by this forum ... not sure who was recommending the ColorQ.

The drop based tests are more reliable and have plenty of precision.

 

[ping]

He has the right test kit, Taylor K-2006, so that is covered.

As stated above, the problem with digital testers is that they need to be calibrated often.

The Taylor test kit is very reliable and consistent. You could add a SpeedStir to make it easier and faster to test.

 

[jhawk19]

Is there a reason you want digital?

The primary reasons are due to the time and effort involved in testing using the drops and how often it has to be done. Secondly I'd like to have my wife and kids start helping out and trying to explain a manual process to them is like pulling teeth from a bear. They were born and live and thrive in the technological age and look at me like I'm a chemist when I go test the water using the K-2006.

I just figured using a digital tester would get them more involved and save me some time in the process.

 

[woodyp]

Look at it as an opportunity to do some "old school" style bonding!

 

[Patrick_B]

I agree with Woody. It will be good for them. I've had the opposite reaction from kids here, they want to do it.

In any case, you want accurate results, and affordable digitals and accuracy are hard to combine.

 

[tim5055]

The primary reasons are due to the time and effort involved in testing using the drops and how often it has to be done. Secondly I'd like to have my wife and kids start helping out and trying to explain a manual process to them is like pulling teeth from a bear. They were born and live and thrive in the technological age and look at me like I'm a chemist when I go test the water using the K-2006.

I just figured using a digital tester would get them more involved and save me some time in the process.

I understand, it's just the price I'm willing to pay to know that it works. Digital devices, machines if you will can fail. Maybe no, but maybe yes. Who knows - and that is the problem I have with them. With Taylor reagents I know my water turns red - count the drops and it turns clear. Easy Peazy. I generally test FC & pH every second or third day. FC, pH, CH, TA on the weekends. CYA every few months.

I have a Stenner Pump that adds chlorine at a set rate to my pool every day. During the first few weeks of the season I dial it in so that it slowly adds a little too much chlorine. Once set I just turn it off for a day or two for the FC to drop back down, then turn it back on. We travel a lot and are gone anywhere from 4 to 14 days. I know during that time the pH will rise some, but there will be more than enough chlorine to keep the pool clear and safe.

Nothing could be easier.

 

[jhawk19]

I think I am going to go with a Lamotte ColorQ Pro 7. Amazon has them for $138. Still uses drops, but everything is digital and automated. Out of 123 reviews only 20 people rated it 3 stars or lower. That's 103 people that rated it 4 or 5 stars. Seems to working for most (84%) users.

 

[jblizzle]

Did you read the discussions on this forum? It has some major limitations.

 

[pooldv]

I think I am going to go with a Lamotte ColorQ Pro 7. Amazon has them for $138. Still uses drops, but everything is digital and automated. Out of 123 reviews only 20 people rated it 3 stars or lower. That's 103 people that rated it 4 or 5 stars. Seems to working for most (84%) users.

Maybe it works for them or maybe they don't know any better because they haven't found TFP yet. Maybe they are using this in place of test strips, which might be better but not good. Maybe their pools are green, have too much CYA, still are going to the pool store, etc.

 

[Patrick_B]

I think I am going to go with a Lamotte ColorQ Pro 7. Amazon has them for $138. Still uses drops, but everything is digital and automated. Out of 123 reviews only 20 people rated it 3 stars or lower. That's 103 people that rated it 4 or 5 stars. Seems to working for most (84%) users.

I would still caution you, as you do not know what those reviewers know. Or more importantly, what they Don't know. Please read on the forum regarding this before you take the leap.

 

[jhawk19]

I would still caution you, as you do not know what those reviewers know. Or more importantly, what they Don't know. Please read on the forum regarding this before you take the leap.

Still reading and not leaping. Thanks guys. I did a search on the Lamotte ColorQ here and saw that there were some large variances using the ColorQ.

Now...I'm still looking. I am looking at the eXact Micro 10, Scuba II, or a just the Taylor stirrer for my K-2006.

 

[tim5055]

And here I was going to congratulate you on your purchase and ask you to continue comparing the ColorQ to the K2006 as the swim season progresses.

If you ar going to get the Speed Stir also spring for the "Sample Sizer". It measures the exact amount of water fast and easy.

 

[Patrick_B]

I encourage the speestir, and if you really want to make it easy on the others doing the testing, get a sample sizer as well. It's very nice, and very, very fast getting the perfect sample size.

 

[JayBauman]

As a pool owner, I would like to think that there are ways to bring inexpensive automated chemical analysis to backyard pool owners.

However, as a scientist who has worked in (and managed) industrial analytical chemical laboratories, I realize that this dream is far from being realized. Just because a device does some analysis and displays a number doesn't mean that the measurement is reliable. Any sort of digital analytical measurement devices require frequent preventative maintenance and even more frequent calibration with highly-controlled known standards. The amounts of time, effort, energy, and cost required to keep digital equipment giving accurate results are far more onerous than just manually analyzing pool water with a solid test kit (e.g. TF-100). Over the course of a year (or a pool season, if you're not lucky enough to be living somewhere where pools never close), you will spend less effort and money with manual tests than any reliable digital test...regardless of what any product or marketing website might otherwise imply.

With titration-based analytical techniques included in TF-100, there are no calibration requirements and you get relatively definitive values instantly. Now if only there were a titration-based technique to determine the pH of my pool water I would be even happier....I can never decide if it's closer to 7.5 or 7.8.....