Discrepancy between TFTestkit Salt results and Circupool SWG reported levels

[lightmaster]

Just got a TF-100 Pro (really love the blue case that comes with it) to replace the TF-100 kit I gave to a friend. I've noticed that the results from the Salt test are consistent, but consistently lower than the values my Circupool RJ-45 reports. It says the average salinity is 2700. My TF-100 Pro kit says the salinity is 3400. Is the Circupool reporting that far off or could I have gotten some bad reagents in my test kit?

 

[Newdude]

Yup. Cells are notoriously off and because they take an electrical reading instead of a salinity reading, temperature affects their reading. It may not even be consistently off. Low this time and high the next.

But as long as it's producing, you can't argue with it so let it fly. By trying to make it happier, which it won't be, you risk ovwrshooting target into the 4ks or more.

 

[JoyfulNoise]

Your reagents aren’t bad. The test is far more accurate than the electrical conductivity measurement of the cell which simply infers salinity from EC.

Check the cell. It may have calcium scaling.

 

[Texas Splash]

Mine often does the same. Fluctuates at times. As long as my SWG module is happy I generally leave it alone. But if my K-1766 shows a really low number I might add a little salt to be safe.

 

[lightmaster]

That's what I was figuring, just didn't remember it being that far off a couple years ago when I used it last. Probably time for a good deep cleaning of the cell then.

 

[JackHarkness]

Same deal here with my RJ-45. So glad you posted this. Mine flickers HI SALT. Despite the actualy Taylor 1766 test kit reporting its within range. As long as it's generating, I'd ignore it knowing yours does this too.