Can someone explain to me how the text kits, where you have to match the water color to the a picture are very accurate or good? Does it get down to the exact numbers or is it more general in nature. I have a digital test kit and while I like the readout being a number, it really not great very inconsistent reading from one sample to the next. FYI - I have the Lamotte colorQ 7 pro. Reading fluctuate massively, kind of annoying. So - wondering if the kits suggested on here are really better. I am also doing things a lot in low light b/c I get to the pool at night.
Pool tet kits
- Thread starter meestahmarc
- Start date
The drop tests are a titration test when you get a full color change say red to blue you have a definite end point adding another drop does not change the color. You know how many drops it took to completely react. Titration tests are usually the gold standard. The color q 7 Looks at color “density”. How red or how blue is it and extrapolates the result. So for example you have a TA if 40 the drops 4 drops gets a complete color change. With the color q 7 you prep sample and it reads the color change based on color density not an endpoint color change. So the accuracy and precision rely on accurate calibration to known standards. All electronic devices will drift. So in the lab setting instruments are calibrated routinely and checked against a known standard before use. Titration or drop tests do not require this since they are endpoint reactions. An interesting test would be to get known standards and run them on the Q 7 and see how accurate it is.
Most of the tests done with the TF-100/k-2006 are not color comparison. You add drops until the color makes a very clear transition, such as from green to red, red to blue, or pink to clear. They are quite accurate and very easy to read. The only test that is color comparison is the pH test. The CYA test requires bright light to be read properly, however. Luckily it is one that only needs to be done occasionally, such as monthly.
Your experience with the colorQ is pretty standard unfortunately. It isn't very reliable nor very accurate based on many comparisons over the years. The dishonesty of showing chlorine readings to 0.01 despite it having no way to accurately measure to that precision is enough for me to vehemently dissuade anybody from using it.
Believe me, we would very much like a simple and reliable digital tester, but so far nothing on the consumer market have lived up to that goal. Taylor based liquid testing is still the gold standard and looks to continue to be so for the foreseeable future.
Your experience with the colorQ is pretty standard unfortunately. It isn't very reliable nor very accurate based on many comparisons over the years. The dishonesty of showing chlorine readings to 0.01 despite it having no way to accurately measure to that precision is enough for me to vehemently dissuade anybody from using it.
Believe me, we would very much like a simple and reliable digital tester, but so far nothing on the consumer market have lived up to that goal. Taylor based liquid testing is still the gold standard and looks to continue to be so for the foreseeable future.
- Jun 22, 2014
- 52,149
- Pool Size
- 17888
- Surface
- Fiberglass
- Chlorine
- Salt Water Generator
- SWG Type
- CircuPool RJ-45 Plus
If you do purchase the Taylor K-2006, make sure to get the "C" model (K-2006C). It has the larger reagent bottles which are a better value and more comparable to the TF-100 package (link below) so that you get more for your money. You might also consider the magnetic speedstir if you can. Makes some of the test mixing easier. 