Thanks for being honest Sam, so many CZcamsrs lie about product quality and performance because they are sponsored by the manufacturer or were giving the product for free to review so feel like they have to give it a good plug, pretty sure Ecotech built their whole reputation this way ,with their wavemaker wet sides crapping out in under 12mths and their cheap lenses and facia housings that crack and fall apart within weeks of purchase [ Gen 5 ] Devon from the channel Reef Dudes recently admitted he has been lieing about how good Ecotech is, especially about the Mobius app, I only trust you and Moki from Innappropriate Reefer as no BS reviewers.
I was gonna get the checker thinking they had fixed the high reading issue but looks like I'll stick with my cheap and reliable Salifert Magnesium test kit. Much faster than Hanna's (less than 2 mins to do). Thank you for the honest review about it!
Great video. I purchased it and found that instead of inverting or shaking 18 times, I lightly shook it until the powder dissolved about 30 seconds and found I had a much better reading which came in line with my Red Sea test kit. I did it the 18 times way and noticed my reading to be higher.
Thanks for the video Sam. Hard to accurately judge the results however if you don’t follow the instructions to the word however. I have no issues with Hanna Mg or Ca but am very careful with the procedures/cleanliness.
@@ParkersReef I did notice you didn’t clean the cuvette before the C2 reading. Also need to ensure there is no liquid reagent on the outside of the syringe which requires removal with a micro cloth. Lastly it’s advisable to have the checker on a flat surface before any C1,C2 readings. You will also need to pump the reagent syringe a few times to get all of the reagent out. My main point was that these tests are obviously very sensitive to any deviations from instructions. I’m not saying that all of this can account for the large discrepancies you saw but rather to judge accurately the instructions and techniques must be followed precisely as written. Or maybe I’ve just gotten lucky with the checkers, now marine master I have.
I like the ease of using Hanna Checkers, there is a range of accuracy here. They're not going to be 100% spot on, these are not lab-grade instruments, and they're $60.00. Aquaforest Magnesium Test Kits and other brands if you look have just as many negative things said about them. Maybe I'm just not that good at defining colors, so much of that goes into the readings. Look at the light available, the color of the background, the distance, and the angle you look at to determine the result. Even a predetermined range of color may be influenced by prior test numbers. Doing the same steps in the same order may improve the accuracy of any test, no matter the brand. I'm not saying Hanna didn't screw up on the first Magniseum checker or that it took a long time for them to admit it, so their credibility takes a hit there but....... I like the numbers shown by Hanna Checkers. Use the same method to test, even placing the cuvette in the tester with the etched 10ML showing in front. The curvature of the cuvette may be slightly off, wipe off the cuvette with any cloth. I even keep the cuvette in RO/DI water after rinsing and clean them with citric acid now and then to keep them clean. Also, open the packets with scissors and cut along the lines as shown. Doing that makes it much easier to open and pour the contents into the testing bottle and see if it's all out of the packet...
Really appreciate this review and corroborating comments from others. I’ll save my money till they get it right, which is a shame as I enjoy their alk, NO3 and PO4 checkers. Time to buy a refill of the red sea kit 🤣
Even if it worked perfectly it’s kinda slow . I do an aquaforest test in less than 2 mins . Also any Hanna that uses liquid is a no go for me . Your procedure seems spot on .
@@ParkersReef totally get that many don’t get bothered by the time bu for me to pay 70+ € for it it needs to be accurate and give me an advantage . I don’t like the kh / alk ones either because the reagent deteriorate at a rate that does not fit the price of a refill . It also doesn’t make it go any faster . I do like the hr nitrate and the phosphorous. Those help with a problem and due to using powders aren’t prone to the same problems as the liquids . I feel many of the checkers solve a problem that doesn’t exist by being pricey and quite slow in some cases . If it doesn’t solve a problem it would at least have to be super accurate to make it worth while (problem as in color charts and figuring the difference between 1% hue change hehe )
Hi Sam, im no expert but it seemed to me like you followed the instructions exactly apart from one thing. If you want to do a scientific level test, you should have opened the reagent powder packet exactly how hanna show. It has a cut line and you should have done that. I only say this because the way you did it, you can’t see inside the opened sachet to see if there were any small amounts of reagent left which could have skewed your result. Apart from that you did a good test but to rule out operator error I would follow all instructions accurately. Thanks for the great video.
@@ParkersReef I just re read my comment, sorry, I didn’t meant to sound like a dick. I love your vids, especially how laid back they are and unpretentious. I only have a 300 litre tank and you are way more experienced than me, I work in Quality Assurance and process and instructions really float my boat! Thanks again Sam.
Hi Sam the only thing I could spot was the part 2 reagent mixing. The picture card doesn’t make it clear but if you read the full instructions it says “shake 18 times for 30 seconds”. Which feels a little misleading because who takes 30 seconds to do 18 shakes. 🤷♂️ Either way I shake for 30 seconds and am getting good results. Also what helped me get even more consistent results is using an auto-pipetter. Mine is adjustable so I have one tip I use for tank water dialed into 5ml, then I switch to another tip and dial the pipetter to 4ml to grab the reagent. Still not on par with ease of use like the alk, phos, and hi nitrate, but I’m getting consistently close results with my process. 🤓
yeah I have the adjustable pipette too, just didn't use in this video as it doesn't come with the kit and shouldn't be needed for accurate results. I have had a number of suggestions, the one I am curious on the most is 5ml of tank water and 5ml of reagent that "sounds" like it should give a closer result, but I will test and see :)
Hi Sam, can you try shake the viral vigorously unti the powder dissolved rather than following the 18second as instructed, also need to wipe off your finger prints on the viral before it goes into the checker. I find these little detail gives better result
Well , considering the fact that it has two reagents and that it shows 300ppm higher and you have to wait another three minutes after adding and shaking, titration is more fun and cost effective imo.
The only thing that I could suggest is make sure you don't get your finger prints on the vial. The first part of the reading you wiped the vial. When you did the second part you had your finger prints all over the vial. It was calibrated with the first part then you made the second reading with a dirter vial. Really isn't calibrated to the first part with a dirty vial. Try it.
I just used it for the first time. You do need to make sure and get all of the tank water and reagent out of the syringe tips as a bit stays in and you should pull the plunger up, allow the liquid to settle and then push it out. Also I rec opening the packets the way they recommend as even with the chunky powder crystals get stuck in the crevice so opening it the correct way allows you to see that you've got all. People say the packets are dumb but they are them same with all lab equipment, it's not just a hamna thing. And having worked in a lab the way they instruct is the correct way. You may still get off results but these are the areas I noticed you can improve.
Took the words out of my mouth same ult, nitrate hr and alk are the good ones. Conductivity pens suck. For anyone wondering digital refractometer is the way to go and hanna does do a decent one.
I also received the 2nd gen MG and it measured 100ppm above my Triton I thought I was doing something wrong so I did a second test and again 100ppm above , I even calibrated my Triton twice (lol) thinking it was wrong. I said Hanna must have got it right the second round but that only confuses me, so I'm going to do an ICP which I have never done.
I have the same issue. I happen to driving distance from Hannah. I brought it in, had one of their technicians run a calibration check they said it was perfectly calibrated, give me new reagents just in case. Still reads massively high. Which would be fine if it was consistently 300 over but it's not. Even if it was. It's Max reading is 1800. So by that logic anything over 15 I wouldn't get a reading for. I'll be sticking with my Salifert.
@@ParkersReef Yeah being out $60 whatever but I had switched salts because I thought I got a bad bucket as it was reading 1750+ freshly mixed, then the eye watering price of a bucket of tropic Marin pro later and a trip to Hannah only to have them tell me its fine and give me other reagents....super frustrating. I love the alk, phosphate, nitrate hr, and even though others don't I think the calcium one is fine. But I've pretty much given up on mag from Hannah. Unless they come out with a truly accurate v3 which I will be testing in the shop, and immediately returning if it's the same hot garbage.
@@fishnewhere387 yeah that's fair. I find the phosphate is fine, the HR nitrate is fantastic, the alk is easy but the reagent varies waaaaay too much over time and the calcium is a waste of time. Also not a fan of their conductivity pens, but I do love the digital refractomers
Wow!!! You would think Hanna would actually test their test kits before releasing them for sale, fancy fu%$ ing up that badly twice in a row, Starting to think the Hanna factory is toilet cubical right next to Ecotech
I just followed your video when I tested my magnesium with the new checker and mine came out at 1320ppm which is the same as my last Salifert and ICP. I can’t see any differences between what you and I did 🤷🏻
Thanks Sam. Has the actual checker changed, or just the reagents? Do we need to buy a whole new checker, or just get new reagents. Also if Hanna are admitting there is a product fault, shouldn't they be doing a recall and replace under the TPA?
I believe the checker is the same (although they did update the firmware). But if you are returning your first generation one, they will give you a complete new unit. Has new reagents, new instructions and perhaps new firmware as far as I know
I will say this about the Hanna salinity pen tho, it is spot on, 12mths in have calibrated it 4 times but has never needed it, same before and after calibration, have heard multiple bad reviews on this product not sure why maybe a few duds out there.
I use Hanna products to weekly test my Salinity, Alkalinity, Calcium, (now Magnesium), Phosphorus ULR and Nitrate HR. I also have the NItrite checker but that was a mistake purchase. I find all of them to be easy to use and my results are very consistent week in week out, the quarterly Triton ICP are used to adjust my minor element dosing.
@@ParkersReef although any of these home test kits are never going to be exact, if the results are consistent then that's your set point, if the ICP results are then giving a more accurate number which is within the range you want, happy days. So in my simply view, keep checking, watch results and hopefully the next ICP will be close to the last ICP. I don't believe you will ever get your 'weekly tests' and ICP's the same regardless of which test kit you use, but the idea is consistency and use the regular ICP as your real tanks health status, if that makes sense. I am not in a position to have automated checking systems on my tank, part of the enjoyment in this hobby for me is weekly testing and recording, but study the tank and you can see if something is out of wack.
This is so frustrating mine works perfect round 2 it reads all of 30ppm different from my aquaforest kit and reference solution . Maybe due to me using aquaforest salts and part 1,2,3 means it’s more accurate 🤷♂️
Since buying the version 1, I have had no response from LFS on the update & also no update on the replacement of the regents and also Hanna checker as well.
I bought the same one and it reads between 300/350 higher Every single time Had a triton icp and Tested against 3 other testers.. Always 300 to 350 higher.. So definitely will not be using it It is a Shame...
@@ParkersReef Seems like it Absolutely Love how you reply to everybody I'm sure you're busy and you still find time to do this Keep up the good work Love your channel
Thanks for being honest Sam, so many CZcamsrs lie about product quality and performance because they are sponsored by the manufacturer or were giving the product for free to review so feel like they have to give it a good plug, pretty sure Ecotech built their whole reputation this way ,with their wavemaker wet sides crapping out in under 12mths and their cheap lenses and facia housings that crack and fall apart within weeks of purchase [ Gen 5 ] Devon from the channel Reef Dudes recently admitted he has been lieing about how good Ecotech is, especially about the Mobius app, I only trust you and Moki from Innappropriate Reefer as no BS reviewers.
My honesty is everything, I’d rather cop some flak for saying what I think than lying to you all :)
I was gonna get the checker thinking they had fixed the high reading issue but looks like I'll stick with my cheap and reliable Salifert Magnesium test kit. Much faster than Hanna's (less than 2 mins to do). Thank you for the honest review about it!
My pleasure mate
I been waiting to hear your thoughts on this one, and for now I will keep using the my trusted salifert. Thanks for the review mate!
Hopefully saves you some head scratching!
Gutted because I do love a Hanna checker but I’ll stick to Salifert for Mag & Calc. Thanks for the honest review. 👍🏻👍🏻
Pleasure is all mine 👍🏻
Great video. I purchased it and found that instead of inverting or shaking 18 times, I lightly shook it until the powder dissolved about 30 seconds and found I had a much better reading which came in line with my Red Sea test kit. I did it the 18 times way and noticed my reading to be higher.
Interesting, will give that a shot 👍🏻
My second gen mag checker works perfectly.
seems a few are, but also seems an alarmingly high number of them are not :/
Thanks for the video Sam. Hard to accurately judge the results however if you don’t follow the instructions to the word however. I have no issues with Hanna Mg or Ca but am very careful with the procedures/cleanliness.
Appreciate the feedback, which part did I not follow?
Afraid to say that I still find this reads high (and from what I hear, I am not alone :( )
@@ParkersReef I did notice you didn’t clean the cuvette before the C2 reading. Also need to ensure there is no liquid reagent on the outside of the syringe which requires removal with a micro cloth. Lastly it’s advisable to have the checker on a flat surface before any C1,C2 readings. You will also need to pump the reagent syringe a few times to get all of the reagent out. My main point was that these tests are obviously very sensitive to any deviations from instructions. I’m not saying that all of this can account for the large discrepancies you saw but rather to judge accurately the instructions and techniques must be followed precisely as written. Or maybe I’ve just gotten lucky with the checkers, now marine master I have.
@chappy6817 Valid feedback, thank you 👍🏻
I like the ease of using Hanna Checkers, there is a range of accuracy here. They're not going to be 100% spot on, these are not lab-grade instruments, and they're $60.00.
Aquaforest Magnesium Test Kits and other brands if you look have just as many negative things said about them. Maybe I'm just not that good at defining colors, so much of that goes into the readings. Look at the light available, the color of the background, the distance, and the angle you look at to determine the result. Even a predetermined range of color may be influenced by prior test numbers. Doing the same steps in the same order may improve the accuracy of any test, no matter the brand.
I'm not saying Hanna didn't screw up on the first Magniseum checker or that it took a long time for them to admit it, so their credibility takes a hit there but.......
I like the numbers shown by Hanna Checkers. Use the same method to test, even placing the cuvette in the tester with the etched 10ML showing in front. The curvature of the cuvette may be slightly off, wipe off the cuvette with any cloth. I even keep the cuvette in RO/DI water after rinsing and clean them with citric acid now and then to keep them clean. Also, open the packets with scissors and cut along the lines as shown. Doing that makes it much easier to open and pour the contents into the testing bottle and see if it's all out of the packet...
I’m glad you like them. I’m not that convinced with them, they’re fine for their price - but not the good standard a lot of people hold them to
My Trident mag was 1467 my new replaced by Hanna mag was 1505 so looks good to me within 2.5% of each other 👍🥳 given one may be high or low❤
Good stuff, seems some are right some are not 🤷🏻♂️
Having the same issues with the brand now one 1600+ ! Salifer mag. Test at 1350
Yep, sorry to say that it still reads high, just not as high as the first one :/
Really appreciate this review and corroborating comments from others. I’ll save my money till they get it right, which is a shame as I enjoy their alk, NO3 and PO4 checkers.
Time to buy a refill of the red sea kit 🤣
I’d have to agree on the choice for the time being mate, not the way I wanted it to pan out :(
Even if it worked perfectly it’s kinda slow . I do an aquaforest test in less than 2 mins . Also any Hanna that uses liquid is a no go for me . Your procedure seems spot on .
the time doesn't bother me as if I am doing a manual test I am usually doing a few. But, there is no point if you cannot trust the result :/
@@ParkersReef totally get that many don’t get bothered by the time bu for me to pay 70+ € for it it needs to be accurate and give me an advantage . I don’t like the kh / alk ones either because the reagent deteriorate at a rate that does not fit the price of a refill . It also doesn’t make it go any faster . I do like the hr nitrate and the phosphorous. Those help with a problem and due to using powders aren’t prone to the same problems as the liquids . I feel many of the checkers solve a problem that doesn’t exist by being pricey and quite slow in some cases . If it doesn’t solve a problem it would at least have to be super accurate to make it worth while (problem as in color charts and figuring the difference between 1% hue change hehe )
@@Puciferthegreat yeah I hear ya!
Testet my ATI Reference water and got 1270. The reference water is 1313. Not that far off!
glad to hear!
Hi Sam, im no expert but it seemed to me like you followed the instructions exactly apart from one thing. If you want to do a scientific level test, you should have opened the reagent powder packet exactly how hanna show. It has a cut line and you should have done that. I only say this because the way you did it, you can’t see inside the opened sachet to see if there were any small amounts of reagent left which could have skewed your result. Apart from that you did a good test but to rule out operator error I would follow all instructions accurately. Thanks for the great video.
Fair call Edward 👍🏻
@@ParkersReef I just re read my comment, sorry, I didn’t meant to sound like a dick. I love your vids, especially how laid back they are and unpretentious. I only have a 300 litre tank and you are way more experienced than me, I work in Quality Assurance and process and instructions really float my boat! Thanks again Sam.
If any reagent left in the packet was used then the reading would have been even higher.
@@smokeandkippers yeah I’d think so
Hi Sam the only thing I could spot was the part 2 reagent mixing. The picture card doesn’t make it clear but if you read the full instructions it says “shake 18 times for 30 seconds”. Which feels a little misleading because who takes 30 seconds to do 18 shakes. 🤷♂️
Either way I shake for 30 seconds and am getting good results. Also what helped me get even more consistent results is using an auto-pipetter. Mine is adjustable so I have one tip I use for tank water dialed into 5ml, then I switch to another tip and dial the pipetter to 4ml to grab the reagent.
Still not on par with ease of use like the alk, phos, and hi nitrate, but I’m getting consistently close results with my process. 🤓
yeah I have the adjustable pipette too, just didn't use in this video as it doesn't come with the kit and shouldn't be needed for accurate results. I have had a number of suggestions, the one I am curious on the most is 5ml of tank water and 5ml of reagent that "sounds" like it should give a closer result, but I will test and see :)
Hi Sam, can you try shake the viral vigorously unti the powder dissolved rather than following the 18second as instructed, also need to wipe off your finger prints on the viral before it goes into the checker. I find these little detail gives better result
Will give it a shot. That being said, I’ve seen enough people in the comments with exactly the same 300 high reading to suspect it ain’t me…
Well , considering the fact that it has two reagents and that it shows 300ppm higher and you have to wait another three minutes after adding and shaking, titration is more fun and cost effective imo.
Have to agree :/
The only thing that I could suggest is
make sure you don't get your finger prints on the vial. The first part of the reading you wiped the vial. When you did the second part you had your finger prints all over the vial. It was calibrated with the first part then you made the second reading with a dirter vial. Really isn't calibrated to the first part with a dirty vial. Try it.
Yeah thanks. I have tried it many times and conceded that Hanna have just missed the mark again
Salifert read 1440 and Hanna read 1460 on mine. Good enough for me.
Glad to hear 👍🏻
I just used it for the first time. You do need to make sure and get all of the tank water and reagent out of the syringe tips as a bit stays in and you should pull the plunger up, allow the liquid to settle and then push it out.
Also I rec opening the packets the way they recommend as even with the chunky powder crystals get stuck in the crevice so opening it the correct way allows you to see that you've got all. People say the packets are dumb but they are them same with all lab equipment, it's not just a hamna thing. And having worked in a lab the way they instruct is the correct way.
You may still get off results but these are the areas I noticed you can improve.
Thanks for the tips 👍🏻
Yep, I'll stick with my Hannah Alk, PO4 and HR Nitrate kits for now and keep buying AF CAL and MAG kits
Good move I’d say :/
Took the words out of my mouth same ult, nitrate hr and alk are the good ones.
Conductivity pens suck.
For anyone wondering digital refractometer is the way to go and hanna does do a decent one.
Spot on mate!!
Saved me $65 heading out to get more corals 🙂
Happy days!
I have Hanna Magnesium checker too & it always shows 300 ppm above the actual Magnesium level.
Yep, shocking effort by Hanna
I also received the 2nd gen MG and it measured 100ppm above my Triton I thought I was doing something wrong so I did a second test and again 100ppm above , I even calibrated my Triton twice (lol) thinking it was wrong. I said Hanna must have got it right the second round but that only confuses me, so I'm going to do an ICP which I have never done.
Seems results vary from checker to checker 🤷🏻♂️
dang I was hoping for this Hannah . I just ran out of aqua forest mag test.
Your experience may differ!!! I just seem to be lucky 😅
I have the same issue. I happen to driving distance from Hannah. I brought it in, had one of their technicians run a calibration check they said it was perfectly calibrated, give me new reagents just in case. Still reads massively high. Which would be fine if it was consistently 300 over but it's not. Even if it was. It's Max reading is 1800. So by that logic anything over 15 I wouldn't get a reading for. I'll be sticking with my Salifert.
Yep, Hanna refuse to admit this is a fail :(
@@ParkersReef Yeah being out $60 whatever but I had switched salts because I thought I got a bad bucket as it was reading 1750+ freshly mixed, then the eye watering price of a bucket of tropic Marin pro later and a trip to Hannah only to have them tell me its fine and give me other reagents....super frustrating. I love the alk, phosphate, nitrate hr, and even though others don't I think the calcium one is fine. But I've pretty much given up on mag from Hannah. Unless they come out with a truly accurate v3 which I will be testing in the shop, and immediately returning if it's the same hot garbage.
@@fishnewhere387 yeah that's fair. I find the phosphate is fine, the HR nitrate is fantastic, the alk is easy but the reagent varies waaaaay too much over time and the calcium is a waste of time. Also not a fan of their conductivity pens, but I do love the digital refractomers
@@ParkersReef interesting guess I didn't know about their digital refractometers. Thought that was just Milwaukees game. I'll have to check those out.
@@fishnewhere387 same machine :)
Wow!!! You would think Hanna would actually test their test kits before releasing them for sale, fancy fu%$ ing up that badly twice in a row, Starting to think the Hanna factory is toilet cubical right next to Ecotech
I have seen/heard of plenty being spot on, but now also seeing plenty exactly like mine. Sounds like it’s hit and miss :(
Oh no. Just waiting for my replacement unit to arrive. Been a long wait and possibly still not right. 😢
see how you go, my experience was not great :(
I just followed your video when I tested my magnesium with the new checker and mine came out at 1320ppm which is the same as my last Salifert and ICP. I can’t see any differences between what you and I did 🤷🏻
Glad to hear yours is working as you expected!
I'm hanging out to hear your thoughts. My version 2 reads 300ppm above my Salifert and 200ish above LFS Red Sea kit. Waiting on ICP to confirm levels.
you just may have predicted my thoughts to a tee..... I wonder how many others are finding this?
Ye I got my unit too looks high
@@arturreef8117 dang :/
Thanks Sam. Has the actual checker changed, or just the reagents? Do we need to buy a whole new checker, or just get new reagents. Also if Hanna are admitting there is a product fault, shouldn't they be doing a recall and replace under the TPA?
I believe the checker is the same (although they did update the firmware). But if you are returning your first generation one, they will give you a complete new unit. Has new reagents, new instructions and perhaps new firmware as far as I know
@@ParkersReef Thanks Sam. I have had no joy getting Hanna to respond to a request for a replacement.
I will say this about the Hanna salinity pen tho, it is spot on, 12mths in have calibrated it 4 times but has never needed it, same before and after calibration, have heard multiple bad reviews on this product not sure why maybe a few duds out there.
A bit like the other hanna range, good till it’s not good :)
In the last step if i hold the button down to start the timer it turns it off. Could i have gotten a bad one ?
there is a couple of different firmware's about, make sure you have the updated version
@@ParkersReef is there a way to update it so it has the countdown timer ?
@@uso4life86 no I dont believe there is, but the retailer you purchased it from should switch it out for the updated version from hanna
Same issue wish i had found the video first.
Yep, sad from a company like Hanna
Nice!
Cheers!
I use Hanna products to weekly test my Salinity, Alkalinity, Calcium, (now Magnesium), Phosphorus ULR and Nitrate HR. I also have the NItrite checker but that was a mistake purchase. I find all of them to be easy to use and my results are very consistent week in week out, the quarterly Triton ICP are used to adjust my minor element dosing.
Good to hear mate!
@@ParkersReef although any of these home test kits are never going to be exact, if the results are consistent then that's your set point, if the ICP results are then giving a more accurate number which is within the range you want, happy days. So in my simply view, keep checking, watch results and hopefully the next ICP will be close to the last ICP. I don't believe you will ever get your 'weekly tests' and ICP's the same regardless of which test kit you use, but the idea is consistency and use the regular ICP as your real tanks health status, if that makes sense. I am not in a position to have automated checking systems on my tank, part of the enjoyment in this hobby for me is weekly testing and recording, but study the tank and you can see if something is out of wack.
@@billclarke7893 yeah for sure. Just cheaper and easier to use a salifert test kit and get numbers that align rather than 300 high
This is so frustrating mine works perfect round 2 it reads all of 30ppm different from my aquaforest kit and reference solution . Maybe due to me using aquaforest salts and part 1,2,3 means it’s more accurate 🤷♂️
I have heard mixed results, some are spot on some are not. Sounds like you got a good one :)
@@ParkersReef my only worry will be when I get a new round of reagents 😢
@@matthewking6509 yeah perhaps??
Hmm, give this one a miss me thinks
Good move
Since buying the version 1, I have had no response from LFS on the update & also no update on the replacement of the regents and also Hanna checker as well.
Oh no, that’s no good :(
I bought the same one and it reads between 300/350 higher Every single time Had a triton icp and Tested against 3 other testers.. Always 300 to 350 higher.. So definitely will not be using it It is a Shame...
Sounds like a few are doing this….. :(
@@ParkersReef Seems like it Absolutely Love how you reply to everybody I'm sure you're busy and you still find time to do this Keep up the good work Love your channel
@@danielharrold1075 least I can do mate, thanks for watching!
I have 3 Hanna
Calcium, Nitrate, Alk
Calcium has never provided a result I trusted. I wont buy another Hanna
Calcium up for sale.
Yeah they are a bit hit and miss!!
@@ParkersReef Hanna just said I'm doing it wrong. Must be their go to response instead of accepting it's a crap tool.
Love your work Sam
Poor form :(
@@TheDesertraptor ah yes, hanna :)
Did they at least say what you are doing wrong?
@@ParkersReef Probably same as they tell every one. Only plug to fist dentent.
I watched all the online videos.
Pretty certain I'm doing it right.
Weird, can't comment on the live chat ☹
oh that is weird?!
Comments came back on half way, odd 🤔 anyway thanks for the review sam, i had hoped hanna had sorted the problem so I'll sticking with aqua forest 😊
@@mickdesousa617 glad to hear it’s sorted. Hopefully this checker will be sorted one day too 😅
So it's still junk sadly
At this stage, I believe so :/
Parker did you get that little screwdriver out of a Xmas cracker?🤣🤣🎄
Hahahah who knows where…. But it is handy!
Hi you should wipe the test vial clean before putting it in the tester.
I believe I did?
@@ParkersReef It did not look like you did
@@desmondlarmond9698 Fair enough!
5 ml solution.. 5 ml tank water, then add packet will get you your correct number!!! still think hanna dropped the ball on this one
Hmmm, this is worth a try!!
@@ParkersReef did you try this method?
100% agree with this experience