U
User1
Guest
View BadgesWell, hopefully I'm close then. I'm pretty sure I was within the first 5 or 10 minutes in the thread they posted here. I'll have to keep an eye on emails now as well.
Thanks for the info.
Thanks for the info.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Well, hopefully I'm close then. I'm pretty sure I was within the first 5 or 10 minutes in the thread they posted here. I'll have to keep an eye on emails now as well.
Thanks for the info.
HAHA - maybe they will give you mine. I decided to go with the mindstream
A lot of people seem to be saying this but it is just noise. To put it into perspective how many test kits and regents would you have to buy in order to test 4 times/day? Please note that it isn't also just regents you are paying for, you have to pay your time as well. How much is your time worth? I don't know, say $30/hr? You just blew past that $275 year number easy - both are hypothetical numbers of course but just wanted to set the record straight. There isn't enough time for you, or I, to run that number of tests.
not sure what you meanBeyond this, it’s very possible that the machine needs to run tests at a minimum frequency to keep the lines clear and/or the reagents will start to degrade after they are opened, meaning there is a certain replacement interval that needs to be followed, and testing less frequently would just end up wasting reagent.
I don’t know for sure, but these are certainly possible.
I assume you don't understand my second point...not sure what you mean
Is anyone running trident at the maximum 4’ distance it calls for? Wondering if this affects readings.
I heard that Neptune is putting together a more economical package for the reagents where you can purchase a sixmonth supply at a discounted price.
Yes - thanks - I think Neptune has said this from the start.I assume you don't understand my second point...
There is no benefit in reducing the test frequency below that which uses up the reagents before they expire. For example, you have a 100 ml bottle of reagent. Each test uses 1 ml and the reagent expires in 50 days. If you only do one test per day, you will only have used 50 ml of reagent by the time it expires and thus be wasting 50 ml so you might as well be doing 2 tests per day.
I know some people will argue that they use reagents past their expiration date all the time and don't have a problem. That may be true, but from Neptune's point of view, if people are using expired reagents and getting inaccurate results, the first thing most of them will do is blame Neptune for making a bad machine, not look at the expiration date on the bottle of reagent.
Again, I don't know if this is the case; I'm just guessing, but it's quite plausible.
I've found that the numbers are much more consistent if I let it test 6X a day rather than the minimum of 4.
I don't need that much testing or anything close to it, but this seems to be a design limitation of the test and device.
Not necessarily. What @rkpeterson is describing is increased precision (the amount of variability between measurements.) You're describing statistical averaging.from a statistical standpoint - this would be clear. the more tests - the closer it would be to the real value.
Not necessarily. What @rkpeterson is describing is increased precision (the amount of variability between measurements.) You're describing statistical averaging.
Yes, three sets of reagents/calibration for $99 as I recall. I don't personally find that a set of reagents lasts a full two months - more like 6 weeks - so for me its 18 weeks for $99. Still a significant reduction. So, for me, that'd be broadly $300 per year. Well worth it for the sweat equity savings.
I've found that the numbers are much more consistent if I let it test 6X a day rather than the minimum of 4.
I don't need that much testing or anything close to it, but this seems to be a design limitation of the test and device.
Thanks - regression to the mean was what I meant. It isn’t clear to me whether that’s what @rkpetersen meant or not. From his post, it sounded like he was talking about increased precision, but maybe not.I think I'm discussing regression to the mean as well but in any case - The more values one has - the more likely one can determine whether any given one is a 'fluke' . For example if you test 1 x / week - and you have 4 values that are 6, 6, 6, and 7.5 you can be much less sure that the 7.5 is a potential error than if you tested every hour - and had 100 values that were 6 - and the last one 7.5