- Joined
- Apr 22, 2016
- Messages
- 3,018
- Reaction score
- 2,207
First of all, I consider the biggest selling point and innovation of Triton to be their ICP testing and maybe I'm wrong in that. From here on in, consider my argument made against the 'full' Triton method.
I appreciate the reply as you do raise a valid point. I do fully realize that my comparison is 'cheap' and largely incomplete from a cost analysis perspective but I only did so for simplicity sake. Rest assured, I keep a spreadsheet in which a evaluate and compare each and every product I use on an annual cost basis. That being said, I would still expect it to be true that the full Triton method is more valid of an option for larger volumes and less valid for small systems. The point I'm trying to hit home is that there's a suitable application for the full Triton method as there is a suitable application for water changes and I feel this is largely misrepresented. I don't think anyone can dispute that water changes are less valid for a 500 gallon system than a calcium reactor and skimmer, likewise, a calcium reactor and skimmer is less valid than water changes for a 5 gallon. At some point there is a grey area for each alternative where specific system requirements and ultimately preferences win rather than cost.
Have to say very good points right here.