Reading water tests

[Jon Pike]

Should water tests be read with a light shining through it, and held up
against the white part of the card, or in shadow, held up against the white
part of the card?

--
http://www.neopets.com/refer.phtml?username=moosespet

[NetMax]

"Jon Pike" > wrote in message
. 159...
> Should water tests be read with a light shining through it, and held up
> against the white part of the card, or in shadow, held up against the
> white
> part of the card?
>
> --
> http://www.neopets.com/refer.phtml?username=moosespet

My understanding is that it should be held against the card and viewed
horizontally through the tube, while standing in an area of strong
indirect natural sunlight. If the hue is difficult to match, then look
directly down the test tube, however the intensity of the color will
increase (darken), so ignore that aspect. hth
--
www.NetMax.tk

[James]

"Jon Pike" > wrote in message
. 159...
> Should water tests be read with a light shining through it, and held up
> against the white part of the card, or in shadow, held up against the
> white
> part of the card?
>
> --
> http://www.neopets.com/refer.phtml?username=moosespet

I don't think it matters much really as long as the same amount goes
through the tester as hits the color gradients. For me, i have always tested
without adding light that would cast any heavy shadows as well as testing
before any changes to the water. :-)

-James

[Margolis]

"Jon Pike" > wrote in message
. 159...
> Should water tests be read with a light shining through it, and held up
> against the white part of the card, or in shadow, held up against the
white
> part of the card?
>


most of them say to place the sample against the white background of the
card in good lighting. Did you even bother to rtfm?

--

Margolis
http://web.archive.org/web/20030215212142/http://www.agqx.org/faqs/AGQ2FAQ.htm
http://www.unrealtower.org/faq

[Jon Pike]

"James" > wrote in
:

> "Jon Pike" > wrote in message
> . 159...
>> Should water tests be read with a light shining through it, and held
>> up against the white part of the card, or in shadow, held up against
>> the white
>> part of the card?
>>
>> --
>> http://www.neopets.com/refer.phtml?username=moosespet
>
> I don't think it matters much really as long as the same amount goes
> through the tester as hits the color gradients. For me, i have always
> tested without adding light that would cast any heavy shadows as well
> as testing before any changes to the water. :-)

It makes a big difference. If I shine light through it, it reads 0. If I
don't, it reads 2.

--
http://www.neopets.com/refer.phtml?username=moosespet

[Jon Pike]

"Margolis" > wrote in news:7qXud.1525$xM5.666
@fe06.lga:

> "Jon Pike" > wrote in message
> . 159...
>> Should water tests be read with a light shining through it, and held up
>> against the white part of the card, or in shadow, held up against the
> white
>> part of the card?
>>
>
>
> most of them say to place the sample against the white background of the
> card in good lighting. Did you even bother to rtfm?

Wow, aren't you the pleasent type.
"good lighting" doesn't say whether there's light shining through it or
not.

--
http://www.neopets.com/refer.phtml?username=moosespet

[Billy]

"Jon Pike" > wrote in message
. 159...
?
|
| Wow, aren't you the pleasent type.
| "good lighting" doesn't say whether there's light shining through
it or
| not.


He just gets grumpy sometimes, he'll be fine. <g>
What that means, is just look at the card in a well-lit room,
without any shadows cast on the card. Don't shine light through it.

[Jon Pike]

"James" > wrote in
:

> "Jon Pike" > wrote in message
> . 159...
>> Should water tests be read with a light shining through it, and held
>> up against the white part of the card, or in shadow, held up against
>> the white
>> part of the card?
>>
>> --
>> http://www.neopets.com/refer.phtml?username=moosespet
>
> I don't think it matters much really as long as the same amount goes
> through the tester as hits the color gradients. For me, i have always
> tested without adding light that would cast any heavy shadows as well
> as testing before any changes to the water. :-)

You should give it a try. For me it's the difference between reading a 0
and reading a 2 on my ammonia tester.

--
http://www.neopets.com/refer.phtml?username=moosespet

[[email protected]]

take the cap off and look down thru the water at white paper. Ingrid

Jon Pike > wrote:

>Should water tests be read with a light shining through it, and held up
>against the white part of the card, or in shadow, held up against the white
>part of the card?



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
List Manager: Puregold Goldfish List
http://puregold.aquaria.net/
www.drsolo.com
Solve the problem, dont waste energy finding who's to blame
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Unfortunately, I receive no money, gifts, discounts or other
compensation for all the damn work I do, nor for any of the
endorsements or recommendations I make.

[James]

OK, here's what I did to kinda see where you were coming from. I added light
as you said and that washes out my sample in the tube. MY method (ymmv) is
to hold the tube 1/2'' away and yet parallel to the card, this gives
accurate reading for me every time.

That's all I got :-) Good Luck

-James


"Jon Pike" > wrote in message
. 159...
> "James" > wrote in
> :
>
>> "Jon Pike" > wrote in message
>> . 159...
>>> Should water tests be read with a light shining through it, and held
>>> up against the white part of the card, or in shadow, held up against
>>> the white
>>> part of the card?
>>>
>>> --
>>> http://www.neopets.com/refer.phtml?username=moosespet
>>
>> I don't think it matters much really as long as the same amount goes
>> through the tester as hits the color gradients. For me, i have always
>> tested without adding light that would cast any heavy shadows as well
>> as testing before any changes to the water. :-)
>
> You should give it a try. For me it's the difference between reading a 0
> and reading a 2 on my ammonia tester.
>
> --
> http://www.neopets.com/refer.phtml?username=moosespet

[Jon Pike]

"James" > wrote in
:

> OK, here's what I did to kinda see where you were coming from. I added
> light as you said and that washes out my sample in the tube. MY method
> (ymmv) is to hold the tube 1/2'' away and yet parallel to the card,
> this gives accurate reading for me every time.
>
> That's all I got :-) Good Luck

I'll give it a shot, thanks :)

--
http://www.neopets.com/refer.phtml?username=moosespet

[JayB]

"Jon Pike" > wrote in message
. 159...
> Should water tests be read with a light shining through it, and held up
> against the white part of the card, or in shadow, held up against the
> white
> part of the card?

What do the instructions in your test kit specify?

--
JayB

[[email protected]]

Jon Pike wrote:
> Should water tests be read with a light shining through it, and held
up
> against the white part of the card, or in shadow, held up against the
white
> part of the card?
>
> --
> http://www.neopets.com/refer.phtml?username=moosespet

I was taught in school to use a white background with a lot of light to
pick up the color of the solution for liquid tests.
Larry

[[email protected]]

Jon Pike wrote:
> Should water tests be read with a light shining through it, and held
up
> against the white part of the card, or in shadow, held up against the
white
> part of the card?
>
> --
> http://www.neopets.com/refer.phtml?username=moosespet