Go Back   Home > Atlanta Reef Club Forums > Reef Discussion
Register / Join the ARC Community Chat Gallery MemberMap Forums Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Visit all of our sponsors


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 01-26-2010, 12:23 AM   #41
mojo mojo is offline
Atlanta Reef Club Member
ARC Member
 
mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 4,152
City: Roswell
State: GA
Occupation: Politics
Other Interests: Snow Skiing, Scuba, Photography
Real Name: Chris Horne
Send a message via ICQ to mojo Send a message via AIM to mojo Send a message via MSN to mojo
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skriz View Post
The same is present in car audio. Cheap amps are rated at very high wattages. High-end amps are rated at very low wattages. The high-end amps, even with their low wattage ratings, will out perform the cheapies all day long.
There's a big difference between cheap amps and cheap UV's, though. UV deliver one thing- a specific range of UV radiation. The only variable between models is the dosage applied to the water as it moves through the sterilizer. With an amp, there's wattage, efficiency, signal-to-noise, ratings at different frequencies, etc, etc - far more variables.

That's the beauty of the uWs/cm2 measurement - it's a quantifiable way to measure the effectiveness of a sterilizer. It shouldn't matter if the unit is 6" diameter or 1" diameter - that single number in the end is the only result that matters. Some units will be more or less efficient.

I'm not saying Emperor is or isn't the best - just that it's no more or less effective than anything else when applied correctly.

Ok....? It's a higher end line that AquaUV makes. They're not the biggest or the most powerful. And just like any other model, it all comes down to the numbers.
__________________
I am no more and I have nothing left to give

Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2010, 12:41 AM   #42
MRK MRK is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 8
City: marietta
State: GA
Quote:
Originally Posted by mojo View Post
There's a big difference between cheap amps and cheap UV's, though. UV deliver one thing- a specific range of UV radiation. The only variable between models is the dosage applied to the water as it moves through the sterilizer. With an amp, there's wattage, efficiency, signal-to-noise, ratings at different frequencies, etc, etc - far more variables.



Ok....? It's a higher end line that AquaUV makes. They're not the biggest or the most powerful. And just like any other model, it all comes down to the numbers.
Sorry I was gonna ask a question but backed out and could not delete

Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2010, 2:47 AM   #43
blu_devl_06 blu_devl_06 is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Age: 41
Posts: 2,053
City: Powder Springs
State: Ga
Other Interests: Family
Real Name: Cliff Burnley
Wish I could afford one of these.....these things are expensive!!!!

Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2010, 5:19 PM   #44
ichthyoid ichthyoid is offline
ARC Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 2,404
City: Canton
State: GA
Occupation: Medical Sales
Other Interests: molecular biophysics
Quote:
Originally Posted by mojo View Post

Chris, I have a couple of concerns with the data presented on Aqua UV's sizing chart:

1) I did not see a reference to their recommended dosages,

2) I did find a reference to a recommended dosage for human drinking water, issued by the US Public Health Service of 16,000 microwatt*seconds/square centimeter, (also apparently adopted as a world standard).
http://enaqua.com/enweb/index.php?op...d=15&Itemid=11
(see bottom of page)

3) I find it interesting that our drinking water can be protected by a UV dosage 21 times lower than that required to keep a fish from getting sick.

3) The chart that you kindly provided (I assume copied and pasted) shows the UV required for many different organisms to be 99.999% effective for a single pass through the sterilizer (technically this should be 99.9995+/-%, or log 10^6, but I won't pick their statistics apart).

4) The above kill efficacy exceeds almost any medical/pharmacological treatment efficacy rate that I am aware of. If our medicines were required to meet this degree of efficacy, antibiotics would have never made it to market! (check with your boss/Mrs.-lol)

5) If I remember statistics correctly, the number posted by Aqua UV would indicate:
-a dosage of 1/4 that (84,000microW*s/cm^2), would yield a 95+% kill
-a dosage of 1/16 that (21,000microW*s/cm^2), would yield a 69+% kill
(this lower dose in good agreement with the US Public Health dose above)

Based on this, I believe that it is invalid to say that a lower powered unit is ineffective, but very valid to say that it will require multiple passes for the same degree of efficacy. Being that, in general, our tanks are closed systems, the application of lower powered UV is valid with certain caveats (ie-keep the bulbs changed regularly, and keep the flow through them reasonable).

Also-

6) This subject gave me reason to research a little deeper, and I found at least one reference to a theory that UV simply boosts the RedOx potential of water thus enhancing the fishes resistance and/or weakening the pathogens. This theory would seem to lend credence to the statements by IAMRIT and others, that good water quality is key. I can also attest that this is important from my early days in the hobby, when water quality was not always viewed to be as important as it is now, and we had fewer/less effective methods to address such. Disease was much more of an issue.
http://www.americanaquariumproducts....arium_Ich.html
(second paragraph from the bottom

I have used the same Aquanetics UV sterilizers for well over 20 years with good results. I feel confident that there are others that can attest to good efficacy, with otherwise 'underpowered' units. I have no doubt that the choice of higher intensity UV is a great solution, and gives much peace of mind. Higher powered units may be used at much higher flow rates, which is a definite plus as well. These units also provide a much greater 'margin of safety' with regard to the inevitable decrease in output over time.

I hope that what I have shown here has been of some benefit. I also hope that those possessing smaller/lower powered units do not abandon them, but realize their utility, albeit in a more limited context. If I have overlooked anything and/or made mistakes, I apologize in advance, as I am typing this 'on the fly' and without review. Thanks-

Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2010, 5:45 PM   #45
johnr2604 johnr2604 is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,973
City: Dallas
State: GA
Occupation: Forclosure and REO preservation
Other Interests: Backpacking, WW kayaking, baseball
Quote:
Originally Posted by ichthyoid View Post
Chris, I have a couple of concerns with the data presented on Aqua UV's sizing chart:

1) I did not see a reference to their recommended dosages,

2) I did find a reference to a recommended dosage for human drinking water, issued by the US Public Health Service of 16,000 microwatt*seconds/square centimeter, (also apparently adopted as a world standard).
http://enaqua.com/enweb/index.php?op...d=15&Itemid=11
(see bottom of page)

3) I find it interesting that our drinking water can be protected by a UV dosage 21 times lower than that required to keep a fish from getting sick.

3) The chart that you kindly provided (I assume copied and pasted) shows the UV required for many different organisms to be 99.999% effective for a single pass through the sterilizer (technically this should be 99.9995+/-%, or log 10^6, but I won't pick their statistics apart).

4) The above kill efficacy exceeds almost any medical/pharmacological treatment efficacy rate that I am aware of. If our medicines were required to meet this degree of efficacy, antibiotics would have never made it to market! (check with your boss/Mrs.-lol)

5) If I remember statistics correctly, the number posted by Aqua UV would indicate:
-a dosage of 1/4 that (84,000microW*s/cm^2), would yield a 95+% kill
-a dosage of 1/16 that (21,000microW*s/cm^2), would yield a 69+% kill
(this lower dose in good agreement with the US Public Health dose above)

Based on this, I believe that it is invalid to say that a lower powered unit is ineffective, but very valid to say that it will require multiple passes for the same degree of efficacy. Being that, in general, our tanks are closed systems, the application of lower powered UV is valid with certain caveats (ie-keep the bulbs changed regularly, and keep the flow through them reasonable).

Also-

6) This subject gave me reason to research a little deeper, and I found at least one reference to a theory that UV simply boosts the RedOx potential of water thus enhancing the fishes resistance and/or weakening the pathogens. This theory would seem to lend credence to the statements by IAMRIT and others, that good water quality is key. I can also attest that this is important from my early days in the hobby, when water quality was not always viewed to be as important as it is now, and we had fewer/less effective methods to address such. Disease was much more of an issue.
http://www.americanaquariumproducts....arium_Ich.html
(second paragraph from the bottom

I have used the same Aquanetics UV sterilizers for well over 20 years with good results. I feel confident that there are others that can attest to good efficacy, with otherwise 'underpowered' units. I have no doubt that the choice of higher intensity UV is a great solution, and gives much peace of mind. Higher powered units may be used at much higher flow rates, which is a definite plus as well. These units also provide a much greater 'margin of safety' with regard to the inevitable decrease in output over time.

I hope that what I have shown here has been of some benefit. I also hope that those possessing smaller/lower powered units do not abandon them, but realize their utility, albeit in a more limited context. If I have overlooked anything and/or made mistakes, I apologize in advance, as I am typing this 'on the fly' and without review. Thanks-
Thank you for your input. Being one of those people that runs what some might consider an undersized unit for my system. I simply have seen a benefit from running it and would never ditch it. While I don't know how effective it would be cleaning a full blown ich outbreak, I can say I believe it Is a help in preventing it. Plus there are other benefits such as not cleaning glass as often and even better water clarity which were the firsts things I noticed when I installed the unit last year.

Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2010, 5:48 PM   #46
mojo mojo is offline
Atlanta Reef Club Member
ARC Member
 
mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 4,152
City: Roswell
State: GA
Occupation: Politics
Other Interests: Snow Skiing, Scuba, Photography
Real Name: Chris Horne
Send a message via ICQ to mojo Send a message via AIM to mojo Send a message via MSN to mojo
Quote:
Originally Posted by ichthyoid View Post
Chris, I have a couple of concerns with the data presented on Aqua UV's sizing chart:

1) I did not see a reference to their recommended dosages,
I wouldn't put any weight into it, even if they did. The recommended dosages came from a 3rd party, not from someone trying to sell a product.

Quote:
2) I did find a reference to a recommended dosage for human drinking water, issued by the US Public Health Service of 16,000 microwatt*seconds/square centimeter, (also apparently adopted as a world standard).
http://enaqua.com/enweb/index.php?op...d=15&Itemid=11
(see bottom of page)

3) I find it interesting that our drinking water can be protected by a UV dosage 21 times lower than that required to keep a fish from getting sick.
Interesting, maybe, but I fail to see the importance. Humans are not marine animals. You're comparing apples and oranges. I'm guessing that if you looked up the toxicity levels of iodine and other elements, they'd be different for marine animals and humans, too; the two simply can't be compared.

For that matter, humans can probably be killed with enough UV radiation as well, but it'd be far, far higher than is required for Ich. But it doesn't mean we should use that number, either...

Quote:
<snip>

Based on this, I believe that it is invalid to say that a lower powered unit is ineffective, but very valid to say that it will require multiple passes for the same degree of efficacy. Being that, in general, our tanks are closed systems, the application of lower powered UV is valid with certain caveats (ie-keep the bulbs changed regularly, and keep the flow through them reasonable).
Can you show research that supports this extrapolation with Crypocaryon?

UV works by denaturing the proteins in the organism's DNA. This can only happen if the UV is powerful enough to actually reach the DNA within the cells. I can only presume that some organisms have more or less protection from this radiation, and thus it takes more or less UV to penetrate and be effective. How much so? I don't know- that's why I rely on the research already done.

Based on the fact that you need a certain power level to penetrate the cell membranes, you can't just extrapolate downward arbitrarily and say that a lower-powered unit is just as effective if multiple passes are used, at least not without research. Multiple passes imply that the damage is additive, and I haven't seen any research one way or another.


Quote:
6) This subject gave me reason to research a little deeper, and I found at least one reference to a theory that UV simply boosts the RedOx potential of water thus enhancing the fishes resistance and/or weakening the pathogens.
I'm not rejecting this particular claim, but I've run ozone for years, and it wasn't until I added a large UV sterilizer that I ended my Ich problems. Ozone directly increases the redox of a system, so presumably it'd have the same effect.

Quote:
I have no doubt that the choice of higher intensity UV is a great solution, and gives much peace of mind. Higher powered units may be used at much higher flow rates, which is a definite plus as well. These units also provide a much greater 'margin of safety' with regard to the inevitable decrease in output over time.
My post wasn't necessarily to find the most efficient unit that would be effective for a tank, but rather to inform others that a minimum size is required - a 9w sterilizer won't work on my 800g system. If it's oversized, then so be it, but at least we know it's effectiveness. Anything less is simply unknown without more research.

Quote:
I hope that what I have shown here has been of some benefit. I also hope that those possessing smaller/lower powered units do not abandon them, but realize their utility, albeit in a more limited context.
I disagree. The only thing worse than having some equipment that you know is underpowered is having equipment that you think is sufficient.

Don't get me wrong - I'm glad that someone is challenging my post, but I simply don't see where you can extrapolate downward and feel comfortable without hard evidence to support it.


With your permission, I'd like to move this tangential discussion to the end of the UV post, to keep this thread on track...
__________________
I am no more and I have nothing left to give

Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2010, 7:26 PM   #47
ichthyoid ichthyoid is offline
ARC Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 2,404
City: Canton
State: GA
Occupation: Medical Sales
Other Interests: molecular biophysics
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by mojo View Post
I wouldn't put any weight into it, even if they did. The recommended dosages came from a 3rd party, not from someone trying to sell a product.
Agreed, my point was to illuminate lack of objectivity.


Quote:
Interesting, maybe, but I fail to see the importance. Humans are not marine animals. You're comparing apples and oranges. I'm guessing that if you looked up the toxicity levels of iodine and other elements, they'd be different for marine animals and humans, too; the two simply can't be compared.
My point is not to compare apples to oranges, but to illustrate that our Federal Government feels much lower levels are adequate to protect humans. I do not believe that US Public Health would stand for significant levels of 'critters' in our drinking water. Perhaps there are 'other' mitigating factors at work (multiple stages of water treatment, presence of chlorine, etc,)


Quote:
For that matter, humans can probably be killed with enough UV radiation as well, but it'd be far, far higher than is required for Ich. But it doesn't mean we should use that number, either...


Quote:
Can you show research that supports this extrapolation with Crypocaryon?
I did. They cited statistical kill ratio's and I extrapolated back from that number based on standard deviation (6 sigma, vs 4 sigma, vs 2 sigma). If their math is correct, then I feel comfortable with mine; but would like to see their base data first.


Quote:
UV works by denaturing the proteins in the organism's DNA. This can only happen if the UV is powerful enough to actually reach the DNA within the cells. I can only presume that some organisms have more or less protection from this radiation, and thus it takes more or less UV to penetrate and be effective. How much so? I don't know- that's why I rely on the research already done.
UV denaturation is a statistical event, it's not all-or-nothing, there is a normal distribution. Also, I am somewhat knowledgable of UV photochemistry (designed photodegradeable fabrics/cigarette filters, etc and helped develop the tests for these. Also determined that they are ruled by second order kinetics, ie-there is an exposure AND temperature dependence).

Quote:
Based on the fact that you need a certain power level to penetrate the cell membranes, you can't just extrapolate downward arbitrarily and say that a lower-powered unit is just as effective if multiple passes are used, at least not without research. Multiple passes imply that the damage is additive, and I haven't seen any research one way or another.
The formula says otherwise, it is microwatts x seconds/cm^2. The seconds term indicates that this IS a time dependent mechanism.
(longer=stronger)

The bulbs in a UV sterilizer emit primarily 254 nanometer radiation, which is of fixed energy. More watts does not make a photon penetrate any more deeply, but more photons increase the likelyhood that the event will occur. More sun gives sunburn in less time vs less sun does so in longer time. Both=same result (per your prior example).


Quote:
I'm not rejecting this particular claim, but I've run ozone for years, and it wasn't until I added a large UV sterilizer that I ended my Ich problems. Ozone directly increases the redox of a system, so presumably it'd have the same effect.
As stated, it is a theory, not a claim.
BTW-did your ozone increase ORP significantly, and if so, how much? Just curious- thx.


Quote:
My post wasn't necessarily to find the most efficient unit that would be effective for a tank, but rather to inform others that a minimum size is required - a 9w sterilizer won't work on my 800g system. If it's oversized, then so be it, but at least we know it's effectiveness. Anything less is simply unknown without more research.
Exactly, and as I see it, unsupported by the manufacturer. What is the saying?- "there are lies, d***ed lies and statistics" (Mark Twain-I believe)


Quote:
I disagree. The only thing worse than having some equipment that you know is underpowered is having equipment that you think is sufficient.
Hmm, perhaps, but a lot of the later supported this hobby for years!

Quote:
Don't get me wrong - I'm glad that someone is challenging my post, but I simply don't see where you can extrapolate downward and feel comfortable without hard evidence to support it.
See above. Just my $0.02. I'm not attacking here, just interested in the topic and the facts.


With your permission, I'd like to move this tangential discussion to the end of the UV post, to keep this thread on track...
Agreed

Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2010, 7:50 PM   #48
ichthyoid ichthyoid is offline
ARC Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 2,404
City: Canton
State: GA
Occupation: Medical Sales
Other Interests: molecular biophysics
After thinking about this, I believe that I understand why the manufacturer used the irradiance numbers that they do. The drinking water purification systems manufacturers must ASSUME a single pass through the UV sterilizer. After treatment the water goes on to be consumed. (One shot is ALL they get to kill the 'bugs')

That is NOT the case in an aquarium, which is almost always a closed system. (closed loop)

Since the treatment is time dependent, and therefore cumulative, what really matters is that the statistical kill time for all organisms in the system be less than the reproduction cycle of that organism.

This was illustrated years ago in 'the Chinese Army' paradox. It goes something like this:

There are so many men in China that if they marched 8 abreast and you mowed them down with a machine gun, one row every second, you would never reach the end. The population's ability to reproduce would exceed the hypothetical kill rate.

Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2010, 8:57 PM   #49
ichthyoid ichthyoid is offline
ARC Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 2,404
City: Canton
State: GA
Occupation: Medical Sales
Other Interests: molecular biophysics
UV application

I also found a reference via Wikipedia that states...

"It has been found that protists are able to survive high UV-C doses but are sterilized at low doses."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultraviolet#Sterilization
(see 'Disinfecting drinking water' section)

So it would appear that 'killing efficacy' and 'sterilization efficacy' require two completely different irradiance levels for parasitic protozoans, but that they both would likely end with the same result long term, ie-the elimination of the population. This makes sense, no?

Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2010, 1:47 PM   #50
ichthyoid ichthyoid is offline
ARC Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 2,404
City: Canton
State: GA
Occupation: Medical Sales
Other Interests: molecular biophysics
I found the NSF/ANSI standard (National Science Foundation/American National Standards Institute), which lists requirements for UV treatment of public drinking water. Below is a summary,followed by references.

NSF/ANSI Standard 55: Ultraviolet Microbiological Water Treatment Systems
Overview: This standard establishes requirements for point-of-use (POU) and point-of-entry (POE) non-public water supply (non-PWS) ultraviolet systems and includes two optional classifications. Class A systems (40,000 uwsec/cm2) are designed to disinfect and/or remove microorganisms from contaminated water, including bacteria and viruses, to a safe level. Class B systems (16,000 uw-sec/cm2) are designed for supplemental bactericidal treatment of public drinking water or other drinking water, which has been deemed acceptable by a local health agency.

http://www.nsf.org/business/drinking.../standards.asp

-and a good explaination of the standard:

http://www.wcponline.com/column.cfm?T=W&ID=1555&AT=W

Here is a certification from a manufacturer listing log 4 reduction (99.99%) of pathogens, including Giardia and Cryptosporidium at 40mJ/cm^2.

http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:...&ct=clnk&gl=us

Note of interest- is that the units have been changed to mJ/cm^2 to comply with international standards (SI). The actual number stays the same (mW*sec=mJ).

I believe that if I can drink it, then my fish should probably be ok too.

Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2010, 2:05 PM   #51
mojo mojo is offline
Atlanta Reef Club Member
ARC Member
 
mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 4,152
City: Roswell
State: GA
Occupation: Politics
Other Interests: Snow Skiing, Scuba, Photography
Real Name: Chris Horne
Send a message via ICQ to mojo Send a message via AIM to mojo Send a message via MSN to mojo
Quote:
Originally Posted by ichthyoid View Post
I believe that if I can drink it, then my fish should probably be ok too.
Interesting conclusion, since the biology of humans and marine animals is very different...

As an interesting aside for those who eat sushi - you'll never find raw freshwater fish (or eel), even at a sushi restaurant. Turns out that our bodies don't have any problem with anything that might be in marine fish (assuming some level of preparation), but not so with freshwater fish. Different biologies. This really isn't germane to the UV debate, but something to think about when making assumptions for your reef tank based on data for your drinking water.
__________________
I am no more and I have nothing left to give

Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2010, 3:10 PM   #52
ichthyoid ichthyoid is offline
ARC Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 2,404
City: Canton
State: GA
Occupation: Medical Sales
Other Interests: molecular biophysics
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by mojo View Post
Interesting conclusion, since the biology of humans and marine animals is very different...
I won't debate the bioloigal differences (or similarities), I was specifically referring to the 99.99% reduction at 40mJ/cm^2 of UV.

As an interesting aside for those who eat sushi - you'll never find raw freshwater fish (or eel), even at a sushi restaurant. Turns out that our bodies don't have any problem with anything that might be in marine fish (assuming some level of preparation), but not so with freshwater fish. Different biologies. This really isn't germane to the UV debate, but something to think about when making assumptions for your reef tank based on data for your drinking water.
I do not concur with this statement.

I am a consumer of sushi, but also very aware of the risks. It is well documented that salmonella, vibrio, cholera, foreign strains of E. Coli, mycobacterium, as well as worms, other parasites and even ciguatera toxins may be ingested from fish/seafood; sometimes raw, undercooked and in the case of ciguatoxin it does not matter. Ciguatoxin poisoning is potentially lethal. I have contracted food borne illness myself from what was likely a vibrio infection from 'fresh' raw oysters. 24 hours of total misery! Dinoflagellates are another source of illness ('red tides'), with the ones on the Pacific coast being potentially lethal as well. Several years ago a professional baseball player contracted a marine parasite from sushi in and it took a year to cure!

Salmonella ref.

http://www.health.gov.au/internet/ma...E/cdi2804p.pdf

Vibrio ref.

http://infectiousdiseases.about.com/od/g/a/Sushi.htm

Mycobacterium from handling sushi,

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2763814/

Ciguatera ref.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ciguatera

Parasite ref.

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/brief/320/17/1124

General sushi risk, etc.

http://www.articlesbase.com/health-a...a-1132521.html

Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2010, 3:29 PM   #53
mojo mojo is offline
Atlanta Reef Club Member
ARC Member
 
mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 4,152
City: Roswell
State: GA
Occupation: Politics
Other Interests: Snow Skiing, Scuba, Photography
Real Name: Chris Horne
Send a message via ICQ to mojo Send a message via AIM to mojo Send a message via MSN to mojo
Quote:
I do not concur with this statement.
Not surprising.

Quote:
Seafood that lives in salt water has a very small risk of parasitic invasion. The human body will kill most of them during digestion. People that are immune deficient, young or older, pregnant or taking antibiotics do have a higher risk of acquiring parasites from seafood that has not been previously frozen. Seafood that lives in fresh water or travels from fresh water to salt water will have a significantly higher risk of parasites if the product is eaten “fresh”. (source)
Quote:
Another issue that comes up occasionally is the use of fresh-water fish for making sushi. I offer a resounding "NO." Fresh-water fish can contain bacteria and parasites that are more prolific or possibly dangerous than salt-water fish. Species such as salmon that spend a large portion of their lives in the ocean are generally considered safe, as well as its permanent denizens, but it is recommended that people not eat fresh-water fish raw due to the increased potential for health risks, some of which can be extremely dangerous. (source)
Quote:
And before you ask, tapeworms require a freshwater stage in their lifecycle, so as long as you stick to the saltwater fish you should be fine. No one should ever eat freshwater fish raw under any circumstances as the risks of parasitic infection increase dramatically due to the large number of freshwater parasites that exist, the freshwater ecosystem being a much better environment for parasitic creatures. (source)
I'm unsubscribing from this thread. It's going off topic and this debate seems pointless.
__________________
I am no more and I have nothing left to give

Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2010, 5:06 PM   #54
Atlanta Aquarium Atlanta Aquarium is offline
ARC Sponsor
 
Atlanta Aquarium's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 7,943
City: Duluth
State: Ga
Hey Chris. Great write up.
Yeah, I'm tire of fighting algae. It's a losing battle. I will need to put a UV back on.
I do have a question and I hope I didn't repeat someone else question.
Looks like I will need a 240W UV. Can I hook up 2 - 120W UV and have the same effectiveness as a single 240W unit?

Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2010, 5:47 PM   #55
mojo mojo is offline
Atlanta Reef Club Member
ARC Member
 
mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 4,152
City: Roswell
State: GA
Occupation: Politics
Other Interests: Snow Skiing, Scuba, Photography
Real Name: Chris Horne
Send a message via ICQ to mojo Send a message via AIM to mojo Send a message via MSN to mojo
Quote:
Originally Posted by IamRit View Post
Can I hook up 2 - 120W UV and have the same effectiveness as a single 240W unit?
Yes, especially since almost all 240w sterilizers are simply two 120w units stuck together.
__________________
I am no more and I have nothing left to give

Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2010, 7:19 PM   #56
Simon.Kruger Simon.Kruger is offline
ARC Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 658
City: Canton
State: GA
Real Name: Simon Kruger
Rit, Chris, Im so excited I'm getting my 320w UV this week. I'll have it plumbed by the weekend.

320w at 1000gallons an hour.

Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2010, 9:11 PM   #57
Oz Oz is offline
Atlanta Reef Club Member
ARC Member
 
Oz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,597
City: Sandy Springs
State: GA
Occupation: IT Contracting and Resourcing
Real Name: Chris
Quote:
Originally Posted by mojo View Post
I'm unsubscribing from this thread. It's going off topic and this debate seems pointless.
I would really like to see this thread focus on its intention - FISH and nothing else. What is good for humans, dogs, birds, whatever can be addressed in another thread.

Can the mods move all the non-fish related posts to another thread?

I've learned a lot either way by reading and posting in this thread. I wanted to post some actual results with the 240W unit I am putting on my system shortly.

Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2010, 9:20 PM   #58
johnr2604 johnr2604 is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,973
City: Dallas
State: GA
Occupation: Forclosure and REO preservation
Other Interests: Backpacking, WW kayaking, baseball
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oz View Post
I would really like to see this thread focus on its intention - FISH and nothing else. What is good for humans, dogs, birds, whatever can be addressed in another thread.

Can the mods move all the non-fish related posts to another thread?

I've learned a lot either way by reading and posting in this thread. I wanted to post some actual results with the 240W unit I am putting on my system shortly.
I personally see a benefit in discussing whats good for humans in this thread. After all this is probably where most research on UV's has taken place. Plus the standards for humans tend to have a pretty good safety factor figured in. Far more than other animals.

Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2010, 9:50 PM   #59
Atlanta Aquarium Atlanta Aquarium is offline
ARC Sponsor
 
Atlanta Aquarium's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 7,943
City: Duluth
State: Ga
Simon, that just insane. You need help with the plumming?
I need to stop by and take a look at your setup.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Simon.Kruger View Post
Rit, Chris, Im so excited I'm getting my 320w UV this week. I'll have it plumbed by the weekend.

320w at 1000gallons an hour.

Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2010, 7:10 AM   #60
Tony_Caliente Tony_Caliente is offline
Atlanta Reef Club Member
ARC Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 996
City: Alpharetta
State: GA
Occupation: Human Resources; CPA
Other Interests: Golden retrievers, guitars, nature
Real Name: Tony
This is a well-timed thread, ar least for me. I am contemplating a UV for my 55g. I was thinking about supplying water to it using a small canister filter that I will probably just put some floss or bio-mech in. What do you think? What UV brands do you like?
Can you think UV and canister filter combo that you? Thank you.
PS. I don't have to have the most sophisticated, expensive or best. I just want something that works and is easy to maintain (if that leads to the the most sophisticated, expensive and best, so be it). Gracias!

Reply With Quote
Reply



Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 users and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Clean those UV sterilizers! mojo Reef Discussion 22 08-10-2010 9:43 PM
How to Properly Maintain SPS jeep9783 Reef Discussion 80 08-04-2009 8:01 AM
uv sterilizers ?? jade76 Want to Buy 1 01-18-2008 7:56 PM
9w Turbo-Twist UV Sterilizers SaltwaterEnvy Drygoods & Livestock 10 01-16-2008 7:23 PM
UV Sterilizers jcr37962 New Member Q&A 11 01-16-2008 3:14 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 8:19 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Atlanta Reef Club, Inc.