insane_reef_keeper;630162 wrote: Let the science battles begin.... This is way over my head.
That is the essence of the problem with UV claims, IMO. There is a lack of objective disciplined evaluation, and those that have been done often have too small of sample populations and/or too few replications to be statistically significant (eg-are meaningless).
In short, it's all just so many circus barkers selling snake oil. "This is good, that's not" is hardly a recipe for success, IMO. The only perceived guaranty is, to buy a unit so overrated as to assure results.
The bulbs do vary in output. Often a 'standard' UV efficiency of around 30% of total lamp wattage is assumed, when in fact it is not verified.
Neither have studies on fixed populations of the 'tank coodies' been conducted, across product lines, under standardized conditions.
Why?
Again,
The ones with the most resources and motivation, are the same ones selling them. Just like protein skimmers. These are the two pieces of hardware, besides the glass/tanks or the lights with the biggest price tag, and least reliable data. At least with tanks and lights it's now pretty simple. The tank does/does not leak, and the light does/does not produce sufficient PAR. Thankfully we now have PAR meters, at least!
Rant over!