UV Lights and waste

[jmaneyapanda]

ichthyoid;617063 wrote: Jeremy,

Aquanetics had designs both with and without quartz sleeves, both of which use a straight standard T-8 clear flourescent (UV) tube.

The housing for the sleeveless models has annular compression seals near both ends of the UV tubes. The water flows between these two seals. The electrical contacts are exterior of the seals, on both ends. I have two of these, a 15 and a 25 watt. The water IS in direct contact with the UV tube. Both have done a superb job for many years btw, (IMHO).

Really?! Wow. Apologies to Kirru. I can't fathom a worse idea for a UV, but I guess that's all they had at the time.

 

[ichthyoid]

It is the essence of the KISS principle, I suppose. The main complaint I have read about is that on the sleeveless designs, the water keeps the tube temperature at below optimum, so you get some reduction in output. Frankly, I never noticed.

 

[jmaneyapanda]

ichthyoid;617072 wrote: It is the essence of the KISS principle, I suppose. The main complaint I have read about is that on the sleeveless designs, the water keeps the tube temperature at below optimum, so you get some reduction in output. Frankly, I never noticed.

That, and it makes maintenance infinitely harder. And subjects the bulb to greater risk of breaking. There's a reason no one makes them like that anymore. Regardless, if there is no sleeve, there is no need for a vinegar bath, Kirru.

 

[ichthyoid]

jmaneyapanda;617147 wrote: That, and it makes maintenance infinitely harder. And subjects the bulb to greater risk of breaking. There's a reason no one makes them like that anymore. Regardless, if there is no sleeve, there is no need for a vinegar bath, Kirru.

Just speaking from my own experience, maintenance is not too bad, as long as you have Channel Lock pliers. "Infinitely" is a little strong, IMO.

As for breakage risk, I cannot say; as that has not happened to me (yet).

 

[kirru]

ichthyoid;617072 wrote: It is the essence of the KISS principle, I suppose. The main complaint I have read about is that on the sleeveless designs, the water keeps the tube temperature at below optimum, so you get some reduction in output. Frankly, I never noticed.

what is optimal running temps? i have never noticed really any adverse effects.. i use it mainly to keep the bad bacteria down but i think it may also be effecting my pod population.. i have stocked it and and the UV off in hopes it may be the problem, if it is, i wont run the UV 24/7 like i did for the past year.

jmaneyapanda;617068 wrote: Really?! Wow. Apologies to Kirru. I can't fathom a worse idea for a UV, but I guess that's all they had at the time.

No worries, we all learn something new everyday.. like this for example.. or another where you learn how impatient you are when you add a new leopard wrasse and it still hasn't surfaced since you put it it, grant it, that was saturday, but i am learning patience again lol

Edit: and yes, no breakage for me on the bulb yet as of the past year.

 

[jmaneyapanda]

ichthyoid;617216 wrote: Just speaking from my own experience, maintenance is not too bad, as long as you have Channel Lock pliers. "Infinitely" is a little strong, IMO.

As for breakage risk, I cannot say; as that has not happened to me (yet).

I meant relatively. In MODERN uv units, you don't even have to turn off the pump. Simply unplug the ballast unscrew the end piece, slide out the bulb, and replace. No draining the unit and messing with waterproofing seals.

 

[ichthyoid]

Yes I guess 25 years, on the original ballast no less, qualifies my Aquanetics 15-IL model as a dinosaur. My 25-IL is only about 15 years old, so it's just getting broken in.