What UV streilizer do you recommend?

[ichthyoid]

I have no experience with the Emperor. I have not had a failure with Aqua UV, but did with my Aquanetics, which is no longer made.

To summarize:
None of these companies make their own ballasts, that I'm aware of. They buy them from other companies that specialize in that.

Any ballast can potentially fail. If used for a long enough time, its almost a certainty.

Buying from a reputable company is therefore important. We are all consumers, and many/most of us have learned that lesson at some point.

Take away:
Buy a well built capable product from a reputable company.

Either the Emperor or Aqua UV will do the job. The Emperor uses HO tubes so, especially if you have a larger system, that may be an advantage.

 

[acroholic]

WannabeeaReefKeeper;829154 wrote: How long is the average life of a ballast for either an Aqua or Emperor UV? Your personal experience with either brand would be appreciated. Just state the brand UV you use and how long your ballast lasted.

A UV ballast should last indefinitely. I don't believe they are much different than any other type of cf light ballast regarding lifespan. Emperor Aquatics recommends replacing your UV lamp once yearly.

Another thing Emperor stresses is that you should run your UV 24/7 and not turn it off if possible, and if you must turn it off, do so no more than 1x daily, otherwise you shorten the lifespan of the bulb. And alsays have water going through the system, meaning don't cut off water circulation through the UV with the UV lamp still on.

 

[glxtrix]

Acroholic;829219 wrote: meaning don't cut off water circulation through the UV with the UV lamp still on.

Oh yes, a great way to melt the housing. :doh:

 

[ichthyoid]

I will grant you that a ballast 'should' last for a number of years. So long in fact, that the technology may well become outdated before a failure occurs.

The Emperor would be more prone to failure without water flowing through the unit. That is due to the use of the HO bulbs, which dissipate significantly more heat. The water flow cools the bulb, likely reducing ballast stress in the process.

As for bulb life, cycles lasting less than 4 hours significantly shorten bulb life of the mercury vapor bulbs. This based on engineering studies and failure analysis.

 

[acroholic]

Emperor UV Ballasts are encased in a watertight container, and can be used outdoors as well. They sell a ton of these for FW ponds.

I have the 150 Emperor Watt HO unit, and the ballast is encased in a piece of black PVC pipe with a cord coming out of each end. UV Housing itself is 6 feet long, and the lamp is about 5 feet long. Big 'uns.

 

[wannabeeareefkeeper]

ichthyoid;829153 wrote: FWIW-

The tubes used in a UV sterilizer were developed around the same technology as fluorescent tubes.

The biggest difference between the two is that a UV tube (the envelope) is made of quartz which is transparent to the UV light.

A fluorescent tube is made from silica as that is a less expensive material, but it blocks (absorbs) UV.

As long as the 'irradiance' (a unit measure of intensity) is high enough, any make/model will work.

Irradiance is measured as:
watts/square centimeter (W/cm ^2).
This is an SI (international) unit of measure.

Using an HO (high output) tube allows for a higher irradiance from the same size tube. So there is some advantage to that, especially for a larger system.

It is also worth knowing that the size (irradiance) standards were developed around drinking water requirements. Why does that matter?

Drinking water treatment standards are based on a 'single pass' through a UV unit.

On most aquariums, we use them in a recirculating mode, so that the water is treated many times.

I ran a regression analysis based on research literature, and found that in a recirculating mode, you can 'get by' with a somewhat smaller unit.

That being said, there are advantages to using a higher output unit. Mainly that there is more room for error. For instance, it's not as critical to change the bulb on time.

The saltwater parasite cryptocaryon irritans had the highest reported irradiance kill requirement of any organism studied. That irradiance is reported as 280,000+ W/cm ^2, BUT is based on extrapolated or anecdotal dosages.

Based on personal experience, lower dosages can be effective. Although there are other factors that influence the efficacy of UV, including stress and water quality.

See page 3 below (University of Florida)

http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/m/#publication?id=FA164">http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/m/#publication?id=FA164</a>[/QUOTE]

Thanks for the great information as well as the educational link.


Wannabee

Edit: Thanks to everyone with their personal experience and understanding of UV's. Please keep the replies coming, I'm learning a lot and appreciate all of your inputs.

Wannabee

 

[ripped tide]

I added my 40w emperor to my system on Saturday. The flow rate is probably only 200gph or so.

The heat in my tank has risen from 74-76 to 76-78. This could also be a result of the warming temps out side. I will probably have to figure out a cooling solution for the summer.

 

[ichthyoid]

Fluorescent tubes are less than ~20% efficient at producing light. The rest is heat.

For a 40 watt UV, it's like you just added a ~30+ watt heater to the tank.

For a more accurate number, look at the total watts on your UV ballast. Although some heat will be dissipated by the ballast itself.