UV or not UV

[koiguy1969]

I gotta say " i'm with you, mucky_waters"! i dont know what makes a higher priced unit so much better. a stainless steel insert? stainles construction? maybe. or the type of sleeve used..regular glass or any plastic sleeve would likely reduce effectiveness. sleeves should be made of quartz glass,
i have a 9 watt Tetra pond U.V and i've had it for 6 years. its done a fantastic job. my pond is 1200 gals, and i let it green up before i turn on my U.V. it will clear it up in a few days. i let it clear the pond, run it an extra week for good measure, turn it off and its done for the season. one bulb lasted 5 years and was still working when i replaced it. i replaced it cuz theyre cheap.. i get them on ebay. 2@ $9.50 including shipping.
i will say i broke my quartz sleeve, contacted TetraPond about a new one, they sent me one at no charge. would Emporer or Aqua do this? .my U.v was 5 years old at the time. this summer i thought i needed a new ballast for it. i contacted Tetrapond on facebook, they said to ship them the unit and they would replace the whole thing at no charge because they didnt have just the ballasts. turned out i didnt need the ballast. i somehow bent the little safety power cutoff tab in the casings cap. took 5 seconds to fix. so i didnt send it.
i also inquired on a replacement impellor for a 1200gph pump, they sent me a 1900gph pump at no charge, so you can buy what you like, but with customer service like that, TetraPond has a loyal customer in me.

 

[crsublette]

I used data on Emperor's current web site for their unit. I didn't see any exact comparison data on the AquaUV site, just things to check an verify.

Fair enough, except I was, that is my reference to "their", was not referring to your data and just using AquaUV fact sheet, which their fact sheet absolutely is just one big comparison of their product against Emperor Aquatics (EA) and that I found quite odd since there are many other quite present brands.

I'm not toting the line for any specific brand, which Emperor was not the only brand I initially mentioned.

Also, from the many testimonials I have read, the most common statement was that AquaUV exaggerates their flow rates, but then I suppose we say, "how can we trust the consumers, they most likely don't know what they're talking about", which in response I would say it depends on which consumer we are talking about.

There are folk that will rarely have a bad thing to say then there are folk that are more honest about their experience.

Generally, the company is the last resource, regardless of who it is, that I go for a comparison. I generally go to the company website to just see how the product is built, that is not for "their" fact sheets since many data points they state we simply have to take their word for it.

I wish there was a "Consumer Reports" organization that involved the aquaculture, aquarium, pond industry.

 

[koiguy1969]

a single ballvalve is all thats needed to control flow thru a u.v unit. heres a simple (and sloppy) plumbing schmatic. you could place the u.v unit either the way i show it or on the plumbing that the flow is diverted to off the 'Tee' before the ballvalve. and the 'T' after the unit is for if you want all the water flow going to the same place. in my case the filter inlet. sure you can go more elaborate. but this is simple, and cheap.

 

[crsublette]

a single ballvalve is all thats needed to control flow thru a u.v unit. heres a simple (and sloppy) plumbing schmatic. you could place the u.v unit either the way i show it or on the plumbing that the flow is diverted to off the 'Tee' before the ballvalve. and the 'T' after the unit is for if you want all the water flow going to the same place. in my case the filter inlet. sure you can go more elaborate. but this is simple, and cheap.

8-25-2013 9;16;31 AM.jpg

The only exception I see is that if you need more flow, that is not diverted to the bypass, then there will need to be a valve on the bypass as well, but, if just enough water, not too much, is going through the bypass line, then this valve would not be necessary.

 

[koiguy1969]

the more you close the ballvalve the more water is diverted... use a larger ballvalve if your not getting enough flow thru the unit. or locate the unit on the diverted line instead of the straight thru line.

 

[crsublette]

the more you close the ballvalve the more water is diverted... use a larger ballvalve if your not getting enough flow thru the unit. or locate the unit on the diverted line instead of the straight thru line.

Yep, I understand what you're saying, but, I think two valves could possibly be necessary, depending on the strength of the UV device.

So, if the UV is quite new and light spectrum full strength, then the valve on the bypass would be completely closed, depending on the UV device capabilities, and valve before UV completely open.

As the UV gets older and light spectrum strength begins to fade, then the valve prior to the UV would be slightly closed to slow the flow through the UV and the valve on the bypass would be completely open.

 

[koiguy1969]

i see your point..but you can slow the flow to the unit with one ballvalve, or even completely stop it. so i cant see any use for a second ballvalve unless you want to control the flow to 2 more locations.off the bypass line. especially if the diverted water plumbing is ran upwards... closing the valve before the unit will slow the flow regardless of a ballvalve on the bypass line. no ballvalve on the bypass line is the same as having one there wide open!

 

[dieselplower]

Dang my pond just went from crystal clear to pea soup green. I imagine my UV bulb, which is nearly exactly 1 year old, is no longer doing its job. My pond is what I would considered overstocked so I am assuming the fish are making lots of nutrients for the algea. Blast. Good thing I have a spare bulb in the kitchen "junk drawer". Hopefully I will switch it out this afternoon and it will clear up soon. Hopefully...........

 

[koiguy1969]

oh wow... this is too cool. i just got a message on facebook from tetrapond. like i said it turned out i didnt actually need a new ballast. that made me realise i never let them know i didnt need a new unit. so i left them a message earlier thanking them and apologizing. well, back a couple weeks ago, i cut the cord to the unit accidently while trimming back the plantlife on my waterfall mound with a hedge trimmer.(i'm so careless sometimes)... anyways heres the chat....
https://www.facebook.com/#!/TetraPo...ffset=0&total_comments=5&notif_t=feed_comment

 

[crsublette]

I gotta say " i'm with you, mucky_waters"! i dont know what makes a higher priced unit so much better. a stainless steel insert? stainles construction? maybe. or the type of sleeve used..regular glass or any plastic sleeve would likely reduce effectiveness. sleeves should be made of quartz glass,
i have a 9 watt Tetra pond U.V and i've had it for 6 years. its done a fantastic job. my pond is 1200 gals, and i let it green up before i turn on my U.V. it will clear it up in a few days. i let it clear the pond, run it an extra week for good measure, turn it off and its done for the season. one bulb lasted 5 years and was still working when i replaced it. i replaced it cuz theyre cheap.. i get them on ebay. 2@ $9.50 including shipping.
i will say i broke my quartz sleeve, contacted TetraPond about a new one, they sent me one at no charge. would Emporer or Aqua do this? .my U.v was 5 years old at the time. this summer i thought i needed a new ballast for it. i contacted Tetrapond on facebook, they said to ship them the unit and they would replace the whole thing at no charge because they didnt have just the ballasts. turned out i didnt need the ballast. i somehow bent the little safety power cutoff tab in the casings cap. took 5 seconds to fix. so i didnt send it.
i also inquired on a replacement impellor for a 1200gph pump, they sent me a 1900gph pump at no charge, so you can buy what you like, but with customer service like that, TetraPond has a loyal customer in me.

Glad it has worked for ya!!

If all in the world we ever needed were 9 watt UVs or Jeboa or whatever else, then the rest of us would be quite fools to use anything else, but there's actually more to it, that is flow rate and pond turn over rate and some folk have it better than others and the owner's goals/desires..

I don't have a UV since I have absolutely never had the pea green algae occurence, except I do have the occasional massive bloom of the bigger algae, which my oxidizing regiments addresses quite well.

Many companys give free hand outs and it is for good reason, that is to accrue a bit of the "loyal customer" currency.


Personally, when I do get a UV, it is going to serve a purpose to neutralize the pathogens and other bad bacteria/organisms, that accrues as ponds get older as described by the "old pond" syndrome. So, I am going to look into a high flow rate UV sterilizer. The unfortunate aspect is there is no such thing as a cheap high flow rate UV sterilizer.

 

[Mucky_Waters]

Personally, when I do get a UV, it is going to serve a purpose to neutralize the pathogens and other bad bacteria/organisms, that accrues as ponds get older as described by the "old pond" syndrome. So, I am going to look into a high flow rate UV sterilizer. The unfortunate aspect is there is no such thing as a cheap high flow rate UV sterilizer.

I beg to differ on this point Charles. As I'm sure you are aware, any UV "clarifier" can be used as UV "sterilizer" simply by reducing the flow rate. Also high flow rates is a subjective thing. What can be considered high flow rates in an aquarium, or a 500 gal pond, or a 15,000 gal pond can all be quite different things, so a little clarification on what you mean by high flow rates may be in order.

However, in the case of my Jeboa 55 watt UV it is actually called a UV "sterilizer" with specs. " up to 15000 gal pond" and "Max flow rate 4400 GPH". Now I'll be the first one to state that these specs are likely exaggerated for sterilizer operation, although I'm sure it would still effectively kill algae (clarify) at those specs.. That being said, with a little reasoning and research I think we can conclude that if one lowers the flow rate enough at some point it will certainly be sterilizing the water that flows through it rather than just killing the algae, and if you reduce the pond size enough, that flow rate will be enough to have some beneficial effect on the overall pond.. Call it an educated guess if you will.
It is with this logic that I consider my UV unit to be operating as a sterilizer. My "educated guess" assumes that a flow rate of 900 GPH and a pond size of around 2,000 gal would be sufficient. I can't even remember how I came to this conclusion, but I think it was by reading the specs of other similar wattage UV units and applying their flow rates spec they had listed for both clarifier and sterilizer operation, then reducing the "sterilizer" flow rate even more, just to make sure I was well within a decent safety margin.
Again, I know you are a knowledgeable dude, and seem to enjoy analyzing stuff like this, if you have any evidence or data that shows I'm way off I'd like to see it, and would very much appreciate it.

 

[crsublette]

I beg to differ on this point Charles. As I'm sure you are aware, any UV "clarifier" can be used as UV "sterilizer" simply by reducing the flow rate. Also high flow rates is a subjective thing. What can be considered high flow rates in an aquarium, or a 500 gal pond, or a 15,000 gal pond can all be quite different things, so a little clarification on what you mean by high flow rates may be in order.

However, in the case of my Jeboa 55 watt UV it is actually called a UV "sterilizer" with specs. " up to 15000 gal pond" and "Max flow rate 4400 GPH". Now I'll be the first one to state that these specs are likely exaggerated for sterilizer operation, although I'm sure it would still effectively kill algae (clarify) at those specs.. That being said, with a little reasoning and research I think we can conclude that if one lowers the flow rate enough at some point it will certainly be sterilizing the water that flows through it rather than just killing the algae, and if you reduce the pond size enough, that flow rate will be enough to have some beneficial effect on the overall pond.. Call it an educated guess if you will.
It is with this logic that I consider my UV unit to be operating as a sterilizer. My "educated guess" assumes that a flow rate of 900 GPH and a pond size of around 2,000 gal would be sufficient. I can't even remember how I came to this conclusion, but I think it was by reading the specs of other similar wattage UV units and applying their flow rates spec they had listed for both clarifier and sterilizer operation, then reducing the "sterilizer" flow rate even more, just to make sure I was well within a decent safety margin.
Again, I know you are a knowledgeable dude, and seem to enjoy analyzing stuff like this, if you have any evidence or data that shows I'm way off I'd like to see it, and would very much appreciate it.

Fair enough.

Sure, any UV can be a sterilizer, but the flow rate would be exponentialy reduced, no where near the 1,000gph range or higher, compared to it functioning as a clarifier. The point of high flow rate sterilizers is that the flow rate does not have to be exponentially reduced.


Generally, I do not think folk think of 500gph to be a high flow rate, but it most definitely would be if ya just had a 150 gallon pond and a 500gph UV sterilizer would not be as cheap as a 500gph UV clarifier.

Generally, I think in the pond context since stuff is generally bigger when talking ponds, when folk say high flow rate, then they are thinking in around 1,000gph or 4,000gph, or even 12,000gph.

I do know though that, generally, if the UV is not killing the pea green algae, then it is either due to the flow rate is too slow (that is the pond turn over rate is too low) or the flow rate is too high (that is there is an insufficient UV kill) or something else is wrong.


Personally, I find higher pond turn over rates to be more effective since I have not yet read a thorough persuasion to negate it, but I do not have any specific study to support it, except just hearsay from folk that I trust and are involved in the arena. This is my educated guess.

Also, Aquatic Eco-Systems article is quite interesting.


This is why I say folk need to use whatever that works for them.

If the device is not working for them, then there are very good reasons. If the device is working for them, then the reasons as to which UV to use don't matter much.

But there is zero point in maligning UV devices, based on cost, unless folk truely believe they are part of a con job, which then I'll just let them have the last word in that regard.

 

[crsublette]

Now, before folk want to go off on a rant of saying UVs are absolutely terrible, then I already posted my own rant to answer their rant at post#43, UV Filter Still Green question. :cheerful:

 

[Mucky_Waters]

Fair enough.

Sure, any UV can be a sterilizer, but the flow rate would be exponentialy reduced, no where near the 1,000gph range or higher, compared to it functioning as a clarifier. The point of high flow rate sterilizers is that the flow rate does not have to be exponentially reduced.


Generally, I do not think folk think of 500gph to be a high flow rate, but it most definitely would be if ya just had a 150 gallon pond and a 500gph UV sterilizer would not be as cheap as a 500gph UV clarifier.

Generally, I think in the pond context since stuff is generally bigger when talking ponds, when folk say high flow rate, then they are thinking in around 1,000gph or 4,000gph, or even 12,000gph.

I do know though that, generally, if the UV is not killing the pea green algae, then it is either due to the flow rate is too slow (that is the pond turn over rate is too low) or the flow rate is too high (that is there is an insufficient UV kill) or something else is wrong.


Personally, I find higher pond turn over rates to be more effective since I have not yet read a thorough persuasion to negate it, but I do not have any specific study to support it, except just hearsay from folk that I trust and are involved in the arena. This is my educated guess.

Also, Aquatic Eco-Systems article is quite interesting.


This is why I say folk need to use whatever that works for them.

If the device is not working for them, then there are very good reasons. If the device is working for them, then the reasons as to which UV to use don't matter much.

But there is zero point in maligning UV devices, based on cost, unless folk truely believe they are part of a con job, which then I'll just let them have the last word in that regard.

Just a quick search, I came up with this product page for Aqua Ultraviolet Classic 57 watt UV, they list specific flow rates, UV exposure rates at those flow rates, and pond volumes for their unit, for different functions (eg clarifier vs sterilizer), also it goes on to say "A sterilizer will eliminate green water and control bacteria. The Classic 57 Watt, will sterilize up to 3,000 gallons of fresh water or 355 gallons of salt water." I'm sure I read other manufacturers in the past with similar claims and specs, and that how I made my educated guess that my UV unit is functioning as a sterilizer at the flow rates, and pond size I have. That is, when I turn it on anyway.

The link you provided talks about several things, including UV wavelength, and reduced effectiveness of the UV due to dirty quarts sleeve and water turbidity. These are of course things that can effect any UV unit, no mater what the wattage or price the unit it. It also goes on to say "We suggest oversizing the UV sterilizer by at least 40 percent to be sure of getting the killing power required when the lamp has aged". This is something I agree with wholeheartedly, and one of the reasons I advocate spending the money on a more powerful cheaper unit, as opposed to buying a more expensive lower watt unit.
I must admit though, I'm a bit confused by the UV exposure rates sited on the link you provided. (The required UV exposure rate to irradiate common bacteria is 15,000 µWs/cm² , while the required UV exposure for waterborne algae is 22,000 µWs/cm² .) It seems to be saying that it takes less UV rays to kill (irradiate) bacteria then it does to to kill waterborne bacteria???

 

[Mucky_Waters]

Just a quick search, I came up with this product page for Aqua Ultraviolet Classic 57 watt UV, they list specific flow rates, UV exposure rates at those flow rates, and pond volumes for their unit, for different functions (eg clarifier vs sterilizer), also it goes on to say "A sterilizer will eliminate green water and control bacteria. The Classic 57 Watt, will sterilize up to 3,000 gallons of fresh water or 355 gallons of salt water." I'm sure I read other manufacturers in the past with similar claims and specs, and that how I made my educated guess that my UV unit is functioning as a sterilizer at the flow rates, and pond size I have. That is, when I turn it on anyway.

The link you provided talks about several things, including UV wavelength, and reduced effectiveness of the UV due to dirty quarts sleeve and water turbidity. These are of course things that can effect any UV unit, no mater what the wattage or price the unit it. It also goes on to say "We suggest oversizing the UV sterilizer by at least 40 percent to be sure of getting the killing power required when the lamp has aged". This is something I agree with wholeheartedly, and one of the reasons I advocate spending the money on a more powerful cheaper unit, as opposed to buying a more expensive lower watt unit.
I must admit though, I'm a bit confused by the UV exposure rates sited on the link you provided. (The required UV exposure rate to irradiate common bacteria is 15,000 µWs/cm² , while the required UV exposure for waterborne algae is 22,000 µWs/cm² .) It seems to be saying that it takes less UV rays to kill (irradiate) bacteria then it does to to kill waterborne bacteria???

The last word in this post should have been algae, not bacteria.