GPH is only an accurate way to state flow when you are physically transporting fluid from one vessel to another and can quantify it in that way. We use gph because we started with the only honest statement that can be made, velocity, the Interzoo 2002 flyer stated the flow in velocity, every single dealer complained that they didn't know what this meant. They wanted the flow stated in gph/lph as people were used to that number from conventional powerheads which as a pressure pump can be metered in this way accurately. In the sense that we are conveying how many maxijets the flow is equal to, it is an accurate statement, but it is largely meaningless in any other sense. You cannot really increase the flow, only change the pattern, reach, width, ratio of turbulence to transistional flow, etc and for the 6105 a small gain is possible because we can go from 18-24V. If tricking a meter is all that people are interested in, that we can do, but the result is not meaningful flow. This is why no one ever states a river has x number of gph of flow, they state the velocity, the same on a reef. Further, your corals only care about the velocity of flow, which should be between .10-.25 m/s for lagoon dwellers and around .30-.50 m/s for your average lps and many sps and up to 2.00 m/s for the highest flow corals from trenches and surf zones.
We are working on restating the flow with velocity in future reprints of the manuals and packaging, which is the way it should be stated, we will keep the gph statement with the disclaimer "for comparative purposes only" and add a chart that shows the velocity of the flow in a map of flow pattern and explains what coral types need what velocity.
We have more flow in any meaningful and honest way than any of our competitors, the pattern is more useful and we deliver the velocity needed across the tank, rather than in a small area near the pump.
The initial press release assumed we had some gross error, some obstruction or reduction of flow, we only knew using a similar method, we got a similar result, and that if we removed the front housing entirely, we got the same result as they have, but upon further testing we saw this wasn't an improvement, it wasn't an increase, the flow downstream becomes nothing and we now fully understand the physics at play. You could view our flow as time released, the same energy is present, but it unwinds into velocity of turbulence downstream as the directional energy changes form upon interaction with the static water, this is why the dye is transported completely across the tank, versus swirling in a short reach area.
I am aware of the thread, but the posters are largely two fan clubs butting heads, as much as I appreciate our supporters there is very little meaningful or productive conversation and I have stayed out of it as their will be more flow studies, and we know we are right and we had it right all along and so rather than fan flames and be accused of cheating, lying etc, I have stayed out of it. We made our case, further flow studies will certainly vindicate us if they look at the reach and practical use in common reef sizes and the velocity at the corals. I know we were not lying and I don't believe anyone else was, but somehow, you have to convey the flow to consumers in a way they understand and that is gph, which is not a valid unit of measure for open channel flow, you can state it, but it is highly inaccurate since it is all based on where and how you collect your velocity numbers and whether you include the water that is induced into movement downstream, which is a valid point of open channel type flow. We haven't changed our intention to improve the products, which is a continual process and we always are tweaking and refining the pumps, but what really constitutes an improvement? It should be more than simply finding a test you can win.
