Thank You Tunze
- Thread starter delusions
- Start date
Rosscopeco
New member
Seriously Roger, you deserve the support after all the great work you do.
You even help people when you shouldn't have to.
Hopefully you don't take all the recent trash talk about Tunze to heart.
There will always be a vocal minority with no shame to say the least.
I have spent alot of money on this hobby since I started a couple of years ago and a large portion of that has been spent on equipment.
All the Tunze products I have purchased have peformed as described in a dependable fashion. Most of those Tunze products I own have no equal available that give the same high level of performance and reliability.
Until I see another brand making products of such a high standard, I would not dream of trying to keep a reef tank with anything but the Tunze gear I use now.
I have tried many other brands and even own a vortech pump. My comparable Tunze makes more flow throughout the tank at 60% full power.
Tunze and yourself do a great service to this hobby.
Keep up the good work.
Ross.:wave:
You even help people when you shouldn't have to.
Hopefully you don't take all the recent trash talk about Tunze to heart.
There will always be a vocal minority with no shame to say the least.
I have spent alot of money on this hobby since I started a couple of years ago and a large portion of that has been spent on equipment.
All the Tunze products I have purchased have peformed as described in a dependable fashion. Most of those Tunze products I own have no equal available that give the same high level of performance and reliability.
Until I see another brand making products of such a high standard, I would not dream of trying to keep a reef tank with anything but the Tunze gear I use now.
I have tried many other brands and even own a vortech pump. My comparable Tunze makes more flow throughout the tank at 60% full power.
Tunze and yourself do a great service to this hobby.
Keep up the good work.
Ross.:wave:
I definitely agree with Ross.
Thank you.
You should know that over the weekend I did an extensive amount of research and found a possible issue with the testing method and we will do more tests and see the result.
The fundamental issue is that both our Badgermeter Ultrasound meter and the Sontek Accoustic Doppler Velocimeter cannot differentiate between turbulence and flow.
According to Wikipedia-
"Acoustic Doppler velocimetry (ADV) is designed to record instantaneous velocity components at a single-point with a relatively high frequency. Measurements are performed by measuring the velocity of particles in a remote sampling volume based upon the Doppler shift effect [1][2]. The probe head includes one transmitter and between two to four receivers. The remote sampling volume is located typically 5 or 10 cm from the tip of the transmitter, but some studies showed that the distance might change slightly [3]. The sampling volume size is determined by the sampling conditions and manual setup. In a standard configuration, the sampling volume is about a cylinder of water with a diameter of 6 mm and a height of 9 mm, although newer laboratory ADVs may have smaller sampling volume (e.g. Sontek microADV, Nortek Vectrino+). A typical ADV system equipped with N receivers records simultaneously 4.N values with each sample. That is, for each receiver, a velocity component, a signal strength value, a signal-to-noise (SNR) and a correlation value. The signal strength, SNR and correlation values are used primarily to determine the quality and accuracy of the velocity data, although the signal strength (acoustic backscatter intensity) may related to the instantaneous suspended sediment concentration with proper calibration [4]. The velocity component is measured along the line connecting the sampling volume to the receiver. The velocity data must be transformed into a Cartesian system of coordinates and the trigonometric transformation may cause some velocity resolution errors. Although acoustic Doppler velocimetry (ADV) has become a popular technique in laboratory in field applications, several researchers pointed out accurately that the ADV signal outputs include the combined effects of turbulent velocity fluctuations, Doppler noise, signal aliasing, turbulent shear and other disturbances. Evidences included by high levels of noise and spikes in all velocity components [2][5]. In turbulent flows, the ADV velocity outputs are a combination of Doppler noise, signal aliasing, velocity fluctuations, installation vibrations and other disturbances. The signal may be further affected adversely by velocity shear across the sampling volume and boundary proximity [6]. Lemmin and Lhermitte [7], Chanson et al.[8], and Blanckaert and Lemmin [9] discussed the inherent Doppler noise of an ADV system. Spikes may be caused by aliasing of the Doppler signal. McLelland and Nicholas [2] explained the physical processes while Nikora and Goring [5], Goring and Nikora [10] and Wahl [11] developed techniques to eliminate aliasing errors called "spikes". These methods were developed for steady flow situations and tested in man-made channels. Not all of them are reliable, and the phase-space thresholding despiking technique appears to be a robust method in steady flows [11][12]). Simply, "raw" ADV velocity data are not "true" turbulent velocities and they should never be used without adequate post-processing (e.g.[10],[11],[12]). Chanson [3] presented a summary of experiences gained during laboratory and field investigtions with both Sontek and Nortek ADV systems."
To put this in laymans terms, these meters work by measuring the effect flow has on the distortion of sound, any outdoorsman can tell you, sound carries far shorter calling into the wind, and further, that effect is consistent whether that wind is cyclonic or directional, for a reef we are primarily concerned with directional flow, substitute wind for water and you can get an idea of what may be happening, this test only shows there is wind, we want a N-S wind, not a cyclonic or circular wind and that is what we need to measure. What do each of these pumps do in only a N-S wind and how far and wide does that wind carry?
Further, it is also possible for flow to gain over a distance and the readings were taken at close proximity to the pump which would maximize the effect of turbulence and eliminate any gain over distance by a higher pressure jet. There is a fundamental difference between our pumps and all others tested that may be the reason for the sharp difference, every other pump is a prop in a safety cage, we use a prop with a guided output and rudder system, like a jet, we steady the water through a tube and a cross hatch with the deliberate purpose of reducing turbulence and creating linear flow.
We need to test this and we hope to be able to utilize a method comparable to the only ISO recognized test for "open channel flow" which is the indicator dye transport test, the general consensus is that for such testing to be valid, two tests must be performed of different methods and the margin of error calculated, we do not know the margin of error and we don't know the effect of turbulence and for anyone who assumed that flow was this simple and a conclusion could be drawn, you are simply wrong.
This doesn't change our commitment to improve, that is a done deal, we improve our products continuously and our commitment to our customer has not changed, but we have substantial evidence now that we deserve a pardon and people should wait to judge until the facts are obtained.
You should know that over the weekend I did an extensive amount of research and found a possible issue with the testing method and we will do more tests and see the result.
The fundamental issue is that both our Badgermeter Ultrasound meter and the Sontek Accoustic Doppler Velocimeter cannot differentiate between turbulence and flow.
According to Wikipedia-
"Acoustic Doppler velocimetry (ADV) is designed to record instantaneous velocity components at a single-point with a relatively high frequency. Measurements are performed by measuring the velocity of particles in a remote sampling volume based upon the Doppler shift effect [1][2]. The probe head includes one transmitter and between two to four receivers. The remote sampling volume is located typically 5 or 10 cm from the tip of the transmitter, but some studies showed that the distance might change slightly [3]. The sampling volume size is determined by the sampling conditions and manual setup. In a standard configuration, the sampling volume is about a cylinder of water with a diameter of 6 mm and a height of 9 mm, although newer laboratory ADVs may have smaller sampling volume (e.g. Sontek microADV, Nortek Vectrino+). A typical ADV system equipped with N receivers records simultaneously 4.N values with each sample. That is, for each receiver, a velocity component, a signal strength value, a signal-to-noise (SNR) and a correlation value. The signal strength, SNR and correlation values are used primarily to determine the quality and accuracy of the velocity data, although the signal strength (acoustic backscatter intensity) may related to the instantaneous suspended sediment concentration with proper calibration [4]. The velocity component is measured along the line connecting the sampling volume to the receiver. The velocity data must be transformed into a Cartesian system of coordinates and the trigonometric transformation may cause some velocity resolution errors. Although acoustic Doppler velocimetry (ADV) has become a popular technique in laboratory in field applications, several researchers pointed out accurately that the ADV signal outputs include the combined effects of turbulent velocity fluctuations, Doppler noise, signal aliasing, turbulent shear and other disturbances. Evidences included by high levels of noise and spikes in all velocity components [2][5]. In turbulent flows, the ADV velocity outputs are a combination of Doppler noise, signal aliasing, velocity fluctuations, installation vibrations and other disturbances. The signal may be further affected adversely by velocity shear across the sampling volume and boundary proximity [6]. Lemmin and Lhermitte [7], Chanson et al.[8], and Blanckaert and Lemmin [9] discussed the inherent Doppler noise of an ADV system. Spikes may be caused by aliasing of the Doppler signal. McLelland and Nicholas [2] explained the physical processes while Nikora and Goring [5], Goring and Nikora [10] and Wahl [11] developed techniques to eliminate aliasing errors called "spikes". These methods were developed for steady flow situations and tested in man-made channels. Not all of them are reliable, and the phase-space thresholding despiking technique appears to be a robust method in steady flows [11][12]). Simply, "raw" ADV velocity data are not "true" turbulent velocities and they should never be used without adequate post-processing (e.g.[10],[11],[12]). Chanson [3] presented a summary of experiences gained during laboratory and field investigtions with both Sontek and Nortek ADV systems."
To put this in laymans terms, these meters work by measuring the effect flow has on the distortion of sound, any outdoorsman can tell you, sound carries far shorter calling into the wind, and further, that effect is consistent whether that wind is cyclonic or directional, for a reef we are primarily concerned with directional flow, substitute wind for water and you can get an idea of what may be happening, this test only shows there is wind, we want a N-S wind, not a cyclonic or circular wind and that is what we need to measure. What do each of these pumps do in only a N-S wind and how far and wide does that wind carry?
Further, it is also possible for flow to gain over a distance and the readings were taken at close proximity to the pump which would maximize the effect of turbulence and eliminate any gain over distance by a higher pressure jet. There is a fundamental difference between our pumps and all others tested that may be the reason for the sharp difference, every other pump is a prop in a safety cage, we use a prop with a guided output and rudder system, like a jet, we steady the water through a tube and a cross hatch with the deliberate purpose of reducing turbulence and creating linear flow.
We need to test this and we hope to be able to utilize a method comparable to the only ISO recognized test for "open channel flow" which is the indicator dye transport test, the general consensus is that for such testing to be valid, two tests must be performed of different methods and the margin of error calculated, we do not know the margin of error and we don't know the effect of turbulence and for anyone who assumed that flow was this simple and a conclusion could be drawn, you are simply wrong.
This doesn't change our commitment to improve, that is a done deal, we improve our products continuously and our commitment to our customer has not changed, but we have substantial evidence now that we deserve a pardon and people should wait to judge until the facts are obtained.
Demonic
Premium Member
I for one know that their "facts" were not as accurate as stated. I have had both the vortechs and all the Tunze's in the same tank except for the 6205, which I still want one. I will say there is not that much of a difference except the vortech has more of a linear flow, where as the Tunze is more broad and spread out. Yes the broader the flow is, the less the flow rate is going to be at about the 6" range. I wish I had better equipment to do my own test, but I guess that would be biased as well since I like Tunze more than vortechs. I cant wait for this whole arguement to be settled, and think the pumps are just fine the way they are. If Tunze people are unhappy then just sell those babies to me.
rwb500
Active member
i tried to make the "use your head, compare the two yourself" argument in that vortech thread and nobody listened. additionally, my comments about the testing methods being inaccurate were mocked and not heeded. thats the internet for you.
anyways, my tunze products are the best. i just added a 1074 overflow to my collection.
now ive got:
9002
3165
6025x2
1074
9010
and i couldn't be happier with them all. seriously good stuff.
i bought an MP10, used it for a week, and now im selling it cause a single modded 6025 does a MUCH better job in my tank (30G breeder).
anyways, my tunze products are the best. i just added a 1074 overflow to my collection.
now ive got:
9002
3165
6025x2
1074
9010
and i couldn't be happier with them all. seriously good stuff.
i bought an MP10, used it for a week, and now im selling it cause a single modded 6025 does a MUCH better job in my tank (30G breeder).
Rosscopeco
New member
I hear you there.
In my mind the original theoretical calculations still give a good indication of the pumps potential. They are not designed as pressure pumps so why would you test them as though they are?
You don't attach anything to the outlet ( or ejector as it is now called), nor do you place things one nozzel diameter away from the pump.
A measurment at the prop makes sense to me even though you would need to judge effectiveness based on real world applications.
A great marketing strategy from Ecotech marine nonetheless. Unfortunately it may not last long.
I look forward to further improvements to the Tunze range.
nzsilentone
New member
+1 Thanks Roger!!
dahenley
New member
RVITKO/Roger
could you take a piece of PVC pipe that matches the outer diameter of the output portion of the pump, extend it X inches (make it a certain length) and place the probe after that.
this would get the probe away from immediate back current from the suction of the pumps and allow you to measure the flow through the tube.
it wont give the numbers around the pump (AKA the spread and flow in the X and Y directions, but it would give you the flow in the Z direction)
its kind of a weird thing to grasp, but it might allow you to better determine the flow of a pump without having to deal with all the chaotic-ness
just a thought.....
could you take a piece of PVC pipe that matches the outer diameter of the output portion of the pump, extend it X inches (make it a certain length) and place the probe after that.
this would get the probe away from immediate back current from the suction of the pumps and allow you to measure the flow through the tube.
it wont give the numbers around the pump (AKA the spread and flow in the X and Y directions, but it would give you the flow in the Z direction)
its kind of a weird thing to grasp, but it might allow you to better determine the flow of a pump without having to deal with all the chaotic-ness
just a thought.....
Rosscopeco
New member
That would just add backpressure.
The open channel dye test will be interesting to see.
sammie
New member
No offence to anyone, as I am a dedicated Tunze user also, but if Roger comes up with a more accurate flow measuring technique it will be just passed off as Tunze finding a technique that highlights their products.
What needs to happen is to have a third party test all the products using the most accurate agreed upon methodology and not be funded by any vendor as the first study.
What needs to happen is to have a third party test all the products using the most accurate agreed upon methodology and not be funded by any vendor as the first study.
Rosscopeco
New member
No offence taken here. You raise a valid point.
There are of course all the other amazing products that Tunze dominates the market with. Lest we forget all the other reliable gadgets they supply.
Maybe don't include the tongs with them, but even those aren't any worse than the others available.
I think you might find Tunze will take the time to highlight the way their pumps deliver flow rather than saying " our pumps are better with this test".
The comments Roger has made so far in the translated press release and above posts lead me to believe that will be the case.
Interesting times nonetheless.
how could this thread only be one page? c'mon folks!!!
+1
gotta love the latest TOTM using tunze products:
http://reefkeeping.com/joomla/index.php/current-issue/article/84-tank-of-the-month
+1
gotta love the latest TOTM using tunze products:
http://reefkeeping.com/joomla/index.php/current-issue/article/84-tank-of-the-month
am new started reefing last february, and i got all tunze equipment.
i sold my vortech mp10, eheim 1250 and aqueon.
i now have
2x 6045
2x 6055
1x 7096
1x tunze osmolator
1x 1073.040 return pump
keep up the good work!
tunze = 1911, all metal feel, reliable and tested thru 2 world wars
vortech = 9mm glock, cute and plasticky
a 9mm might expand, but i guarantee you a 1911 doesnt shrink!!!!
i sold my vortech mp10, eheim 1250 and aqueon.
i now have
2x 6045
2x 6055
1x 7096
1x tunze osmolator
1x 1073.040 return pump
keep up the good work!
tunze = 1911, all metal feel, reliable and tested thru 2 world wars
vortech = 9mm glock, cute and plasticky
a 9mm might expand, but i guarantee you a 1911 doesnt shrink!!!!
Similar threads
