UV sterlizer necessary for BB 40 breeder?
- Thread starter hobbzz
- Start date
The Punisher
New member
Not sure that UV units are good for breaking down nutrients at all. I would suggest against any of the smaller ones, they're a waste of money IMO.
hobbzz
How do I change this?
The article you link has some good general information. What it lack is the specific details so that we can apply it to our tanks.
The author mentions 2 critical criteria; enegry and flow. He does not elaborate on what the flow rate is or what the optimal engery is. As far as I can remember, when you purchase a UV unit the manufacture does not give directions on optimal flow/energy. This leaves the end user to make their own interpretation and most likely incorrect set up.
The author states the value of a UV unit is: "The value of the unit is its constant use. By constantly treating the water it can effect a reduction in the amount of waterborne organisms and alter chemicals."
I would argue that a simple water change is more effcient and cost effective compare to setting up a UV unit. Water change will do the same thing as a UV unit which is "reduce waterborne organism and alter chemicals". Why would I spend $$$ on a piece of equipment that I need to maintain and most likely set up incorrect/inefficiently?
Just my 2 cent.
The author mentions 2 critical criteria; enegry and flow. He does not elaborate on what the flow rate is or what the optimal engery is. As far as I can remember, when you purchase a UV unit the manufacture does not give directions on optimal flow/energy. This leaves the end user to make their own interpretation and most likely incorrect set up.
The author states the value of a UV unit is: "The value of the unit is its constant use. By constantly treating the water it can effect a reduction in the amount of waterborne organisms and alter chemicals."
I would argue that a simple water change is more effcient and cost effective compare to setting up a UV unit. Water change will do the same thing as a UV unit which is "reduce waterborne organism and alter chemicals". Why would I spend $$$ on a piece of equipment that I need to maintain and most likely set up incorrect/inefficiently?
Just my 2 cent.
A UV can do much more than what a water change can do...although comparing the 2 is like comparing apples and oranges.
I found I could understand UV once I understood the relationship of output (of the bulb) flow (of water past said output) and dosage ( what the said flow past said output equals) Contrary to many arguements, UV can be used to reduce parasites including ICH...UV could be used to control almost any population (a strong enough dose will kill you and me).
While a water change will remove some pecentage of anything in the water column, A strong enough UV unit can kill 100% of anything in the water column.
I have come to the conclusion that you want a strong enough dosage when the flow is sufficient to turn your sytem volume about once per hour.
This is a great chart for understanding the dosage required to kill various organisms...keep in mind those dosages are to kill in a single pass multiple passes increase the dosage.
http://www.bulkreefsupply.com/store/catalog/product/gallery/id/933/image/2538/
The moral of the story is you need a pretty large unit, to give an adequate dosage, and retain a high enough flow to make it work properly.
I found I could understand UV once I understood the relationship of output (of the bulb) flow (of water past said output) and dosage ( what the said flow past said output equals) Contrary to many arguements, UV can be used to reduce parasites including ICH...UV could be used to control almost any population (a strong enough dose will kill you and me).
While a water change will remove some pecentage of anything in the water column, A strong enough UV unit can kill 100% of anything in the water column.
I have come to the conclusion that you want a strong enough dosage when the flow is sufficient to turn your sytem volume about once per hour.
This is a great chart for understanding the dosage required to kill various organisms...keep in mind those dosages are to kill in a single pass multiple passes increase the dosage.
http://www.bulkreefsupply.com/store/catalog/product/gallery/id/933/image/2538/
The moral of the story is you need a pretty large unit, to give an adequate dosage, and retain a high enough flow to make it work properly.
Last edited:
hobbzz
How do I change this?
That would be for killing parasites and bacteria and the like correct? What about for breaking down proteins? I'm trying to find out how and why they are used in barebottom systems, and if they are as necessary for smaller tanks. I'm not interested in preventing any kind of outbreak.
The Punisher
New member
That's just not true. It can kill what passes through it, that's it.
Toddrtrex
Premium Member
Exactly -- it doesn't magically kill everything. Whatever isn't pulled into the pump's intake will not be killed.
Please read what you quoted again.
You're wrong it is true. Please see below.
I never spoke about anything being pulled into the pump. And if I'm turing the water column over completely every hour, pretty shortly I'll get all of it. And yes everyone knows "what's not in the water column won't go past"
If I have a strong enough UV that I can pass the entire water column by it fast enough...then 100% would be dead. I chose those words carefully just for that reason. You make a terrible error when you try to disect a statement out of context.
And the statement is true...A strong enough UV can kill 100% in the water column.
The point was you have to make sure it's a strong enough unit, or it may be worthless. I'm also not saying you should have a UV large enough to kill 100% in the water column, I'm saying the argument that "it can't kill 100%" is not valid. Even if you can't kill 100%...If I lock you in a sealed room with some germs, would you like more germs or less? Your livestock are locked in that sealed room.
I'm not saying everyone should have a UV (although I won't have a tank without one again), but I have to disagree with the "it's a waste of money" "they don't do anything", "they don't work" crowd.
This post was also in response to someone who posted a water change can do the same thing as a UV. Basically my UV would do the same as a 25% weekly water change, (for what it's designed for) if I turned it on for 15 minutes per week (which neither would do anything, since the organism would probably reproduce far faster than we were removing it). Since it runs 24/7, it has a better chance of irradicating the issue.
Last edited:
Toddrtrex
Premium Member
If you say so....
The only way any UV will kill 100% of what is in the water column would be if you were using the UV (( and its pump )) to transfer water from one tank to another.
BTW -- a UV works with contact time, if the water flowing through the UV too fast (( similar to when you said " pass the entire water column by it fast enough " )) its effectiveness is greatly reduced.
Lastly, there is no way a UV will be equal to a 25% water change -- a UV won't do a thing about phosphates, nitrates, etc. So comparing a UV to a water change isn't even apples/oranges, but apples and green beans.
You are giving a UV way too much credit.
The only way any UV will kill 100% of what is in the water column would be if you were using the UV (( and its pump )) to transfer water from one tank to another.
BTW -- a UV works with contact time, if the water flowing through the UV too fast (( similar to when you said " pass the entire water column by it fast enough " )) its effectiveness is greatly reduced.
Lastly, there is no way a UV will be equal to a 25% water change -- a UV won't do a thing about phosphates, nitrates, etc. So comparing a UV to a water change isn't even apples/oranges, but apples and green beans.
You are giving a UV way too much credit.
No I am not, I never said it did anything about Phosphaets or nitrates or a host of other things a water change does that a UV doesn't. Again...Please read all the words, like where I said "for what it's designed for". A UV will do a much better job for what it's designed for than a water change. And there is no way a 25% weekly water change, will be anywhere near as effective as a properly sized UV for taking care of an algae bloom. I agree the 2 are for totally different purposes.
"A UV works with contact time"? please re-read the first post where I explain, A UV works with flow rate and output to attain a certain dosage. You're statement of if the water flows through it to fast is an incomplete statement. A greater output will allow for a greater flow and still attain the desired dosage. When I said "If you can pass the entire water column fast enough, that's true. I can put my UV on a 20 gallon tank that is capable of dosing more than 200,000 at a flow rate of 200GPH, therefore I am passing the equivalent of the entire water column past the UV at a very high dosage 10 times per hour. This is a hypothetical, as was the original which, you've taken out of context. Again the point is it can be done, not that should be done, but that it can be done. By the way, if I were to put my UV on a 20 gallon tank I would have to have that huge water flow or the dosage would be ridiculous, so your "it's effectiveness would be greatly reduced" is wrong.
Again it's a hypothetical, to make a point, that's why it starts with "If" I had a UV large enough.
It sounds like you're repeating a few things you've heard, without having a true personal understanding of how it works. I'd be happy to educate you if you'd like, but to read half a post, and take things out of context, and spout some erroneous information isn't helpful.
Last edited:
Toddrtrex
Premium Member
Are you going to address the above part? Or are you going to stick with the statement that it will kill
?? Because that is simply not true.
Please, it's a hypothetical, IF it's large enough, like the size of the sun, if that helps. Again, I'm not and never said you should have or use a unit that size...It's a hypothetical, and it is possible, if it's large enough.
As I said, in the same post, if it's large enough it could kill you and me, doesn't that help you see how you're focusing on the wrong thing.
For that matter my UV unit holds about 2 gallons of water (I think) so if I passed a 1 gallon pico through it, at a 1 gallon per hour flow, all would be dead (the dosage would be in the millions)... and probably also boiled away, but that's my point...it is possible Hypothetically LOL
I think you reading more into my statement, than is there.
None of my posts are to say everyone should have a UV, or that a UV can solve all or possibly even any of your problems, if you don't know what you're doing. Just that I don't agree with the "they're useless" crowd. They can serve a purpose, if properly used and sized.
As I said, in the same post, if it's large enough it could kill you and me, doesn't that help you see how you're focusing on the wrong thing.
For that matter my UV unit holds about 2 gallons of water (I think) so if I passed a 1 gallon pico through it, at a 1 gallon per hour flow, all would be dead (the dosage would be in the millions)... and probably also boiled away, but that's my point...it is possible Hypothetically LOL
I think you reading more into my statement, than is there.
None of my posts are to say everyone should have a UV, or that a UV can solve all or possibly even any of your problems, if you don't know what you're doing. Just that I don't agree with the "they're useless" crowd. They can serve a purpose, if properly used and sized.
The Punisher
New member
I agree they serve a purpose, but no UV filter is even remotely in line with what you are talking about so your theoreticals are not very helpful in this discussion. Bottom line is UV filters that are readily available to hobbyists are not going do much in the way of nutrient breakdown that will tremendously benefit a reef tank. Even if you could break down nutrients at a rate to be beneficial, you'd still have to have some way to export nutrients that would keep up. Breaking down nutrients doesn't mean they go away.
OK, my original post was in response to this post. I think this is my fault for not quoting this post then, and I caused some confusion. I thought it was obvious that I was referring to that post, but obviously I was WAY WRONG LOL.
If you would please go back and read my posts, you will see I never said that a UV would do any of the things, you're talking about. I'm pretty sure this is the first time I've typed "nutrients" in this thread. If you check again, you'll see everything I did say is true. As far as I know, Nutrients, as we use the term are, elements, Ions of nitrogen and phosphorous, and not organisms. I was always referring to organisms. You can't "kill" an element, it's not alive in the first place.
I apologize for causing the confusion.
It was a hypothetical not a theory...there is a huge difference.
zigzag1
New member
UV is not necessary for bare bottom. As to breaking nutrients down, you don't want to do that anyway. Don't break nutrients down, remove them skimmer, gfo, vsv, etc.
Nutrient control is the very best way to keep algae in check, not UV. Carbon easily removes yellowing and alleleopathic compounds. Never seen any real need for a UV sterilizer in a reef, unless you just want to spend the money.
What waterborne organisims are you trying to reduce exactly?
Nutrient control is the very best way to keep algae in check, not UV. Carbon easily removes yellowing and alleleopathic compounds. Never seen any real need for a UV sterilizer in a reef, unless you just want to spend the money.
What waterborne organisims are you trying to reduce exactly?
