UV--straight vs Turbo

[wooden_reefer]

I believe it is probable that the turbo is more effective than straight, but by how much?

Any opinion?

For decades I have only used straight, but in just two years I come to have two Coralife, 9W and a few days ago 36W, both used.

 

[wooden_reefer]

The literature that comes with Coralife Turbo is interesting.

It says that it is effective against "parasites" at the slowest flow. Then comes algae and then bacteria.

Apparantly, bacteria is more vulnerable to UV than algae, the opposite as some suggestions.

The flow rate to kill bacteria is rate at quite high, BTW, far higher than what I would ever use with a straight UV. all UV manufacturers inflate the min desirable flow, may be. But may be the Turbo design is better significantly.

 

[jrp1588]

slowest flow means more contact time. more contact time means that more UV rays hit them, and it's more likely to kill

 

[wooden_reefer]

slowest flow means more contact time. more contact time means that more UV rays hit them, and it's more likely to kill

For the Turbo, it could be the longer path.

 

[JB63]

For the Turbo, it could be the longer path.

+1, longer path means longer contact time, for a fixed flow rate.

 

[jrp1588]

I believe I misread your post. haha. The twist would make for more contact time at a specified flow rate vs a straight tube.

 

[wooden_reefer]

We know the turbo is better, but by how much qualitatively spoken.

A little, a fair degree, or a lot?