[smidoid]

I was going to have a crack at a DIY UV jacket - but I read that you need a quartz jacket to cover the tube (presumably because of light absorption or is that adsorption - probably absorption (and reflection, too) )

I would have used glass - so what's the deal with quartz...?

Ideas anyone? This is a bit outside of my field.

I gather you need "low-pressure" UV lamps at 280nM wavelength as the others emit UV a much wider spectra from 100-700nM outside of the germicide zone. I also note that the beggars run a bit on the hot side - which may jigger me anyway!

It was a thought, but it seemed like a good idea (like most do until proven otherwise).

[BubbaWPB]

I'm not sure, but it may have to do with the temperature gradient. UV lights get HOT... the water circulating is relatively cold. Glass shatters under those conditions. Just my guess...

[smidoid]

Eeek! Now that's a good point - and probably the right one! Oddly enough, it's cheaper to get a ready-made UV for a pond than seems possible for my marine system.... about $120 w/o pump.

Having said that, since I wrote the post, I've discovered a more natural system in the form of Mangrove plants. They won't do everything that a UV can (i.e. they don't kill parasites) - but they are safer, cheaper to run and may even reduce or remove the need for a skimmer.

BTW - nice looking system you have there.

[BubbaWPB]

I don't think a mangrove will do anything a UV light can... UV's are for killing circulating microbial thingies; mangroves help reduce nitrogenous wastes.

I wouldn't skip the skimmer and replace it with a mangrove, but that's just me. There are people who run totally biological systems without skimmers, I'm just not one of them.

[smidoid]

Actually, they do share one thing in common - the effect on Algae; the UV kills algae spores dead and the mangrove starves them of nitrates/phosphates. Same effect different affect.


But it's true that the UV kills other microbiological entities - like the "ich" parasites so that has to be a good thing. It's the running cost that I'm not sooooo keen on! A lot of wasted power goes into heat, as you say. I'll just have to try and rely on good water quality and cleaner shrimp! ;-)

Like you, I'm not prepared to abadon skimmers just yet. I'm going to leave it running and watch what happens and report back. It's going to be a long while!

[BubbaWPB]

No amount of UV or mangroves will keep down the nitrates and phosphates if you don't have good tank hygiene (I never liked the word "husbandry"... maybe one day I'll figure out why ).

[smidoid]

Originally Posted by BubbaWPB

No amount of UV or mangroves will keep down the nitrates and phosphates if you don't have good tank hygiene (I never liked the word "husbandry"... maybe one day I'll figure out why ).

Odd word isn't it. It derives from the middle English meaning of husband - "a manager - especially a prudent one". That in turn comes from Old Norse, apparently! The current meaning (male spouse) was coopted later on probably because the manager of a house was (in those days) also the male spouse.

Anyway, that has to be the grail of all fishkeeping - zero maintanance!

Impossible of course, with current knowledge.

What I'm aiming for is as natural a solution a possible; but my first (and last) priority is the livestock (which is why I don't have a parrot or even a dog). 03 injection looks promising, but I wonder if that's going to cost a fortune to run too.

[BubbaWPB]

To be honest, my ozonizer runs so rarely that I'm going to use it on both my tanks. It ran on and off for the first month or two, but the ORP is pretty consistent around 350 now. (I've got the ozonizer set to run below 300). It's a nice option, but I'm wondering if it is really necessary in the long run.

[smidoid]

I'm intrigued at how it (ozone) compares in performance to UV since they're both essentially sterilizers. Particularly of interest to me is the cost in terms of power in vs. effect out - i.e. efficiency. I know it's a drag but in the UK electricity is damn expensive and I'm trying like mad to keep my hobby going and my carbon footprint as low as possible.

Presumably the O3 unit is more efficient and lower maintenance? Since I haven't got one, I don't know - but I'm curious to now if it needs spare parts - does the actual ozone gen ever need replacing, for instance? As a kid I made my fair share when tinkering with EHT experiments (I was a strange kid).

[The R/C Man]

Marc,

I have both incorporated into my large system. The UV will be timed via the aquacontroller to be operational for a couple hours at a time twice a week. This will assist in controlling "microbiological entities", algae (green water) etc. The cylce will save on power and extend the life of the bulb tramendously.

As for the Ozone generator, yes you will burn them up quickly running them at full. Kevin will vouch for that. So mine will be run at a minimum setting based on the ORP readings.

You can see a digram on the first page of this thread. TOTW 05-17-05 375 Gallon Tank and Sump Plans I do not show the UV on it but it will be added to the return from the skimmer.

[smidoid]

Holy Moly! Your sump is bigger than my entire system!

Love the diagram!

[The R/C Man]

Thanks Marc!