lduncan

If you want coral growth (as opposed to growth of lime deposits) you want to keep calcium much lower than that, and boost alkalinity instead. Alk is limiting, not calcium. Layton

I prefer the lower calcium levels in RS, the low magnesium is annoying, the lower alk doesn't bother me either, it drops so much every day it's neither here nor their in the scheme of things for me. Is there a price premium for this Pro salt? I just noticed 480ppm calcium at 1.025 sg. That alone would be reason enough for me to stick with their standard salt or IO. Layton

What's the difference from their normal salt?

I've been reasonable, i've provided all the facts and reasoning in those threads link in the first post. The only thing I haven't done is provided the proof on a platter. Yeah, and when I provided some honest answers to those questions, you claimed that I was insulting and belittling people. I was just providing some honest possible answers to direct questions you asked. Layton

No, you're right, it's not. But that's not what i've done here. Instead i've said that there is scientific research which corroborates this, and said what they found, and how it worked, I also provided anecdotal evidence which supported it. What was the assumption? I didn't start this thread with any assumptios. Discredit you? All i've asked for from you is to provide some sort of logical reason why you disagree with what i've posted. I said indespensible as far as i'm concerned. I'll let others judge whether that's the case for them. Why should i provide proof to people. I've said what it dose, and how it does it according to the research I found. If you want to confirm or deny that in you're own mind, i'm not stopping you. All you've done is ask for proof. I said it's there for you to find. Rubbished your contributions? No, I've just told you why I don't agree with them. Coming up with some real reasons why you disagree with the statements, and reasoning i've provided would make this thread a lot more useful. Saying you just don't believe me is not useful. You must have a reason why you don't believe it. If you don't, then what are you wasting time for posting replies here? Layton

no personal experience with them, but i've always liked the look of the GroTech ones with 3 pumps in a single unit. http://www.grotech.de/ENGLISH/index.php ... iertechnik

I have said why I considered it to be so, I have provided a valid reason, and I have provided evidence. The only thing I haven't provided is proof. You haven't done any of those things. Which makes half of this thread more or less useless. Layton

That's not a valid reason. The fact that i haven't offered proof on a platter has no relation to whether what i've said is correct or not. For example, i'm completely ignorant of the proof behind how say quarks do there thing. Just because someone won't supply me with proof, it doesn't give me a valid reason to dispute claims they make relating to it. Because it's useful information. How would you like to be harassed to provide proof for every statement you make? You should be asking yourself why you are arguing here in this thread when you don't have any valid reasons to support either side of the discussion. Layton

Yeah. Give me a valid reason why you think the reasons I have put forward are wrong? So far you haven't been able to do that.

What assumptions did i make? You keep asking me to prove stuff to you. I suggested that it's more valuable for you to prove or disprove it to yourself. How is that making an assumption? Nope, not in it's entirety. That was the result of 5 min spent google searching. There is far more specific research out there on UV in marine environments, which specifically looks at what happens to bacterial populations within sediments and rock, and the corresponding effects on N and P levels. How am I insulting or belittling people? Wasps last post just threw this thread into those depths. These threads often end this way when others can't dispute things using real information... they resort to personal attacks and character judgements to make their decisions, and justify their opinion. Which is why I think twice about post here in recent times. I know from the PM's and email I get that people get a lot out of these threads, but a few seem to want to derail them by dragging them down to irrelevant personal judgments on others. I don't care if you disagree with me. Just make sure you base it on a valid reason. Layton

When I added UV to my tank. I didn't have a nutrient problem. Phosphates were undetectable. And nitrates were around 5. That's far from having an nutrient problem. Yet it still had a significant effect. The fact is a skimmer works better on a tank with nutrient problems too. Should people not bother with a skimmer because their tanks are running "sweet"? It's not name calling, nor abuse. Ignorance (lack of knowledge) is the correct adjective for this. A skimmer works best in a tank with nutrient problems too. Is it's a bandaid too? UV is a tool for increasing system efficiency. Just like a skimmer, it does this whether the tank has a "nutrient problem" or not. That sounds ridiculous. You don't believe the research a scientist has done, because there isn't a professional scientist handing it to you, or explaining it to you? What reservations do you have? Maybe others have similar ones?

The spec's that i've looked at showed that the GPH t5's were around 39 or 40% efficient, while the PL-S PL-L tubes are 5 to 10% less efficient at around 32% efficient. Also the configuration of the PL's means that their efficiency diminishes a little faster than the GPH t5's, then the big compounding factor is that their physical outline isn't particularly conducive to getting the UV to the water as soon as possible, as it is with a single linear bulb. Layton

I've provided my share of real scientific research on these forums. (Which more often than no gets dismissed as "scientific babble") Time for some others to step up and decide they are interested enough to find out for themselves and take personal responsibility for their own learning. You've clearly got no problem spending time here posting. Why not spend some more time searching elsewhere, and come back with more substance, than your current "you won't prove it so i don't believe you" argument. You'll be surprised at the information you might find out along the way. I've provided many reasons why someone might choose run UV in the threads linked at the start of this thread. Layton

Because it's been shown to be true, not just in my experience. But far more importantly in real scientific research. I've covered some of the reason. Sheep mentality is one reason. People rely too heavily on so call "hobby experts" to draw conclusions for them. The limited research around which focuses on the response of sediments and rock. It does exist, but the overwhelming majority of stuff you'll find on UV in marine environments is related to free floating phyto and bacteria kill rates. No I don't agree. I posted the reason just before. Here it is again: I don't have anything to prove as far as my tank's concerned. Posting a picture of it won't change what UV does the world over. It won't change the research. It won't change the effects that people see.

I'm not being smart. Have you tried looking? That's how I found it. Why are you relying on me to prove it to you? I wasn't attempting to prove anything. You want me to prove it to you, and i'm telling you i'm not going to. It's far more valuable for you to prove or disprove it to yourself. I'm not being childish at all. I'm deadly serious.

Here you go: www.google.com Nothing's stopping you finding them. Layton

Why? Well I think, for the purpose of these discussion, it detracts from the real issues. Posting photos as proof something work is stupid. It turns a reasonable discussion on how something can do what it does into an emotive thing. People see a nice photo of a tank which happens to use a particular method, and often directly correlate the two. That's not always a fair conclusion to draw. If people were honest about their reaction to the pics I posted above, how many correlated the nice tanks with UV use, how many peoples opinions on UV where skewed just by seeing picture of nice tanks which happen to use it? Are these tanks nice because the use UV? Maybe, maybe not, it's only a photo, you can't determine that sort of thing from a photo. That's what you call sheep mentality. ;-) Letting other people draw your conclusions for you is not a good situation to be in. Whose to say these people aren't wrong? I quote Borneman often? I often disagree with some of his opinions and advice. The fact that he never mentions these abilities of UV, doesn't mean they don't exist, it just means he either doesn't know about them (ignorance) or hasn't written about them. From the reactions on this forum, and others i've seen, i'd suggest those are some of the big reasons. There are no doubt others, but these ones are real, and are significant. Do you have any evidence to suggest what i've said isn't fact? Just because you haven't seen any evidence or proof doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I know the proof exists, because i've seen and read it myself before deciding to try UV. I try to hard to make sure I distinguish when i'm talking from fact, or from opinion. Layton (Edit shown in italics)

I count 4 out of 11 TOTM this year run UV 36% of TOTM use UV, which I would consider a much higher percentage using UV than the general population of tanks. And it tends to be some of the better ones too ;-) http://www.reefkeeping.com/issues/2006- ... /index.php http://www.reefkeeping.com/issues/2006- ... /index.php http://www.reefkeeping.com/issues/2005- ... /index.php http://www.oregonreef.com But that's beside the point, these pics don't prove that UV works, the research does. Just out of interest. Don't you believe the claims i've made because in your opinion "top tanks" don't use it? Or is there some other, more valid reason why you don't believe them? Layton

You don't believe me, that's fine. I'm not here to prove different methodologies to people, or force people to run a tank the way I would choose to run mine. Why don't more people use them? I think you hit the nail on the head with the quote from Fenner. Misinformation, misconceptions, and just plain ignorance on what UV actually does. The majority of people still have the perception that because UV kill bacteria in the water it's bad for the tank. The evidence supporting UV is there, just look for it. I'm not into posting photos for this purpose. Photos prove very little.

Don't know. I guess somewhere like "Lamp Specialists" may be able to supply these GPH bulbs. But part of the reason why I got the Deltec one, is that reef fully supports the Deltec products he sells (in addition to being very competitively priced). When I need a new bulb, I'll get hold of him. That way I don't have to deal with bringing them in replacement bulbs from overseas myself, worrying about breakage / returns / insurance etc.

Power on a 40watt is under $4 a month. Spreading the cost of bulb replacement every six months brings the total to around $20 a month max.

They output less UV per watt, and also the physical configuration of them means that they aren't nearly as efficient at getting the UV to the water as the GPH t5 / t6... it can make a significant difference in the end.

Those sneaky organics, I didn't realize they are so fast they can dodge photons (presumably with matrix style contortions). The ones in my tank must be retarded :lol:

Don't make me start another iron thread

I wonder what he bases that opinion on ;-) By the sound of it, it's based on experience of some crappy "hobby" grade UV "clarifier" he used 30 years ago. Why do you think I'm so specific on what to look for, and what to avoid in a UV unit. The crap ones are worthless, and the good ones are indispensable as far as i'm concerned. Half the problem with this hobby is that there is so much misinformation and misconceptions around. That's why i'm so persistent with my posts on this forum Hopefully they offer a different point of view, and make people think a little deeper on why they choose the methods they do to run their tank. Layton