puttputt Posted November 14, 2006 Report Share Posted November 14, 2006 Because I seen no facts, studies, articles, books to back up your claims. What research Layton?. Its is not the fact that UV has it's uses, but more your assertion in what it actually does especially that it lowers Nitrate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
puttputt Posted November 14, 2006 Report Share Posted November 14, 2006 and why do the 4 out of TOTM use them?. I doubt they have any problems with Nitrate or Phosphate control.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lduncan Posted November 14, 2006 Author Report Share Posted November 14, 2006 You never post photos Layton, got to wonder why. 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. Ignorance from people far more experienced and successful than you, come off it layton, just like your zeovit and refugium arguments. And to compare yourself to the likes of Fenner, please. I note Borneman, who you often quote never mentions this ability of UV to reduce nitrates and phosphates in any of his material, nor anyone else that i can find, except some obsure reference you dug up from the internet. 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. It's not that i don't believe it has worked in your tank, but to try and believe that the majority of marine aquarists don't use it because of misinformation and ignorance, come off it. 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. It is one thing promoting alternatives or new ideas, but to state them in the way you do as fact is wrong. 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) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lduncan Posted November 14, 2006 Author Report Share Posted November 14, 2006 Because I seen no facts, studies, articles, books to back up your claims. Here you go: www.google.com Nothing's stopping you finding them. Layton Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TM Posted November 14, 2006 Report Share Posted November 14, 2006 so youre happy to post pics of stunning overseas tanks but not youre own????????????????? whats that got to do with it??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
puttputt Posted November 14, 2006 Report Share Posted November 14, 2006 I know how to google, don't be a smart arse. Your proof comes down to the fact that I can't prove your wrong. I have no facts that prove your facts are wrong. I dont let anyone draw conclusions for me, hence why I'm asking you to provide anything that backs up your argument. You wont or can't. Well done Layton, proved absolutely nothing again and resorted to childish posts like your last 2. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TM Posted November 14, 2006 Report Share Posted November 14, 2006 Whats the point in baited questions, if you don't agree then thats fine, don't post just to wind. Well done Layton, proved absolutely nothing again and resorted to childish posts like your last 2. That may even make two of you Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lduncan Posted November 14, 2006 Author Report Share Posted November 14, 2006 I know how to google, don't be a smart arse. 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? Your proof comes down to the fact that I can't prove your wrong. 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
puttputt Posted November 14, 2006 Report Share Posted November 14, 2006 post just to wind up, rich coming from you TM. Anything constructive to add to the discussion? Blah blah blah maybe. Layton, I am trying to establish the reason why you have come out and posted that running a UV will not only help keep pests, parasites and free floating bacteria levels down but improve water quality. And if it does why it is not well known, given it would be a great addition to any aquarium if that was so. And posting photos of your tank would at least prove that you can and do run a successful and healthy tank, with thriving corals and add more weight to the systems and processes you run, wouldn't you agree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TM Posted November 14, 2006 Report Share Posted November 14, 2006 post just to wind up, rich coming from you TM. Anything constructive to add to the discussion? Blah blah blah maybe. Yip, thanks ive learnt a bit more than i did before about UV. Is it that time of the month?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fishboi Posted November 14, 2006 Report Share Posted November 14, 2006 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. sorry getting off the topic with the nitrate. been hunting very hard on the Internet and can not find anything that would suggest they output less UV per watt or comparing one better than the other. i am intrested as i've always choose to use fittings with the PL-S bulbs just because they can be easily and cheaply replaced. the fact that they preform differently didnt even cross my mind Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lduncan Posted November 14, 2006 Author Report Share Posted November 14, 2006 Layton, I am trying to establish the reason why you have come out and posted that running a UV will not only help keep pests, parasites and free floating bacteria levels down but improve water quality. Because it's been shown to be true, not just in my experience. But far more importantly in real scientific research. And if it does why it is not well known, given it would be a great addition to any aquarium if that was so. 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. And posting photos of your tank would at least prove that you can and do run a successful and healthy tank, with thriving corals and add more weight to the systems and processes you run, wouldn't you agree. No I don't agree. I posted the reason just before. Here it is again: 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. 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
puttputt Posted November 14, 2006 Report Share Posted November 14, 2006 Yip, thanks ive learnt a bit more than i did before about UV. Is it that time of the month?? time of the year maybe , no offence meant after discussing refugiums for a period with Layton, got the same old response from him then - "i don't have to prove I'm right" "www.google.com", " don't be a sheep" etc. I would seriously consider using a UV if there was a sound reason to and i thought it would be good for my tank. I'm yet to see any "proven scientific theory" on his claims and no doubt wont. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
puttputt Posted November 14, 2006 Report Share Posted November 14, 2006 oh come on Layton, "what UV does the world over", must be a tune to go with that line. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lduncan Posted November 14, 2006 Author Report Share Posted November 14, 2006 after discussing refugiums for a period with Layton, got the same old response from him then - "i don't have to prove I'm right" "www.google.com", " don't be a sheep" etc. 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 would seriuosly consider using a UV if there was a sound reason to and i thought it would be good for my tank. I've provided many reasons why someone might choose run UV in the threads linked at the start of this thread. Layton Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lduncan Posted November 14, 2006 Author Report Share Posted November 14, 2006 been hunting very hard on the Internet and can not find anything that would suggest they output less UV per watt or comparing one better than the other. i am intrested as i've always choose to use fittings with the PL-S bulbs just because they can be easily and cheaply replaced. the fact that they preform differently didnt even cross my mind 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wasp Posted November 14, 2006 Report Share Posted November 14, 2006 My own humble opinion is that you will get the most dramatic improvements on a tank with nutrient problems. This is an excellent example, UV made great improvement http://www.fnzas.org.nz/fishroom/3-vt16 ... l?start=30 Tank that's already running sweet there will not be a huge improvement, as Bob Fenner correctly pointed out. I think it is a bit rich to refer to Bob Fenner as ignorant. Also think it is a bit rich to refer to Eric Bourneman as ignorant. Also it's a bit rich to refer to people who disagree as having "sheep mentality". Layton you may find your audience more receptive to your ideas if you could get a better grip on your tendency towards abuse / name calling. The reason in another thread I referred to UV as a bandaid, is because I am much of the same opinion as Fenner. It works best in a tank with problems. Does that make it wrong to use one? No. JDM, for example, is doing everything right, yet for some reason has a major nitrate issue. So for him, UV may well be of help. But that will also be why most of the TOTMs don't have one. I'd also suggest that you would expect a percentage of TOTMs to have one, some of these tanks have had a lot of time & money & equipment lavished on them, so if the owner thinks a UV might do something, why not stick one on. For me, the scientific arguments in this forum are mostly gobbledegook. That's because the people advancing them for the most part are not scientists. What I'm interested in is results. Layton claims certain specific benefits to his tank from UV, and in this case anyway, I believe him. I also have some reservations about certain aspects of what a UV does, but end of the day, in some cases such as Layton it does more good than harm, so it's just a case of wether a person wants to spend the money. Looks like a number of people may go UV so will be interesting to see how it goes once a few more people doing it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Feelers Posted November 14, 2006 Report Share Posted November 14, 2006 From what I've heard adding a UV makes the skimmer go nuts. Taken fom just that you'd expect it to be removing more from the water column. I think it definately sounds like JDM should give it a try, I'll be very interested in how it pans out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lduncan Posted November 14, 2006 Author Report Share Posted November 14, 2006 My own humble opinion is that you will get the most dramatic improvements on a tank with nutrient problems. Tank that's already running sweet there will not be a huge improvement, as Bob Fenner correctly pointed out. 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"? I think it is a bit rich to refer to Bob Fenner as ignorant. Also think it is a bit rich to refer to Eric Bourneman as ignorant. Also it's a bit rich to refer to people who disagree as having "sheep mentality". Layton you may find your audience more receptive to your ideas if you could get a better grip on your tendency towards abuse / name calling. It's not name calling, nor abuse. Ignorance (lack of knowledge) is the correct adjective for this. The reason in another thread I referred to UV as a bandaid, is because I am much of the same opinion as Fenner. It works best in a tank with problems. Does that make it wrong to use one? No. JDM, for example, is doing everything right, yet for some reason has a major nitrate issue. So for him, UV may well be of help. 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. For me, the scientific arguments in this forum are mostly gobbledegook. That's because the people advancing them for the most part are not scientists. 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 I'm interested in is results. Layton claims certain specific benefits to his tank from UV, and in this case anyway, I believe him. I also have some reservations about certain aspects of what a UV does, but end of the day, in some cases such as Layton it does more good than harm, so it's just a case of wether a person wants to spend the money. What reservations do you have? Maybe others have similar ones? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
puttputt Posted November 14, 2006 Report Share Posted November 14, 2006 Don't make assumptions about me or other people on this site Layton. I spend alot of time researching all aspects of this hobby, and attribute my success to this. I take full responsibility for for my personal learning, and the fact I post on this forum, alot less that alot, no way hinders this. The only evidance you posted was some obscure quote from a drinking water study, and this is your scientific research?. waste of time discussing this with you as you have a real problem communicating without trying to belittle, or insult people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDM Posted November 14, 2006 Report Share Posted November 14, 2006 looks like the genral opnion is uv may help my problem, i will still be going down the denitrator and po4 fluidised reactor road (as i allready own the po4 one and the nitrate one will be here soon) i think rather than add a hole lot of things at once and not be able to tell what changes each item made, i will add the po4 reactor tonight, i will add the denitrator in 2 weeks when it arrives and then look closer into getting a uv after i have seen the results the other 2 have made. this way i will be able to confidentaly say how each item has arrfected/improved my tank. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wasp Posted November 14, 2006 Report Share Posted November 14, 2006 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
puttputt Posted November 14, 2006 Report Share Posted November 14, 2006 once your tank matures You wont have a nitrate issue JDM. The rock will take care of it, all other things being balanced. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDM Posted November 14, 2006 Report Share Posted November 14, 2006 I have had my tank running for 2 years, I have seen tanks that are younger than my setup and they don’t have nutrient problems. I have heard that the last cycle for nitrate can take longer than 6 months to establish, but I think 2 years should be enough. Lots of factors involved im sure, but still more maturing to go? :-? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
puttputt Posted November 14, 2006 Report Share Posted November 14, 2006 Mine took a good 6 months, but have a full tank of corals and fish, feed well and haven't had a detectable nitrate reading for over a year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.