• You are viewing the forum as a Guest, please login (you can use your Facebook, Twitter, Google or Microsoft account to login) or register using this link: Log in or Sign Up

(NO MORE) 2,000L High tech BEAST

Oldguy said:
Most pond UV's are clarifiers not sterilizers. As you say its about flow rate and exposure time. The longer the UV tube the better. Pre-filtering is very important. Vecton 600's in parallel would be the smallest for Filip Krupa's set up. Cost of replacement tubes is a factor, the ones in the Vecton 600 are industry standard and can be bought online from a proper electrical supplier at very low prices.
Click to expand...

Just looked at the Vectons, seem like a solid product.

Also, I found the below review at a website previously linked by Ian.
They claim that TMC's ratings are aimed at level 2 sterilisation, hence the "up to 600L", therefore when aiming for level 1 sterilisation, the Vecton 600 could serve a tank up to 1892 liters.
Should be a good starting point for me.

upload_2018-11-13_13-48-45.png
 
Filip Krupa said:
level 2 sterilisation
Click to expand...
TMC flow rates are a tad high, but it does depend as you say on the level of sterilization. I am an optimistic pessimist and aimed at white spot theronts as my target organism. There is confusion about turnover with UV units. Consider the time T for all of the tank water to pass through your UV unit.Then:

T = k(Tank Volume/Flow Rate of Water) NB Flow rate must be slow enough to be effective at sterilization

the constant of proportionality can be calculated (don't bother doing it) for 99% of the tank water to pass through the unit k = 4.6; for 99.9% k = 6.0 and for 99.99% k = 9.2. The calcs assume instantaneous mixing but with good flow rates for CO2 mixing/dosing/distribution you will be there. Still dead spots, that's life.

I took the valve of 100,000mW as the radiation does for white spot theronts.

To reduce flow rate through the UV unit use a by pass, that way you can fine tune flow rate with a big bucket and watch. (larger volume gives smaller % error.)

No need to run UV 24/7 a big unit only needs to be run for a short period of time (tube life is therefore extended.) Obviously if problems arise then 24/7 and zap the sods.

I run mine 8hrs a day taking advantage of Economy Seven. Hence three times the life of the tubes compared to 24/7 running.

A big unknown is, can you kill the target organism faster than it can multiply.

Hope this helps.
 
Oldguy said:
Most pond UV's are clarifiers not sterilizers.
Click to expand...

Don't fully understand what you mean by this.. So i guess you mean used for this or that goal. Because UV kills single cell argonisme.. It doesn't discriminate.. If it clarifies by killig free floating algae cells it also kills/ sterilizes what's not algae. It always works both ways, unregarded the motivation it's used for.. 🙂
 
Edvet said:
The amount of time and the strength of the UV rays something is in contact with will determine the amount of damage that is done.So short and low can harm single cell algae ( clear) but not more complex (multicellular) organisms (sterilize).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultraviolet_germicidal_irradiation
Click to expand...

Ok thanks.. I get the picture.. 🙂 This info doesn't always reach us via the commercial route.. Since it is always specified with Watt/Volume (Up to this or that), actualy not with L/h. Thus i may conclude that even if it is still sold as a UV strerilizer it might just only clear algae if you go up max volume and also increasing l/h.. But since this also is a form of sterilizng they are still selling the truth. 🙂 Only making you feel safer than you realy are and in the top range of its volume it might do zip to germs?
 
Just a note but UV strerilizers do not strerilize buy a long way in what ever capacity they are sold as Sterilization (or sterilization) refers to any process that eliminates, removes, kills, or deactivates all forms of life and other biological agents (such as fungi, bacteria, viruses, spore forms, prions, unicellular eukaryotic organisms such as Plasmodium, etc.) present in a specified region, such as a surface, a volume of fluid, medication, or in a compound such as biological culture media.

IMO they should be sold as UV disinfectors 😉
 
Did sime diggin.. 🙂

Class A — These ultraviolet water treatment systems must have an ‘intensity & saturation’ rating of at least 40,000 uwsec/cm2 and possess designs that will allow them to disinfect and/or remove microorganisms from contaminated water
Click to expand...

Class B — These ultraviolet water treatment systems must have an ‘intensity & saturation’ rating of at least 16,000 uw-sec/cm2 and possess designs that will allow them to provide supplemental bactericidal treatment of water already deemed ‘safe’. i.e., no elevated levels of E. coli. or a standard plate count of less than 500 colonies per 1 ml. NSF Standard 55 "Class B" UV systems are designed to operate at a minimum dosage and are intended to "reduce normally occurring non-pathogenic or nuisance microorganisms only." The "Class B" or similar non-rated UV systems are not intended for the disinfection of "microbiologically unsafe water."
Click to expand...
https://www.water-research.net/index.php/water-treatment/water-disinfection/uv-disinfection

Power X Time X Area or microwatt-sec/cm2 (µW-s/cm2)

A short exposure time at high intensity can be as effective as a long exposure time at lower intensity, as long as the product of power multiplied by time is the same.
Click to expand...

https://www.lenntech.com/faquv.htm#UV Dosage#ixzz5WpZ2ELWL

Microwatt = 0,000 001 W x 40.000 = 0,04 W-s/cm2 for optimal UV treatment @ 254nm.

This is where it gets intresting? Figur out how many seconds it takes for water to pass the length of the bulb at 1000 L/h = 0,277777778L/s =
277.8 cm³/s / devided over the chamber dimension in cm². Than we still need the convert bulb dimension+ total wattage to W-s/cm2

Than specific number on effectiviness and flowrate in the UV chamber x Watt can't be easily given. It depends on several factors. Such as density of and or what you like to kill etc.. 🙂
 
Yes, there are lists of organisms and UV doses. Some die when you just show then the box the unit came out of LoL. Others are nuclear bomb proof.
 
Oldguy said:
Better in parallel.
Click to expand...

How so? I figured if I double the flow, I will get the same level of sterilisation, as with just 1 at recommended flow.
I will be putting this together on saturday, so keen to know what you think.

Thanks
Fil
 
Yes and no. The conventional wisdom is in parallel so that the dose of radiation is delivered by each unit. However I like you have mixed views, for instance two 2' units in series should be virtually as good as one 4' unit as a stand alone. (tube end effects). PR Escobal's Aquatic Systems book is considered by many as the bible of aquarium technical matters and I refer you to him. (However I do have issues with some of his views as I believe there is confusion between glass and quarts, but this may reflect market sharp practice). The marine people go for parallel as do lfs on UV systems. Space was a major factor for me. Tuning the flow to the dose is the important factor. Cheers.
 
Oldguy said:
Yes and no. The conventional wisdom is in parallel
Click to expand...

Thank you for the insight.
I think I will go for in line for now.

I have a feeling the fact that you can service the uvs independantly is a factor for those who run parallel.

Thanks for reading
Fil
 
Filip Krupa said:
Would you say the same thing about sterilisers rated for level 2 sterilisation?
Click to expand...

Well for Sterilisation IME it should also have a Vacuum to remove air pockets as part of the sterilisation cycle in a sealed chamber, these UV sterilisers are an open system so sterilisation will never be achieved OFC
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top