Better system design

[jsanbor1]

Smells like a troll.

 

[BeanAnimal]

Moving goal post, Straw Men?

Measure outflow rate.

Maintenance of equipment and plumbing.

Your response makes no sense whatsoever. You have not addressed a single point made in response to your posts, and with each reply you are drifting further away from the actual questions and topic.

Smells like a troll.

The user’s posts often make very little sense outside of loose context alignment and misplaced but real facts mixed with non sequitur wandering. Technical phrases mixed in with broken connective language.

Maybe a troll, maybe an AI experiment, may take just somebody overstating their credentials and knowledge, paraphrasing AI and search results with no real understanding. That is my take and maybe explains why questions can’t be answered and responses deflect or restate. Looking at the post history, I see the same pattern. Maybe the OP can explain, maybe not.

 

[Dogeatbird]

Your response makes no sense whatsoever. You have not addressed a single point made in response to your posts, and with each reply you are drifting further away from the actual questions and topic.


The user’s posts often make very little sense outside of loose context alignment and misplaced but real facts mixed with non sequitur wandering. Technical phrases mixed in with broken connective language.

Maybe a troll, maybe an AI experiment, may take just somebody overstating their credentials and knowledge, paraphrasing AI and search results with no real understanding. That is my take and maybe explains why questions can’t be answered and responses deflect or restate. Looking at the post history, I see the same pattern. Maybe the OP can explain, maybe not.

I am the OP!


I have not been rude or disrespectful to your responses.

I have not dismissed your responses.

Have corrected misinformation:
Actuated valves typically do not contain springs.

Measurements of outflow is typically based on flow sensors which use ‘Hall effect’. Sensor.

I also have given my background, and am offering an alternative to gear some hobbyist use.

Also my experience in this hobby dates back to before, modern inclusions of technology.

I am not blatantly dismissive of your point of view.

Rather recognizing that for some system maintenance, plumbing design, marked up pricing for chemicals,

And correctly handling what may be a miss or poorly discussed topic.

 

[Dogeatbird]

Measurements of outflow in realtime utilizing a flow sensor.

Ball valve mechanically sets flow; actuator sends water. Depending on configuration regardless of pump type.

Chilled reactor allows for localized higher saturation of co2.

Ozone injection within a reactor maximizes contact time within the volume limit f the reactor. Before loss to off gassing within skimmer.

Or is that more regurgitated, AI rubage, ‘Fake news’

 

[BeanAnimal]

I am the OP!


I have not been rude or disrespectful to your responses.

I have not dismissed your responses.

Have corrected misinformation:
Actuated valves typically do not contain springs.

Measurements of outflow is typically based on flow sensors which use ‘Hall effect’. Sensor.

I also have given my background, and am offering an alternative to gear some hobbyist use.

Also my experience in this hobby dates back to before, modern inclusions of technology.

I am not blatantly dismissive of your point of view.

Rather recognizing that for some system maintenance, plumbing design, marked up pricing for chemicals,

And correctly handling what may be a miss or poorly discussed topic.

I don’t think anybody is confused about who the OP is.

You have still not provided any relevant answers, just more restating and wandering for the actual points made.

There is no misinformation. Actuated ball valves that go NC or NO on power failure can use springs, capacitive discharge or battery backup, etc. The mechanism has absolutely nothing to do with the point and pushback to your “better” method post.

Nobody is arguing how outflow is measured. You keep introducing new arguments that have nothing to do with prior responses. You contradicted your own argument anyway.

Marked up pricing for chemicals? What are you talking about and what does that have to do with this thread?

This is a “poorly discussed topic” because you won’t respond in context, answer questions or stay on topic. Your responses really don’t even make sense and are only tangentially contextual at best. Something is way off here and in other threads with similar patterns.

 

[Dogeatbird]

Two valves, two actuators; when actuators are set in opposition.

When power is supplied; one opens the other closes. This provides two distinct flow rates(depending on ball valve settting) with one pump.

If both actuators are wired to a common power source.


Chilled co2 reactor will hold more CO2 in solution, thus resisting a change in pH by the input by feed water.

To be frank: chilled calcium reactor are not used, because rarely is the hobbyist needing saturation of CO2 to dissolve media.

Ozone production requires an air drier. Why would you not recommend an extended contact time?

 

[BeanAnimal]

Measurements of outflow in realtime utilizing a flow sensor.

Ball valve mechanically sets flow; actuator sends water. Depending on configuration regardless of pump type.

Chilled reactor allows for localized higher saturation of co2.

Ozone injection within a reactor maximizes contact time within the volume limit f the reactor. Before loss to off gassing within skimmer.

Or is that more regurgitated, AI rubage, ‘Fake news’

The chilled reactor proposal was fully debunked as wholly unrealistic for any reasonable benefit. Even if it had merit, the delta T required creates far more problems than benefits.

What does measuring outflow of anything have to do with any of this?

An OPEN or CLOSED valve does not regulate variable effluent flow. It is on or off. Adding complexity with actuated valves and water paths to have two distinct flow rates offers no benefit to then UV operation. That was also fully debunked.

Ozone where? Are you talking about an ozone "reactor" before the skimmer? Ozone works at the air water interface. Injecting ozone into a closed chamber gains you very little unless the chamber has fine bubbles too, which is just a recirculating skimmer. Contact time with the skimmer bubbles does the work. Want it to be more efficient? Recirculating the skimmer air is already a thing too. Yes it requires a dryer.

Sorry, but nothing you have proposed here is "better" and most of it is arguably not reasonably implementable and restating it over and over doesn't defend or validate any of it. You have avoided every question and logical or understanding error presented.

 

[Dogeatbird]

Post the link for recirculating skimmer air.

Air from a skimmer is not recycled, because no skimmer is air tight, pressurized.

Ozone reactors before the skimmer do exist. Within a skimmer is not the only air-water interface.

As it minimizes ozone emissions, ozone which has been researched as a carcinogen.

Lastly, since BeanAnimal seems unwilling to attempt a civilized debate, please consider reading:

Aquatic Systems Engineering
P.R. Escobal

 

[BeanAnimal]

Post the link for recirculating skimmer air.

Air from a skimmer is not recycled, because no skimmer is air tight, pressurized.

Ozone reactors before the skimmer do exist. Within a skimmer is not the only air-water interface.

As it minimizes ozone emissions, ozone which has been researched as a carcinogen.

Lastly, since BeanAnimal seems unwilling to attempt a civilized debate, please consider reading:

Aquatic Systems Engineering
P.R. Escobal

There is no debate here, you are presenting an ever moving target, ignoring points and questions and reframing. Asking for proof of recirculating ozone skimmers and trying to define them as having to be pressurized for air to be recycled is a deflection. Of course they exist, but you already know that.

Yes excess ozone can be a carcinogen, that does not legitimize your point.

Yes, ozone reactors do exist, that is not in question either, Avast, RO, GEO, etc, sells them to our hobby. None of this validates your vague proposal or ideas. The reactors mentioned use activated to remove excess ozone, just as we would do with a recirculating (air, water or both) ozone equipped skimmer. Let's hold that thought.
Aquatic Ecosystems Engineering?
Maybe search this phrase in google
“who is the reef forum user who found the errors in pr escobals aquatic ecosystems engineering”

I own both the first and second edition prints. I have read them from cover to cover countless times and proofread the math. I identified the error almost 2 decades ago and isn’t it incidental. Much of the book is built on the flawed mathematical equation. The book has been out of print for 26 years and the author was a highly respected aerospace and astrodynamics engineer ( a celestial mechanic… the guy whose math is so good his job was to pinpointed where things will be at certain times in space) has passed away. Even rocket scientists make errors. I just happened to stumble upon a large one when writing my own engineering article.

Skimmers? Yes, see my DIY 6' tall recirculating skimmer that was built decades and originally based on Escobal's work along with Dr. Feldman's and a few others. That is where I found more errors in Escobal's math. There is a recent R2R thread here outlines some of that old work and a lengthy threaed in the RC archives.

As for Mr. Escobal? His side hustle was Filtronics, a company that sold reactors and other equipment based on his math and designs. Let's revisit the modern "ozone reactors" and compare them to his commercial equipment. The same reactor category, but no pressure and no forced diffusion advantage over a well designed ozone injected skimmer. Example: one reef2reef user reported worse ORP performance running ozone through the Avast reactor versus a skimmer, unable to exceed 350 after 2 hours where the skimmer previously reached 400 in about an hour. Search the ReefCentral archives and you will find massive threads on the subject.

So back to the point. What is better at what cost and complexity? That is the entire theme of the pushback here. Yes, theory says we can pressure inject ozone, chill a calcium reactor and add massive complexity to anything. Why? Where is the real world argument defending these ideas as a "better" system and where are the actual attainable designs?

I am willing to debate anybody, but this is not a debate, it is a game of tag, where you are being chased around and won't stand still.

 

[MnFish1]

If the desire is to target both and algae can be targeted using a higher flow rate but parasites require a lower flow (longer uv exposure time) rate don't you just set it to the lower requirement ? Longer dwell time will be (more) affective on algae as well.

I disagree with this, in part. If the multiplication rate in your tanks water is faster than the rate the UV is killing the organisms (no matter what) it will not work. It's probably a fair bit more effective to buy a unit larger than what ir normally recommended for your tank. The terms higher rate and lower rate are ambiguous. I agree that a longer dwell time will kill more algae and parasites.

 

[BeanAnimal]

I disagree with this, in part. If the multiplication rate in your tanks water is faster than the rate the UV is killing the organisms (no matter what) it will not work. It's probably a fair bit more effective to buy a unit larger than what ir normally recommended for your tank. The terms higher rate and lower rate are ambiguous. I agree that a longer dwell time will kill more algae and parasites.

I think you missed the entire point and the argument it was responding to. Context matters here a lot. This is materially different than what was being discussed (flow rate changes for a given UV that is sized properly to begin with, not sizing a particular UV for a particular system).

 

[MnFish1]

Would Beananimal read the first post. Where it states 2 ball valves linked to 2 actuators.

Lastly I doubt that, this staff member bothers to clean/decalcify the valves on his/her system.

Recheck the outflow of a sterilizer after any adjustment or maintenance cycle.

Edit :to remove assumptions about gender.

Just another R2R staff dismissal.

It is why I do not enjoy this site!

I have a comment, part of the site is communication. Reading through 99 percent of the thread, your method of communication is not clear (I say apologetically). I don't know if English is a second language, you're typing really quickly or some other reason - but your sentences do not flow together, and its quite unclear exactly the point(s) you are trying to make. I think the responses you've received have been pretty straight forward. For example I don't understand in your first post about not using abbreviations. Did you mean word abbreviations, or chemical abbreviations. If chemical abbreviations, the element symbols are the same internationally (again - I might be misunderstanding)

 

[MnFish1]

I think you missed the entire point and the argument it was responding to. Context matters here a lot. This is materially different than what was being discussed (flow rate changes for a given UV that is sized properly to begin with, not sizing a particular UV for a particular system).

I don't believe I missed the point. Any UV that is sized properly is designed to be used with a certain flow rate. If you use too fast a flow rate, it will not work properly. If you use too slow a flow-rate it will not work properly. There is no role for varying the flow rate as suggested by the OP. Edit - thats what I was responding to

 

[BeanAnimal]

I don't believe I missed the point. Any UV that is sized properly is designed to be used with a certain flow rate. If you use too fast a flow rate, it will not work properly. If you use too slow a flow-rate it will not work properly. There is no role for varying the flow rate as suggested by the OP. Edit - thats what I was responding to

You are introducing a tangent argument that has nothing to do with the original exchange or counter point. Nobody is debating UV sizing. The entirety of the exchange was discrediting the idea of needing variable flow rate with a whatever is assumed to be a properly sized UV. That's all.

 

[Dogeatbird]

Systematicly negative and disgusting, dismissive.

If so enlightened, write and publish own article/ book.

The entire purpose of a linked ball valve with an actuator is repeatedly, precisely switching between two flow rates.

Aside from loss of output due to preventative maintenance timing.

 

[BeanAnimal]

Systematicly negative and disgusting, dismissive.

If so enlightened, write and publish own article/ book.

The entire purpose of a linked ball valve with an actuator is repeatedly, precisely switching between two flow rates.

Aside from loss of output due to preventative maintenance timing.

The purpose of the linked ball valves is not in question, the reason they are needed or beneficial is what was demonstrated to be pointless. The setup adds needless complexity for no benefit for a UV sterilizer in a home reef.

You have moved from deflection and restatement to personal attack. Perhaps it is time for staff to close the thread.

 

[Dogeatbird]

If a 25wt UV Syerilizer has a pathogen flow of X gph, an algae flow of 2X gph.

System volume is also (X); the math is stupid simple.

Once every hour the volume could be irradiated to a pathogen level.

Or a mixed percentage every hour to an alga level.

Although each manufacturer designates suggested flow rates.
Furthermore each flow rate adds heat.

The complexity of adding actuators, provides an option to set a unit into algae flow rates.
This limits the influx of heat, while still providing the benefit of correctly sized UV sterilizer.