Tunze is being investigated by a law firm out of D.C.

[bct15]

Really show me thier public statement regarding that.

As far as people believing they are flow experts, I agree! Have you read the original report at all? Honest question.... In my opinion you haven't nor has Shred based on your responses.

Yes I have read the original report, And if you read my previous posts you will see my problems with it and my qualification (just above revs post to calm down is my qualifications). As far as Shreds post, I don't even know what that says (the one with the question).

 

[shred5]

The first couple paragraphs are actually very informative and explain that there is most likely some errors in the testing procedure. The two main powerheads in discussion in the paper produce two vastly different types of flow, therefor making it difficult to compare the two using the same testing technique. Anybody with an understanding of fluid dynamics will understand this, and this is why, like myself, many engineers and scientist doubt the validity of the often cited report. To many people who read this report suddenly think they are flow experts because they know how to read a published number but do not know where the numbers actually came from. To accurately estimate the flow produced by these powerheads, the flow should be calculated in at least three different ways, then results should be compared and flow numbers can be estimated takin into account various flow conditions.

Tunze has come out and publicly stated that they have found errors in the original experimentation technique. People need to sit back, take a deep breath and see how everything plays out...

Another nice post.

Again people seem to believe the published numbers but do not say why they are right. But seem to think Tunze is in the wrong..

This test was sponsored by a competitor?

Question to everyone..

Would a competitor sponsor a test that gave their product the advantage or disadvantage?

What type of flow is better? tunzes flow pattern of ecotechs?

Just so everyone knows I own pumps from both companies and I like them both but for different reasons.

Dave Polzin

 

[ja4207]

Aquanerd, my undergrad was mechanical engineering with a focus in fluid dynamics, computational and the otherwise...my graduate study is more materials and mathematical based though. But mechanical engineers may be qualified to discuss the topic of flow depending on their area of emphasis.

Shred, what are you trying to ask? Who do you want to know made an error? The method that the study used to estimate the flow appears to not be able to accurately estimate laminar directional flow, or turbulence in the flow may introduce a huge amount of biased to the measurement device (just one theory).

The only thing I will say about the research that is off is that the pumps with higher jet velocities will move a comparably larger volume of water downstream as the energy of the jet is dissipated into the surrounding environment. The purpose of this investigation, however, was to measure the output flow of the pumps with respect to their manufacturer's claimed flowrate, which was to be the flow near (~1 diameter downstream) the face of the pump. If a manufacturer chooses to state that a pump produces a certain flowrate of water, then that number should correspond to the volume of water flowing through the pump, not the amount of water that is eventually moved by the jet downstream.

 

[ja4207]

Another nice post.

Again people seem to believe the published numbers but do not say why they are right. But seem to think Tunze is in the wrong..

This test was sponsored by a competitor?

Question to everyone..

Would a competitor sponsor a test that gave their product the advantage or disadvantage?

What type of flow is better? tunzes flow pattern of ecotechs?

Just so everyone knows I own pumps from both companies and I like them both but for different reasons.

Dave Polzin

Since you can't seem to find it I'll repost it for you.

Here is my best explanation why with proof that this suit has a chance.

proof requirement for false advertisement

To establish that an advertisement is false, a plaintiff must prove five things: (1) a false statement of fact has been made about the advertiser's own or another person's goods, services, or commercial activity; (2) the statement either deceives or has the potential to deceive a substantial portion of its targeted audience; (3) the deception is also likely to affect the purchasing decisions of its audience; (4) the advertising involves goods or services in interstate commerce; and (5) the deception has either resulted in or is likely to result in injury to the plaintiff. The most heavily weighed factor is the advertisement's potential to injure a customer. The injury is usually attributed to money the consumer lost through a purchase that would not have been made had the advertisement not been misleading. False statements can be defined in two ways: those that are false on their face and those that are implicitly false.

case in point

Flawed and Insignificant Research Advertisements based on flawed and insignificant research are defined under section 43(a) of the Lanham Act as "representations found to be unsupported by accepted authority or research or which are contradicted by prevailing authority or research." These advertisements are false on their face.

Alpo Pet Foods v. Ralston Purina Co., 913 F.2d 958 (D.C. Cir. 1990), shows how basing advertising claims on statistically insignificant test results provides sufficient grounds for a false advertising claim. In this case, the Ralston Purina Company claimed that its dog food was beneficial for dogs with canine hip dysplasia, demonstrating the claims with studies and tests. Alpo Pet Foods brought a claim of false advertising against Purina, saying that the test results could not support the claims made in the advertisements. Upon looking at the evidence and the way the tests were conducted by Purina, the court ruled not only that the test results were insignificant but also that the methods used to conduct the tests were inadequate and the results could therefore not support Purina's claims

So whether the reef is thriving or not is irrelevent. The damages in this suit has to do with monies lost or spent on a product that advertised a product falsely. See proof requirement below, specifically " The injury is usually attributed to money the consumer lost through a purchase that would not have been made had the advertisement not been misleading''. Basically would the consumer have purchased the pump had they known the actual output flow? Would the consumer had chose a different manufacturer had they known the output flow is the same? Add at a significant savings (Koralia)? I assure you a judge will not look at thier past business ethics, customer service, years in business or contibution to the industry. The current relevent facts are all that matters.

If they find the plantiffs IMO this is a guaranteed winner. If any of the competitors file they are absolutely screwed! Finding plantiffs maybe difficult based on what I've seen along all the forums, seems regardless to thia study Tunze followers are still highly loyal. Like I said before I don't favor a lawsuit, I'm a capitalist at heart. The market, consumer in this case will decide whether or not they are held accountable. If the industry consumer still trusts them after this they will continue to buy, if not they were held accountable by losing confidence and trust whereas profits will suffer.

One last point. The study may not be independant and could very well be funded intentionally by Ecotech. However Tunze has basically already shot themselves in the foot from ever arguing that point. In a matter of days they issued an apology and explanation to why thier research was wrong and explained in detail what they were going to do to remedy the situation. Consider your competion issuing a study about the company you own or work for that is innaccurate, slanted towards them or baseless. Your officially response wouldn't be an explanation of why you thought your product preformed better than it did and you certainly wouldn't give a layed out plan to remedy the problems that "don't exist". It would be a vehement denial pointing out the holes and conflict of interest contained. Also consider that this research was done and issued to all the companies involved months before it was publically available. Tunze as well as all the other manufacturers were given plenty of time to test and consider the research. Tunze has accepted it as correct and are moving forward to correct thier pumps issues.

 

[bct15]

Another nice post.

Again people seem to believe the published numbers but do not say why they are right. But seem to think Tunze is in the wrong..

This test was sponsored by a competitor?

Question to everyone..

Would a competitor sponsor a test that gave their product the advantage or disadvantage?

What type of flow is better? tunzes flow pattern of ecotechs?

Just so everyone knows I own pumps from both companies and I like them both but for different reasons.

Dave Polzin

Agreed %100, what I have been saying

 

[AquaNerd1]

After reading that paragraph I no longer read any of your posts. That has got to be the most ridiculous defense I've heard in awhile!

As far as your explanation and defense to Tunze unfortunately Tunze doesn't agree with you. Sounds like to me you are half hoping this was their position and response and half full of crap. Sorry to put it so blunt but your wrong, wrong and wrong.

Please read my post regarding false advertisement.

I guess you skipped the two posts where I said I was being a smart butt by saying those comments.

As for Tunze refuting te original study, just visit ReefCental...it's all over the place. Most of those threads were locked because people got out of hand, but here's the strongest response: 6305 shrouds on 6105? - Reef Central Online Community

 

[AquaNerd1]

Got awfully quiet awfully fast. Or, I've been banished and this is all I can now see.

 

[bct15]

You've been banished

 

[VegasRick]

Got awfully quiet awfully fast. Or, I've been banished and this is all I can now see.

I think your link pretty much shut it down. It pretty well states what those of us who own both pumps already knew.

 

[Viva'sReef]

Gonna repost what Roger said on RC....Gives the best explanation I've heard so far


GPH is only an accurate way to state flow when you are physically transporting fluid from one vessel to another and can quantify it in that way. We use gph because we started with the only honest statement that can be made, velocity, the Interzoo 2002 flyer stated the flow in velocity, every single dealer complained that they didn't know what this meant. They wanted the flow stated in gph/lph as people were used to that number from conventional powerheads which as a pressure pump can be metered in this way accurately. In the sense that we are conveying how many maxijets the flow is equal to, it is an accurate statement, but it is largely meaningless in any other sense. You cannot really increase the flow, only change the pattern, reach, width, ratio of turbulence to transistional flow, etc and for the 6105 a small gain is possible because we can go from 18-24V. If tricking a meter is all that people are interested in, that we can do, but the result is not meaningful flow. This is why no one ever states a river has x number of gph of flow, they state the velocity, the same on a reef. Further, your corals only care about the velocity of flow, which should be between .10-.25 m/s for lagoon dwellers and around .30-.50 m/s for your average lps and many sps and up to 2.00 m/s for the highest flow corals from trenches and surf zones.

We are working on restating the flow with velocity in future reprints of the manuals and packaging, which is the way it should be stated, we will keep the gph statement with the disclaimer "for comparative purposes only" and add a chart that shows the velocity of the flow in a map of flow pattern and explains what coral types need what velocity.

We have more flow in any meaningful and honest way than any of our competitors, the pattern is more useful and we deliver the velocity needed across the tank, rather than in a small area near the pump.

The initial press release assumed we had some gross error, some obstruction or reduction of flow, we only knew using a similar method, we got a similar result, and that if we removed the front housing entirely, we got the same result as they have, but upon further testing we saw this wasn't an improvement, it wasn't an increase, the flow downstream becomes nothing and we now fully understand the physics at play. You could view our flow as time released, the same energy is present, but it unwinds into velocity of turbulence downstream as the directional energy changes form upon interaction with the static water, this is why the dye is transported completely across the tank, versus swirling in a short reach area.

I am aware of the thread, but the posters are largely two fan clubs butting heads, as much as I appreciate our supporters there is very little meaningful or productive conversation and I have stayed out of it as their will be more flow studies, and we know we are right and we had it right all along and so rather than fan flames and be accused of cheating, lying etc, I have stayed out of it. We made our case, further flow studies will certainly vindicate us if they look at the reach and practical use in common reef sizes and the velocity at the corals. I know we were not lying and I don't believe anyone else was, but somehow, you have to convey the flow to consumers in a way they understand and that is gph, which is not a valid unit of measure for open channel flow, you can state it, but it is highly inaccurate since it is all based on where and how you collect your velocity numbers and whether you include the water that is induced into movement downstream, which is a valid point of open channel type flow. We haven't changed our intention to improve the products, which is a continual process and we always are tweaking and refining the pumps, but what really constitutes an improvement? It should be more than simply finding a test you can win.

 

[ja4207]

Got awfully quiet awfully fast. Or, I've been banished and this is all I can now see.

His statements only emphasize my point. If you read through my explantions (post) and what the lawsuit covers false advertisement is is validated. Velocity has no bearing in this thread or specific topic as velocity is not what they falsely labeled on their product.

 

[shred5]

His statements only emphasize my point. If you read through my explantions (post) and what the lawsuit covers false advertisement is is validated. Velocity has no bearing in this thread or specific topic as velocity is not what they falsely labeled on their product.

You dont get it, the ecotech marine study is an estimate of gph too. If they put theres through another test like tunze test they may be on the low side and tunze could be on the high side.. There is not acurate way to measure gph. Certain methods favor certain types of pumps.

Also I do not think you even read the origional article because all their calculations are based on velocity.
maybe you should read it:
Feature Article: Experimental Comparison of Measured Flow Output of Aquarium Propeller Pumps — Advanced Aquarist's Online Magazine

Then tell me what v stands for?

what are they testing for at those points?


Dave Polzin

 

[AquaNerd1]

His statements only emphasize my point. If you read through my explantions (post) and what the lawsuit covers false advertisement is is validated. Velocity has no bearing in this thread or specific topic as velocity is not what they falsely labeled on their product.

First of all, there is no lawsuit. A DC-based firm is investigating. Perhaps a lawsuit will stem from that, but until then it is just an investigation.

Secondly, you made the bold claim that we had no proof of Tunze ever refuting the study, which the link obviously supports what I've been saying this whole time. The only aspect of your points that Roger's statement even remotely brings up is the fact that GPH is a terrible way to talk about water flow from a propeller based pump. The descriptor was only used because that's the only thing people in this industry are comfortable with. Sure, any investigation or suit may be based off GPH and GPH alone, but all Tunze has to do is show how flawed that unit of measure is for determining flow from propeller pumps. For pressure pumps with impellers rather than propellers, GPH is relevant.

Regarding the term velocity, it is very relevant. Roger lays it out that GPH is a pointless unit of measure for these types of pumps, so "velocity" is very important in this conversation because it will likely be the basis of any legal argument in Tunze's own defense.

What I still find so amazing is that you and others are sticking so close to the perceived notion that this study was flawless. Would you feel the same if Sanjay's name wasn't attached? Would you feel the same if the results were reversed? How would you feel if Tunze sponsored the test instead of EcoTech Marine (argue all you want, EcoTech's fingerprints are all over it)? What happens if a new and different test comes out showing far different results? This was just one study using one piece of equipment and one test method. For the results to be acceptable, you have to be able to reproduce the results with multiple types of equipment that each measure water flow in a different way.

 

[Dank Sinatra]

I hope noone jumps on board and supports this... The first thought I had on the article was doubts because it was commissioned by Ecotech marine and bashes their largest competitor Tunze... It had flaws from the start and I knew Tunze would be sending out a reply and other data. Anyone who blindly follows one company's research into a competitive company needs to remove the blinders. I don't use either as I have a closed loop, but I know the quality of Tunze and would lean their direction if I needed powerheads.

Also all you jumping on the car mileage bandwagon, My 96 Ranger with over 250,000 miles gets 37MPG on the highway and around 30 in town with the 2.3L 4Cylinder... That is WAY higher than the advertised mileage. And yes, I have a lead foot Remember the mileage stated on the stickers are also best case scenario calculated in a lab, not a calculated average of daily driving.

? One dude comparing MPGs to this thread topic isnt much of a bandwagon.