Multiple smaller heaters (watts) are better than one larger one! Do you agree?

[design.maddie]

My IT RAID mindset says YES! we NEED the redundancy.

The way I operate is ever fall I buy a new full sized heater for my tank, and stash the previous one. If something were to happen I would have a backup.

 

[tharbin]

I voted other because I think this is very much a mixed bag. Heaters fail, a lot, so redundancy makes sense but two or three or even four heaters in parallel are not really redundant. Each one is a single point of failure. It is true that catastrophe will happen more slowly with smaller heaters but if it happens in the middle of the night, your tank is still cooked in the morning. Multiple heaters means multiple single points of failure for a high failure item.

On the other hand properly planned multiple heaters of normal size can act more as a failover solution, if you trust the controllers. I don't know that I trust an APEX power bar or an Inkbird any more than I do the contacts in an Ebo-Jager heater.

 

[BZOFIQ]

It’s always been my belief that one big heater will heat water quicker and work less to heat environment and also save on wattage use

Probably not the case as 2 smaller heaters will give you more surface area to transfer the heat into the water column

 

[ZoWhat]

Multiple heaters vs one? Absolutely. A no brainer.

Whatcha going to do if your one heater gets stuck ON or quits altogether? You're gonna buy all new corals and fish...thats what

Multiple ones give you redundancy plus a more even spread of heat in different parts of the tank and sump

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

IMO, using multiple heaters has pros and cons. I used about 6 in my tank, but the trade off less loss of heat if one or more fails is that there are more to fail, with problematic issues beyond loss of heat (such as electrified water, release of metals, etc.).

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

It’s always been my belief that one big heater will heat water quicker and work less to heat environment and also save on wattage use

If all of the heaters are fully underwater, they are all 100% efficient over time heating the water. There may be differences in how fast the heat is transferred to the water from the heater when it first turns on, but I cannot see how any of them lose heat to the environment.

 

[Sleepingtiger]

One large heater. Doesn't make sense to dedicate 2 or more outlets on your apex for heaters. Have one heater, have your apex monitor the temp. If temp drops because heater failed, you will get a warning from Fusion. Have a spare heater laying around so you can swap it out if one goes bad. Redundancy for the sake of redundancy doesn't make sense.

adding more equipment just means your failure rate just increases. Heaters fail both ways. Even if you're using heater controller, they fail as well.

 

[vetteguy53081]

If all of the heaters are fully underwater, they are all 100% efficient over time heating the water. There may be differences in how fast the heat is transferred to the water from the heater when it first turns on, but I cannot see how any of them lose heat to the environment.

They wouldn’t lose heat
My feeling is heat quicker and shut down
I have an 800 and 1000wt heater within two tanks

 

[vetteguy53081]

Probably not the case as 2 smaller heaters will give you more surface area to transfer the heat into the water column

I’m heating sump- not the tank itself

 

[vetteguy53081]

Any reasoning behind this? Unless there's an ac adapter or something unsubmerged, all heaters should be 100% efficient regardless of size.

Edit: maybe inductive heaters could be leaking but I think most aquarium heaters are resistive

I’m heating my water via sump - not the tank itself
When I had smaller tanks- I had a heater in both back corners

 

[vetteguy53081]

In general, it’s what works best and most effectively
In essence, there isn’t a right or wrong method as long as safe temperature is maintained

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

One large heater. Doesn't make sense to dedicate 2 or more outlets on your apex for heaters. Have one heater, have your apex monitor the temp. If temp drops because heater failed, you will get a warning from Fusion. Have a spare heater laying around so you can swap it out if one goes bad. Redundancy for the sake of redundancy doesn't make sense.

adding more equipment just means your failure rate just increases. Heaters fail both ways. Even if you're using heater controller, they fail as well.

I used a heat controller, not a hobby device, but I had many heaters fail over 20 years. I would not want to be away and have the only heater fail.

Aside from the chemical issues I mentioned, I do not see why several smaller heaters is not a good idea. It makes great sense to me.

 

[andrecr]

One big Heater with the D&D controller

I've got one smaller for emergency backup

I don't see a reason to have multiple heaters if you still need to have backups for them and consumption is lesser with a big one

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

I don't see a reason to have multiple heaters if you still need to have backups for them and consumption is lesser with a big one

Why do you think consumption is less with a large heater?

Watts translates directly to degree rise in the water, regardless of the heater type or size or number.

 

[Groovyg]

i currently run 2 smaller titanium heaters
wired to a digital aquastat set for 85 in case of heater run away

 

[tharbin]

One large heater. Doesn't make sense to dedicate 2 or more outlets on your apex for heaters. Have one heater, have your apex monitor the temp. If temp drops because heater failed, you will get a warning from Fusion. Have a spare heater laying around so you can swap it out if one goes bad. Redundancy for the sake of redundancy doesn't make sense.

adding more equipment just means your failure rate just increases. Heaters fail both ways. Even if you're using heater controller, they fail as well.

And an aquarium controller is a whole tank single point of failure. Do I want one, sure. Can I afford one, no. What I would prefer is whole system monitor and individual controllers for each function that do not depend on the monitor for functionality. Still single points of failure but only one function gets affected.

What good is Fusion if your phone dies or the Apex fails or the temp sensor fails or even your Internet provider has an issue. The argument for or against multiple small heaters doesn't change just based on the controller available.

I take back everything in this post. You did not say to have the Apex control the heater, only to monitor it. I agree but I still lean slightly toward the two smaller heaters.

 

[Paleozoic_reefer]

Once its starts to dip below 65 outside I typically add a second heater in the tank set to turn on once the tank hits 70 in the event of an emergency. This will (hopefully) eliminate two running at the same time while giving me peace of mind if the main one malfunctions and stops if Im not aware.

 

[Borat]

2 heaters, 2 temp probes, 1 smart DIY controller that only switches the second heater if the first one is not up to the job.. It also randomly picks which heater will be "first" thereby prolonging heaters life.. 100g tank

 

[BZOFIQ]

I’m heating sump- not the tank itself

No difference, you're heating the same water, no matter where the heaters are placed.

 

[jhuntstl]

I think it depends. I use two for redundancy behind even more redundancy.

I wouldn't use multiple heaters if I didn't have a controller behind it. I wouldn't use a single heater without a controller either. I also wouldn't use a heater that didn't have it's own thermostat with a controller.

By controller I mean something as simple an Inkbird or Ranco.

One or two heating elements(w/no thermostat) on a single controller has just as much potential to fail as a heater with it's own built in thermostat.

I have two 50w Eheims on a Ranco that's behind a Hydros. This is heating about 24g total water volume.

If one of my Eheims dies, Ive still got the other. If an Eheim gets stuck ON, my Ranco will turn it off. If the Ranco doesn't turn on, my Hydros will tell me. If my Ranco gets stuck on, my Eheims will turn off utilizing their own thermostat. My Hydros can also turn it off. If my Hydros thermostat falls out of the tank, the Ranco will now control. If it fails, the Eheims will be in control. I can keep going...

My two worst single points of failure are the Ranco and Hydros. As far as I can tell the worst case scenario is the Hydros or Ranco loses power and I no longer have any heating at all. Everything is off. This is bad, but I should get a notification.

Okay okay. Worst case scenario would actually be...

Both Eheims are stuck on, Ranco is stuck on, Hydros thermostat falls out of the tank and into a tub of ice water.