UV off return like tee

[dank.reefer]

The problem with post 6 is that you are limiting the flow through your filtration by the requirements of the UV flow. For a 90g tank you should be pushing 800-900 g per hour through the sump for the filtration to work properly. The problem with puting the gate valve on the uv circuit is thay you will have no control of the flow after the restriction(valve). In order to control hydrualic(water)pressure you can only resrict the outlet. If you put the gate either before or after the UV on that side of the circuit the water will just simply bypass that side of the circuit. It doesn't matter where the UV makes its return to the loop after the valve (into the main return line or after the t in the cross pipe) the pressure/flow after the valve will remain constant.

To the theory of adding a larger UV to deal with both algea and parasites you would need to run a 80-100watt UV to effectively accomplish this on a 90g aquarium and still maintain proper flow through the filter(sump).

This is a more basic image of the concept.

(EDIT) this image shows 1 of the service valves being used for flow control. The 2 ball valves directly connected to the UV are for servicing only. The valve in the main line is the only 1 that would be used for flow control.

 

[dank.reefer]

Here is another image that may make it a little more clear.

 

[dank.reefer]

By limiting the water through the main return line you will force the flow through the UV. By limiting the flow through the UV you will force the flow to bypass it altogether. The water will always follow the path of least resistance. So by choking the side of the plumbing with the UV on it you will not be able to control the flow through it. Water must be forced through the UV in order to achieve controlled flow rates.

 

[threebuoys]

I would like to keep it simple like post 6. My concern is whether 400gph into the DT is enough to achieve the recommended turnover.

My recommendation, based on the info in the links I sent, would be to run 100% of the return flow through the UV as illustrated in post 6 and to run it at the highest speed you can achieve. I would not throttle back. I believe the parasites will be handled just as effectively by quickly passing through the UV multiple times as they will by passing slowly through the UV one time.

 

[dank.reefer]

My recommendation, based on the info in the links I sent, would be to run 100% of the return flow through the UV as illustrated in post 6 and to run it at the highest speed you can achieve. I would not throttle back. I believe the parasites will be handled just as effectively by quickly passing through the UV multiple times as they will by passing slowly through the UV one time.

My advise is based on actual hydraulic flow dynamics and the recommendations of the engineers that developed and designed the tool.

 

[dank.reefer]

It seems aweful silly to spend a significant amount of money $400 or more on a UV sterilizer then not use it to its fullest potential because it is easier to just ignore what the engineer who designed the thing recommends. Now that is just IMO

 

[QuinnLee512]

It seems aweful silly to spend a significant amount of money $400 or more on a UV sterilizer then not use it to its fullest potential because it is easier to just ignore what the engineer who designed the thing recommends. Now that is just IMO

I'm just confused how to get 800 out the non-uv side and only 400 out the UV side by having the valve on the non-uv side. My plan was to set the pump to where the non-uv side reads 800. Then I would dial down the flow on the UV side with the gate valve until that side reads 400.

 

[threebuoys]

It seems aweful silly to spend a significant amount of money $400 or more on a UV sterilizer then not use it to its fullest potential because it is easier to just ignore what the engineer who designed the thing recommends. Now that is just IMO

Not a problem,

Of course, you can buy a high wattage jebao UV filter which uses the same bulbs as used by all of the manufacturers for less than a $100. No moving parts in any of them. I would love to see a well documented scientific paper that supports UV treatment of water flow being any different than UV treatment of air flow described in the links I provided. That might change my mind.

 

[dank.reefer]

By throttling back in a very controlled manner the main water return the additional water will have to be bypassed somewhere. This bypass around your gate valve will be regulated by how much the gate vale is closed. Think about running a garden hose into the bottom of a t with 2 different length pipes sticking straight up in the air. One pipe 5" tall and the second pipe 20" tall. Naturally the water will just flow from the 5" pipe as all of the pressure is relieved by the short pipe length. As you slowly close off the short pipe the pressure will be able to overcome the pressure resistance of the taller pipe. If you just put a valve on the taller pipe it doesn't matter how much you close that pipe off you will still only put water out of the short pipe.

The pressure in the pipe is what causes the water to flow. This pressure is set at a constant and no matter whuch way that pressure is directed that pressure will remain constant. So the more you shut off the straight through pipe the more of the pressure will be diverted through the other path.

 

[QuinnLee512]

By throttling back in a very controlled manner the main water return the additional water will have to be bypassed somewhere. This bypass around your gate valve will be regulated by how much the gate vale is closed. Think about running a garden hose into the bottom of a t with 2 different length pipes sticking straight up in the air. One pipe 5" tall and the second pipe 20" tall. Naturally the water will just flow from the 5" pipe as all of the pressure is relieved by the short pipe length. As you slowly close off the short pipe the pressure will be able to overcome the pressure resistance of the taller pipe. If you just put a valve on the taller pipe it doesn't matter how much you close that pipe off you will still only put water out of the short pipe.

The pressure in the pipe is what causes the water to flow. This pressure is set at a constant and no matter whuch way that pressure is directed that pressure will remain constant. So the more you shut off the straight through pipe the more of the pressure will be diverted through the other path.

I'm thinking I might understand. I would run the pump as if I'm trying to push 1200. Adjust the valve so that only 800 goes through that side and the other 400 will go through the UV side?

 

[dank.reefer]

I'm thinking I might understand. I would run the pump as if I'm trying to push 1200. Adjust the valve so that only 800 goes through that side and the other 400 will go through the UV side?

Yes that is the concept. Even if you were to run only 800gph through the return as you throttle back the return all of the excess will be channeled through the UV and afterwards meet back up after the valve totaling the original GPH flow rating less a little bit of gph for pumping and head pressure losses.

Not a problem,

Of course, you can buy a high wattage jebao UV filter which uses the same bulbs as used by all of the manufacturers for less than a $100. No moving parts in any of them. I would love to see a well documented scientific paper that supports UV treatment of water flow being any different than UV treatment of air flow described in the links I provided. That might change my mind.

Water and air are 2 very different substances and light refraction through that water is so vastly different than that of air that it isn't even a worth looking at. That is why people in the last thread that you linked to didn't agree with you either. You saying prove it and there not being a scientist willing to waste his time doesn't validate your incorrect hypothesis.

That being said recommending that people use equipment in a manner other than what the manufacturer recommends in order to get "OK" results is obsurd. Recommending other aquarist to use their equipment im a way that it was not designed to be used is wrong. If you want to experiment with your own equipment thats fine but the best base line for any product is to set it up as intended and adjust from there is needed. If the people who designed the device don't know how it works then I don't know who would.

 

[TARHEEL78]

I'm thinking I might understand. I would run the pump as if I'm trying to push 1200. Adjust the valve so that only 800 goes through that side and the other 400 will go through the UV side?

Make sure that you account for head pressure if you aren't using a flow meter.

 

[dank.reefer]

If you were to build a manifold such as the 1 pictured in post #22 you could just plumb that in before your split. That way no modification to the original plumbing would be necessary you would just add in the uv manifold between the pump and split and your original 800gph would be consistent with a 400/400 split coming out the nozzles or whatever is left over after accounting for head pressure losses. The water flow going through the UV isn't lost it is mearly diverted and will rejoin the flow of the main return line after going through the UV. So if you have 800gph coming out of the pump and divert 400 of that through the UV after going through the UV that 400gph would rejoin the 400gph left over to total 800gph when done.

 

[threebuoys]

Yes that is the concept. Even if you were to run only 800gph through the return as you throttle back the return all of the excess will be channeled through the UV and afterwards meet back up after the valve totaling the original GPH flow rating less a little bit of gph for pumping and head pressure losses.


Water and air are 2 very different substances and light refraction through that water is so vastly different than that of air that it isn't even a worth looking at. That is why people in the last thread that you linked to didn't agree with you either. You saying prove it and there not being a scientist willing to waste his time doesn't validate your incorrect hypothesis.

That being said recommending that people use equipment in a manner other than what the manufacturer recommends in order to get "OK" results is obsurd. Recommending other aquarist to use their equipment im a way that it was not designed to be used is wrong. If you want to experiment with your own equipment thats fine but the best base line for any product is to set it up as intended and adjust from there is needed. If the people who designed the device don't know how it works then I don't know who would.

WOW

 

[QuinnLee512]

If you were to build a manifold such as the 1 pictured in post #22 you could just plumb that in before your split. That way no modification to the original plumbing would be necessary you would just add in the uv manifold between the pump and split and your original 800gph would be consistent with a 400/400 split coming out the nozzles or whatever is left over after accounting for head pressure losses. The water flow going through the UV isn't lost it is mearly diverted and will rejoin the flow of the main return line after going through the UV. So if you have 800gph coming out of the pump and divert 400 of that through the UV after going through the UV that 400gph would rejoin the 400gph left over to total 800gph when done.

Oh wait. I'm thinking I needed 800gph coming out of the non-uv nozzle. So if I don't care about a manifold, then I can keep it simple like post 6 and have 400gph going through both sides of the return line.

 

[dank.reefer]

Yes in theory that would work though I think in application you may find the flow control to be a little lacking. This is only my thoughts though as I have never set up UV in this manner. I have only ran them with the flow control manifold on the return line (preventative) or closed loop in the display with a deticated pump(curative).

 

[mdrobc13]

I did the same and put a UV light I think 50W (would have to check) running from a T from my Reef Octopus S4 Various pump. Flow goes to tank and also thru UV and returned to chamber 2 of my sump where my refugium is. Flow is set by the variable DC pump and I go for bacterial/parasite control vs clear water (use charcoal for that). Have noted that since adding UV I am getting a bit of both...no more ich or any outbreaks..QT has also helped and my water is pretty clear. .

Biggest issue so far has been fitting my UV into my tank as space was limited and I had to work to pumb new pipe from the T with a ball valve to control the flow as needed and then run it to the sump as there was really no place to add back into the line easily without cutting the original piping on my Red Sea which I wasn't keen on doing. So far about 6 mos with current set up and running okay. Good luck.

 

[QuinnLee512]

I did the same and put a UV light I think 50W (would have to check) running from a T from my Reef Octopus S4 Various pump. Flow goes to tank and also thru UV and returned to chamber 2 of my sump where my refugium is. Flow is set by the variable DC pump and I go for bacterial/parasite control vs clear water (use charcoal for that). Have noted that since adding UV I am getting a bit of both...no more ich or any outbreaks..QT has also helped and my water is pretty clear. .

Biggest issue so far has been fitting my UV into my tank as space was limited and I had to work to pumb new pipe from the T with a ball valve to control the flow as needed and then run it to the sump as there was really no place to add back into the line easily without cutting the original piping on my Red Sea which I wasn't keen on doing. So far about 6 mos with current set up and running okay. Good luck.

Can you clarify which setup you went with?

 

[FernBluffReef]

I would like to keep it simple like post 6. My concern is whether 400gph into the DT is enough to achieve the recommended turnover.

I run my AquaUV 25 on its own pump in sump using a Syncra SDC 3.0 dedicated running at 90% to get around 400gph.

I would have loved to put on my RS525s return but figured the return flow was just too high and trying to slow it down for the UV was too much and I was reluctant to do custom plumbing.

In the end I think I have such that very little if any water is recirculated. I just recently got an ich magnet - err Powder Blue. He’s had ich for about 6 weeks now but remains a pig and seems happy. A couple other fish have had minor bouts of ich so I’m thinking the UV, otherwise healthy hungers fish with vitamins…. If I was to do again I’d probably get the bigger 57w UV. The 25 as per spec is minimum