Skippy Filter man says....

[FBCS]

Man from Skippy filter (maybe Skippy, I don't know) say to get rid of my UV
if I use his filter. Can someone expound on this?

[~ jan JJsPond.us]

On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 20:30:00 GMT, "FBCS" > wrote:

>Man from Skippy filter (maybe Skippy, I don't know) say to get rid of my UV
>if I use his filter. Can someone expound on this?
>
Depending on pond type, many people find with a Skippy filter, or a filter
like mine, they don't need their UV after a couple of years, at least
that's what I'm guessing Skippy is talking about. ~ jan


See my ponds and filter design:
http://users.owt.com/jjspond/

~Keep 'em Wet!~
Tri-Cities WA Zone 7a
To e-mail see website

[FBCS]

He said, if i understood correctly, that it would defeat the purpose of the
filter to have a UV.
"~ jan JJsPond.us" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 20:30:00 GMT, "FBCS" > wrote:
>
> >Man from Skippy filter (maybe Skippy, I don't know) say to get rid of my
UV
> >if I use his filter. Can someone expound on this?
> >
> Depending on pond type, many people find with a Skippy filter, or a filter
> like mine, they don't need their UV after a couple of years, at least
> that's what I'm guessing Skippy is talking about. ~ jan
>
>
> See my ponds and filter design:
> http://users.owt.com/jjspond/
>
> ~Keep 'em Wet!~
> Tri-Cities WA Zone 7a
> To e-mail see website

[BenignVanilla]

"Paul" > wrote in message
...
> If you have the UV running and trying to start a new filter the UV will
kill
> all the bacteria you are trying to cultivate to do the biological
filtration
> of the water. The UV should be turned off for at this a week or two to
let
> the culture grow and you may find you never need to turn it on again if
the
> filter traps all the fine particals

But if you UV before your bio-filter, or after...doesn't that avoid the
problem of killing your biomass? I thought UV was only detrimental to your
biofilter if it is in the filter.

BV.

[Paul]

UV will kill everything so you need a period of no UV to allow you bacteria
to grow. I don't see any advantage using a UV after filtering as its main
job is to cause stuff to clumb together to be filtered out by machanical
filtration.

Paul

[FBCS]

They state per website "This is a bio-Logical filter, therefore all those
fancy UV's and other such stuff are useless. Actually usig a UV with a
biological filter is an oxymoron. The UV kills the bacteria along with the
algae spores and bacterium are one of the keys to make the biological
process happen."

I didn't want to create a stink I just don't understand. Everyone raves
about this filter and I want to use it as my falls. Joann
"FBCS" > wrote in message
...
> He said, if i understood correctly, that it would defeat the purpose of
the
> filter to have a UV.
> "~ jan JJsPond.us" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 20:30:00 GMT, "FBCS" > wrote:
> >
> > >Man from Skippy filter (maybe Skippy, I don't know) say to get rid of
my
> UV
> > >if I use his filter. Can someone expound on this?
> > >
> > Depending on pond type, many people find with a Skippy filter, or a
filter
> > like mine, they don't need their UV after a couple of years, at least
> > that's what I'm guessing Skippy is talking about. ~ jan
> >
> >
> > See my ponds and filter design:
> > http://users.owt.com/jjspond/
> >
> > ~Keep 'em Wet!~
> > Tri-Cities WA Zone 7a
> > To e-mail see website
>
>

[RichToyBox]

"FBCS" > wrote in message
...
> Man from Skippy filter (maybe Skippy, I don't know) say to get rid of my
UV
> if I use his filter. Can someone expound on this?
>
> There are the pro UV people, many of them sell them, and there are the
anti UV people, most of them don't have them to sell. The UV will kill many
things that go through the UV, by attacking the DNA. Personally, I use UV
on my ponds because it adds a level of clarity that I cannot get without the
UV. The filter bacteria are a type of bacteria that requires an material to
anchor itself to, or so I am told. If it is anchored to the filter media,
rocks, liner, plant roots, pots, piping, etc., how is it supposed to get
into the flow of the UV. I think Skippy is probably trying to make people
think his filter is better than it is. The filter is a good filter, but all
filters can be overloaded with too many fish, or too big of fish or both.
The first thing to go is generally the clarity of the pond, then the other
water quality issues.
--
RichToyBox
http://www.geocities.com/richtoybox/pondintro.html

[Paul]

The info you get when buying a combined filter and uv such as a green genie
state not to turn the uv on for a week or so to let the filter get
established, that is where i got that info from.

I agree that the uv will only kill what goes past it and depending on the
power of the uv it will kill/remove different things.

Paul

[Lee Brouillet]

UV's will kill single cell algae, the ones responsible for "green water".
MOST UV's, and I make that statement with confidence - do NOT kill bacteria.
The wattage necessary, and the dwell time of the water while exposed to the
light, just isn't within the reach of most of us. Like a lot of equipment
aimed at ponders, the capabilities of a UV are very overstated. That being
said, the UV can *only* kill that which passes through it. The biobugs
growing in the biofilm growing in your filters is static: it doesn't move,
is not exposed to the UV, and is not subject to annihalation by it. Want to
kill green algae? Get a UV. Want to kill string algae, bacteria, etc.? Find
something else.

Lee


"FBCS" > wrote in message
...
> Man from Skippy filter (maybe Skippy, I don't know) say to get rid of my
UV
> if I use his filter. Can someone expound on this?
>
>

[Sam Hopkins]

It's easy to see what UV's do when you have them in aquariums. A lot of
aquariums have white cloudy water. This is caused by bacterial blooms. With
UV you dont get them and therefore your water isn't cloudy. Also my tanks
that are highly stocked with fish that have NO UV have green water. It's not
soupy, just green. It started with one tank and got transfered to the rest
because I use the same buckets to change water, etc. My tanks with UV do not
get green water. So in a nut shell UV in aquariums fix the two biggest
complaints aquarium people have. Green and white cloudy water.

Sam

"RichToyBox" > wrote in message
news:GTX_a.147043$Ho3.17388@sccrnsc03...
>
> "FBCS" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Man from Skippy filter (maybe Skippy, I don't know) say to get rid of my
> UV
> > if I use his filter. Can someone expound on this?
> >
> > There are the pro UV people, many of them sell them, and there are the
> anti UV people, most of them don't have them to sell. The UV will kill
many
> things that go through the UV, by attacking the DNA. Personally, I use UV
> on my ponds because it adds a level of clarity that I cannot get without
the
> UV. The filter bacteria are a type of bacteria that requires an material
to
> anchor itself to, or so I am told. If it is anchored to the filter media,
> rocks, liner, plant roots, pots, piping, etc., how is it supposed to get
> into the flow of the UV. I think Skippy is probably trying to make people
> think his filter is better than it is. The filter is a good filter, but
all
> filters can be overloaded with too many fish, or too big of fish or both.
> The first thing to go is generally the clarity of the pond, then the other
> water quality issues.
> --
> RichToyBox
> http://www.geocities.com/richtoybox/pondintro.html
>
>
>

[BenignVanilla]

"Sam Hopkins" > wrote in message
.. .
> It's easy to see what UV's do when you have them in aquariums. A lot of
> aquariums have white cloudy water. This is caused by bacterial blooms.
With
> UV you dont get them and therefore your water isn't cloudy. Also my tanks
> that are highly stocked with fish that have NO UV have green water. It's
not
> soupy, just green. It started with one tank and got transfered to the rest
> because I use the same buckets to change water, etc. My tanks with UV do
not
> get green water. So in a nut shell UV in aquariums fix the two biggest
> complaints aquarium people have. Green and white cloudy water.
<snip>

My only aquarium problem is algae on the glass. If someone could solve that.
I'd be overjoyed.

BV.

[[email protected]]

do a search of UV, strength, contact time, etc. UV is ok for killing bacteria in
"drinking water" read gin clear when big sucker UV lights are used. get some other
particulates in there and it doesnt really kill much of anything., algae is a huge
organism and the UV roughs up the cell walls making algae clot and sending it to the
filter or to the bottom (where it dies from lack of light). our typical little UV
lights and the speed of water moving thru there limits its application to getting rid
of algae. Ingrid


Andrew Burgess > wrote:

>"Lee Brouillet" > writes:
>
>>UV's will kill single cell algae, the ones responsible for "green water".
>>MOST UV's, and I make that statement with confidence
>>- do NOT kill bacteria.
>
>So convince _us_. Got any references?
>



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
List Manager: Puregold Goldfish List
http://puregold.aquaria.net/
www.drsolo.com
Solve the problem, dont waste energy finding who's to blame
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Unfortunately, I receive no money, gifts, discounts or other
compensation for all the damn work I do, nor for any of the
endorsements or recommendations I make.

[[email protected]]

that algae is a nitrate sponge and if your power goes out it will soak up some
wastes. it is a good buffer and when nice green the fish actually look good against
it. for the front glass use an aquarium sponge with a capful of peroxide on it.
Ingrid

"BenignVanilla" > wrote:
>My only aquarium problem is algae on the glass. If someone could solve that.
>I'd be overjoyed.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
List Manager: Puregold Goldfish List
http://puregold.aquaria.net/
www.drsolo.com
Solve the problem, dont waste energy finding who's to blame
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Unfortunately, I receive no money, gifts, discounts or other
compensation for all the damn work I do, nor for any of the
endorsements or recommendations I make.

[Lee Brouillet]

All right, I'll back off: you CAN buy UV *sterilizers* for water, designed
for household or institutional water supplies. To find one that handles the
kind of flow that ponds have you need to go to a 285 watt UV that will
handle about 3,000 gph and costs $3,688.00. That's HARDLY in the same class
as the 40 watt or less UV's that most ponders use. Perhaps I erred in
"assuming" that you wouldn't have a $4000 UV attached to your pond. Mea
culpa.

Lee

"Andrew Burgess" > wrote in message
...
> "Lee Brouillet" > writes:
>
> >UV's will kill single cell algae, the ones responsible for "green water".
> >MOST UV's, and I make that statement with confidence
> >- do NOT kill bacteria.
>
> So convince _us_. Got any references?
>
>

[Andrew Burgess]

"Lee Brouillet" > writes:

>All right, I'll back off: you CAN buy UV *sterilizers* for water, designed
>for household or institutional water supplies. To find one that handles the
>kind of flow that ponds have you need to go to a 285 watt UV that will
>handle about 3,000 gph and costs $3,688.00. That's HARDLY in the same class
>as the 40 watt or less UV's that most ponders use.

Killing all bacteria and killing no bacteria are not the only outcomes. Of
course UV kills bacteria, even sunlight kills bacteria. A pond UV kills
batcteria, but not enough to make unpotable water safe to drink.

>> "Lee Brouillet" > writes:
>>
>> >MOST UV's, and I make that statement with confidence
>> >- do NOT kill bacteria.

Still a false statement.

[Karen Mullen]

In article >, "BenignVanilla"
> writes:

>My only aquarium problem is algae on the glass. If someone could solve that.
>I'd be overjoyed.
>

Absolutely no sun on the tank. In Houston, my tank was out of the sun
completely, here in Ohio it gets morning sun ,tho very slight, on it and my
glass has green growing on it within a week. I have no place to put it in this
house where it's out of the sun unless I put it in a closet <g>.
Karen
Zone 5
Ashland, OH
http://hometown.aol.com/kmam1/MyPond/MyPond.html
My Art Studio at
http://members.aol.com/kmmstudios/K.M.Studios/K.M.Studios.html
for email remove the extra extention

[[email protected]]

I am a microbiologist meaning I learned it all a while ago for an exam, but at least
I can still read the literature. In all the sites dealing with using UV to kill
microbes in water (with big sucker units) they specifically talk about how
particulates in the water render the sterilizing ability ineffective. Not muddy
water, particulates. The typical dinglenuts UV we use on ponds is nowhere near the
size used to purify water. It is also nowhere near strong enough to kill a plant,
not even a floating single celled plant. Ingrid

Andrew Burgess > wrote:
writes:
>>>do a search of UV, strength, contact time, etc. UV is ok for killing bacteria in
>>"drinking water" read gin clear when big sucker UV lights are used. get some other
>>particulates in there and it doesnt really kill much of anything.,
>
>Sounds like nonsense. Sure in muddy water but not clear pond water.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
List Manager: Puregold Goldfish List
http://puregold.aquaria.net/
www.drsolo.com
Solve the problem, dont waste energy finding who's to blame
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Unfortunately, I receive no money, gifts, discounts or other
compensation for all the damn work I do, nor for any of the
endorsements or recommendations I make.

[Andrew Burgess]

writes:

>I am a microbiologist meaning I learned it all a while ago for an exam, but at least
>I can still read the literature. In all the sites dealing with using UV to kill
>microbes in water (with big sucker units) they specifically talk about how
>particulates in the water render the sterilizing ability ineffective. Not muddy
>water, particulates.

This just violates common sense. Picture the path of the UV photon
in the water. It either hits a microbe, hits a particle or passes right through, right?
Opaque muddy water, odds are it will hit a particle.

Go read the site and see what the particulate concentration is. Its just common
sense.

[AngrieWoman]

"BenignVanilla" > wrote in message
...

>My only aquarium problem is algae on the glass. If someone could solve
that.
>I'd be overjoyed.

Heck, I was happy when I got my algae to turn a pretty and healthy green
instead of icky brownish.

AngrieWoman

[[email protected]]

no, actually, UV is rapidly absorbed by water molecules. few people have gin clear
water which has the highest transmission to UV. A spectrophotometer is probably one
of the only ways to show how many "particulates" and colored soluble molecules there
are in pond water. The other is a disk that is lowered into the water and there are
numbers and it shows how turbid the water is.. I think aquatic ecosystems has some of
these. this is a really crude measure of course, a spectrophotometer is accurate.
Ingrid

Andrew Burgess > wrote:

writes:
>
>>I am a microbiologist meaning I learned it all a while ago for an exam, but at least
>>I can still read the literature. In all the sites dealing with using UV to kill
>>microbes in water (with big sucker units) they specifically talk about how
>>particulates in the water render the sterilizing ability ineffective. Not muddy
>>water, particulates.
>
>This just violates common sense. Picture the path of the UV photon
>in the water. It either hits a microbe, hits a particle or passes right through, right?
>Opaque muddy water, odds are it will hit a particle.
>
>Go read the site and see what the particulate concentration is. Its just common
>sense.



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
List Manager: Puregold Goldfish List
http://puregold.aquaria.net/
www.drsolo.com
Solve the problem, dont waste energy finding who's to blame
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Unfortunately, I receive no money, gifts, discounts or other
compensation for all the damn work I do, nor for any of the
endorsements or recommendations I make.

[[email protected]]

Correct, UV sterilizers are designed to have a short path of a cm or less.
Spectrophotomers are designed to measure particulates that cannot be seen with the
naked eye. What appears to be "clear water" can actually be full of particulates.
OK. I have a 25 watt UV. p. 334-335 aquatic ecosystem cat.
One of their 25 watt models is rated for 15,000 mws at 12.6 gallons per minute.
Killing algae requires 22,000 mws so gotta slow the flow to 8.6 gallons per minute.
My maxi 1000 runs at 230 gph or 3.8 gallons per minute.
Aquatic Eco recommends the entire volume of the pond goes thru the UV 4 times per 24
hours.
My pond is 1800 gallons, at 230 gallons per hour it takes 7.8 hours for 1X, so only
get 3X+ per 24 hours.
-----------------------------
my UV had been used at least 1 year before somebody gave it to me. I have now been
using it for 4 years without changing the bulb. After 6 months the efficiency can
fall 40%, so each 6 months sees a 40% drop off... and after 5 years that means 10
"half lives" (60% after 6 months, 36% 1 year, 12.9%- 2 years, 4.66%-3 years, 1.67%-4
years, etc.)
So even being generous that the efficiency could still be 10%, that means to get
22,000 mws it has to be 1/10 the flow rate or 0.86 gallons per minute, but mine runs
at 3.8 gallons per minute or 4.4 times too fast to attain 22,000 mws. so now I am
only getting 5,000 mws at 3.8 gpm. This is way below killing for algae. We wont
count the particulates in my pond, nor the yellow coloring as my water is not gin
clear. Both these affect kill and AES recommends getting UV lights 40% over what is
minimum.
So all of this is very interesting cause this spring I had pea soup, cranked up the
UV and in 4 days the pea soup was gone.
--------------------------
what I did observe is that algae that had been flowing wild and free thru my filter
for some reason ended up sliming my filter after I cranked the UV up. Now UV creates
cross links in the DNA of cells. So if the only change to the algae was inactivating
the DNA it should flow thru the filter just the same as before gradually
disintegrating, not load my filters up with green gunk.
So what I got here is a bona fide miracle, cause there is no way that old UV is
"killing" my algae... not according to the "specs". And it is one reason I tell
people to save their money, dont change their UV bulbs until pea soup returns.
Ingrid

Andrew Burgess > wrote:
UV purifiers look like they have an inch
>or two of water for the UV to pass through. Can we agree its probably not
>significant in the first two inches?
>
>>few people have gin clear
>>water which has the highest transmission to UV.
>
>Of course the clearer the better the transmission.
>
>>A spectrophotometer is probably one
>>of the only ways to show how many "particulates" and colored soluble molecules there
>>are in pond water. The other is a disk that is lowered into the water and there are
>>numbers and it shows how turbid the water is.. I think aquatic ecosystems has some of
>>these. this is a really crude measure of course, a spectrophotometer is accurate.
>
>So?



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
List Manager: Puregold Goldfish List
http://puregold.aquaria.net/
www.drsolo.com
Solve the problem, dont waste energy finding who's to blame
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Unfortunately, I receive no money, gifts, discounts or other
compensation for all the damn work I do, nor for any of the
endorsements or recommendations I make.