Re: What UV kills

[Sam Hopkins]

Not sure where you are going with this. This list was just a list of what UV
filters kill and what UV dose is required to kill them.

Sam


"Lee Brouillet" > wrote in message
...
> No dispute - none.
>
> It's just that UV's of this type are not the ones that are sold for pond
> use. Whereas you can argue that UV is UV, the difference in what will be
> "killed" is in wattage and flow rates. My (reasonably good) UV is a 40
watt
> number rated for 3,200 gph. I push about 2,600 through it. It's for pond
use
> and can not be compared to the ones you listed. Mine cost low 3 figures;
the
> ones you reference cost mid 4 figures at the same flow rate.
>
> Lee
>
> Lee
>
> "Sam Hopkins" > wrote in message
> .. .
> > Here's a list of what UV filters kill:
> >
> > http://www.ultraviolet.com/microorgan.htm
> >
> > Here's how it works:
> >
> > http://www.ultraviolet.com/whatis.htm
> >
> >
> >
>
>

[Nedra]

Sam,
You are talking commercial and Lee is talking residential.
This is the difference as I see it. Do Not take the words
"commercial and residential" as absolutes... Lee knows
what I mean.
Big - big difference!

Nedra
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Pines/4836
http://community.webshots.com/user/nedra118
"Sam Hopkins" > wrote in message
.. .
> Not sure where you are going with this. This list was just a list of what
UV
> filters kill and what UV dose is required to kill them.
>
> Sam
>
>
> "Lee Brouillet" > wrote in message
> ...
> > No dispute - none.
> >
> > It's just that UV's of this type are not the ones that are sold for pond
> > use. Whereas you can argue that UV is UV, the difference in what will be
> > "killed" is in wattage and flow rates. My (reasonably good) UV is a 40
> watt
> > number rated for 3,200 gph. I push about 2,600 through it. It's for pond
> use
> > and can not be compared to the ones you listed. Mine cost low 3 figures;
> the
> > ones you reference cost mid 4 figures at the same flow rate.
> >
> > Lee
> >
> > Lee
> >
> > "Sam Hopkins" > wrote in message
> > .. .
> > > Here's a list of what UV filters kill:
> > >
> > > http://www.ultraviolet.com/microorgan.htm
> > >
> > > Here's how it works:
> > >
> > > http://www.ultraviolet.com/whatis.htm
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

[Sam Hopkins]

Oh. I didnt post the link as a link to a UV filter, just info on the things
that could appear in ponds and what the UV dose strength required to kill
them.

Sam

"Nedra" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> Sam,
> You are talking commercial and Lee is talking residential.
> This is the difference as I see it. Do Not take the words
> "commercial and residential" as absolutes... Lee knows
> what I mean.
> Big - big difference!
>
> Nedra
> http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Pines/4836
> http://community.webshots.com/user/nedra118
> "Sam Hopkins" > wrote in message
> .. .
> > Not sure where you are going with this. This list was just a list of
what
> UV
> > filters kill and what UV dose is required to kill them.
> >
> > Sam
> >
> >
> > "Lee Brouillet" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > No dispute - none.
> > >
> > > It's just that UV's of this type are not the ones that are sold for
pond
> > > use. Whereas you can argue that UV is UV, the difference in what will
be
> > > "killed" is in wattage and flow rates. My (reasonably good) UV is a 40
> > watt
> > > number rated for 3,200 gph. I push about 2,600 through it. It's for
pond
> > use
> > > and can not be compared to the ones you listed. Mine cost low 3
figures;
> > the
> > > ones you reference cost mid 4 figures at the same flow rate.
> > >
> > > Lee
> > >
> > > Lee
> > >
> > > "Sam Hopkins" > wrote in message
> > > .. .
> > > > Here's a list of what UV filters kill:
> > > >
> > > > http://www.ultraviolet.com/microorgan.htm
> > > >
> > > > Here's how it works:
> > > >
> > > > http://www.ultraviolet.com/whatis.htm
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

[Tom La Bron]

OK Folks,

Here go again. You people seem to think that "Commercial and Industrial"
(C&I) UV's are better than residential units. C&I units are usually Medium
to High pressure mercury type bulbs and are used for chemical byproducts and
waste water or for the drying of printing inks, lacquers, paints and
adhesives. These units are not effective in germicidal action. The wave
length of the C&I units are in the 320 n and 440 n meter range, which is
well outside of the germicidal effectiveness curve for UV. Needless to say,
the C&I bulbs are not used in residential units, mainly because of their
expense, plus they are not really any good for germicidal disaffection and
the amount of heat that they produce in production of their wavelength.
Also, something else to think about is that C&I units usually only have a
lamp-life span of about 1,000 hours, while low-pressure bulbs, depending on
the manufacturers have a life span of 2,000 to 9,000 hours.

In my message on this subject before I told you that the germicidal range of
killing UV was 265 n meters with the germicidal effectiveness curve being
between 250 n meters and 280 n meters. Low pressure UV bulbs are in all
residential UV devices and they put out spectral wave length of 254 n
meters of radiation, which is well within the germicidal curve and
relatively close to the max peak of 265 n meters. Low pressure UV are the
only effective radiation units for germicidal effectiveness in the process
of disaffection. So you are grossly mistaken if you think that C&I units
are better, because they are not.

Lee, I don't know what you are expecting, but are you filtering your water
to the 10 micron range before it goes through the UV. As mentioned in my
previous message Turbidity does effect the UV effectiveness. You don't have
to filter to that small, but any thing floating through the water and
through your UV will effect its effectiveness.

Oh, something else, are you a "salter of your pond." Guess what, UV
effectiveness is diminished by salt in the water.

So, I really don't know what your problem is, but it is not your UV, unless
of course, you are trying to get more mileage out of your bulb that is
recommended by the manufacturer. They are like fluorescent bulbs which
actually decrease in output the longer they are run. Like I said before
their lamp-life runs from about 85 days to a little over a year. I am sure
that if you look at your instructions for your 3-figure unit it will tell
you its lamp-life.

HTH, clearing things up.

Tom L.L.

"Lee Brouillet" > wrote in message
...
> No dispute - none.
>
> It's just that UV's of this type are not the ones that are sold for pond
> use. Whereas you can argue that UV is UV, the difference in what will be
> "killed" is in wattage and flow rates. My (reasonably good) UV is a 40
watt
> number rated for 3,200 gph. I push about 2,600 through it. It's for pond
use
> and can not be compared to the ones you listed. Mine cost low 3 figures;
the
> ones you reference cost mid 4 figures at the same flow rate.
>
> Lee
>
> Lee
>
> "Sam Hopkins" > wrote in message
> .. .
> > Here's a list of what UV filters kill:
> >
> > http://www.ultraviolet.com/microorgan.htm
> >
> > Here's how it works:
> >
> > http://www.ultraviolet.com/whatis.htm
> >
> >
> >
>
>

[Lee Brouillet]

Tom, I'm not trying to dispute anything other than that the normal 15, 20,
or 40 watt UV units sold for ponds are not "sterilizers". The larger units
sold for home or industrial use for potable water WILL "do the trick", but
their wattages are considerably higher. And the flow rates are lower. So
there's a longer period of time that the water is exposed to the higher
wattage.

Personally, I haven't had to use my UV this year - so I don't have a problem
that needs to be dealt with (at least not at this time!). I turned it on for
3 days earlier this year when I had a cyanobacteria plague, but I knew in my
heart that it wouldn't work (and it didn't), so I shut it back down.
However, folks who have sick fish and think that a pond-rated UV will nuke
the responsible bacteria, or who run a UV and feel "safe" from bacteria, are
being sold a bill of goods: a UV with a 40 watt bulb and a flow rate of 3200
gph will kill the "green water" algae, but little else.

*That's* the point I was trying to make.

Or am I wrong? If so, I will gladly stand corrected - I'm still learning
every day, and faulty information should be corrected.

Lee


"Tom La Bron" > wrote in message
...
> OK Folks,
>
> Here go again. You people seem to think that "Commercial and Industrial"
> (C&I) UV's are better than residential units. C&I units are usually
Medium
> to High pressure mercury type bulbs and are used for chemical byproducts
and
> waste water or for the drying of printing inks, lacquers, paints and
> adhesives. These units are not effective in germicidal action. The wave
> length of the C&I units are in the 320 n and 440 n meter range, which is
> well outside of the germicidal effectiveness curve for UV. Needless to
say,
> the C&I bulbs are not used in residential units, mainly because of their
> expense, plus they are not really any good for germicidal disaffection and
> the amount of heat that they produce in production of their wavelength.
> Also, something else to think about is that C&I units usually only have a
> lamp-life span of about 1,000 hours, while low-pressure bulbs, depending
on
> the manufacturers have a life span of 2,000 to 9,000 hours.
>
> In my message on this subject before I told you that the germicidal range
of
> killing UV was 265 n meters with the germicidal effectiveness curve being
> between 250 n meters and 280 n meters. Low pressure UV bulbs are in all
> residential UV devices and they put out spectral wave length of 254 n
> meters of radiation, which is well within the germicidal curve and
> relatively close to the max peak of 265 n meters. Low pressure UV are
the
> only effective radiation units for germicidal effectiveness in the process
> of disaffection. So you are grossly mistaken if you think that C&I units
> are better, because they are not.
>
> Lee, I don't know what you are expecting, but are you filtering your water
> to the 10 micron range before it goes through the UV. As mentioned in my
> previous message Turbidity does effect the UV effectiveness. You don't
have
> to filter to that small, but any thing floating through the water and
> through your UV will effect its effectiveness.
>
> Oh, something else, are you a "salter of your pond." Guess what, UV
> effectiveness is diminished by salt in the water.
>
> So, I really don't know what your problem is, but it is not your UV,
unless
> of course, you are trying to get more mileage out of your bulb that is
> recommended by the manufacturer. They are like fluorescent bulbs which
> actually decrease in output the longer they are run. Like I said before
> their lamp-life runs from about 85 days to a little over a year. I am
sure
> that if you look at your instructions for your 3-figure unit it will tell
> you its lamp-life.
>
> HTH, clearing things up.
>
> Tom L.L.
>

[Lee Brouillet]

My apologies for ruffling your feathers: I didn't mean to. Things like "the
germicidal range of killing UV was 265 n
meters with the germicidal effectiveness curve being between 250 n meters
and 280 n meters. Low pressure UV bulbs are in all residential UV devices
and they put out spectral wave length of 254 n meters of radiation, which
is well within the germicidal curve and relatively close to the max peak of
265 n meters." is a little too technical for my understanding - I need
"little words", I guess.

My pond is at saturation for O2 considering the temp: it's heavily aerated
24/7/365. Many people had outbreaks of cyanobacteria/blue-green algae this
year, from Canada to Ireland to England to the Netherlands to Florida and
all points West. Mine was not the problem that other people had, because I
have unrestricted flow to the skimmer (no plants), and enough surface
turbulance from the bubbles to break the nasty little islands when they hit
the surface. But it's there, just the same. As I stated, I *knew* the UV
wouldn't treat it, but I had to try anyway. The UV works perfectly; it just
hasn't been needed this year.

May I ask another question - and not argumentatively? From your
explantation, 92% of the bacteria passing through the light will be killed.
.. . so you mean it will kill things like aeromonas and pseudomonas? That a
UV will, effectively, "sterilize" a pond - short of viruses, at least?

Lee

"Tom La Bron" > wrote in message
...
> Lee,
>
> Did you read my message? The C&I are at higher wavelength output and they
> don't kill even algae. Quote: "C&I units are usually Medium to High
> pressure mercury type bulbs and are used for chemical byproducts and waste
> water or for the drying of printing inks, lacquers, paints and
> adhesives. These units are not effective in germicidal action. The wave
> length of the C&I units are in the 320 n and 440 n meter range, which is
> well outside of the germicidal effectiveness curve for UV." Unquote.
> Medium and high pressure units aren't used in germicidal applications.
>
> As stated before, the following explains, Quote: "In my message on this
> subject before I told you that the germicidal range of killing UV was 265
n
> meters with the germicidal effectiveness curve being between 250 n meters
> and 280 n meters. Low pressure UV bulbs are in all residential UV devices
> and they put out spectral wave length of 254 n meters of radiation, which
> is well within the germicidal curve and relatively close to the max peak
of
> 265 n meters. Low pressure UV are
> the only effective radiation units for germicidal effectiveness in the
> process of disaffection." Unquote.
>
> You say that it kills only algae, and like I stated that if it kills algae
> it will virtually 92% of bacteria because that percentage requires less
> exposure or less wattage-sec than algae. So if it is killing algae it is
> killing bacteria.
>
> I will agree with you that units used for potable water as sterilizers
will
> kill everything because it uses mega-wattages, but here again as stated
> before these units used by municipalities to sterilize their water are
> single pass units, so if it is not killed the first time it doesn't get a
> second chance, which a unit in the pond is a recirc unit and it doesn't
have
> to worry about it getting missed the first time for it is going to have
> another chance at it as the water is recirculated.
>
> As far as flow rate goes that is up the manufacturer, but it does not
limit
> you. Red Sea put out an 18w unit that is suppose to handle 1,200gph.
> Lifeguard 40watt units are suppose to handle only 1,500gph and yet Aqua UV
> 40watt units are suppose to handle 2,900gph, but the new Double Helix
36watt
> units are suppose to only handle 500gph. According to Aquatic Systems
Inc.
> their Smart UV 40watt unit is suppose to be run at 1,574gph for bacteria
and
> 943gph for algae. Bitron 36watt units are suppose to run at 1,190 gph.
> Granted Tetra UV3 is suppose to be able to run at 4,400gph and the Pro
Clear
> UV30 is suppose to be able to run at 3,600gph.
>
> It is interesting that you say that you had a cyanobacteria plague, which
a
> UV would have a hard time battling any way, because it is usually not
water
> borne, so if it is not getting to the UV unit it can't be killed. If the
> bacteria is not water borne it will not flow through the UV to be killed.
A
> better course of action would have been to flood the pond with lots of air
> to increase the oxygen levels because cyanobacteria usually get a hold
when
> their is a depletion of oxygen in the environment.
>
> If you don't feel your unit is performing like it should reduce its flow
to
> 1,500gph and make sure only filtered water is getting to the UV tube.
Like
> I said before turbidity of the water can affect the effectiveness of the
> unit.
>
> So what unit do you have and have you written the company to voice your
> dissatisfaction? Hey if you want to get rid of it, send it to me, I know
it
> will work for me because my water is crystal clear.
>
> Tom L.L.
>
>
> "Lee Brouillet" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Tom, I'm not trying to dispute anything other than that the normal 15,
20,
> > or 40 watt UV units sold for ponds are not "sterilizers". The larger
units
> > sold for home or industrial use for potable water WILL "do the trick",
but
> > their wattages are considerably higher. And the flow rates are lower. So
> > there's a longer period of time that the water is exposed to the higher
> > wattage.
> >
> > Personally, I haven't had to use my UV this year - so I don't have a
> problem
> > that needs to be dealt with (at least not at this time!). I turned it on
> for
> > 3 days earlier this year when I had a cyanobacteria plague, but I knew
in
> my
> > heart that it wouldn't work (and it didn't), so I shut it back down.
> > However, folks who have sick fish and think that a pond-rated UV will
nuke
> > the responsible bacteria, or who run a UV and feel "safe" from bacteria,
> are
> > being sold a bill of goods: a UV with a 40 watt bulb and a flow rate of
> 3200
> > gph will kill the "green water" algae, but little else.
> >
> > *That's* the point I was trying to make.
> >
> > Or am I wrong? If so, I will gladly stand corrected - I'm still learning
> > every day, and faulty information should be corrected.
> >
> > Lee
> >
> >
> > "Tom La Bron" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > OK Folks,
> > >
> > > Here go again. You people seem to think that "Commercial and
> Industrial"
> > > (C&I) UV's are better than residential units. C&I units are usually
> > Medium
> > > to High pressure mercury type bulbs and are used for chemical
byproducts
> > and
> > > waste water or for the drying of printing inks, lacquers, paints and
> > > adhesives. These units are not effective in germicidal action. The
> wave
> > > length of the C&I units are in the 320 n and 440 n meter range, which
is
> > > well outside of the germicidal effectiveness curve for UV. Needless
to
> > say,
> > > the C&I bulbs are not used in residential units, mainly because of
their
> > > expense, plus they are not really any good for germicidal disaffection
> and
> > > the amount of heat that they produce in production of their
wavelength.
> > > Also, something else to think about is that C&I units usually only
have
> a
> > > lamp-life span of about 1,000 hours, while low-pressure bulbs,
depending
> > on
> > > the manufacturers have a life span of 2,000 to 9,000 hours.
> > >
> > > In my message on this subject before I told you that the germicidal
> range
> > of
> > > killing UV was 265 n meters with the germicidal effectiveness curve
> being
> > > between 250 n meters and 280 n meters. Low pressure UV bulbs are in
all
> > > residential UV devices and they put out spectral wave length of 254 n
> > > meters of radiation, which is well within the germicidal curve and
> > > relatively close to the max peak of 265 n meters. Low pressure UV
are
> > the
> > > only effective radiation units for germicidal effectiveness in the
> process
> > > of disaffection. So you are grossly mistaken if you think that C&I
> units
> > > are better, because they are not.
> > >
> > > Lee, I don't know what you are expecting, but are you filtering your
> water
> > > to the 10 micron range before it goes through the UV. As mentioned in
> my
> > > previous message Turbidity does effect the UV effectiveness. You
don't
> > have
> > > to filter to that small, but any thing floating through the water and
> > > through your UV will effect its effectiveness.
> > >
> > > Oh, something else, are you a "salter of your pond." Guess what, UV
> > > effectiveness is diminished by salt in the water.
> > >
> > > So, I really don't know what your problem is, but it is not your UV,
> > unless
> > > of course, you are trying to get more mileage out of your bulb that is
> > > recommended by the manufacturer. They are like fluorescent bulbs
which
> > > actually decrease in output the longer they are run. Like I said
> before
> > > their lamp-life runs from about 85 days to a little over a year. I am
> > sure
> > > that if you look at your instructions for your 3-figure unit it will
> tell
> > > you its lamp-life.
> > >
> > > HTH, clearing things up.
> > >
> > > Tom L.L.
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

[Tom La Bron]

Sorry Lee,

You have always presented yourself as a learned person, so I figured that
you understood. The number 250-280, 265, and 254 refer to the wavelength of
the light in Nano-meters. UV light like X-rays are short wave length. The
term germicidal effectiveness refers to the wavelength(s) that most are
absorbed by the material to damage the DNA and RNA and or sterilizes or
kills the germs.

It is kind of like when you go out to sunbathe on a sunny day. The rays of
the sun heat up your body and help to signal you that your are getting hot
and maybe sunburning. But on a cloudy you can still get a sunburned,
because, actually it is the UV that is passing through the clouds, because
of its short wavelength and subsequent high energy, that hits your body and
gives you a sunburn due to to long of and exposure because of the absence of
the other radiation from the sun. Most people get their worst sunburns on
cloudy days.

Most cyanobacteria can be killed with a UV sterilizer but you need at least
the level of 420,000 micro-watts-seconds/cm2 to do it and that is a lot of
energy. The problem with blue algae is getting it through the UV
sterilizer. Cyanobacteria colonies thrive in warm, nutrient-rich waters
such as fish ponds and polluted lakes and estuaries. The key to this
sentence is polluted and that is what happens to fish ponds (technically)
that are over stocked and have generous keepers who feed fish all the time.
Having the airstone can help, by making the environment for blue-algae
inhospitable.

No where can I find a specific mention of aeromonas being killed by UV, but
there are kill values of pseudomonas which vary between 3,900 to 10,500
micro-watt-sec/cm2.

Like I said previously, if it is water borne like algae, 92% of bacteria are
killed by a UV device that gets rid of an algae bloom, because their kill
ranges are less than that of algae

HTH

Tom L.L..

"Lee Brouillet" > wrote in message
...
> My apologies for ruffling your feathers: I didn't mean to. Things like
"the
> germicidal range of killing UV was 265 n
> meters with the germicidal effectiveness curve being between 250 n meters
> and 280 n meters. Low pressure UV bulbs are in all residential UV devices
> and they put out spectral wave length of 254 n meters of radiation, which
> is well within the germicidal curve and relatively close to the max peak
of
> 265 n meters." is a little too technical for my understanding - I need
> "little words", I guess.
>
> My pond is at saturation for O2 considering the temp: it's heavily aerated
> 24/7/365. Many people had outbreaks of cyanobacteria/blue-green algae this
> year, from Canada to Ireland to England to the Netherlands to Florida and
> all points West. Mine was not the problem that other people had, because I
> have unrestricted flow to the skimmer (no plants), and enough surface
> turbulance from the bubbles to break the nasty little islands when they
hit
> the surface. But it's there, just the same. As I stated, I *knew* the UV
> wouldn't treat it, but I had to try anyway. The UV works perfectly; it
just
> hasn't been needed this year.
>
> May I ask another question - and not argumentatively? From your
> explantation, 92% of the bacteria passing through the light will be
killed.
> . . so you mean it will kill things like aeromonas and pseudomonas? That a
> UV will, effectively, "sterilize" a pond - short of viruses, at least?
>
> Lee
>
> "Tom La Bron" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Lee,
> >
> > Did you read my message? The C&I are at higher wavelength output and
they
> > don't kill even algae. Quote: "C&I units are usually Medium to High
> > pressure mercury type bulbs and are used for chemical byproducts and
waste
> > water or for the drying of printing inks, lacquers, paints and
> > adhesives. These units are not effective in germicidal action. The
wave
> > length of the C&I units are in the 320 n and 440 n meter range, which is
> > well outside of the germicidal effectiveness curve for UV." Unquote.
> > Medium and high pressure units aren't used in germicidal applications.
> >
> > As stated before, the following explains, Quote: "In my message on this
> > subject before I told you that the germicidal range of killing UV was
265
> n
> > meters with the germicidal effectiveness curve being between 250 n
meters
> > and 280 n meters. Low pressure UV bulbs are in all residential UV
devices
> > and they put out spectral wave length of 254 n meters of radiation,
which
> > is well within the germicidal curve and relatively close to the max peak
> of
> > 265 n meters. Low pressure UV are
> > the only effective radiation units for germicidal effectiveness in the
> > process of disaffection." Unquote.
> >
> > You say that it kills only algae, and like I stated that if it kills
algae
> > it will virtually 92% of bacteria because that percentage requires less
> > exposure or less wattage-sec than algae. So if it is killing algae it
is
> > killing bacteria.
> >
> > I will agree with you that units used for potable water as sterilizers
> will
> > kill everything because it uses mega-wattages, but here again as stated
> > before these units used by municipalities to sterilize their water are
> > single pass units, so if it is not killed the first time it doesn't get
a
> > second chance, which a unit in the pond is a recirc unit and it doesn't
> have
> > to worry about it getting missed the first time for it is going to have
> > another chance at it as the water is recirculated.
> >
> > As far as flow rate goes that is up the manufacturer, but it does not
> limit
> > you. Red Sea put out an 18w unit that is suppose to handle 1,200gph.
> > Lifeguard 40watt units are suppose to handle only 1,500gph and yet Aqua
UV
> > 40watt units are suppose to handle 2,900gph, but the new Double Helix
> 36watt
> > units are suppose to only handle 500gph. According to Aquatic Systems
> Inc.
> > their Smart UV 40watt unit is suppose to be run at 1,574gph for bacteria
> and
> > 943gph for algae. Bitron 36watt units are suppose to run at 1,190 gph.
> > Granted Tetra UV3 is suppose to be able to run at 4,400gph and the Pro
> Clear
> > UV30 is suppose to be able to run at 3,600gph.
> >
> > It is interesting that you say that you had a cyanobacteria plague,
which
> a
> > UV would have a hard time battling any way, because it is usually not
> water
> > borne, so if it is not getting to the UV unit it can't be killed. If
the
> > bacteria is not water borne it will not flow through the UV to be
killed.
> A
> > better course of action would have been to flood the pond with lots of
air
> > to increase the oxygen levels because cyanobacteria usually get a hold
> when
> > their is a depletion of oxygen in the environment.
> >
> > If you don't feel your unit is performing like it should reduce its flow
> to
> > 1,500gph and make sure only filtered water is getting to the UV tube.
> Like
> > I said before turbidity of the water can affect the effectiveness of the
> > unit.
> >
> > So what unit do you have and have you written the company to voice your
> > dissatisfaction? Hey if you want to get rid of it, send it to me, I
know
> it
> > will work for me because my water is crystal clear.
> >
> > Tom L.L.
> >
> >
> > "Lee Brouillet" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > Tom, I'm not trying to dispute anything other than that the normal 15,
> 20,
> > > or 40 watt UV units sold for ponds are not "sterilizers". The larger
> units
> > > sold for home or industrial use for potable water WILL "do the trick",
> but
> > > their wattages are considerably higher. And the flow rates are lower.
So
> > > there's a longer period of time that the water is exposed to the
higher
> > > wattage.
> > >
> > > Personally, I haven't had to use my UV this year - so I don't have a
> > problem
> > > that needs to be dealt with (at least not at this time!). I turned it
on
> > for
> > > 3 days earlier this year when I had a cyanobacteria plague, but I knew
> in
> > my
> > > heart that it wouldn't work (and it didn't), so I shut it back down.
> > > However, folks who have sick fish and think that a pond-rated UV will
> nuke
> > > the responsible bacteria, or who run a UV and feel "safe" from
bacteria,
> > are
> > > being sold a bill of goods: a UV with a 40 watt bulb and a flow rate
of
> > 3200
> > > gph will kill the "green water" algae, but little else.
> > >
> > > *That's* the point I was trying to make.
> > >
> > > Or am I wrong? If so, I will gladly stand corrected - I'm still
learning
> > > every day, and faulty information should be corrected.
> > >
> > > Lee
> > >
> > >
> > > "Tom La Bron" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > OK Folks,
> > > >
> > > > Here go again. You people seem to think that "Commercial and
> > Industrial"
> > > > (C&I) UV's are better than residential units. C&I units are usually
> > > Medium
> > > > to High pressure mercury type bulbs and are used for chemical
> byproducts
> > > and
> > > > waste water or for the drying of printing inks, lacquers, paints
and
> > > > adhesives. These units are not effective in germicidal action. The
> > wave
> > > > length of the C&I units are in the 320 n and 440 n meter range,
which
> is
> > > > well outside of the germicidal effectiveness curve for UV. Needless
> to
> > > say,
> > > > the C&I bulbs are not used in residential units, mainly because of
> their
> > > > expense, plus they are not really any good for germicidal
disaffection
> > and
> > > > the amount of heat that they produce in production of their
> wavelength.
> > > > Also, something else to think about is that C&I units usually only
> have
> > a
> > > > lamp-life span of about 1,000 hours, while low-pressure bulbs,
> depending
> > > on
> > > > the manufacturers have a life span of 2,000 to 9,000 hours.
> > > >
> > > > In my message on this subject before I told you that the germicidal
> > range
> > > of
> > > > killing UV was 265 n meters with the germicidal effectiveness curve
> > being
> > > > between 250 n meters and 280 n meters. Low pressure UV bulbs are in
> all
> > > > residential UV devices and they put out spectral wave length of 254
n
> > > > meters of radiation, which is well within the germicidal curve and
> > > > relatively close to the max peak of 265 n meters. Low pressure UV
> are
> > > the
> > > > only effective radiation units for germicidal effectiveness in the
> > process
> > > > of disaffection. So you are grossly mistaken if you think that C&I
> > units
> > > > are better, because they are not.
> > > >
> > > > Lee, I don't know what you are expecting, but are you filtering your
> > water
> > > > to the 10 micron range before it goes through the UV. As mentioned
in
> > my
> > > > previous message Turbidity does effect the UV effectiveness. You
> don't
> > > have
> > > > to filter to that small, but any thing floating through the water
and
> > > > through your UV will effect its effectiveness.
> > > >
> > > > Oh, something else, are you a "salter of your pond." Guess what, UV
> > > > effectiveness is diminished by salt in the water.
> > > >
> > > > So, I really don't know what your problem is, but it is not your UV,
> > > unless
> > > > of course, you are trying to get more mileage out of your bulb that
is
> > > > recommended by the manufacturer. They are like fluorescent bulbs
> which
> > > > actually decrease in output the longer they are run. Like I said
> > before
> > > > their lamp-life runs from about 85 days to a little over a year. I
am
> > > sure
> > > > that if you look at your instructions for your 3-figure unit it will
> > tell
> > > > you its lamp-life.
> > > >
> > > > HTH, clearing things up.
> > > >
> > > > Tom L.L.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>