Does anyone have a particular make of UV they find to be of good quality? Should I look at one with a wiper or is that unnecessary? It's my understanding that Aqua UV is a good brand. Any others? That's for everyone's input
UV or not UV
- Thread starter Cdsdave
- Start date
Headed to the plumbing department tomorrow! Thanks for your help.
I inherited my UV unit when we moved to this house. It's a Zapp Pure 10 and should work beautifully but is a little over-worked at the moment with too high of a flow. I'll let you know how it performs once I get the flow set correctly. I am happy with the customer service with this unit. They've been very responsive.
I inherited my UV unit when we moved to this house. It's a Zapp Pure 10 and should work beautifully but is a little over-worked at the moment with too high of a flow. I'll let you know how it performs once I get the flow set correctly. I am happy with the customer service with this unit. They've been very responsive.
crsublette
coyotes call me Charles
I have not installed a UV device yet, but it is on my wishlist, just waiting on my budget to agree with it. The brands I would look at are Evolution Aqua evoUV or Emperor Aquatics.
Charles, I just purchased the Emperor 65 watt sterilizer and am waiting for its arrival. Thanks for your suggestions. I liked what I read concerning their UV's. The 65 watt should be more than I will ever need even if I add onto the pond!! I ordered it through Skagitek. It's an authorized dealer and had the best price I could find.
There are tons of YouTubes for UV bypass schemes. Most use 3 ball valves and a check valve. The check valve is thought to reduce risk of water flow going back into the UV (I have my doubts this is works). Most schemes merge the pipes back together after the UV.
However I prefer not merging the pipes back together and instead run 2 pipes to the pond. Two pipe bennies:
Almost no chance of back flow thru the UV.
I can measure water flow coming out of the UV because it's a separate pipe.
In freezing climates the input to the UV can be closed to drain the UV if installed correctly. In the standard scheme the UV normally has to be removed, so add a couple of unions too is needed.
Cheaper:
"Standard" bypass
1 - 3" ball valve.........$70
2 - 2" ball valves.......$26
2 - 3" wyes................$60
1 - 3" check valve.....$50
2 - 3"x2" bushings......$6
Total.......................$212
My bypass
1 - 2" ball valve.......$13
1 - 3" wye................$30
1 - 3"x2" bushings.....$3
20' - 2" pipe............$15
Total........................$61
In this setup it's way more feasible to use 1 ball valve instead of 2 to control flow rate. It takes a little care on the final outflow elevation of the 2 pipes, but not too difficult.
Setup for a 6k GPH pump and 4k GPH UV.
3" pipe coming from the pump or whatever.
3" wye. Non-straight side is the 3" pipe bypass that goes all the way to the pond or whatever feature.
The straight part of the wye is reduced with a bushing to 2"
2" to ball valve and then into the UV.
2" pipe out of the UV and all the way back to the pond.
The elevation of the open end on these 2 pipes is important. You want them both at the same level or even better the 3" higher than the 2". If they both enter the pond underwater then it doesn't matter which is where.
Nice option - vent
Add a tee in the 2" between the valve and UV for a 3/4" vertical pipe. Place a ball valve at the top. If installed right any air in the UV, or coming into the UV should collect in that vertical pipe. Once a year or so, or if you have a problem, that valve can be opened a little while the pump is running to release any trapped air. Can also be opened in the fall to vent the UV to make sure it does drain.
If needed compressed air can be sent into the vent pipe to blow out the UV and 2" pipe going to the pond.
However I prefer not merging the pipes back together and instead run 2 pipes to the pond. Two pipe bennies:
Almost no chance of back flow thru the UV.
I can measure water flow coming out of the UV because it's a separate pipe.
In freezing climates the input to the UV can be closed to drain the UV if installed correctly. In the standard scheme the UV normally has to be removed, so add a couple of unions too is needed.
Cheaper:
"Standard" bypass
1 - 3" ball valve.........$70
2 - 2" ball valves.......$26
2 - 3" wyes................$60
1 - 3" check valve.....$50
2 - 3"x2" bushings......$6
Total.......................$212
My bypass
1 - 2" ball valve.......$13
1 - 3" wye................$30
1 - 3"x2" bushings.....$3
20' - 2" pipe............$15
Total........................$61
In this setup it's way more feasible to use 1 ball valve instead of 2 to control flow rate. It takes a little care on the final outflow elevation of the 2 pipes, but not too difficult.
Setup for a 6k GPH pump and 4k GPH UV.
3" pipe coming from the pump or whatever.
3" wye. Non-straight side is the 3" pipe bypass that goes all the way to the pond or whatever feature.
The straight part of the wye is reduced with a bushing to 2"
2" to ball valve and then into the UV.
2" pipe out of the UV and all the way back to the pond.
The elevation of the open end on these 2 pipes is important. You want them both at the same level or even better the 3" higher than the 2". If they both enter the pond underwater then it doesn't matter which is where.
Nice option - vent
Add a tee in the 2" between the valve and UV for a 3/4" vertical pipe. Place a ball valve at the top. If installed right any air in the UV, or coming into the UV should collect in that vertical pipe. Once a year or so, or if you have a problem, that valve can be opened a little while the pump is running to release any trapped air. Can also be opened in the fall to vent the UV to make sure it does drain.
If needed compressed air can be sent into the vent pipe to blow out the UV and 2" pipe going to the pond.
Thanks Waterbug for the scheme setup for bypass.
All set up and working (fingers crossed!) fine. The inlet /outlet is 1.5 in so I ran a 1.5 bypass with a ball valve halfway shut. Plus a ball valve on the inlet/outlet pipes. The whole unit is nearly six ft long! Pics to come.
Looking forward to pictures.
When I saw the 1.5" connection for the Emperor I had to check it out. Sounded small. It is indeed 1.5". Still sounds small. For 1.5" @ 1920 GPH the friction head loss for 10' of pipe, no fittings, is 0.7'. For 2" pipe the loss is 0.2'. So it costs more to pump the same amount of water thru the smaller pipe. Not a huge deal, but it got me to thinking. Why make the unit 1.5" and not 2"? Had to be the bulb diameter. Water around the bulb can only be so deep. The diameter of the bulb would determine the diameter of the pipe used. Never thought of that before.
So that got me curious about the bulbs. Never thought too much about the bulbs. Kind of assume UVs in the same class range all used the same bulbs. But if AquaUV uses 2" pipe they must have a very different bulb. So I did the calculations on both companies specs. It floored me. I've never checked this before. I had to double check and do some research to see if the numbers were possible.
Ratings for both companies are for end of life, about 14 months. Here are the numbers:
AquaUV 57 watt, 30 mJ at 3200 GPH
AquaUV 40 watt, 30 mJ at 2900 GPH
Emperor 65 watt, 30 mJ at 1920 GPH
AquaUV 25 watt, 30 mJ at 1200 GPH
A 40 watt AquaUV is 33% stronger than 65 watt Emperor yet costs $150 less (on Amazon for both units). The 57 watt Aqua is still $100 less than the 65 watt Emperor.
Watt for watt the AquaUV would use about 1/2 the electric for the same UV killing power.
The Emperor 65 watt is 71" long while the Aqua 40 watt is 37". The Aqua 57 watt is even shorter, 20".
It's not like Emperor is some con-man outfit. They seem to be a solid provider of serious UV equipment.
I'd never read this AquaUV web page before, but it seems to verify there is a big difference in the bulbs. What they have to say sounds legit to me after some double checking.
I always used AquaUV only because they provided detailed specs that made sizing easier for me to calculate. Guess I just lucked out in the power department.
Next time I have to buy a UV I'm going to compare a lot closer.
When I saw the 1.5" connection for the Emperor I had to check it out. Sounded small. It is indeed 1.5". Still sounds small. For 1.5" @ 1920 GPH the friction head loss for 10' of pipe, no fittings, is 0.7'. For 2" pipe the loss is 0.2'. So it costs more to pump the same amount of water thru the smaller pipe. Not a huge deal, but it got me to thinking. Why make the unit 1.5" and not 2"? Had to be the bulb diameter. Water around the bulb can only be so deep. The diameter of the bulb would determine the diameter of the pipe used. Never thought of that before.
So that got me curious about the bulbs. Never thought too much about the bulbs. Kind of assume UVs in the same class range all used the same bulbs. But if AquaUV uses 2" pipe they must have a very different bulb. So I did the calculations on both companies specs. It floored me. I've never checked this before. I had to double check and do some research to see if the numbers were possible.
Ratings for both companies are for end of life, about 14 months. Here are the numbers:
AquaUV 57 watt, 30 mJ at 3200 GPH
AquaUV 40 watt, 30 mJ at 2900 GPH
Emperor 65 watt, 30 mJ at 1920 GPH
AquaUV 25 watt, 30 mJ at 1200 GPH
A 40 watt AquaUV is 33% stronger than 65 watt Emperor yet costs $150 less (on Amazon for both units). The 57 watt Aqua is still $100 less than the 65 watt Emperor.
Watt for watt the AquaUV would use about 1/2 the electric for the same UV killing power.
The Emperor 65 watt is 71" long while the Aqua 40 watt is 37". The Aqua 57 watt is even shorter, 20".
It's not like Emperor is some con-man outfit. They seem to be a solid provider of serious UV equipment.
I'd never read this AquaUV web page before, but it seems to verify there is a big difference in the bulbs. What they have to say sounds legit to me after some double checking.
I always used AquaUV only because they provided detailed specs that made sizing easier for me to calculate. Guess I just lucked out in the power department.
Next time I have to buy a UV I'm going to compare a lot closer.
crsublette
coyotes call me Charles
Very interesting. After revisiting and thoroughly studying AquaUV and Emperor website documentation, AquaUV sure is quite assertive in making their positioning quite clear against their competitor, which I think Emperor must've rubbed them wrong since I know they are not their only competitor.
Although, I think their data and references about Emperor is dated since the length of Emperor Aquatics lamps are not as AquaUV has stated on their website, which is fine and I bet EmperorAquatics also distorts on their website as well. Unfortunately, it is all part of doing business.
I find the the AquaUV product line quite neat.
Yeah, I never cared for the 1.5" inlet/out on the Emperor and it never made much sense to me, especially when trying to push a high flow through it due to the head restriction. I would think it should be at the very least 2" so to ensure getting the most out of the UV light penetration. I would have liked to see the inlet/out have an option to be 2.5".
Primary reason for me mentioning Emporer is that I have actually seen it used.
I wonder who else uses AquaUV. Definitely going to look into them further.
Although, I think their data and references about Emperor is dated since the length of Emperor Aquatics lamps are not as AquaUV has stated on their website, which is fine and I bet EmperorAquatics also distorts on their website as well. Unfortunately, it is all part of doing business.
I find the the AquaUV product line quite neat.
Yeah, I never cared for the 1.5" inlet/out on the Emperor and it never made much sense to me, especially when trying to push a high flow through it due to the head restriction. I would think it should be at the very least 2" so to ensure getting the most out of the UV light penetration. I would have liked to see the inlet/out have an option to be 2.5".
Primary reason for me mentioning Emporer is that I have actually seen it used.
I wonder who else uses AquaUV. Definitely going to look into them further.
I'll stick with my cheap Jeboa, mine works fine and at a fraction of the cost it does exactly the same thing those over priced units do. I think what you are paying for with those other overpriced units is for someone to figure out all that empirical data on UV output and flow rates to try and get the exact sizing to match you pond size.
I say HOGWASH!
For pond use where you don't run a UV continuously and should only really need to run a it for a couple weeks in the spring, just get a cheap one with a UV output that is over kill for your pond size and/or flow rate. If manufacturer spec says a 18 watt unit should work for a 2,000 gal pond get a 55 watt unit to be sure. Even lower your flow rate a little to be extra sure. You can exceed the flow rate of those UV units, but you can't under flow them. Yeah you might spend a few cents more on kilowatts to run that 55 watt unit over the course of that couple weeks, but if you do the math you are going to realize that few cents a year is way cheaper than spending hundreds of dollars on those over priced UV units that do exactly the same thing.
But, perhaps I'm missing something. Someone please tell me where my logic is flawed, and how my lowly $80 Jeboa is not preforming up to the standards of those $500 units? :dunno:
I say HOGWASH!
For pond use where you don't run a UV continuously and should only really need to run a it for a couple weeks in the spring, just get a cheap one with a UV output that is over kill for your pond size and/or flow rate. If manufacturer spec says a 18 watt unit should work for a 2,000 gal pond get a 55 watt unit to be sure. Even lower your flow rate a little to be extra sure. You can exceed the flow rate of those UV units, but you can't under flow them. Yeah you might spend a few cents more on kilowatts to run that 55 watt unit over the course of that couple weeks, but if you do the math you are going to realize that few cents a year is way cheaper than spending hundreds of dollars on those over priced UV units that do exactly the same thing.
But, perhaps I'm missing something. Someone please tell me where my logic is flawed, and how my lowly $80 Jeboa is not preforming up to the standards of those $500 units? :dunno:
crsublette
coyotes call me Charles
Sounds good enough to me.
Without risk of repeating myself, Randy, I think it ultimately comes down to, as ya say, the owner's goals and desires and how much reassurance they want to have in selecting a product. It is not much different than talking cars. All cars take us from point A to point B, but the mechanics of each car are quite different. Again, without risk of repeating myself, I bet there are mechanics quite common amongst all UV devices, such as Jeboa and others, and then I bet there are mechanics that are noticeably different.
I don't know anything about Jeboa, but, if you're satisfied with its results, then it's all good to me. :claphands:
Without risk of repeating myself, Randy, I think it ultimately comes down to, as ya say, the owner's goals and desires and how much reassurance they want to have in selecting a product. It is not much different than talking cars. All cars take us from point A to point B, but the mechanics of each car are quite different. Again, without risk of repeating myself, I bet there are mechanics quite common amongst all UV devices, such as Jeboa and others, and then I bet there are mechanics that are noticeably different.
I don't know anything about Jeboa, but, if you're satisfied with its results, then it's all good to me. :claphands:
crsublette
coyotes call me Charles
Been doing more research. Turns out AquaUV will sometimes sell Emperor branded bulbs and lamps to AquaUV customers whenever AquaUV do not have parts available, which is a bit odd since their websites portrays to be so adversarial toward Emperor.
It appears due to how AquaUV chose to install their ballast to have more contact with the water this leads it to being more prone to leaking, but the AquaUV ballast seems to be a continual problem. Sounds like AquaUV is quite popular although appears many are starting to go with W Lim due to higher flow capabilities than Emperor. WLim appears to be relatively new to the industry and has been making a big name for his product according to results and smaller area footprint. It appears most choose Emperor since replacement parts are cheaper, even though AquaUV tries to dispute this, and same reasoning, that is better bang for your buck, goes for the EVO brand.
A couple other brands worth mentioning as well is Zapp Pure and Matala.
So, due to the many brands available for the high quality applications, I find it quite odd and skeptical to motives as to why AquaUV is so specifically adversarial toward Emperor. Still, I bet AquaUV is a very good product as others have mentioned.
Came across KoiPondUV.com, thats sells and compares the big brand named products and sounds like an even-handed distributor without an angle in the UV game.
It appears due to how AquaUV chose to install their ballast to have more contact with the water this leads it to being more prone to leaking, but the AquaUV ballast seems to be a continual problem. Sounds like AquaUV is quite popular although appears many are starting to go with W Lim due to higher flow capabilities than Emperor. WLim appears to be relatively new to the industry and has been making a big name for his product according to results and smaller area footprint. It appears most choose Emperor since replacement parts are cheaper, even though AquaUV tries to dispute this, and same reasoning, that is better bang for your buck, goes for the EVO brand.
A couple other brands worth mentioning as well is Zapp Pure and Matala.
So, due to the many brands available for the high quality applications, I find it quite odd and skeptical to motives as to why AquaUV is so specifically adversarial toward Emperor. Still, I bet AquaUV is a very good product as others have mentioned.
Came across KoiPondUV.com, thats sells and compares the big brand named products and sounds like an even-handed distributor without an angle in the UV game.
Well, I don't know Charles if you can directly compare UV filters performance to car performance.
I'm pretty sure I could pick up a lot more sweet lookin girls with a shiny new $100,000 Porsche then I could with my $20,000 Corolla, but I doubt many girls would be too impressed with a shinny new AquaUV over a Jeboa UV.
Of course I have no empirical data to support this, just my opinion, so it's open for debate.
I'm pretty sure I could pick up a lot more sweet lookin girls with a shiny new $100,000 Porsche then I could with my $20,000 Corolla, but I doubt many girls would be too impressed with a shinny new AquaUV over a Jeboa UV.
Of course I have no empirical data to support this, just my opinion, so it's open for debate.
sissy
sissy
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2011
- Messages
- 33,086
- Reaction score
- 15,707
- Location
- Axton virginia
- Showcase(s):
- 1
- Hardiness Zone
- 7A
- Country
sure and you could not afford either or keep up with the upkeep on them . :cheerful: :cheerful: DREAMERS :razz: yOU could wish on a falling star ,.Meaning car and girl not uv .
I used data on Emperor's current web site for their unit. I didn't see any exact comparison data on the AquaUV site, just things to check an verify.crsublette said: