Apex! Saved my tank!!

[DarthSimon]

So a great example of how Apex can just save the life of your tank! I have about 300+ Gallons of total water volume in my system. I have 3 Heaters totaling 1300 Watts of power on Apex Outlets controlled by the Temp Probe. I have an Extra Heater in that system not on Apex. Simply controlled by the heaters Digital Thermostat. Just a backup to Apex... Redundancy...
Overnight, my heat drifted out of range, so I checked the Apex controlled Heater Outlets and they were all off, as well as I physically checked the heaters for temp... The Heater that was outside of the Apex Control never turned off.... Pulled that baby out of the system, and temps are gradually returning to normal. The Apex Alarms started around 3am while I was sleeping. I noticed around 6am. APEX to the Rescue!!

 

[rkpetersen]

It's helped me out more times than I can count with unexpected equipment issues and my own maintenance oversights.

 

[DarthSimon]

Hey Randy!!! How are you my friend?? Yeah Having the Heater Outside the Apex scares me a tad, for senario if I was on vacation or away. But If Apex went offline I would have something heating tank. So it's a trade off. That being said, the Apex monitoring the temps is a god send. I think Terrance from Neptune Systems always says tank temps are leading killers of tanks.... He is spot on correct!

 

[Fishfinder]

If your apex goes offline the heaters plugged into it would still work


I don’t see the reason to have one not plugged into the apex

 

[DarthSimon]

Yes but they wouldn't turn off. My heaters don't have external controllers...

 

[Fishfinder]

They would follow your normal programming

 

[DarthSimon]

In my case because my heaters controlled by Apex do not have their own Digital Controllers, I have to set the programming to Fallback Off. The Heater outside Apex would still be working (Which does have a digital controller, yet mine died ) . If I had Fallback on, the heaters would cook my system being they don't have their own thermostats....

 

[92Miata]

"Heater redundancy" has to be one of the strangest things I continue to run into on this forum.


It is way more common, and way worse for a heater to fail on than off. Adding additional heaters eliminates a failure condition that almost never happens, and isn't that bad when it does - and increases the chances of a failure condition that is common, and is catastrophic.

 

[DarthSimon]

I use multiple heaters to spread the power draw on each outlet. I have always been one to think if a heater dies off, the others can pick up the slack...

I also use Titanium heaters.... They have been pretty reliable. And now one will fail on me!! lol Kiss of Death....

 

[Roytrolls247]

Good save better thank the Apex Gods!!

 

[vetteguy53081]

Safety and backups are a must in this hobby.
When one asks Why a Controller unit- THIS IS WHY

 

[DarthSimon]

Talking about backups, I can't wait for the day when Apex Fusion saves backups of our configuration files.
Instead of local bin files....

 

[Tater_kamik]

Mine has saved me a bunch. Had a heating element go out and saw the temp going down. Pulled a chart for amperage draw and immediately saw that it wasn't pulling anything.

 

[Sleepydoc]

In my case because my heaters controlled by Apex do not have their own Digital Controllers, I have to set the programming to Fallback Off. The Heater outside Apex would still be working (Which does have a digital controller, yet mine died ) . If I had Fallback on, the heaters would cook my system being they don't have their own thermostats....

Heaters and specifically the heater thermostat/controller are the primary source of failure; putting a heater off the apex and relying on the cheap, built in thermostat is just negating the safety of having the apex in the first place. Even with a controller like an Apex I recommend having a backup. If you have heaters with built in thermostats, then you can just set the heater thermostat a degree or two higher than the Apex. The primary mode of failure of the built in thermostats is due to the arcing that occurs as it cycles on and off, eventually fusing the contacts. Setting it higher eliminates the cycling and if the apex should fail you have the heater thermostat as a backup.

"Heater redundancy" has to be one of the strangest things I continue to run into on this forum.

It is way more common, and way worse for a heater to fail on than off. Adding additional heaters eliminates a failure condition that almost never happens, and isn't that bad when it does - and increases the chances of a failure condition that is common, and is catastrophic.

Not sure why "heater redundancy" is a strange topic for you - many people recommend getting 2 (or 3) smaller heaters over one big one. The point is not to eliminate a failure condition that never happens; it mitigates the effect of a failure condition when it does happen.

The rationale is that if one fails while 'on' it will be less likely to dangerously overheat the tank. If it fails 'off' then you have the other heater to keep the tank from getting dangerously cold. If you are buying multiple heaters that are each large enough to heat the tank on their own then you're doing it wrong.

That said, where I live I need fans in the summer and heaters in the winter, so there are definitely periods in the spring and fall where a single heater is enough. The only way to avoid that would be to remove and or re-size heaters.

 

[92Miata]

Heaters and specifically the heater thermostat/controller are the primary source of failure; putting a heater off the apex and relying on the cheap, built in thermostat is just negating the safety of having the apex in the first place. Even with a controller like an Apex I recommend having a backup. If you have heaters with built in thermostats, then you can just set the heater thermostat a degree or two higher than the Apex. The primary mode of failure of the built in thermostats is due to the arcing that occurs as it cycles on and off, eventually fusing the contacts. Setting it higher eliminates the cycling and if the apex should fail you have the heater thermostat as a backup.



Not sure why "heater redundancy" is a strange topic for you - many people recommend getting 2 (or 3) smaller heaters over one big one. The point is not to eliminate a failure condition that never happens; it mitigates the effect of a failure condition when it does happen.

The rationale is that if one fails while 'on' it will be less likely to dangerously overheat the tank. If it fails 'off' then you have the other heater to keep the tank from getting dangerously cold. If you are buying multiple heaters that are each large enough to heat the tank on their own then you're doing it wrong.

That said, where I live I need fans in the summer and heaters in the winter, so there are definitely periods in the spring and fall where a single heater is enough. The only way to avoid that would be to remove and or re-size heaters.

Heaters almost never fail off. And when they do - unless you've got a basement/outdoor sump - it takes hours for temperature to drop significantly - because most people's houses stay within 10-12 degrees of what they keep their tank at.

Multiple smaller heaters just means that you don't know when one fails - because the others just switch on and off more often - which causes them to fail faster - which gets you right back to where you were with 1.

But most people run significantly more heater that they need - especially people who run multiple - so they end up in this situation where they've actually managed to increase both the risk of failure and the hazard when a failure occurs.


Figure out what your tank actually needs for draw. If it's 100w to keep your tank at 78 - run 100. It'll run constantly (which is a good thing) - have no chance of frying your tank if the thermostat fails, etc. And if your temp gets a little low - send an alarm - and replace it.

 

[Sleepydoc]

Heaters almost never fail off. And when they do - unless you've got a basement/outdoor sump - it takes hours for temperature to drop significantly - because most people's houses stay within 10-12 degrees of what they keep their tank at.

Multiple smaller heaters just means that you don't know when one fails - because the others just switch on and off more often - which causes them to fail faster - which gets you right back to where you were with 1.

But most people run significantly more heater that they need - especially people who run multiple - so they end up in this situation where they've actually managed to increase both the risk of failure and the hazard when a failure occurs.


Figure out what your tank actually needs for draw. If it's 100w to keep your tank at 78 - run 100. It'll run constantly (which is a good thing) - have no chance of frying your tank if the thermostat fails, etc. And if your temp gets a little low - send an alarm - and replace it.

• If you are using a controller like an Apex it will alert you that the outlet is drawing less power than it should.
• You can simply look at a heater and tell when it's on by seeing the heat radiating off the surface. You can also put your hand next to it.
• If you have multiple heaters and one fails, it will take longer for the temp to rise (or it won't be able to maintain the temp but will keep it from dropping dangerously low.) Either way, the heaters will be switching on and off less often, not more.
• You shouldn't be relying on the cheap bimetal heater thermostats as your primary switch for precisely this reason.
• It's up to the aquarist to appropriately size the heaters. Even if you have twice the power you need, the only increased risk is if both heaters fail on at the same time, something that is both incredibly rare and minimized by using a controller as I described my post.

All of this assumes you are using 'best practices' - appropriately sized heaters, a controller like a Ranco or an Apex as the primary controller and not relying on the heater thermostat as the primary controller, etc. If you're not doing this then you are correct, you may be increasing your risk, but that's a separate issue.