Just out of curiosity, did you try/test one of mine?
Obviously not as yours don't have all the cons of many of the others Bud.
I have not tested your product out yet. I have no doubt it grows algae perfectly fine, but I'd be curious to hear if/how it differs from other ATS products from a maintenance perspective and how your product would ideally be ran at nutrient levels under 5ppm nitrates and .04ppm phosphates without risk of bottoming out those parameters.
Please list the cons other ATS have vs. Turbo's.
Removable growth chamber with dual bottom drains (primary and secondary/emergency)
Then how can you say they ALL have the same cons?That's like saying alights have all the same cons.
Buds done it for me. Perhaps you could list the cons rather than just making a blanket statement " theyv all have the same cons"
It's not the goal, we'll not minemanyway
Just saying that choices should reflect goals. ATS is a good choice for removing inorganic nitrate/phosphate. There are better choices if you have other goals.
I already have listed the cons which if an ATS has a screen that requires periodic algae harvesting and relies on the careful timing of lighting to prevent stripping the tank of nutrients, it's ALWAYS going to have the same cons, regardless of brand. And it was YOU who said this particular ATS LACKS some of the cons. Which ones does it lack? Again, please explain.
Sorry you said they all have the same cons. That is clearly not true. Your making a blanket statement that all ATS have the same cons.
Again, ALL ATS use a screen and lighting to grow algae. They ALL require periodic "harvesting" of that algae from the screen to "export" nutrients out of the system. They also require adjustment of the on-time of the lighting especially as nutrient levels drop to extremely low levels. Is this incorrect? This is the "blanket statement" I'm making. If you know of an ATS that doesn't use screens that require periodic harvesting or lighting that needs to be adjusted to regulate algae growth and in turn, nutrient reduction, please name it. PS. I'm not comparing ATS to ATS. I'm comparing the inherent downfalls of EVERY ATS, regardless of brand to other nutrient reduction methods. Not once did I say everything about an ATS is a con.
Am not asking you what they use I know what they use. Your blanket statement was that they all have the same cons which simply isn't true. Some have cons others don't have as explained by Bud that you refuse to acknowledge. My ATS was easy enough to tune I never hit rock bottom nuitrents and you won't if you take a little time to dial it in. You make it sound so difficult when it isn't. I accept it was difficult for you for whatever reason. What you term downfalls are nothing but trivialities to me and many. Don't roller mats have downfalls or are they trivialities. If you think cleaning a screen that takes 4 minutes a week a downfall then so be it, I and many more don't. Everything needs some maintenance and has its pluses and minuses it's what the individual considers to be so. You, as an example have to change the rolls on a roller filter is that a con as it must be given your analogy. We will just have to disagree but the truth of the pudding is what matters in the end and one person's chore is another person's little at all. Had enough of this now. Happy reefkeeping and may the reefkeeping god go with you.
I'm not complaining about having to clean a screen because as I noted, it's not much more of a hassle as changing a filter sock-roll, or filling up a gallon of vinegar/vodka mix. That's not my point AT ALL. There is no learning curve to removing algae from a screen. There IS a learning curve and much understanding required though to understand how much to remove and what certain algae colorations mean. This is a CON, especially in systems that don't have chronically high nutrient levels requiring an ATS running "full blast" in order to keep up with demand. Having to clear a screen and guessing how much to remove is going to be enough to keep a healthy population of algae that won't strip out nutrients = Same CON with every ATS in systems that don't need "full blast" nutrient reduction, which in reality is most systems once they get out of crazy high nutrients land. Having to adjust lighting (including setting off times) to slow the runaway freight train that is EVERY ATS and hoping to find any semblance of balance especially at nitrate levels nearing 2.5ppm = CON with every ATS. This is the same level of "tuning" that any nutrient reduction aside from water changes has. Again, they're by no means set-it-and-forget it methods as you're implying. I would know, I've literally done it and made it work for years on end. I've built numerous ATS over the last decades and implemented them on my systems and they ALL literally have the exact same basic methodology of operation and maintenance requirements when it comes to balancing nutrient control. The problem is you can't tell people they're easy when in reality, you're careful to remove maybe 1/2 to 1/4 of the screen volume on each cleanout. I would know this is probably the case because you're looking at a full week of near-zero nutrient reduction from the ATS from a fully cleaned screen, which is counterproductive. So how much does someone remove? Oh you have to regularly test nitrates to find out. Do most people know that going in? No. Because they're not simple products and like carbon dosing, have their drawbacks. But go ahead and ignore what I've wrote. I'm done with this too.
Nice features. No one likes a waterfall in their cabinet.
