UV damage in sump

[GlassMunky]

Just thought other hobbyists would like to know who uses cheaper acrylic that may not last as long as similarly priced products. It is truly surprising how this forum has shifted over the past few years. Helpful users are about gone and the board is full of sponsored accounts and overly critical hobbyists.

Yup because not everyone agrees with you and you got called out for being in the wrong the entire site is bad and there no helpful people anymore….



Seems like this whole thing is a “you” problem tbh

 

[jiggysmb]

No. This is entirely your user error. This isn’t on eshopps. You used bad product that caused something to get broken. How is it shops fault you got this cheap dangerous uv light?

Some people…. Smh

Ok point is understood and was clearly made 3 pages back. Still does not explain why red sea’s uv resistant acrylic did not experience the same problem.

 

[vdKroon]

I read acrylic has a 3% degradation to UV over a decade of sun exposure, so I thought it would be ok.

Acrylic UV protection/treatments are designed to shield the material from sun exposure, primarily against UV-A and UV-B rays, as UV-C is mostly absorbed by the ozone layer and the atmosphere. Your UV sterilizer lamp emits UV-C light.

 

[vdKroon]

Ok point is understood and was clearly made 3 pages back. Still does not explain why red sea’s uv resistant acrylic did not experience the same problem.

Maybe because the Red Sea's is cast acrylic and eshopps' is extruded (cheaper)?, but I think nothing related to manufacturer's UV protection/resistant process applied.

 

[jiggysmb]

Acrylic UV protection/treatments are designed to shield the material from sun exposure, primarily against UV-A and UV-B rays, as UV-C is mostly absorbed by the ozone layer and the atmosphere. Your UV sterilizer lamp emits UV-C light.

Thank you for the first helpful post! Maybe everyone is assuming I am a reef master lol

 

[BeanAnimal]

The damage was certainly avoidable and due to user error, but I think several people here forget that we all have different knowledge levels, skill levels and areas of understanding, expertise and ignorance. To that end, the usual suspects showing up here for the sole purpose of dunking on somebody is a disconcerting and not helpful.

"Putting a toaster in the bathtub" is almost universally known to be dangerous and clearly outside the known uses for a toaster. It is a poor analogy. All the OP did was buy and use a UV unit for its apparent and advertised purpose. Some of you may be informed enough about the properties of UV and acrylic to know that this was not a good idea or a safe product, but the OP was not.

Blaming the sump manufacturer therefore may be silly to you, but is reasonable to the OP, wrong or not.

Buyer beware, buyer must educate themselves, etc. are all valid points that feel good, but in reality most of you use products on faith, not with full understanding.

In this case I would assume that there is a difference in the way that the extruded vs cell cast acrylic performed or there may be something very UV reactive in the particular brand of acrylic that eShops used. It really does not matter. The focus here should be educating people about the dangers of naked UV-C bulbs used in this manner, not dunking on somebody who didn't know better.