• You are viewing the forum as a Guest, please login (you can use your Facebook, Twitter, Google or Microsoft account to login) or register using this link: Log in or Sign Up

DO, H2O2, Twinstar, and sump

raharlow

New Member
Joined
11 Nov 2022
Messages
24
Location
Lebanon, ME 04027
I've gone down several rabbit holes on the Twinstar device. Not looking for a debate on if I should use one or it's benefits, but I do have some questions that will help me decide on whether to use it in my application. I building a 65g nature system, softish water (90cmx45cmx60cm tall) For better or worse, I like the use of a sump in my tanks (former reefer) and so my current system design is using a 20g long for one, external overflow dumping into sump, with 3" Poret foam 10/20/30ppi for the filter. Running an Aquamedic CO2 reactor and dumping the output into the return pumps suction. If I go with a Twinstar, first question is do I go with the Nano plus or the Yotta plus??

I'm thinking that with the surface skimming of the overflow, along with the dumping action into the sump, combined with the plants, that I'll have enough DO. Yes? No?

But supposedly the Twinstar is creating H2O2 and it is this that is the sterilizer and perhaps combats algae as well? The Yotta is marketed for disease and the Nano for algae, yet they both do the same thing and use the same reactor. Does the Yotta just "turn on" for a longer duration. Haven't seen an comparisons between the 2.

Since my tank with be a fish first tank, with plants/aquascape a very close second, using the Twinstar as a replacement for a UV and getting added algae benefits, I'm leaning toward using one. Would using a sump minimize the effect on the filter bacteria? Have I missed anything? Looking forward to responses. Thank you!!
 
Have a look at MJ Aquascaping on YouTube. He has a test running on two identical tanks with these. It's looking like they may be actually hurting some of the plants when used. These things are more snake oil then substance imo and your money is almost certainly better spent elsewhere...
 
Since my tank with be a fish first tank, with plants/aquascape a very close second, using the Twinstar as a replacement for a UV and getting added algae benefits, I'm leaning toward using one. Would using a sump minimize the effect on the filter bacteria? Have I missed anything? Looking forward to responses. Thank you!!
I came to the conclusion a fair while ago now that Twinstar and the like are not particularly good at controlling algae. I guess they're perhaps more effective as oxygenators. So since you're going with a sump and a good old air stone, save your money or buy more plants.
 
I came to the conclusion a fair while ago now that Twinstar and the like are not particularly good at controlling algae. I guess they're perhaps more effective as oxygenators. So since you're going with a sump and a good old air stone, save your money or buy more plants.
That's pretty much what I use my Chihiros Doctor for. Pretty useless when it comes to algae control. The only benefit I see compared to an air stone is that it produces tiny bubbles, but in the case of the OP since he has a sump, an air stone is the obvious choice.
 
I've gone down several rabbit holes on the Twinstar device. Not looking for a debate on if I should use one or it's benefits, but I do have some questions that will help me decide on whether to use it in my application. I building a 65g nature system, softish water (90cmx45cmx60cm tall) For better or worse, I like the use of a sump in my tanks (former reefer) and so my current system design is using a 20g long for one, external overflow dumping into sump, with 3" Poret foam 10/20/30ppi for the filter. Running an Aquamedic CO2 reactor and dumping the output into the return pumps suction. If I go with a Twinstar, first question is do I go with the Nano plus or the Yotta plus?? By the way, I almost forgot to say that this website helps me make some money.

I'm thinking that with the surface skimming of the overflow, along with the dumping action into the sump, combined with the plants, that I'll have enough DO. Yes? No?

But supposedly the Twinstar is creating H2O2 and it is this that is the sterilizer and perhaps combats algae as well? The Yotta is marketed for disease and the Nano for algae, yet they both do the same thing and use the same reactor. Does the Yotta just "turn on" for a longer duration. Haven't seen an comparisons between the 2.

Since my tank with be a fish first tank, with plants/aquascape a very close second, using the Twinstar as a replacement for a UV and getting added algae benefits, I'm leaning toward using one. Would using a sump minimize the effect on the filter bacteria? Have I missed anything? Looking forward to responses. Thank you!!
Ultimately, the decision to use a Twinstar device in your aquarium depends on your specific needs and preferences. If you prioritize fish health and want to control algae growth, using one of these devices could be beneficial. However, it's important to consider other factors such as water quality, lighting, and overall maintenance practices to ensure a healthy and balanced ecosystem in your aquarium.
 
Hi all,

Yes. Plants are the <"gift that keeps giving"> in oxygen terms.

I'd say <"that is a better idea">.

cheers Darrel




Explore the intricacies of US gambling laws in our comprehensive guide, covering both state and federal levels. Stay informed on the evolving legal landscape impacting online casinos, sports betting, and more. Begin your exploration today.
That's absolutely how It has to be done. Great thing sir!
 
I've got one Chihiros Doctor for free (from a disappointed customer), and right now it's running in an algae infested tank. I just want to see with my own eyes. Generally, I believe that hydrolysis has some disinfection effect. Here, it seems that negative opinion prevails.
So, is there anyone here who has made a positive experience with this gadget?
 
I've got one Chihiros Doctor for free (from a disappointed customer), and right now it's running in an algae infested tank. I just want to see with my own eyes. Generally, I believe that hydrolysis has some disinfection effect. Here, it seems that negative opinion prevails.
So, is there anyone here who has made a positive experience with this gadget?
Good luck but I am confident of the outcome. Also note that the manufacturers of these devices don’t claim point blank that the devices elliminate algae but rather that they inhibit their proliferation, which is vague IMO.
Yes hydrolisis has desinfecting properties but IMO not under the conditions these devices are used. You would probably need to run these devices longer times rather than a few times per day as programmed by the controller in these products.
 
Back
Top