In the wake of the article, Experimental Comparison of Measured Flow Output of Aquarium Propeller Pumps, a lot of Tunze owners and curious onlookers were left wondering what their next move would be. Due to the fact they were shown the article before it was published, Tunze was not caught unaware and quickly put out a press release in which they described the methods which got them their flow numbers as well as some plans for the future. To be quick, it left me less than satisfied and wanting some more details about what was going to come next. A conversation with Roger Vitko of Tunze after the jump…
I managed to get some quick information from Roger Vitko of Tunze today, and it’s finally what I’ve been hoping to hear.
As Roger put it, “there is no conclusion to be drawn as of yet. We only acknowledge that doing the same test, the same way, we get the same result, but we have a lot more to look into.” He also tells me that they have been working hard on this since the article came out and that “A comprehensive comparison of the pumps will be done, we will test everything, not just flow at the pump, but flow where it matters at the corals, at your reef. We will test decibels, flow pattern, flow at distance, you name it.”
Roger simply asks that we give them a chance to figure this out before assuming anything, and I would like to ask the same. Everywhere I look people rant about how we assumed the pumps were tested well before and we should not do so again, but then aren’t we doing the same by jumping on the heals of this new method a little prematurely? We need to give time for some rebuttal before we call this one fact.
Roger also gave me some details about results they have already achieved and how they are looking to get to where they want to be. “In addition we will work on increasing the flow at the pump, we have already accomplished 3200gph from a 6105 and 4900 from a 6205, 6305 will require new parts be made and tested but they are already being designed and when I arrive 3D prints should be ready for testing. Of course getting from that to a molded part takes further time. We will test these solutions for noise, flow, power consumption, etc, before we send them out. ” I think it should be pretty clear that they are not trying to duck anything, so lets give them a chance to further our knowledge still about fluid dynamics in the reef tank. Lets not count one of the primo manufacturers in the industry out quite yet.
Impressive PR recovery from Tunze who are super fortunate that the authors of the study had the decency to give them a sneak peak and a chance to rebut/ formulate a triage plan.
It is great that Tunze is now going to do all this testing to save their brand, but the fact remains that hobbyists should be able to expect high-end companies selling high-end products to do the rigorous R&D work BEFORE they take your money, not after they get exposed. The standards for this kind of thing are so low in this hobby, that somehow Tunze seems heroic for trying to save their butts. This was the main point of my post yesterday— Buyer Beware ( and I’m not referring solely to Tunze here).
” The very first word of the article causing so much controversy is “Experimental,” meaning that it is not the final say.”
I don’t think that is the way the word is being used. I think it means they did some experiments. There is never a final say in science, just the best current evidence.
If that’s the case than it’s terrible wording. Using experimental before the rest of the title means some very different than using experiment at the end of the title. It completely changes the context. I would like to hear from Sanjay on this though, so hopefully he will chime in here.
I don’t think so.
From dictionary.com:
ex·per·i·men·tal [ik-sper-uh-men-tl] Show IPA
adjective
1.
pertaining to, derived from, or founded on experiment: an experimental science.
2.
of the nature of an experiment; tentative: The new program is still in an experimental stage.
3.
functioning as an experiment or used for experimentation: an experimental airplane.
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=experimental+comparison
It still seems to change context to me by simply moving it. Take for example “experimental aircraft” and “aircraft experiment.” With the term “experimental aircraft” the term experimental is describing the aircraft, but with the term “aircraft experiment” aircraft is a description of the experiment. It’s amazing how moving a word can change everything.
Rich is right. Experimental in this case implies “derived from experiments”. I am not an English major but I think that is the correct use of the term.
Good enough for me.