View Single Post
  #11  
Old 02-10-2009, 06:14 PM
Delphinus's Avatar
Delphinus Delphinus is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Calgary
Posts: 12,896
Delphinus has a spectacular aura aboutDelphinus has a spectacular aura aboutDelphinus has a spectacular aura about
Send a message via MSN to Delphinus
Default

If money was no object I think I'd go single controller, so long as it had the flexibility I would want.

Things that would make or break the deal for me:
- fewer timers for lights and able to stagger lighting. Dimmable is a "meh" feature for me but staggering is nice
- monitor the state of electrical outlets and alarm or callout if a circuit fails. I can't count how many times a GFCI has tripped in the middle of the night or when I was at work. It kills me that it's hard to find a simple plugin device that squeals if the power goes out. So an aquarium controller that does this would be worth it to me. GFCI's may save our lives, so they're good, but I've lost livestock due to me not knowing in a timely manner that they went out. Heck, I lost livestock YESTERDAY due to this very issue, so I'm still a little steamed on this one... I wish I had the money for a controller ... I need to sell off some stuff I guess.

As far as controllers for reactors or monitoring pH or ORP .. Meh, I dunno. I have yet to really be convinced that keeping track of my pH or ORP is an important thing to do. Ca and Alk and NO3 are the only numbers that I really care about, and there's no such thing as an Alk monitor and the NO3 monitors aren't meant for continuous monitoring (they aren't, they really aren't) so for that aspect, a controller doesn't make or break the deal for me. For me the controller is the remote monitoring and safety failback features that just don't seem to be there otherwise.
__________________
-- Tony
My next hobby will be flooding my basement while repeatedly banging my head against a brick wall and tearing up $100 bills. Whee!
Reply With Quote