Wow I'm the only person that voted for redundancy?
I'm not sure if I'm surprised or not... really, having everything in one spot is very convenient... But I do believe that having a separate controller for everything reduces the risk that if something goes wrong you don't lose the whole system, and since I like to buy one thing at a time, I don't want to spend what an all in one controller is worth.
EDIT: Further, I think that the remote monitoring feature is cool on the controllers, and the fact that if the controller fails things stay 'status quo' assuming that an 'event' such as top-off wasn't occurring or the heater was in the 'on' position... I'm all about redundancy, even if I had a controller, I would still have a temperature controller, separate pH monitor (to make sure the controller wasn't inaccurate), etc... I like the extra net of safety but for someone like me it's just not worth the hundreds of dollars for remote monitoring and knowing if a GFCI was tripped.
Well, unless I one day have a system that contains like 200 gallons, or more... than it would definitely be worth it because I would have lots of expensive livestock, so then any extra level of safety would be worth it, right?
__________________
Calvin
---
Planning a 29 gallon mixed reef...
Last edited by BlueAbyss; 02-10-2009 at 07:03 PM.
|