karimwassef
Active member
My system is 700 gal, so I have three ATSs of different sizes and types so I can alternate cleaning them without impacting the system.
Algae Scrubber Advanced
- Thread starter maglofster
- Start date
Floyd R Turbo
Either busy or sleeping
my take on this is if you wanted to go with the egg crate supporting the screen but make it an inclined scrubber (better than horizontal, IMO) then make it 3 layers: mesh on top, then egg crate, then acrylic underneath. You could actually skip the egg crate and just use the acrylic. The egg crate would just act to allow for drainage through the mat, which I would think would be better to keep the base growth supplied with nutrients. As the mesh fills in, water would push further down the screen before it fully drained, so I would think it would grow first at the top edge, then as time went on the growth mat would progress down stream. If that makes sense.
If you did away with the egg crate you might lose this drainage effect a bit, but what you could do is use a layer (or 2) of #5 mesh (which is much larger, 5 holes/inch) between the acrylic and the #7 main growth layer.
Just thoughts....haven't tried anything like this, just typing out loud...
If you did away with the egg crate you might lose this drainage effect a bit, but what you could do is use a layer (or 2) of #5 mesh (which is much larger, 5 holes/inch) between the acrylic and the #7 main growth layer.
Just thoughts....haven't tried anything like this, just typing out loud...
bif24701
New member
Now those are some good ideas. My basis for all this is simplistic design and maintenance. I don't want to have to use two lights, nor a true waterfall that is limited by height. I have an existing 40 breeder stand that is at a great height allowing it to drain into my large sump.
Aaron
MorganAtlanta
New member
If I had the space, I'd try taking a tall, narrow aquarium, like a 50 gallon high, fill it with chaeto, and light it from either side with ebay led grow strips. It would be low maintenance, super easy to harvest, and by lighting it from both sides you would have a huge amount of lit surface area.
karimwassef
Active member
My horizontal sump scrubber is just eggcrate and screen with horizontal flow.
bif24701
New member
Sure. But growth rate isn't immediate or infinite. It takes time and other mechanisms can kick in to help. Also accidents can happen killing the ATS.
I believe in redundant systems. You can setup two ATSs, or an ATS and GFO, etc... Just plan for terrible awful things to happen and you'll be fine
I agree with you that I can not rely on a single nutrient export system. I employ many: Carbon dosing, GFO, ROX activated carbon, marine pure block, large 10" skimmer, macro algae, water changes, Refugium, and last but not least however certainly most over looked IMHO high quality large size Pulkanj live rock. I feed very well and my corals respond well to this.
Aaron
MidwesternTexan
Average Joe
Santa Monica, Turbo, et. al.,
OK, I know this has been covered before;
and I have read about ATS's actually stripping too much from the water,
and I have seen/know of a few cases where it ends up killing sps. As in truely close to 0 phospahte.- I have also seen posted by Santa monica that it won't.
My question is:
So I have TOO much/large of an ATS for MY set up?
I've never been into this whole 'cube' thing about feeding.
I used to have a VERY HEAVY Coral load- but after mainly a Levamsile overdosing- just starting back now with the sps.
I don't feec that heavy- I have ~13 fish in my 180, whick includes 2 very large tangs.
I currently have 2 x sheets of the 13.5" x 10" sheets.
One with CFL's on it, one with LED's on it.
Both grow the 'turf' well.
So I have a total of 13x10=130- doble sided = 260 sq."
and 2 of those,
so I have 520 Sq" of lit ATS surface.
Isn't that way too much for my lightly fed 180DT, with a 125g sump?
I'm thinking about taking one on the sheets offline,
so I'd have 130 Sq"- lit both sides fore 260 Sq" total.
Wouldn't that be enough?
Thanks for your objective replies
OK, I know this has been covered before;
and I have read about ATS's actually stripping too much from the water,
and I have seen/know of a few cases where it ends up killing sps. As in truely close to 0 phospahte.- I have also seen posted by Santa monica that it won't.
My question is:
So I have TOO much/large of an ATS for MY set up?
I've never been into this whole 'cube' thing about feeding.
I used to have a VERY HEAVY Coral load- but after mainly a Levamsile overdosing- just starting back now with the sps.
I don't feec that heavy- I have ~13 fish in my 180, whick includes 2 very large tangs.
I currently have 2 x sheets of the 13.5" x 10" sheets.
One with CFL's on it, one with LED's on it.
Both grow the 'turf' well.
So I have a total of 13x10=130- doble sided = 260 sq."
and 2 of those,
so I have 520 Sq" of lit ATS surface.
Isn't that way too much for my lightly fed 180DT, with a 125g sump?
I'm thinking about taking one on the sheets offline,
so I'd have 130 Sq"- lit both sides fore 260 Sq" total.
Wouldn't that be enough?
Thanks for your objective replies
SantaMonica
Well-known member
Main thing to keep is mind is that if your tank is running well, then what you have now is fine. Only adjust if there are problems.
I've never heard of a scrubber-only tank doing this. Especially because, the photosynthetic mechanism itself slows down as nutrients reduce; it works in tandem with the algae in the corals. You are probably thinking of pellets or gfo.
It can't be too large, if you are talking about possible coral damage. The mass ratio of algae to coral in a reef, for example, is millions to one.
You have 260 square inches of 2-sided material, assuming each one has enough light. 260 total real CFL watts, or 130 total LED watts, would be good. Half this wattage will work too, but not maximally.
I've never heard of a scrubber-only tank doing this. Especially because, the photosynthetic mechanism itself slows down as nutrients reduce; it works in tandem with the algae in the corals. You are probably thinking of pellets or gfo.
It can't be too large, if you are talking about possible coral damage. The mass ratio of algae to coral in a reef, for example, is millions to one.
You have 260 square inches of 2-sided material, assuming each one has enough light. 260 total real CFL watts, or 130 total LED watts, would be good. Half this wattage will work too, but not maximally.
MidwesternTexan
Average Joe
So SM, without any heavy feeding, etc.;
Would I be OK enough to run one of the sheets instead of the 2?
Thanks SM, I am still running my rather large protein skimmer, a Reef Octo 200 series, and
those sheets of ATS we discussed.
I'll just try and remember to feed the fish more too.
Would I be OK enough to run one of the sheets instead of the 2?
Thanks SM, I am still running my rather large protein skimmer, a Reef Octo 200 series, and
those sheets of ATS we discussed.
I'll just try and remember to feed the fish more too.
SantaMonica
Well-known member
Your rocks probably are more important than the feeding. That's typical of reef tanks which have lots of rock and little feeding.
Been reading through this thread and have a question on wiring the LEDs. I have wired 8 red and 2 blue in the following order. RRBRRBRRRR. It is powered by a 35w mean well driver that supplies 700mA. When powered the blue LEDs are getting substantially hot. Is this due to the way it's wired? I've red about switching the blues to parallel, but shouldn't everything be running at 700mA? I've made many LED lights before but have never ran multiple colors in the same string.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Floyd R Turbo
Either busy or sleeping
Blues run at a higher voltage drop for the same current as reds, and usually do get hotter.
For scrubbers it is kind of a unique set of circumstances, what I have found is that you need very little blue, and even blue is too intense, which is why I switched to hyper-violet (and I still run those at 50% of the reds)
At the same current, RB is much more intense than DR. regular red (630) is much more intense than 660 (DR).
In fact, what I have found is that if you can initially take 2 arrays, each one of them with about the mixture you have (except violets in place of blues) and with the b/v in parallel within each string so that they are 50% of the reds, then you take those 2 arrays and parallel them together (so that you now have 350mA through each string, meaning the b/v only see 175mA) that this is actually really good for starting a screen; you can run very long hours and this give the algae an easier time starting to attach. Then after a few weeks once you have coverage, you put the arrays in series and that 2x the intensity.
What I actually do is dim the arrays, but paralleling 2 arrays will actually get close to the same effect.
For scrubbers it is kind of a unique set of circumstances, what I have found is that you need very little blue, and even blue is too intense, which is why I switched to hyper-violet (and I still run those at 50% of the reds)
At the same current, RB is much more intense than DR. regular red (630) is much more intense than 660 (DR).
In fact, what I have found is that if you can initially take 2 arrays, each one of them with about the mixture you have (except violets in place of blues) and with the b/v in parallel within each string so that they are 50% of the reds, then you take those 2 arrays and parallel them together (so that you now have 350mA through each string, meaning the b/v only see 175mA) that this is actually really good for starting a screen; you can run very long hours and this give the algae an easier time starting to attach. Then after a few weeks once you have coverage, you put the arrays in series and that 2x the intensity.
What I actually do is dim the arrays, but paralleling 2 arrays will actually get close to the same effect.
karimwassef
Active member
I've listed some PAR and Watt data in my posts. Check above again.
Scrubber_steve
I'm really very likeable
Flow rate
Flow rate
ok, so its recommended that there be at least 35 gph of flow per one inch of screen width. You can go lower, I believe, especially when a good growth of algae has been established.
But is there a maximum flow per inch of screen that one shouldn't exceed?
Flow rate
ok, so its recommended that there be at least 35 gph of flow per one inch of screen width. You can go lower, I believe, especially when a good growth of algae has been established.
But is there a maximum flow per inch of screen that one shouldn't exceed?
SantaMonica
Well-known member
Since waterfalls don't have bubbles to rub/remove the boundary layer that holds nutrients in, more flow in a waterfall helps, up to about 50 gph. After about 50 gph, more does not seem to do much because it is too far (thick) from the growth.
Scrubber_steve
I'm really very likeable
Thanks very much for your reply.
It makes sense as I have read how a thin film of water flowing down over the algae allows for a very effective air-water-interface which is important for nutrient export,,, or something like that. :spin2:
jason2459
Well-known member
Where did you read it?
