Algae Scrubber Basics
- Thread starter srusso
- Start date
Floyd R Turbo
Either busy or sleeping
You can find in plenty of places online, aquacave, etc.
_shorty_
New member
Im just guessing, but you probably still need to maintain a certain amount of surface area for bacteria growth to maintain the nitrate cycle unless you are doing something special and specific for bacteria maintenance. The scrubber doesn't replace that cycle, it only compliments it by eating the nitrates produced. If it does take up NH3, which I'm guessing it does some of, it wouldn't probably do it at the rate your system would need.
rgfast
New member
I run alittle more filtration than just the ATS LOL I just plan on this being a another tool. I did the first cleaning today and was surprized that it already had small areas of hair algae growing here's pic of screen before rinsing with fresh water
oh and here's a quick pic of sump system
We are in prossess of building new breeding room for grow out tanks, I will be using 140gal sumps for it and plan to use Kaldnes K1 for bio-media but I'll save that for another thread
oh and here's a quick pic of sump system
We are in prossess of building new breeding room for grow out tanks, I will be using 140gal sumps for it and plan to use Kaldnes K1 for bio-media but I'll save that for another thread
pat02026
New member
I finally installed my scrubber today. The screen has been being seeded in the fuge for the past ~6 weeks, hopefully that helps speed up the growth a bit. Sorry for the lackluster quality of the video, was done quick with the cell.
http://youtu.be/7q_NBAcUKM8
http://youtu.be/7q_NBAcUKM8
miatawnt2b
New member
I really want to build one of these, but it seems like they would be a salt creep and salt spray nightmare. I see all these builds with nice tall screens and saltwater trickling down... I can't imagine they are very friendly to the under stand electronics. How does everyone manage?
<iframe class="imgur-album" width="100%" height="550" frameborder="0" src="http://imgur.com/a/kL2ey/embed"></iframe>
This is my build for my 60g cube.
I need to take some more recent pictures, as I am now at week 3, and have crazy growth.
Also, they aren't on in the first two pics, but i added "feet" on the bottom for support and to prevent tipping.
This is my build for my 60g cube.
I need to take some more recent pictures, as I am now at week 3, and have crazy growth.
Also, they aren't on in the first two pics, but i added "feet" on the bottom for support and to prevent tipping.
_shorty_
New member
Okay - so got my K test kit and KCL last night. I like the little salifert kit, btw. First test was 370ppm (which is higher than i was expecting/hoping). I dosed 1/2 tsp over about an hour - and 2nd test was 380. So I dosed another full tsp overnight. Will see what we are at after work. I'm expecting to be in the 400 range. For reference - my total system is a little more than 150 gals.
I took some pics of my 'before' growth - and I'm really not very happy with the growth I'm getting. Maybe it was less than a week. I'm just not sure yet about the UAS. I really need to get more accurate NO3 and PO4 kits... but i'm on a budget. We'll see what happens with the addition of the K to the system.
I have noticed the positive trade-off with the UAS - that over the past two weeks without the ATS - I'm seeing DRASTICALLY reduced ALK usage.
SantaMonica
Well-known member
Sounds probable. The algae get carbon from the CO2 in the bubbles, instead of the bicarbonate in the water.
SkyReef
New member
Great thread! This will be my very first attempt with an ATS. I am starting with a problem reef tank that has ridiculous algae. Actually the tank was supposed to be a temporary, "rescue" tank, to last two weeks. However, it is going on 3 months because my replacement tank is not ready yet.
The "rescue" tank is a 14-gallon BioCube that was downsized from a 28-gallon Nano Cube that had shameful quantities of hair algae all over the tank. Thus, the idea when creating the "rescue" tank was to import only the non-algae-covered live-rock, the corals, and the two clownfish. As well, I got rid of the sand, to make it a bare-bottom, because the sand from the old tank contained nutrients. As stated above, the "rescue tank" was only supposed to last for about 2 weeks, until I could get my 75-gallon tank built. However, delays in completing that build have caused the rescue tank to now be in operation for 3 months.
The predictable result is that algae has come back with a vengeance. The "rescue" tank removed the protein skimmer and the sump. The circulation in the "rescue" tank is provided by three powerheads placed inside the display tank, which create great water movement. However, without a sump or protein skimmer, the "rescue" tank needs rescuing. Here are two pictures of the lame state of the "rescue" tank, with hair algae growing out of control.
As of yesterday morning, before learning about ATS, I seriously considered abandoning this tank and returning the livestock to the LFS because my 75-gallon rebuild was taking too long. However, after spending all day yesterday reading about algae turf scrubbers, I have a faint hope that even this tank might be salvagable.
Thus, as a great ATS experiment, rather than tearing down and disbanding the tank, I will restore operation of the sump and use an ATS in a sump. I doubt very seriously that the ATS will be able to remove the clumps of hair algae, as they currently exist in my "rescue" tank. The algae is too overgrown. I'm certain I will need to prune all algae that can be grabbed, and then maybe an ATS would be able to prevent it from coming back, and further cause the remnants of hair algae to die off. Do you agree with this method, or should I leave the clumps of algae as-is, to see what capabilities the ATS can prove? I don't think such an approach is advisable, due to ethical considerations of saving my coral as soon as possible. I'm pretty sure I need to pull out as much hair algae as possible, right away to prevent the corals from dying. Those who have experience here, might disagree, believing that the ATS would act more quickly than 4 weeks, to stave off the death of corals.
As for the dimensions of the ATS screen, I intend to have it overkill-oversized, for a 14-gallon tank: 6.5" wide by 10" high. I will illuminate both sides of the screen. Thus, the screen should support a tank, whose volume is 65 gallons (6.5 x 10 = 65 square inches; @1sq. inch per gallon). I have read opposing views: (1) too large a screen will starve the tank of required nutrients; and (2) too large of a screen won't hurt the tank. Which view is correct? Can I really use an ATS screen measuring 6.5" wide and 10" tall for a 14-gallon tank, which ATS screen would produce a scrubbing capacity for a 65-gallon tank? The screen's algae-scrubbing capacity would be 4.64 times the minimum required for a 14-gallon tank. I'd like to think that such an over-drive capacity would really knock down the algae more quickly. But I don't know if that is correct.
Please let me know your thoughts.
The "rescue" tank is a 14-gallon BioCube that was downsized from a 28-gallon Nano Cube that had shameful quantities of hair algae all over the tank. Thus, the idea when creating the "rescue" tank was to import only the non-algae-covered live-rock, the corals, and the two clownfish. As well, I got rid of the sand, to make it a bare-bottom, because the sand from the old tank contained nutrients. As stated above, the "rescue tank" was only supposed to last for about 2 weeks, until I could get my 75-gallon tank built. However, delays in completing that build have caused the rescue tank to now be in operation for 3 months.
The predictable result is that algae has come back with a vengeance. The "rescue" tank removed the protein skimmer and the sump. The circulation in the "rescue" tank is provided by three powerheads placed inside the display tank, which create great water movement. However, without a sump or protein skimmer, the "rescue" tank needs rescuing. Here are two pictures of the lame state of the "rescue" tank, with hair algae growing out of control.
As of yesterday morning, before learning about ATS, I seriously considered abandoning this tank and returning the livestock to the LFS because my 75-gallon rebuild was taking too long. However, after spending all day yesterday reading about algae turf scrubbers, I have a faint hope that even this tank might be salvagable.
Thus, as a great ATS experiment, rather than tearing down and disbanding the tank, I will restore operation of the sump and use an ATS in a sump. I doubt very seriously that the ATS will be able to remove the clumps of hair algae, as they currently exist in my "rescue" tank. The algae is too overgrown. I'm certain I will need to prune all algae that can be grabbed, and then maybe an ATS would be able to prevent it from coming back, and further cause the remnants of hair algae to die off. Do you agree with this method, or should I leave the clumps of algae as-is, to see what capabilities the ATS can prove? I don't think such an approach is advisable, due to ethical considerations of saving my coral as soon as possible. I'm pretty sure I need to pull out as much hair algae as possible, right away to prevent the corals from dying. Those who have experience here, might disagree, believing that the ATS would act more quickly than 4 weeks, to stave off the death of corals.
As for the dimensions of the ATS screen, I intend to have it overkill-oversized, for a 14-gallon tank: 6.5" wide by 10" high. I will illuminate both sides of the screen. Thus, the screen should support a tank, whose volume is 65 gallons (6.5 x 10 = 65 square inches; @1sq. inch per gallon). I have read opposing views: (1) too large a screen will starve the tank of required nutrients; and (2) too large of a screen won't hurt the tank. Which view is correct? Can I really use an ATS screen measuring 6.5" wide and 10" tall for a 14-gallon tank, which ATS screen would produce a scrubbing capacity for a 65-gallon tank? The screen's algae-scrubbing capacity would be 4.64 times the minimum required for a 14-gallon tank. I'd like to think that such an over-drive capacity would really knock down the algae more quickly. But I don't know if that is correct.
Please let me know your thoughts.
Last edited:
SantaMonica
Well-known member
These situations are some of the hardest, because:
1. The display acts as a scrubber, and competes with the new real scrubber.
2. The scrubbing power you need to start with is not what you need long term.
3. The people with these situations have usually never used a scrubber before.
Obviously, if you need to save the corals, just trim off the gha where needed.
Interestingly, if you remove all the gha, the P in the rocks comes out and increases the P in the water, which makes the scrubber grow darker (less efficient). Thus it's sort of a changing game, whereby you scrub as strong as possible, then reduce scrubbing power when the display gha goes away.
Your size calculations would normally be way off because it's not based on gallons. However what you might do is build two: the one you mentioned, and another smaller properly-sized one for ongoing use. The big one can be temporary, in a bucket, and removed later. It can have two 33 real-watt 2700k CFL bulbs on each side.
The second scrubber would be sized according the the feeding guidelines.
1. The display acts as a scrubber, and competes with the new real scrubber.
2. The scrubbing power you need to start with is not what you need long term.
3. The people with these situations have usually never used a scrubber before.
Obviously, if you need to save the corals, just trim off the gha where needed.
Interestingly, if you remove all the gha, the P in the rocks comes out and increases the P in the water, which makes the scrubber grow darker (less efficient). Thus it's sort of a changing game, whereby you scrub as strong as possible, then reduce scrubbing power when the display gha goes away.
Your size calculations would normally be way off because it's not based on gallons. However what you might do is build two: the one you mentioned, and another smaller properly-sized one for ongoing use. The big one can be temporary, in a bucket, and removed later. It can have two 33 real-watt 2700k CFL bulbs on each side.
The second scrubber would be sized according the the feeding guidelines.
SkyReef
New member
Thanks for your response, Santa Monica. I think I am basing my calculation off an older method cited, by SRusso on page 1 of the thread, where the size of the screen was based on the volume of the display tank, as follows:
However, I also read about another method, based on the quantity of food fed. This is still confusing to me, and perhaps you could clarify this for me. As for feeding, I typically only feed 1/4 cube per day in this 14-gallon BioCube. If I understand you correctly, it is okay to use the over-sized screen, temporarily, and then ditch it in favor of a normal-sized screen once the tank has stablized; at that time, an oversized screen would not be advisable, due to the inability of the screen to gather the thickness and mass of algae? Is that correct? I'm just not clear about this. Thanks.
SantaMonica
Well-known member
Yes pretty much correct. Here is a feeding calculator:
https://public.sheet.zoho.com/public/cdm2013/ascalculator-xls-1
https://public.sheet.zoho.com/public/cdm2013/ascalculator-xls-1
SkyReef
New member
Thanks, SantaMonica. That is very helpful.
sail33
New member
If skyreef pictures are what I think, and that's all green hair algae, I think you'll have trouble clearing it with just an ATS. I picked up lots of coral and rock from a closing tank that was covered with GHA. I mixed 2 1/2 gallons of clean salt water with 16 oz of 3% hydrogen peroxide, brought it to temperature and dipped the rocks , coral and all for about 20 seconds while picking off what hairy bits I could.
I placed them in my display tank and less than two days later the corals are fine and the algae is just a dead white memory.
NOW my ATS can keep it that way.
There is more specific info regarding species and time at this thread http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2266750
I placed them in my display tank and less than two days later the corals are fine and the algae is just a dead white memory.
NOW my ATS can keep it that way.
There is more specific info regarding species and time at this thread http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2266750
SkyReef
New member
Awesome advice, thanks, Sail33. Very helpful.
blackwidow
New member
Great thread! This will be my very first attempt with an ATS. I am starting with a problem reef tank that has ridiculous algae. Actually the tank was supposed to be a temporary, "rescue" tank, to last two weeks. However, it is going on 3 months because my replacement tank is not ready yet.
The "rescue" tank is a 14-gallon BioCube that was downsized from a 28-gallon Nano Cube that had shameful quantities of hair algae all over the tank. Thus, the idea when creating the "rescue" tank was to import only the non-algae-covered live-rock, the corals, and the two clownfish. As well, I got rid of the sand, to make it a bare-bottom, because the sand from the old tank contained nutrients. As stated above, the "rescue tank" was only supposed to last for about 2 weeks, until I could get my 75-gallon tank built. However, delays in completing that build have caused the rescue tank to now be in operation for 3 months.
The predictable result is that algae has come back with a vengeance. The "rescue" tank removed the protein skimmer and the sump. The circulation in the "rescue" tank is provided by three powerheads placed inside the display tank, which create great water movement. However, without a sump or protein skimmer, the "rescue" tank needs rescuing. Here are two pictures of the lame state of the "rescue" tank, with hair algae growing out of control.
As of yesterday morning, before learning about ATS, I seriously considered abandoning this tank and returning the livestock to the LFS because my 75-gallon rebuild was taking too long. However, after spending all day yesterday reading about algae turf scrubbers, I have a faint hope that even this tank might be salvagable.
Thus, as a great ATS experiment, rather than tearing down and disbanding the tank, I will restore operation of the sump and use an ATS in a sump. I doubt very seriously that the ATS will be able to remove the clumps of hair algae, as they currently exist in my "rescue" tank. The algae is too overgrown. I'm certain I will need to prune all algae that can be grabbed, and then maybe an ATS would be able to prevent it from coming back, and further cause the remnants of hair algae to die off. Do you agree with this method, or should I leave the clumps of algae as-is, to see what capabilities the ATS can prove? I don't think such an approach is advisable, due to ethical considerations of saving my coral as soon as possible. I'm pretty sure I need to pull out as much hair algae as possible, right away to prevent the corals from dying. Those who have experience here, might disagree, believing that the ATS would act more quickly than 4 weeks, to stave off the death of corals.
As for the dimensions of the ATS screen, I intend to have it overkill-oversized, for a 14-gallon tank: 6.5" wide by 10" high. I will illuminate both sides of the screen. Thus, the screen should support a tank, whose volume is 65 gallons (6.5 x 10 = 65 square inches; @1sq. inch per gallon). I have read opposing views: (1) too large a screen will starve the tank of required nutrients; and (2) too large of a screen won't hurt the tank. Which view is correct? Can I really use an ATS screen measuring 6.5" wide and 10" tall for a 14-gallon tank, which ATS screen would produce a scrubbing capacity for a 65-gallon tank? The screen's algae-scrubbing capacity would be 4.64 times the minimum required for a 14-gallon tank. I'd like to think that such an over-drive capacity would really knock down the algae more quickly. But I don't know if that is correct.
Please let me know your thoughts.
If your looking for an easy to build / design algae scrubber, then you could build a Black Widow Algae Turf Scrubber. My scrubber is unique in that the design is easy to construct, it's rigid and can be cut to fit on top of ANY sized sump. Take a look here: http://reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2261943
Similar threads
