I agree with this too. I have growth with 0 feeding. I personally think its dependent on nitrates. Once those started showing during my cycle, growth on the screen started.
Algae Scrubber Basics
- Thread starter srusso
- Start date
I agree with this too. I have growth with 0 feeding. I personally think its dependent on nitrates. Once those started showing during my cycle, growth on the screen started.
Floyd R Turbo
Either busy or sleeping
This is interesting but not surprising. I have a "2 cube/day" UAS test unit that was running on a 40B with a large tang and a few angels, being fed 2 cubes every other day and it was struggling to keep up. I took the fish out and put them in their final 'homes' and was left with a few crabs and a shrimp/goby pair, so I cut feedings down to 1/2 cube every 2 days and my growth on the UAS literally exlpoded, increased by more than triple, yet nutrients were not reduced significantly (phosphate actually went up).
So I can't totally disagree with not buying into the cube/day feeding guideline. But I think that the volume-based screen sizes were a little much when you got into a larger size tank, and I'm talking about 150g+. You can grow plenty on a 10x10 screen to support just about any tank if you have the right screen roughness, flow, and lighting setup.
So much depends on the specific setup that it is hard to say exactly what is going to work, exactly. So the feeding guideline gives a rough estimate of what should be done. This has been the guideline now for almost 2 years, and it works pretty well for most people. Some have found that going larger than this guideline works well, but too large and your growth can get thinned out (again, system dependent, not a hard-and-fast rule)
The fact that one can grow copious amounts of GHA in a near zero nutrient system is becoming more clear after the introduction of the UAS type scrubbers. The presence of this low-nutrient environment may actually be the reason you grow large amounts of GHA on a scrubber, which is interesting. That is a flip-flop in thinking for me - it has always been "the GHA filters betterm which is what you want to get the nutrients down" when perhaps it is "the GHA grows better once you get to low nutrients". You still want to get to the GHA growth, but it could be more of an indicator of system health. Also once you get growing that type of algae, it likely keeps the nutrients lower (like a 'sweet spot').
I would try to guesstimate what you plan to feed in say 1 or 2 years, then calculate the screen size for that feeding volume, and double it at the most.
If you are planning Luxeon 3W LEDs, then make an array that has one LED on each side of every 8 sq in of screen at minimum, 4 sq in maximum (twice as many)
Floyd R Turbo
Either busy or sleeping
That should work pretty well
jwoyshnar
Active member
Glad to see you are using the bigger screen. Try it and monitor it. I was not nor ever have been close minded so I have tried just about every scrubber style out there except for the new floating one. I always ended up going back to where I started.
Floyd R Turbo
Either busy or sleeping
I was actually some part of the concept of the floating scrubber that really solidified my thoughts on the UAS. It seemed to me that the UAS did not have enough water flow (tank turnover) past the algae compared to the waterfall. The "ad" for the floating scrubber actually states this as an advantage, saying that the low water turnover rate inside the unit creates a low nutrient environment withing the body of the unit - the bubbles cause the water inside the unit to turn over within the unit many times before it exits. So it then dawned on me that while this does indeed grow algae, it doesn't necessarily filter effectively.
I compared it to a sump that had a low flow return pump and therefore low water input (via overflow) but had a method to recirculate the water through it faster, like a large return pump but a tap to re-feed the flow back to the sump input. The water that returned back to the tank would be highly filtered, but that doesn't mean the tank water necessarily be pristine.
So who knows if the floater will truly work or not, it certainly has possible applications though, I'll give it that.
I compared it to a sump that had a low flow return pump and therefore low water input (via overflow) but had a method to recirculate the water through it faster, like a large return pump but a tap to re-feed the flow back to the sump input. The water that returned back to the tank would be highly filtered, but that doesn't mean the tank water necessarily be pristine.
So who knows if the floater will truly work or not, it certainly has possible applications though, I'll give it that.
Most of the tanks that follow the feeding guideline already have established tanks. In my mind it doesn't make sense, decomposing food = ammonia. During the cycle, when I was at the ammonia stage, there was 0 growth. When nitrites started showing up, I could see some brown algae. Once the nitrates showed up, I started seeing green hair algae.
Floyd R Turbo
Either busy or sleeping
If you start with a bare screen during the start of a tank, essentially you have an uncured screen (which takes 4-6 weeks to cure under normal tank conditions) which will really not grow much, especially if really oversized. So by the time you are nearing the end of the cycle, then the screen is just getting ramped up, so you might not be seeing that it is nitrate that grows algae instead of ammonia, that's just the timing of everything.
Five cubes per day seems like an awful lot. I thought I had a heavy fish load (22, including 3 good-sized Tangs) and I'd estimate 3 per day.
Yes , I also think that it seems like an awful lot. But I can better be prepared for it just in case there might be a fish that doesn't want to eat or NPS corals
knight2255
New member
Just wanted to say that my scrubber is dialed in and working really well now. It is very satisfying seeing and scrapping off the same thick growth as shown on a lot of the youtube videos out there. I have 12 fish(a pbt, yellow tang, copperband, moorish idol, hippo, & 7 smaller ones) in my 135g(165g total) and the screen is 6" wide by 11.5", but only 6x8 is lit directly. The extra length just extends the screen down below the sump waterline to lessen noise. I feed twice a day....for a total of 25 large pellets of spirulina, 1 cube of diy frozen food, 1/4 cube of grindal/white worms and 1 fist size piece of broccoli every 2 days for the tangs & idol to graze on.
At first when I used it, I didn't know to spray the screen off after I cleaned it. I got green cloudy water as a result. I now have it plumbed off my return line with a flexible hose that I can now just stretch the newly cleaned screen over a bucket, turn valve, and rinse off easily. The cloudy water incident also resulted in me buying uv and a skimmer, I was originally just going to use the ats but I think the uv and skimmer both have their place in my system. I really like the comfort in knowing I have 3 forms of filtration(skimmer,ats, uv) in case one or the other is having a bad day.
Another mistake I made was not buying a tds meter. I had no idea that my ro/di filters were spent and I was basically adding tapwater for topoff. I started getting gha algae all over the place, choking out corals. With the filters now replaced, I'm now seeing the gha receding away and should be back to normal by football season.
At first when I used it, I didn't know to spray the screen off after I cleaned it. I got green cloudy water as a result. I now have it plumbed off my return line with a flexible hose that I can now just stretch the newly cleaned screen over a bucket, turn valve, and rinse off easily. The cloudy water incident also resulted in me buying uv and a skimmer, I was originally just going to use the ats but I think the uv and skimmer both have their place in my system. I really like the comfort in knowing I have 3 forms of filtration(skimmer,ats, uv) in case one or the other is having a bad day.
Another mistake I made was not buying a tds meter. I had no idea that my ro/di filters were spent and I was basically adding tapwater for topoff. I started getting gha algae all over the place, choking out corals. With the filters now replaced, I'm now seeing the gha receding away and should be back to normal by football season.
flakey
Member
I'm not an electrician so just want to run this by you. I am intending to purchase these items and wire in 16 LEDs.
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/380482968302?ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1423.l2649
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/221014986535?ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1423.l2649
Am I right in saying that with the mean well driver, I just have to fit a plug on the end and plug it into the wall? I don't need any power adapters?
And do you see any problems running these LEDs ?
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/380482968302?ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1423.l2649
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/221014986535?ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1423.l2649
Am I right in saying that with the mean well driver, I just have to fit a plug on the end and plug it into the wall? I don't need any power adapters?
And do you see any problems running these LEDs ?
Floyd R Turbo
Either busy or sleeping
Correct - just add a wall plug on the brown/blue (blue is neutral)
Those LEDs should do OK
Those LEDs should do OK
Floyd R Turbo
Either busy or sleeping
That's because it's not an accurate representation of intensity when you get into the deep red LED spectrum. Radiant flux is the proper way to measure and compare intensity between different brands of 660s
salty joe
Active member
Radiant flux is the the total power of all electromagnetic waves emitted, both in and out of the visible spectrum. Luminious flux measures only light in the visible spectrum. 660nm is hardly at the edge of visible light. It's in the middle of the pack. I've seen more 660nm LEDs rated in lumens than radiant flux. Seems to me either would work equally well. Is it possible that some use radiant flux as a marketing ploy?
I am not trying to be argumentive, but until I find a reason WHY radient flux is the proper way to measure a visible wavelength, I'll continueto suspect a marketing ploy.
I am not trying to be argumentive, but until I find a reason WHY radient flux is the proper way to measure a visible wavelength, I'll continueto suspect a marketing ploy.
Floyd R Turbo
Either busy or sleeping
Google "deep red LED milliwatts vs lumens" for some interesting reading. This is not just a marketing ploy. Philips' literature states that they use mW for binning deep reds as well as royal blues.
Here's a few I found before crashing hard for the night
http://www.luxeonstar.com/Deep-Red-Lambertian-Rebel-720-mw-p/lxm3-pd01-0350.htm
http://www.digikey.com/us/en/techzo...s/royal-blue-leds-decoding-the-datasheet.html
Here's a few I found before crashing hard for the night
http://www.luxeonstar.com/Deep-Red-Lambertian-Rebel-720-mw-p/lxm3-pd01-0350.htm
http://www.digikey.com/us/en/techzo...s/royal-blue-leds-decoding-the-datasheet.html
