SantaMonica
Well-known member
Coming in 2016:
Waterfall algae scrubber
Version 2
Something new to DIY
Waterfall algae scrubber
Version 2
Something new to DIY
Algae Scrubber Basics
- Thread starter srusso
- Start date
jason2459
Well-known member
Have a link to your version 1?
SantaMonica
Well-known member
jason2459
Well-known member
That's cool thanks. Great read. Seems like you've invested pretty heavily in the HOG and SURF and defending why they are better then the waterfall so why go back to the waterfall?
Spar
New member
Ha, I got a kick out of those jerks responding early in the thread. I have asked specific people to take a look at threads that they have expertise in the area a lot.... never thought it was taboo! there are a billion posts flowing this site all the time, can't expect everyone to see everything. :deadhorse:
Anyway, nice design! I will have to continue reading through it to see how compares the design discussed in this thread.
SantaMonica
Well-known member
The reason for the upflow designs is that they had to be created and developed. Some people only have room for an upflow, or they prefer an upflow, and if the upflows were not developed then they would have nothing.
Same for waterfalls. Had they not been created, developed and promoted, nobody today would have anything. The only previous options (dumping buckets, and horizontal rivers) had faded away and nobody was using scrubbers at all.
Same for waterfalls. Had they not been created, developed and promoted, nobody today would have anything. The only previous options (dumping buckets, and horizontal rivers) had faded away and nobody was using scrubbers at all.
thejuggernaut
Member
Can't you also get a dimmer for the lamp?
Next thought:
First off, let me say that I am not an expert on lighting and certainly not LED lighting.
I was thinking about hot spots at the center point under the some LED lights in general, both over the display tank and those that are used for scrubbers.
What would happen if you bought some polished aluminum or cut a few small pieces from an old reflector? Let's say that you cut out 4 small triangles and made a little pyramid shaped reflector. Then you could open the light box and affix the pyramid to the glass, right under the large chip set LED. Then if you closed the lamp back up, the light would be more dispersed and should not have a hot spot. I have a couple of that type of lamp and they are held water tight by using simple rubber seals so they can be opened and re-sealed successfully.
Of course the total light output would be slightly diminished but if you have too much light already that would be a good thing. If you haven't purchased your lamps yet, you could just go with the next bigger rating.
It's just a thought. I have not tried this so I am looking for feedback.
I've been wanting to do the same thing for a LED light to fit over a tank. I think it would give better lighting spread. It looks like a bigger version of a car headlight.
karimwassef
Active member
Doesn't that create a dark spot in the middle? And reduce the light energy getting to the tank?
Floyd R Turbo
Either busy or sleeping
Probably not, if you position the reflector properly
thejuggernaut
Member
I would think it wouldn't reduce it by much. Plus, most people don't run their fixtures wide open anyways. I think it would give a lighting pattern that more closely resembled a MH, and would cut down on the "disco effect" without sacrificing light spread. Of course this is all just speculation until someone builds the thing. LOL
karimwassef
Active member
Ok. So I've been traveling for two weeks and just got back. My auto feeder must have gone a little bananas...
Anyway, was looking at my tank's return - long white 2" PVC pipe running across the entire back. The plan was to convert it into a clear pipe with an internal screen as a scrubber under the side light from my halides.
<a href="http://s1062.photobucket.com/user/karimwassef/media/2CF77DC9-5EF8-4F13-954C-D31AB31A988D_zpsgpukoure.jpg.html" target="_blank"><img src="http://i1062.photobucket.com/albums/t496/karimwassef/2CF77DC9-5EF8-4F13-954C-D31AB31A988D_zpsgpukoure.jpg" border="0" alt=" photo 2CF77DC9-5EF8-4F13-954C-D31AB31A988D_zpsgpukoure.jpg"/></a>
Then, I noticed that my end to end weir is in the exact same location under the pipe. The excess feeding for the last two weeks coupled with the lack of cleaning... And this happens:
<a href="http://s1062.photobucket.com/user/karimwassef/media/4EADA249-162D-453F-B090-F70CE906BD2F_zpsgfk2ykhb.jpg.html" target="_blank"><img src="http://i1062.photobucket.com/albums/t496/karimwassef/4EADA249-162D-453F-B090-F70CE906BD2F_zpsgfk2ykhb.jpg" border="0" alt=" photo 4EADA249-162D-453F-B090-F70CE906BD2F_zpsgfk2ykhb.jpg"/></a>
Yes... Long flowing swaths of GHA. They're not in the tank or the sump. They're just here where the flow is very high, and with direct halide light. Here's a close up
<a href="http://s1062.photobucket.com/user/karimwassef/media/BC43436F-6EC1-4428-95AD-F8A9027F98EF_zps6slpgkof.jpg.html" target="_blank"><img src="http://i1062.photobucket.com/albums/t496/karimwassef/BC43436F-6EC1-4428-95AD-F8A9027F98EF_zps6slpgkof.jpg" border="0" alt=" photo BC43436F-6EC1-4428-95AD-F8A9027F98EF_zps6slpgkof.jpg"/></a>
That's growing on / in the glass.
So- change of plans. I'm going to put the screen in the weir stretched on a PVC frame.
What do you think?
Anyway, was looking at my tank's return - long white 2" PVC pipe running across the entire back. The plan was to convert it into a clear pipe with an internal screen as a scrubber under the side light from my halides.
<a href="http://s1062.photobucket.com/user/karimwassef/media/2CF77DC9-5EF8-4F13-954C-D31AB31A988D_zpsgpukoure.jpg.html" target="_blank"><img src="http://i1062.photobucket.com/albums/t496/karimwassef/2CF77DC9-5EF8-4F13-954C-D31AB31A988D_zpsgpukoure.jpg" border="0" alt=" photo 2CF77DC9-5EF8-4F13-954C-D31AB31A988D_zpsgpukoure.jpg"/></a>
Then, I noticed that my end to end weir is in the exact same location under the pipe. The excess feeding for the last two weeks coupled with the lack of cleaning... And this happens:
<a href="http://s1062.photobucket.com/user/karimwassef/media/4EADA249-162D-453F-B090-F70CE906BD2F_zpsgfk2ykhb.jpg.html" target="_blank"><img src="http://i1062.photobucket.com/albums/t496/karimwassef/4EADA249-162D-453F-B090-F70CE906BD2F_zpsgfk2ykhb.jpg" border="0" alt=" photo 4EADA249-162D-453F-B090-F70CE906BD2F_zpsgfk2ykhb.jpg"/></a>
Yes... Long flowing swaths of GHA. They're not in the tank or the sump. They're just here where the flow is very high, and with direct halide light. Here's a close up
<a href="http://s1062.photobucket.com/user/karimwassef/media/BC43436F-6EC1-4428-95AD-F8A9027F98EF_zps6slpgkof.jpg.html" target="_blank"><img src="http://i1062.photobucket.com/albums/t496/karimwassef/BC43436F-6EC1-4428-95AD-F8A9027F98EF_zps6slpgkof.jpg" border="0" alt=" photo BC43436F-6EC1-4428-95AD-F8A9027F98EF_zps6slpgkof.jpg"/></a>
That's growing on / in the glass.
So- change of plans. I'm going to put the screen in the weir stretched on a PVC frame.
What do you think?
karimwassef
Active member
I was wrong about growing on the glass though. I cleaned it out and it wasactuallygrowibg on the black plastic gutter grate I have in the overflow/weir to stop animals from finding their way to the sump... They still do but it's an attempt.
The GHA loves that black plastic
The GHA loves that black plastic
SantaMonica
Well-known member
It can just hold on to it better. It's all about attachment.
sensei
New member
I will be cycling my new 470g DT soon. I will seed that tank with bacteria loaded ceramic rings and add bacteria solution in a bottle. I have read that cycle should be completed in around 3 days. after that I will be adding fish slowly.
questions :
when should I install the algae scrubber??
should I put it in the sump since day 1?
I ask because at the begining there will not be much nutrients in water and I dont know if it good or not to start cycling a tank with an ATS installed??
I guess I should dose some food since day 1 to feed the bacteria and kick the cycle??
questions :
when should I install the algae scrubber??
should I put it in the sump since day 1?
I ask because at the begining there will not be much nutrients in water and I dont know if it good or not to start cycling a tank with an ATS installed??
I guess I should dose some food since day 1 to feed the bacteria and kick the cycle??
Floyd R Turbo
Either busy or sleeping
Yes, it won't hurt anything to start it on day 1, but like you said, you just might not get a lot of growth. You will likely get a brown diatom coating, and the screen will start to get some calcification, so these are good initial stages that you would have to go through anyways, so the earlier, the better. Then, when you start to add some livestock and get some biodiversity going, the screen will start to react a little more quickly, vs if you waiting until you have some nutrients and then start the process.
You can always use a short photoperiod and a lower flow rate to start up the screen. So maybe 50-75 of the flow you would normally run it at, and then just a few hours/day of light.
You can always use a short photoperiod and a lower flow rate to start up the screen. So maybe 50-75 of the flow you would normally run it at, and then just a few hours/day of light.
sensei
New member
Thanks Floyd,
please explain why is it that and ATS has more potential than a refugium to export nutrients?
Is it because the light is more eficiently directed to the algae thus more potential for photosyntesis? is it because the algae that grows in ATS is stronger than chaeto? is it because of the way water flows in ATS?
I don´t seem to understand why ATS seems to be stronger and better than fuge?
2.- several people run both ATS and fuge, in this sense, can you say that fuge can be used for the other benefits such as growing pods and not to much to export nutrients since ATS will out compete macro in fuge for nutrients, andI think chaeto will not grow much?
3.- since I will be starting the ATS since day 1 and I will feed very little, how should I size the canvas? assuming that I will use CFLs on both sides should I just size it to the match the light of the reflector? let say 8 x 8 inches
4.- can ATS outcompete bryopsis?
I ask because I have read that bryopsys is the most difficult to erradicate?
thanks again
please explain why is it that and ATS has more potential than a refugium to export nutrients?
Is it because the light is more eficiently directed to the algae thus more potential for photosyntesis? is it because the algae that grows in ATS is stronger than chaeto? is it because of the way water flows in ATS?
I don´t seem to understand why ATS seems to be stronger and better than fuge?
2.- several people run both ATS and fuge, in this sense, can you say that fuge can be used for the other benefits such as growing pods and not to much to export nutrients since ATS will out compete macro in fuge for nutrients, andI think chaeto will not grow much?
3.- since I will be starting the ATS since day 1 and I will feed very little, how should I size the canvas? assuming that I will use CFLs on both sides should I just size it to the match the light of the reflector? let say 8 x 8 inches
4.- can ATS outcompete bryopsis?
I ask because I have read that bryopsys is the most difficult to erradicate?
thanks again
SantaMonica
Well-known member
Scrubbers compared to refugiums
If you are starting a new tank, then the obvious difference is that a scrubber gives you the option of not having a fuge at all because an upflow scrubber can be placed on top of, in, or behind, the display. There are other uses for a sump/fuge of course, but we'll only cover the filtration concerns here.
A not-so-obvious difference is that a scrubber, if run together with a fuge with macros, will kill the macros even though the macros are much larger. This is because the scrubber thinks the macros are nuisance algae. Some people do run both together without killing the macros, but this is just because their scrubber is not strong enough, and actually the macros might even be slowing down the scrubber because the scrubber thinks it has to remove the macros, along with the nutrients in the water and the nuisance algae in the display. However if this works for them, good.
But assuming you have to decide on either a sump/fuge or a scrubber (not both)...
o Filtration with algae is proportional photosynthesis, which is proportional to Light X Air Water Turbulence Flow X Attachment. Meaning, stronger light grows more algae; stronger air/water interface turbulence grows more algae; and stronger attachment lets more algae grow without it detaching and floating away. A scrubber is thus designed to maximize Light, Flow, and Attachment.
o The main problem with macros in a refugium is the self-shading that the macros do. Any part of the macro which is not directly in front of the light at any moment is not filtering. And any macro inside of a "ball" of macro (like chaeto) is self-shaded all the time. Only the surface macro that is directly in front of the light is doing any real filtering. A scrubber is designed to have all the algae in front of the light at all times. Rotating the macro does not solve the problem, because the time that the macro is rotated away from the light is time that the macro is not filtering. This is why it takes a much larger size of chaeto to do the same filtering as a scrubber.
o Self-flow-blocking is another problem of macros in a refugium, for the same reason as light-blocking. And the thicker the "ball" of macro, the worse the flow-blocking.
o Particle trapping is another result of a ball of macro. These particles need to cycle back around to feed the corals, but instead they get trapped in the macro and they rot, and in doing so they block even more flow and light.
o With a scrubber, there is very little water standing in the way of the light. Also, the light is (or should be) very close to the scrubber... 4 inches (10cm) or less. The power of light varies with the inverse square of the distance, so going from 8" to 4" actually gives you 4X the power, not 2X. And the nutrient removal power of algae is proportional to the power of the light, because it's the photosynthesis that is doing the filtering.
o Rapid flow across the algae in a scrubber gives more delivery of nutrients, compared to the slow moving water in a fuge. Filtering is proportion to nutrient flow.
o The turbulence of water moving over the sections of algae in a scrubber help to remove the boundary layer of water around the algae. This boundary layer slows the transfer of metabolites in and out of the algae. There is no turbulence in a fuge (if there were, you'd have waves and bubbles). The interface between the air and water is what provides the most turbulence and boundary layer removal; there is no air/water interface in macros.
o Scrubbers do not let food particles settle like a refugium does; most particles flow right out of the scrubber.
o Scrubbers do not (if cleaned properly) release algal strands into display, like chaeto does.
o Scrubbers do not go sexual, like caulerpa can.
o Scrubbers do grow lots of pods; more than was previously thought, especially if not cleaned with freshwater.
o Scrubbers don't, obviously, provide a place for snails and crabs, etc.
However, if you already have a sump with an empty compartment, and you don't mind using all of it and putting a light over it, then maybe it's easier and cheaper to try macros first.
If you are starting a new tank, then the obvious difference is that a scrubber gives you the option of not having a fuge at all because an upflow scrubber can be placed on top of, in, or behind, the display. There are other uses for a sump/fuge of course, but we'll only cover the filtration concerns here.
A not-so-obvious difference is that a scrubber, if run together with a fuge with macros, will kill the macros even though the macros are much larger. This is because the scrubber thinks the macros are nuisance algae. Some people do run both together without killing the macros, but this is just because their scrubber is not strong enough, and actually the macros might even be slowing down the scrubber because the scrubber thinks it has to remove the macros, along with the nutrients in the water and the nuisance algae in the display. However if this works for them, good.
But assuming you have to decide on either a sump/fuge or a scrubber (not both)...
o Filtration with algae is proportional photosynthesis, which is proportional to Light X Air Water Turbulence Flow X Attachment. Meaning, stronger light grows more algae; stronger air/water interface turbulence grows more algae; and stronger attachment lets more algae grow without it detaching and floating away. A scrubber is thus designed to maximize Light, Flow, and Attachment.
o The main problem with macros in a refugium is the self-shading that the macros do. Any part of the macro which is not directly in front of the light at any moment is not filtering. And any macro inside of a "ball" of macro (like chaeto) is self-shaded all the time. Only the surface macro that is directly in front of the light is doing any real filtering. A scrubber is designed to have all the algae in front of the light at all times. Rotating the macro does not solve the problem, because the time that the macro is rotated away from the light is time that the macro is not filtering. This is why it takes a much larger size of chaeto to do the same filtering as a scrubber.
o Self-flow-blocking is another problem of macros in a refugium, for the same reason as light-blocking. And the thicker the "ball" of macro, the worse the flow-blocking.
o Particle trapping is another result of a ball of macro. These particles need to cycle back around to feed the corals, but instead they get trapped in the macro and they rot, and in doing so they block even more flow and light.
o With a scrubber, there is very little water standing in the way of the light. Also, the light is (or should be) very close to the scrubber... 4 inches (10cm) or less. The power of light varies with the inverse square of the distance, so going from 8" to 4" actually gives you 4X the power, not 2X. And the nutrient removal power of algae is proportional to the power of the light, because it's the photosynthesis that is doing the filtering.
o Rapid flow across the algae in a scrubber gives more delivery of nutrients, compared to the slow moving water in a fuge. Filtering is proportion to nutrient flow.
o The turbulence of water moving over the sections of algae in a scrubber help to remove the boundary layer of water around the algae. This boundary layer slows the transfer of metabolites in and out of the algae. There is no turbulence in a fuge (if there were, you'd have waves and bubbles). The interface between the air and water is what provides the most turbulence and boundary layer removal; there is no air/water interface in macros.
o Scrubbers do not let food particles settle like a refugium does; most particles flow right out of the scrubber.
o Scrubbers do not (if cleaned properly) release algal strands into display, like chaeto does.
o Scrubbers do not go sexual, like caulerpa can.
o Scrubbers do grow lots of pods; more than was previously thought, especially if not cleaned with freshwater.
o Scrubbers don't, obviously, provide a place for snails and crabs, etc.
However, if you already have a sump with an empty compartment, and you don't mind using all of it and putting a light over it, then maybe it's easier and cheaper to try macros first.
james30ct
New member
I've been thinking about adding a scrubber to my system to keep algae under control. i do water changes and run gfo but I have 3 tangs and feed a good amount. Do you think a scrubber is the way to go or should I go a different route?
180g tank with 40g sump, jns cones co3 skimmer
180g tank with 40g sump, jns cones co3 skimmer
Similar threads
