how did you solve it?
increase flow?
details of your solution would help alot of people with same problem.
Algae Scrubber Basics
- Thread starter srusso
- Start date
how did you solve it?
increase flow?
details of your solution would help alot of people with same problem.
srusso
Active member
It has yet to be fixed, and that is b/c I haven't done anything to fix it... lol
The steps I plan preform, upgrade pump to Mag 12, test flow, cut new slot tube, cut screen to match size rated for flow. Move lighting if necessary...
However the algae is not the thing that needs to be changed... I don't want people to think the algae my(maybe yours) srcubber is growing is incorrect... Additionally if the description of the algae I found is what I have, then I actually have the MOST preferred type of algae growth, so long as I solve its flow and lighting needs.
Now why I haven't fixed it yet is a really easy one... I have a 3 month old boy now... I am lucky if I have a chance to even look at the tank...
Last edited:
Saw this bit of advice, and I'm sure it's solid. But it might need a bit of clarification. Instead of saying "Don't use CW's... ", maybe would be better to say, "CW's are not as good as... "?
I ask because I finished my ATS exactly 1 week ago. It uses all Cree XP-E Cool Whites - primarily because that's what I had extra LED's of when I built the light. I did not seed my screen. But this is what it looks like after it's first 7 days, under 18 hour photo-periods.
Now I have no doubt that it might be BETTER to use something else. But those CW's definitely appear to be pulling N & P out of my water. Don't need a test kit to confirm that.
Here's the post in this thread about building the light FWIW. I'm sure a different combo of LEDs could work. But this is looking like the Cool Whites will work just fine - at least in my configuration.
Last edited:
srusso
Active member
Saw this bit of advice, and I'm sure it's solid. But it might need a bit of clarification. Instead of saying "Don't use CW's... ", maybe would be better to say, "CW's are not as good as... "?
I ask because I finished my ATS exactly 1 week ago. It uses all Cree 3W XP-E CW's - primarily because that's what I had extra LED's of when I built the light. I did not seed my screen. But this is what it looks like after it's first 7 days, under 18 hour photo-periods.
Now I have no doubt that it might be BETTER to use something else. But those CW's definitely appear to be pulling N & P out of my water. Don't need a test kit to confirm that.
Here's the post in this thread about building the light FWIW. I'm sure a different combo of LEDs could work. But this is looking like the Cool Whites will work just fine - at least in my configuration.
Welcome to the scrubber club! Now three people in my local reefers club running ATS with a fourth on the way!
You maybe right on that correction with Floyd, but I must say you haven't nearly vetted it yet. Please describe your scrubber to us all, thanks
Ps. from the looks of it, have you roughed up your screen? Also thats a whole alotta of zip ties... how do you plan to remove it for cleanings?
Last edited:
Thanks Steve!
But what's to vet? It doesn't leak. It's not noisy. It doesn't splash. And it grows algae. Granted, time may show that another LED combo may work better. But it is working at the basic function of pulling N & P out of the tank. Anything beyond that is gets into those "other areas" that could get this thread shut down. I don't care about anything but pulling N & P out anyway. To me this is just Chaeto on a screen.
Well, I linked to the light previously. The rest is pretty standard stuff as per the directions in this thread, with a few exceptions.
- I've got about 30% less wetted, lit screen area than recommended here. There was no room in my stand/sump to easily do otherwise. Plus I've got no intention of giving up my skimmer, water changes or any other filtration mechanisms. So a bit less should be fine. Plus, I have low nitrates/phosphates anyway because I feed very little.
- I've only got water running down one side (yes I doubled the size requirement) 'cuz I've got no room for two lights. That meant getting the screen hard up against one edge of the PVC slot. You can see cable ties helped with that. I also ran a bead of silicone along the edge that I don't want water coming out of.
- I put a union on the slotted PVC to remove the PVC - screen and all - for cleaning. The aforementioned 1-side issue forced this design as I consider the screen to be "permanently" mounted to the slotted PVC. Those zip ties are not intended to come off - the slotted PVC is.
- The lights mounted so the XR-E lenses are 4" from the screen. And it will be a long time before I have to replace one.
Other than that... not much to say. Had to get a bigger return pump - run a Y off of it - and direct that extra flow to the ATS screen that hangs over my refugium. Easy Peazy.
My arm's still sore. Doesn't that count?
Could it be more rough? Sure. But I'm gonna see how well this works before I risk bursitis to get it any rougher.Today I removed all the live rock from my 20 gallon display and manually removed most of the hair algae from them. This was not an easy task, but hopefully this will give my scrubber a chance to take over.
Before:
After:
P.S. Travis, that is just a candycane in the picture.
Before:
After:
P.S. Travis, that is just a candycane in the picture.
Travis1787
Active member
Thanks jeremy I'm sry if I look dumb but that doesn't look like a normal candy cane in the picture haha its looks awesome but in the last picture it looks more like normal a normal candy cane but anyway yea cleaning all that algae musta been no fun but seems like a good idea hope it works
Floyd R Turbo
Either busy or sleeping
Just an update. I haven't posted much about the tank I maintain with the scrubber on it because I had to tear it down and move it. Then I had to tear that tank down and fix a problem with the stand. So here it is now
And since Sunday, this is how the scrubber has been 'running'
Floating screen with power heads blowing on it. I can tell you that this most definitely does not work well. In less than one week, the Nitrates have gone from 0 to 0.25 and Phosphates from 0.10 to 0.63 (ouch).
The problem is that I need to jury-rig the existing scrubber box on top of the tank and feed it with an in-tank Mag5 that I have on hand. I just haven't had time to figure it all out. What with taking 250 lb of LR out of a tank twice in a week and all. But, I will have a good test case for how fast it will take the N and P down, again.
What is perplexing me is exactly what is causing the incredible rise in P. I'm starting to wonder if it is the DIY food our reef club made a huge batch of a while back. Or it could be the rock leeching, but there is zero DT algae. Rising 0.50 in less than a week is a lot if you ask me. But, 2 tear-downs might have had something to do with it.
One of the observations I have to make is that I was very surprised at the lack of sediment/waste that came out of the tank during these moves. I rinsed the heck out of the sand (like how you wash pool filter sand) but besides that, I've pulled a lot more gunk out of non-scrubber tanks during a general cleaning. The system was very clean, and I hadn't been blowing off rocks or corals on a regular basis. After 6+ months on scrubber-only, no filter socks or anything, I thought there would be more waste settled on the rocks and in the sand.
And since Sunday, this is how the scrubber has been 'running'
Floating screen with power heads blowing on it. I can tell you that this most definitely does not work well. In less than one week, the Nitrates have gone from 0 to 0.25 and Phosphates from 0.10 to 0.63 (ouch).
The problem is that I need to jury-rig the existing scrubber box on top of the tank and feed it with an in-tank Mag5 that I have on hand. I just haven't had time to figure it all out. What with taking 250 lb of LR out of a tank twice in a week and all. But, I will have a good test case for how fast it will take the N and P down, again.
What is perplexing me is exactly what is causing the incredible rise in P. I'm starting to wonder if it is the DIY food our reef club made a huge batch of a while back. Or it could be the rock leeching, but there is zero DT algae. Rising 0.50 in less than a week is a lot if you ask me. But, 2 tear-downs might have had something to do with it.
One of the observations I have to make is that I was very surprised at the lack of sediment/waste that came out of the tank during these moves. I rinsed the heck out of the sand (like how you wash pool filter sand) but besides that, I've pulled a lot more gunk out of non-scrubber tanks during a general cleaning. The system was very clean, and I hadn't been blowing off rocks or corals on a regular basis. After 6+ months on scrubber-only, no filter socks or anything, I thought there would be more waste settled on the rocks and in the sand.
Travis1787
Active member
i i like your aquascape here it looks like it all stays center and leaves views for the back and side looks good
salty joe
Active member
[*]The lights mounted so the XR-E lenses are 4" from the screen. And it will be a long time before I have to replace one.
[/LIST]
QUOTE]
At 4" with 80 degree optics, is light coverage fairly uniform? Do you use a shield between the LEDs and the screen?
You would think that it wouldn't be, but it looks like it is reasonably consistent in intensity across the screen. Though I think my eyes would have a hard time looking at the screen and distinguishing "super bright all over" from "super bright with some uber super bright spots", if you get my drift.
Unfortunately yesterday I did some work in my sump, mounting wires and tubing now that I was sure this puppy was a "go." As a part of that process the pumps were off, with the screen kind of rolled up, and drying out for a few hours.
Now today I've got a big patch of very light green in the middle. What I can't know - yet - is if that's a result of the insult I provided the turf yesterday, or too much light in the middle. If it's a light problem... it is just the opposite of spotting, but overlapping cones. Given the relative narrowness of the optics, and the short distance to the turf, I suspect that is not the case.
If it's turf insult, it should clear up pretty quickly. Too much light in the middle will only persist.
So gimme a week and I'll post back to let you know.
Hey! Nothing like being wrong. :lmao: I guess there was something to vet, as the salt creep on everything in my sump is bad. After just 9 days. So I expect I'm going to have to build some sort of clear cover to the screen. Bummer.
Roughly 9"x9" wetted area.
I don't know much about LEDs either Steve. Just enough to get myself in trouble. You should see my DIY DT light.
As for the optics, you can draw it out on a piece of paper and see the coverage 80 degree spread gives you at 4.75". (That extra .75" is the distance to the LED itself, not the lens surface.) I figured it would be reasonable coverage w/some minor gaps and overlaps.
But just because you asked... I went ahead and drew it out. The top view looks pretty reasonable. See below. In both diagrams the bold lines represent the screen.
But it gets a lot more complicated when you look at this front view, that shows 1 row of 3 LEDs, and 2" below that a row of 4 LEDs.
So I'm not really sure. It's cake to rearrange the LEDs if needed, so I figured I'd give it time - and tinker as needed.
srusso
Active member
I don't know much about LEDs either Steve. Just enough to get myself in trouble. You should see my DIY DT light.
As for the optics, you can draw it out on a piece of paper and see the coverage 80 degree spread gives you at 4.75". (That extra .75" is the distance to the LED itself, not the lens surface.) I figured it would be reasonable coverage w/some minor gaps and overlaps.
But just because you asked... I went ahead and drew it out. The top view looks pretty reasonable. See below. In both diagrams the bold lines represent the screen.
But it gets a lot more complicated when you look at this front view, that shows 1 row of 3 LEDs, and 2" below that a row of 4 LEDs.
So I'm not really sure. It's cake to rearrange the LEDs if needed, so I figured I'd give it time - and tinker as needed.
Nice, that helps explain things well, nice drawing... I can you post a diagram of what happens without optics? Again very good work!
Floyd R Turbo
Either busy or sleeping
Scolley good to see you posting your build here. I followed your posts on the LED build threads (one of them) and I would have to say that I'm like you, I know just enough about LEDs to be dangerous!!!
Without the optics, you would get better overall coverage being so close to the screen, but you would want a diamond diffuser plate so blend it all together. Like this:
I wanted to respond to your comment regarding "don't use that, use this" and I agree that CW LEDs will grow algae, just like 6500K CFLs/T5HOs will. But so far, everyone who has experimented with LEDs gets better results from ones that cover more of the red spectrum, thus the WWs are the better choice if you have nothing else. The above build is 2 deep reds and a blue (both 5W) in the middle, and the rest are 3W reds and WWs. The best growth resulted in the very center, where the 5W ones were.
Also one of the reasons why LEDs are still considered 'experimental' is that they are not really tested enough to see how well they handle load and variance. Meaning let's say your kid dumps a bunch of food in the tank. The scrubber might be strong enough to handle the normal day-to-day bioload, but a massive influx of nutrients might not be enough for the screen to handle. Although, most filtration systems would also be overwhelmed by such an occurrence, a good scrubber handles it very well, since it eats ammonia for breakfast. We just don't know yet how well LED scrubbers handle loads, and we do know how well a good T5HO one does.
Some have gone as far as feeding one cube of food per 10 square inches per day and have had not side effects. Most people would never feed 10 cubes a day to a 100 gallon tank. LED scrubbers should work well, probably not quite as well as T5HO due to even light coverage that T5s bring to the table. Not having to replace lamps is a pretty good advantage. So there is definitely a give and take.
You just have to be aware of the system limitations and monitor your water quality, and make adjustments as necessary.
Without the optics, you would get better overall coverage being so close to the screen, but you would want a diamond diffuser plate so blend it all together. Like this:
I wanted to respond to your comment regarding "don't use that, use this" and I agree that CW LEDs will grow algae, just like 6500K CFLs/T5HOs will. But so far, everyone who has experimented with LEDs gets better results from ones that cover more of the red spectrum, thus the WWs are the better choice if you have nothing else. The above build is 2 deep reds and a blue (both 5W) in the middle, and the rest are 3W reds and WWs. The best growth resulted in the very center, where the 5W ones were.
Also one of the reasons why LEDs are still considered 'experimental' is that they are not really tested enough to see how well they handle load and variance. Meaning let's say your kid dumps a bunch of food in the tank. The scrubber might be strong enough to handle the normal day-to-day bioload, but a massive influx of nutrients might not be enough for the screen to handle. Although, most filtration systems would also be overwhelmed by such an occurrence, a good scrubber handles it very well, since it eats ammonia for breakfast. We just don't know yet how well LED scrubbers handle loads, and we do know how well a good T5HO one does.
Some have gone as far as feeding one cube of food per 10 square inches per day and have had not side effects. Most people would never feed 10 cubes a day to a 100 gallon tank. LED scrubbers should work well, probably not quite as well as T5HO due to even light coverage that T5s bring to the table. Not having to replace lamps is a pretty good advantage. So there is definitely a give and take.
You just have to be aware of the system limitations and monitor your water quality, and make adjustments as necessary.
Sorry I know I am jumping in a bit here in the middle of a discussion, and this may have been asked earlier but I couldn't find it.
It is my understanding that we want 35-50gph of waterflow / inch of the screen. Is this per inch of width?
If so, if I were to run a scrubber that was 10x10" I would want roughly 350-500 gph of flow moving across it whereas if I were to run a screen that was 4x25" I would only need 140-200gph even though the overall surface area is the same?
Thanks
-Luke
It is my understanding that we want 35-50gph of waterflow / inch of the screen. Is this per inch of width?
If so, if I were to run a scrubber that was 10x10" I would want roughly 350-500 gph of flow moving across it whereas if I were to run a screen that was 4x25" I would only need 140-200gph even though the overall surface area is the same?
Thanks
-Luke
Yes, your specs are accurate, but I would think the effectiveness of the scrubber is limited at the extremely long and extremely short range. I don't think that a 4x25" screen with 140gph would export nutrients as fast as a 10x10" screen with 350gph. Also, you have to think about your lighting coverage. You'll have to use more lights to evenly cover a 4x25" screen, and you'll end up with a lot waisted light.
That makes a lot of sense Bucks. Just due to the reduced flow fewer nutrients would be available right? The other side of me says that a long slow flow may export the nutrients more completely out of the water though? So while I move less water across the screen I am pulling a higher percentage out each pass?
Just a thought.
For the record I decided to go with a 10x13 canvas.
The lighting point is great though, why waste the resources.
Just a thought.
For the record I decided to go with a 10x13 canvas.
The lighting point is great though, why waste the resources.
Last edited:
parrotchute
New member
Hey guys, working on building a scrubber for my upcoming 150. I'm thinking of having dimensions of 20" wide by about 10" long, and trying to figure out if I should use 4 CFLs on 2 T-5's each side. Would a 24" t-5 fixture provide enough "spread" on the 10" vertical axis? And not sure how the "wattage" rule works with T-5's...
Thanks!
Alex
Thanks!
Alex
Similar threads
