xdannyxrocksx
New member
oh wow, sounds intresting actually, thinking out of the box. I have heard about the cement stuff. I have read that algea loves it.
algea scrubber
- Thread starter jimmyrow
- Start date
kdirk
Member
What do you think about trying this light? The 60 dioed http://www.orchidweb.com/detail.aspx?ID=2428
widmer
Drug Enthusiast
kdirk- That definitely looks good if the description were to be trusted, but sadly, like any new technology, LEDs are completely overrun with false claims that give them a bad reputation.
For instance, the description says this bulb claims "The diode lamps are the most efficient at converting energy to light, being in the mid to high 90 percent range." Meanwhile, the most efficient LEDs which exist today seem to top out in the 20% range.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminous_efficacy for more information.
Meanwhile, each of the bulbs (regardless of which you purchase, apparently) consumes ~4 watts of electricity. You can rest assured, a person would most likely be much better off with a CFL lamp.
I will be using the Cree XP-G series LEDs in my algae scrubber build, and there is some question as to how successful they will even be, even though they have built a solid reputation of working great in reef lights. But I guess that's part of the fun
For instance, the description says this bulb claims "The diode lamps are the most efficient at converting energy to light, being in the mid to high 90 percent range." Meanwhile, the most efficient LEDs which exist today seem to top out in the 20% range.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminous_efficacy for more information.
Meanwhile, each of the bulbs (regardless of which you purchase, apparently) consumes ~4 watts of electricity. You can rest assured, a person would most likely be much better off with a CFL lamp.
I will be using the Cree XP-G series LEDs in my algae scrubber build, and there is some question as to how successful they will even be, even though they have built a solid reputation of working great in reef lights. But I guess that's part of the fun
So I went to Lowes in search of the light bulbs . . . now I guess my next question is what spectrum bulb will work best? I saw 23 & 27 W CFL's but they had different ranges so I didn't know what to get. Any suggestions? I think one was 2700 and one was 6000, does that sound right?
Been running ATS on two systems for a while, no skimmers. The first for 18 months was a 5 year old FOWLR 235g system volume with a very bad nutrient problem. I grew nasty brown black algae on the screens for several months at first. Now it's nice and thick and green.
I need GFO to keep phosphates down. Suspect the rocks are still holding a resevoir of PO4. Can grow everything up through LPS well. Starting to think about SPS but need to get the GFO right as I can see PO4 flutuating on a meter, although I can't detect it with kits.
Seems to me like an ATS system supports different things than a skimmer system. I have a high fish load and feed them very well. My mandarin is fat and happy and LPS grow fast, but the snail population has not done well, especially turbos and the two SPS frags I've tried didn't last.
Have fun. YMMV!
I need GFO to keep phosphates down. Suspect the rocks are still holding a resevoir of PO4. Can grow everything up through LPS well. Starting to think about SPS but need to get the GFO right as I can see PO4 flutuating on a meter, although I can't detect it with kits.
Seems to me like an ATS system supports different things than a skimmer system. I have a high fish load and feed them very well. My mandarin is fat and happy and LPS grow fast, but the snail population has not done well, especially turbos and the two SPS frags I've tried didn't last.
Have fun. YMMV!
der_wille_zur_macht
Team RC
A little late to the thread, but my 2 cents. My TS was not running for very long, but it was essentially the ONLY nutrient export on my 360g, except for a small bundle of chaeto. At one point I tried to run a skimmer on the tank but it produced zero skimmate - there was nothing in the water for it to skim.
In the short time that I had it operational, I made a few observations:
1) Follow the guidelines laid out by people who have been successful. Deviate at risk. The "reference design" will work, for the most part. I feel that there are areas where it could be improved, but it's nice to start with something that works so you have a reference point.
2) The biggest issue I had (kcress gets an "I told you so" here) was splashing/salt creep buildup. In the grand scheme, this isn't a really big deal, and could easily be solved by correct design and a bit of regular maintenance. Otherwise, the scrubber worked perfectly. I never had detectable levels of any of the commonly tested nutrients in my tank. All livestock thrived. No "yellow water" or other mysterious issues. I had planned on running carbon longterm, but never got around to it, and never really saw a need.
3) Expect to spend some time fiddling with things like slit width, screen roughness, flow rate, and so on. It took me about a week to get something I was happy with - i.e. adjustments to prevent water from spraying out at odd angles, or making lots of noise, and so on.
4) Even in the short time that my TS was running, I noticed a SIGNIFICANTLY higher growth rate of naturally occurring filter feeders in the tank. Mini feather dusters, stuff like that. There was noticeably more "stuff" in the water column. It wasn't enough to distract from viewing the aquarium, but it was clearly enough to make a significant difference for filter feeders.
5) Many of the disadvantages you hear about scrubbers are implementation issues, not conceptual issues. In other words, the problems are due to the way someone set up or ran their scrubber, not due to the concept of using a scrubber. These are the best problems to have, because they can be eliminated through design/implementation changes. It's also worth noting that many other forms of nutrient abatement (skimming, for instance) suffer from implementation issues - just look at all the crummy DIY skimmers in the world. Implementation problems are not constrained to turf scrubbers.
6) Many of the other disadvantages people talk about are based on myth or misconception. Note that many of the people who speak negatively about turf scrubbers have never used one (or, the one they used had implementation issues - see #5).
Otherwise I don't have much to add to this discussion. It's unfortunate that some people are so close-minded that they can't accept that there is more than one way to be successful in this hobby. Are turf scrubbers a direct functional replacement for skimmers? Clearly not. Can you successfully run a reef aquarium with a scrubber "instead of" a skimmer? Absolutely yes. It's definitely not a trivial switch, isn't for everyone, and requires a certain approach and mindset, but it can certainly be effective.
In the short time that I had it operational, I made a few observations:
1) Follow the guidelines laid out by people who have been successful. Deviate at risk. The "reference design" will work, for the most part. I feel that there are areas where it could be improved, but it's nice to start with something that works so you have a reference point.
2) The biggest issue I had (kcress gets an "I told you so" here) was splashing/salt creep buildup. In the grand scheme, this isn't a really big deal, and could easily be solved by correct design and a bit of regular maintenance. Otherwise, the scrubber worked perfectly. I never had detectable levels of any of the commonly tested nutrients in my tank. All livestock thrived. No "yellow water" or other mysterious issues. I had planned on running carbon longterm, but never got around to it, and never really saw a need.
3) Expect to spend some time fiddling with things like slit width, screen roughness, flow rate, and so on. It took me about a week to get something I was happy with - i.e. adjustments to prevent water from spraying out at odd angles, or making lots of noise, and so on.
4) Even in the short time that my TS was running, I noticed a SIGNIFICANTLY higher growth rate of naturally occurring filter feeders in the tank. Mini feather dusters, stuff like that. There was noticeably more "stuff" in the water column. It wasn't enough to distract from viewing the aquarium, but it was clearly enough to make a significant difference for filter feeders.
5) Many of the disadvantages you hear about scrubbers are implementation issues, not conceptual issues. In other words, the problems are due to the way someone set up or ran their scrubber, not due to the concept of using a scrubber. These are the best problems to have, because they can be eliminated through design/implementation changes. It's also worth noting that many other forms of nutrient abatement (skimming, for instance) suffer from implementation issues - just look at all the crummy DIY skimmers in the world. Implementation problems are not constrained to turf scrubbers.
6) Many of the other disadvantages people talk about are based on myth or misconception. Note that many of the people who speak negatively about turf scrubbers have never used one (or, the one they used had implementation issues - see #5).
Otherwise I don't have much to add to this discussion. It's unfortunate that some people are so close-minded that they can't accept that there is more than one way to be successful in this hobby. Are turf scrubbers a direct functional replacement for skimmers? Clearly not. Can you successfully run a reef aquarium with a scrubber "instead of" a skimmer? Absolutely yes. It's definitely not a trivial switch, isn't for everyone, and requires a certain approach and mindset, but it can certainly be effective.
Agree with all of this. My solution to #2 after a lot of #3 was to go semi-horizontal. Big time #4. On my new system I had to start limewater early and the only thing I had in there consuming calcium and alk that I could determine was mini feather dusters all over the place.
der_wille_zur_macht
Team RC
Never having tried a horizontal or semi-horizontal skimmer, the problems I've seen others report is getting good enough flow. I'd be interested to know how you solved that.
The standard practice of using clear acrylic splash shields between the scrubber and the lighting has the obvious disadvantage of creating a mess on the splash shield that you need to keep cleaned off over time. It strikes me that this could be overcome by using LEDs with the proper optics at a great distance from the scrubber. But of course not all of us have the luxury of enough room to implement this.
The standard practice of using clear acrylic splash shields between the scrubber and the lighting has the obvious disadvantage of creating a mess on the splash shield that you need to keep cleaned off over time. It strikes me that this could be overcome by using LEDs with the proper optics at a great distance from the scrubber. But of course not all of us have the luxury of enough room to implement this.
Steep angle, about 15 degrees short of vertical, and higher flow than SM suggests. Approximately 35 gph/inch single sided. Standard cross stich plastic screens (2@ 10"x13") laid on a sheet of plexi. Spray bar is 2" PVC with 1/4" holes every inch pointed 180 degrees away from the light onto the screens. Overflow to the basement sump is the water source. Remember to double the square inches and move all the light to the one side, don't cut the light in half. I like it, but I have lots of room in a very oversized basement sump.
Jstdv8
New member
my splash shield I'm talking about will be the first thing removed (just lifst right off the top) so it would get a quick cleaning as well while I'm cleaning the screen every week.
I should really get on this
As far as the CFL's I reccomend the kind witht eh refelctors built in and the glass casing on the outside, like an outdoor light. if you aren't using a splash guard you may go through a bunch of CFL's becuase they keep getting spray on them. Ive gone through about 10 of the non enclosed ones and still on teh origianl 2 of the enclosed ones.
I've had the best growth with the 5000k but right now I'm using enclosed 2700k's and they work allright (can't seem to find enclosed 5000k)
I should really get on this
As far as the CFL's I reccomend the kind witht eh refelctors built in and the glass casing on the outside, like an outdoor light. if you aren't using a splash guard you may go through a bunch of CFL's becuase they keep getting spray on them. Ive gone through about 10 of the non enclosed ones and still on teh origianl 2 of the enclosed ones.
I've had the best growth with the 5000k but right now I'm using enclosed 2700k's and they work allright (can't seem to find enclosed 5000k)
herring_fish
Crazy Designer
Turbulence
Turbulence
There are 3 requirements that a good Algal Turf Scrubber (ATS) design must have. Most people would list them as follows. 1. lighting, 2. screen surface area and 3.water flow. Actually, number 3 is a little more involved than that.
You need good water contact with the length of the individual strands of algae so that water can get the exchange yields that you desire. Insuring enough water flow is good when the strands are short but as the algae gets longer, it can become matted. When that happens, the water rushes over the tops of the algae. The mass of algae the is underneath doesn't get water adequate water contact so exchange efficiency drops. Additionally, the base of the algae becomes starved of C02 and light. This can cause algal death and then you lose the chance for nutrient export. That's why it is important to clean the screen regularly. If you could comb the algae, efficiency would stay high longer. If you have excellent turbulence, you can go much longer between harvesting the algae.
Dr. Adey's studies found it very important to insure that his designs provided water turbulence. This turbulence helps keep the strands separate and gets much more water to the algae, that flow alone could do. The lack of turbulence can cause a 50 percent drop in the effectiveness of an ATS. Increasing flow rate alone has it's limits because with a faster pass, comes lowers contact time.
Designers of true Algal Turf Scrubbers use deferent methods to produce turbulence. They have used, osculating or tipping screens, osculating spray nozzles and dump buckets. Sometimes the dump bucket dumps onto the flat algae screen. Dump buckets that dump into the tank like mine, get the advantage of water rushing over the screen when it dumps and when it tips back up but then it allows pooling before repeating the rush.
The rushing water and or splash in the tank adds nothing to the effectiveness of the ATS. It just look cools to some people.
All that being said, if you don't have excellent turbulence, you can make up for it with extra screen surface area. That is what the two sided scrubber in a bucket is all about...doubling the screen size. At my urging, Santa Monica tried adding a surge function to his scrubber in a bucket but it did not increase the effectiveness much because the water still came from the same direction, varying only in intensity.
If you are a good fabricator then you can add this consideration to your design, particularly if it is flat or basically horizontal. If not, just make up for it by over sizing the other two legs of the stool....Lighting and Screen Surface Area.
Turbulence
There are 3 requirements that a good Algal Turf Scrubber (ATS) design must have. Most people would list them as follows. 1. lighting, 2. screen surface area and 3.water flow. Actually, number 3 is a little more involved than that.
You need good water contact with the length of the individual strands of algae so that water can get the exchange yields that you desire. Insuring enough water flow is good when the strands are short but as the algae gets longer, it can become matted. When that happens, the water rushes over the tops of the algae. The mass of algae the is underneath doesn't get water adequate water contact so exchange efficiency drops. Additionally, the base of the algae becomes starved of C02 and light. This can cause algal death and then you lose the chance for nutrient export. That's why it is important to clean the screen regularly. If you could comb the algae, efficiency would stay high longer. If you have excellent turbulence, you can go much longer between harvesting the algae.
Dr. Adey's studies found it very important to insure that his designs provided water turbulence. This turbulence helps keep the strands separate and gets much more water to the algae, that flow alone could do. The lack of turbulence can cause a 50 percent drop in the effectiveness of an ATS. Increasing flow rate alone has it's limits because with a faster pass, comes lowers contact time.
Designers of true Algal Turf Scrubbers use deferent methods to produce turbulence. They have used, osculating or tipping screens, osculating spray nozzles and dump buckets. Sometimes the dump bucket dumps onto the flat algae screen. Dump buckets that dump into the tank like mine, get the advantage of water rushing over the screen when it dumps and when it tips back up but then it allows pooling before repeating the rush.
The rushing water and or splash in the tank adds nothing to the effectiveness of the ATS. It just look cools to some people.
All that being said, if you don't have excellent turbulence, you can make up for it with extra screen surface area. That is what the two sided scrubber in a bucket is all about...doubling the screen size. At my urging, Santa Monica tried adding a surge function to his scrubber in a bucket but it did not increase the effectiveness much because the water still came from the same direction, varying only in intensity.
If you are a good fabricator then you can add this consideration to your design, particularly if it is flat or basically horizontal. If not, just make up for it by over sizing the other two legs of the stool....Lighting and Screen Surface Area.
herring_fish
Crazy Designer
I'm sorry but I'm not quiet sure what you are asking. Are you asking about how the fine points of the tipping dump bucket design work or are you talking about turbulence that is created in some of the designs that I talked about below?
Last edited:
I really like this setup, enclosed in the regular drip box. I'll try to get some pics of my setup tonight!
LOTS of Passion on both sides! I like that, it makes for an explosive flow of information. How we manage all that info, and then choose to act, is a personal responsibility in my book.
I'm no expert but I'd love to share some of my personal experience. I added an ATS 1 1/2 years ago, and after 10 months I got rid of my skimmer, but I was very careful and watchful before I did it.
Aside: Before I get into it I will point out I use a phosban with mixed GFO & active carbon in it. I will continue to use this to deal with phosphate and other nasties in the water, regardless of the other subject. Also I do a water change every 2 weeks regardless. With either setup, I found a water change every 2 weeks kept everything looking happy, so I'm going to continue with this timetable.
Now, I had 2 major goals when I started experimenting with ATS: 1. coming up with an affective, long-term method for reducing my nitrate levels (I was between 50-100 at the time); 2. to increase phytoplankton levels in my water column.
Everything I read about an ATS said these 2 goals could be met with this system.
Positive results for me:
1. My nitrates have been 0 or barely above 0 since I got my ATS working. I NEVER had this before. This definitely never happened with just a skimmer. I like to feed heavily and since going with a working ATS I've been able to do just that without freeking out about my nitrate levels.
2. I wanted to maintain high levels of phyotplankton to my tank, and it was my understanding that the skimmer would remove the phyto from the water. People said to turn off the skimmer while feeding, but I wanted a constant presense of the little criters, and the methods behind an ATS seemed to allow this. Since I went ATS and removed the skimmer, my filter feeders have exploded in size (at least 3x the original size). They all look larger and healthier and beautiful-er (laugh, people, it's funny). Could be a coincidence but I believe more food plus more phyto in water has been the direct cause.
Now I agree an ATS is not perfect (what is, really?).
Negative aspects:
1. The work in fine tuning the design was major and painful for me, as der_wille_zur_macht and others point out . It took 6 months before I started getting positive results. I had to hunt down a lot of advise, and throw away a lot of rigs until I got it working right. I probably would have given up if it weren't for my desperate need to lower my nitrates. I'm glad I stuck with it.
2. I have to admit that with my current design it's a pain in the back cleaning the screen. I just have a pvc frame with my screen tied to it. I am going to try a new design now though, based on a design by SimonSKL, which I believe will make the cleaning a lot easier.
3. I did have a friend tell me he noticed a yellow tinge to my water, but adding the active carbon to my phosban got rid of it right away.
4. I've read an increase in enzymes and other nasties in the water become an issue without a skimmer, but I've also ready that active carbon removes these same nasties. This one has me concerned, but I watch my coral growth and behavior daily, and I change my active carbon regularly.
So far I've noticed no negative affects on my tank tennants from switching to ATS and removing my skimmer, (knock on wood/my head), only positives. But I will keep reading and checking, just like I did before changing my filtering method. Hopefully things will continue to get better.
I think threads like this are great, for all the negative and positive comments they generate (as long as the ideas are politely or not too rudely stated). In the end I'm going to check them all on my own anyway, so I'd rather read them than not.
I'm no expert but I'd love to share some of my personal experience. I added an ATS 1 1/2 years ago, and after 10 months I got rid of my skimmer, but I was very careful and watchful before I did it.
Aside: Before I get into it I will point out I use a phosban with mixed GFO & active carbon in it. I will continue to use this to deal with phosphate and other nasties in the water, regardless of the other subject. Also I do a water change every 2 weeks regardless. With either setup, I found a water change every 2 weeks kept everything looking happy, so I'm going to continue with this timetable.
Now, I had 2 major goals when I started experimenting with ATS: 1. coming up with an affective, long-term method for reducing my nitrate levels (I was between 50-100 at the time); 2. to increase phytoplankton levels in my water column.
Everything I read about an ATS said these 2 goals could be met with this system.
Positive results for me:
1. My nitrates have been 0 or barely above 0 since I got my ATS working. I NEVER had this before. This definitely never happened with just a skimmer. I like to feed heavily and since going with a working ATS I've been able to do just that without freeking out about my nitrate levels.
2. I wanted to maintain high levels of phyotplankton to my tank, and it was my understanding that the skimmer would remove the phyto from the water. People said to turn off the skimmer while feeding, but I wanted a constant presense of the little criters, and the methods behind an ATS seemed to allow this. Since I went ATS and removed the skimmer, my filter feeders have exploded in size (at least 3x the original size). They all look larger and healthier and beautiful-er (laugh, people, it's funny). Could be a coincidence but I believe more food plus more phyto in water has been the direct cause.
Now I agree an ATS is not perfect (what is, really?).
Negative aspects:
1. The work in fine tuning the design was major and painful for me, as der_wille_zur_macht and others point out . It took 6 months before I started getting positive results. I had to hunt down a lot of advise, and throw away a lot of rigs until I got it working right. I probably would have given up if it weren't for my desperate need to lower my nitrates. I'm glad I stuck with it.
2. I have to admit that with my current design it's a pain in the back cleaning the screen. I just have a pvc frame with my screen tied to it. I am going to try a new design now though, based on a design by SimonSKL, which I believe will make the cleaning a lot easier.
3. I did have a friend tell me he noticed a yellow tinge to my water, but adding the active carbon to my phosban got rid of it right away.
4. I've read an increase in enzymes and other nasties in the water become an issue without a skimmer, but I've also ready that active carbon removes these same nasties. This one has me concerned, but I watch my coral growth and behavior daily, and I change my active carbon regularly.
So far I've noticed no negative affects on my tank tennants from switching to ATS and removing my skimmer, (knock on wood/my head), only positives. But I will keep reading and checking, just like I did before changing my filtering method. Hopefully things will continue to get better.
I think threads like this are great, for all the negative and positive comments they generate (as long as the ideas are politely or not too rudely stated). In the end I'm going to check them all on my own anyway, so I'd rather read them than not.
Last edited:
kcress
New member
Sorry, the tipping. Looking at the picture I'm not seeing it.
Thanks for your clear input.
Alaska_Phil
New member
I added an algae scrubber to my system 5 months ago. I inherited care of this tank nearly 6 years ago and I've been battling one type of algae after another ever since. I'd tried everything imaginable, GFO, frequent massive water changes, starving my fish, daily manual removal and hords of snails and hermits. But my nitrate and phosphate was always undetectable due to all the algae.
I use a 6" wide vertical screen style with spiral PC light. when I started it my display was over run with brown cotton candy type algae. it grew on everything, rocks, sand equipment even the cords for my power heads. It took about a month for algae to really start populating the screen. At that point the only real difference I noticed was the lack of diatom algae no the glass. I'd had to clean it daily, now I only have to clean it about twice a week.
After 2 months, i only had algae growing on my rocks, but my equipment was staying clean. I'm assuming the rocks were leaching phosphate back into the system.
After 3 months the rocks were still covered, so I got impatient and plucked it out manually. I completely filled a 1 gal pitcher with algae from my 50 gal display! After that the algae on the screen really took off. But it never came back to the display. Even after my life got rather busy and I neglected doing water changes for 3 months.
Now, I still get a little algae in the tank, I pluck out a few little tuffs about once a month. I clean half my algae screen every 2 weeks. It takes that long for it to build up again. I'm still running my skimmer, but it's just back-pak II, so not a very efficient one. I've always run carbon since I have a mixed reef with leathers. Never noticed any bad smells or water discoloration.
I could probably have gotten the same result with a high end skimmer, or zeovite, or bio-pellets too. But so far I'm really happy with algae scrubber.
Phil
I use a 6" wide vertical screen style with spiral PC light. when I started it my display was over run with brown cotton candy type algae. it grew on everything, rocks, sand equipment even the cords for my power heads. It took about a month for algae to really start populating the screen. At that point the only real difference I noticed was the lack of diatom algae no the glass. I'd had to clean it daily, now I only have to clean it about twice a week.
After 2 months, i only had algae growing on my rocks, but my equipment was staying clean. I'm assuming the rocks were leaching phosphate back into the system.
After 3 months the rocks were still covered, so I got impatient and plucked it out manually. I completely filled a 1 gal pitcher with algae from my 50 gal display! After that the algae on the screen really took off. But it never came back to the display. Even after my life got rather busy and I neglected doing water changes for 3 months.
Now, I still get a little algae in the tank, I pluck out a few little tuffs about once a month. I clean half my algae screen every 2 weeks. It takes that long for it to build up again. I'm still running my skimmer, but it's just back-pak II, so not a very efficient one. I've always run carbon since I have a mixed reef with leathers. Never noticed any bad smells or water discoloration.
I could probably have gotten the same result with a high end skimmer, or zeovite, or bio-pellets too. But so far I'm really happy with algae scrubber.
Phil
kcress
New member
I doubt you'd actually get the same results against an algae plague with any skimmer. ATS really shine in that quadrant. If you turned up your flow, or lights, or add another inch or two of screen width, you'd probably stamp out the tank algae completely.
Keep in mind that CFLs like any other fluorescents grow dim rapidly with age. Unfortunately dim photo-growth wise has nothing to do with dim human eye wise. For the human eye to detect any difference in brightness requires something like half a change in actual photon flux. You should change your CFLs running an ATS every 3 or 4 months. Maybe cycle them thru your closets or hallways, etc..
Keep in mind that CFLs like any other fluorescents grow dim rapidly with age. Unfortunately dim photo-growth wise has nothing to do with dim human eye wise. For the human eye to detect any difference in brightness requires something like half a change in actual photon flux. You should change your CFLs running an ATS every 3 or 4 months. Maybe cycle them thru your closets or hallways, etc..
widmer
Drug Enthusiast
Yea, I read as well that the CFLs should be changed every 3 or so months. If I were designing the ATS to be located in the sump where it doesn't matter what it looks like, I would likely have it driven by a T5HO, since if I remember correctly, they have MUCH better lumen maintenance than standard fluoros/CFLs.
Similar threads
