Any new hang on skimmers that you've seen?

[danieljames]

I'm looking around for options other than the deltec. Have you guys seen any custom stuff out there?

 

[crumbletop]

The Tunze DOC and comline skimmers can run in tank. I ran mine that way in the sump for a while and it did a fine job. How big of a tank?

 

[danieljames]

I'd prefer a hang on. It's for the 75. Is your tunze doc the 9000 series or the 9200?

 

[pitbullpooch]

personnaly ive had better success in anything under 75 gallons skimmerless since you really shouldnt have any fish that have that much of a bioload in such a small tank. Im into stocking lite though so thats just me. Id rather not steal the nutrients that my corals like by using a skimmer in such a small system. but we can argue this for days but it has been proven that skimmers that dont have alot of fish bioload steal trace elements and nutrients that our reefs thrive on...

 

[crumbletop]

It's a 9010. It "hangs in" and would need clearance to clean. Many in the club have had success with Remora Pro's.

 

[fishdoc11]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9329104#post9329104 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by pitbullpooch
it has been proven that skimmers that dont have alot of fish bioload steal trace elements and nutrients that our reefs thrive on...

By who and where are the studies that prove this?

you really shouldnt have any fish that have that much of a bioload in such a small tank.

That is totally false, there are countless tanks out there that are 75's or smaller with "large" bioloads that do quite well....I understand you stating these as your opinion but when you state them as fact that's just not correct.


I've had good luck with Remoras Daniel. That's what I have run on my 29 when it has been setup and it has proven to be a good little skimmer. The hand manufacturing of the injector seems to be a problem though as some of them skim well and others don't. Besides that it's the deltec from what I know.

Chris

 

[c_stowers]

Skimmers don't steal trace elements from the water in a significant fashion. Alot of people seem to be confused about this so a lady working with DT's recently asked a professor at Vanderbilt (one of the world's experts on foam fractionation) to write up a document on what skimmers could remove and what they could not. Fortunately, this professor knew of my experience in the reef hobby, so he asked me to work with him on preparing this document. It should be posted online soon. All of the information within this document is backed by scientific facts and/or data. When it does, I recommend that you read it.

 

[c_stowers]

I also recommend the remora pro's. I have used them for 3+ years now and have had no problems. They are not great skimmers, but a good bang for the buck IMO.

 

[pitbullpooch]

that post was actually posted by my brother but he has shown me documented proof of what he said about skimmers that had pulled more trace elements and other usefull stuff out of the tanks. Ive actually never seen anything online that show actual test results just articles that say they do pull out trace elements but dont have anything to prove what they say so i couldnt back this up but it will be nice to see the results from the test your having done c_stowers. my dad was brought up running reefs skimmerless and was tought they were bad but personally i dont argue this because so many people use them and have good sucess. I myself have always went skimerless becuase ive had good luck without them. now when i get my larger tank ill have one for sure do to the huge biolaod.

edit: i forgot to add that my brother who had originally posted this was banned from here for his argumentive atitude which you can see from this post lol. even if this was all true i wouldnt try argueing it on here unless i had actual scientific proof from someone that was trustworthy in the hobby so sorry that this was even brought up but ill be watching for c_stowers report becuase id like to see what the results are.

 

[crumbletop]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9330358#post9330358 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by c_stowers
It should be posted online soon.

Cool! I was wondering when that thing was going to be out.

 

[fishdoc11]

Also very interested to see the results Chris

I guess the whole point in my previous post was that reefkeepers get good results countless ways and to say any one way ie...skimerless is superior to all the others is norrowminded. Folks that have been in this quite a while realize there are few hard and fast rules. A good example of someone using a skimmerless system and getting great results with SPS(corals typically noted for "needing" a skimmer) is Tyree and his cryptic system, Palletta also gets great results using the "mud" system but he is using a skimmer again last time I heard and also uses UV which will add clarity among other things.

FWIW, Chris

 

[danieljames]

Thanks for the suggestions. I've used the remora pro in the past. Strong little skimmers, but the micro bubble problem never went away for me, even with the monster bubble trap. I had a mag on it as well, so even in the 125 i had it on there was substantial real estate being used. I prefer lightly stocked (ie: fish) skimmerless systems, but am planning a larger bioload of fish than the two clowns i have in there presently.

I've been looking at the 9025. Not too obtrusive, and from what i've read, not bad performance wise. I'm not looking for sps quality skimming, but rather just giving my system an advantage in breaking down the bioload i plan, with the added oxygenation bonus.

Definately give us the heads up when that document comes out Chris. Will be an interesting read i'm sure.

 

[pitbullpooch]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9329652#post9329652 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by fishdoc11
By who and where are the studies that prove this?





Chris

I know this doesnt really matter much since i wasnt the one who actually brought this up but it was my name that my brother used and had to get this started lol. but id like to comment on this anyways. it states in almost every article on skimmers that ive read that the do remove trace elements so theres got to be some tests out there proving this since so many people that write these articles claim this. to me it makes since that they would remove some trace elements due to the way a skimmer works. pretty much a skimmer isnt prejudice its gonna pull anything thats gonna attach to the bubbles which trace elements are a heavier consistency so they will be pulled along with the bad. not saying that it pullls enough to be that bad but it has to be pulling some. not to try to argue but i just always figured this was true and it does make since to me but how much its pulling out might not be a big deal but im sure it has to pulling some out.

 

[SRT80]

well, my bottle of Essential Elements says it is removed by protein skimming, ozone, and especially carbon filtration.

Steve

 

[fishdoc11]

I totall agree that skimmers likely skim out some trace elements...at least the ones that are hydrophobic(don't like water). Trace elements are likely also removed due to coral absorption, normal chemical reactions in seawater etc.....

Read this statement though:

it has been proven that skimmers that dont have alot of fish bioload steal trace elements and nutrients that our reefs thrive on...

This implies that skimmers on tanks with less fish somehow take more of what the corals need out of the water. It also seems to state that all nutrients that skimmers take out are good for our tanks.

The main part I have to disagree with is "it has been proven". Unless various ( more than one, preferably many more) well documented experiments have been carried out it is not proven

Putting IMO or IME in front of a statement like that is fine but when "it has been proven" is written in front of it it takes on a whole different conotation.....IMO

Chris

 

[pitbullpooch]

i understand what your saying and can see that it does look like thats what its saying. from that quote i think he meant that since it is a smaller bioload that the skimmer will likely take more trace elements since theres not much waste to take from but i figure that because we have discussed this to many times to count and thats what he usually says which i learned to just agree with him now to shut him up lol. I like to run my tanks skimmerless but thats just because ive always had nanos or lightly stocked tanks and even if you do skim then aslong as your tank is running good then theres no reason to say that one way or the other is the best way since either skimmerless or with a skimmer works then it cant be wrong. so id say were all right when it comes to this topic. i did learn something from all of this though...when my brothers in town i need to sign out of rc before i get offline lol.

 

[rcmike]

I have not had too good of luck with my remora pro for some reason. It wouldn't skim much of anything for days and then one day out of the blue it would skim so much it would overflow. I did have it on a seahorse tank and I think the oil from the frozen mysis messed with it. There have been several others with good results so maybe I just got a bad one.

Oh, BTW, I have a used Skilter 250 I'd sell ya.

 

[c_stowers]

The name of the professor at Vanderbilt that is a foam fraction expert is Dr. Robert Tanner. He has been working in the area of skimming for about 50 years. I am almost sure that I could get him to come to a meeting and talk to us about what the likelihood of skimmers removing certain compounds are. He can also show us various data he has taken over the years, but none of his data is taken on SW reef tanks. However, I have taken his classes on foam fractionation and several others related to skimming. The likelihood of a skimmer removing a trace element such as Strontium is very low for the exact reason that fishdoc stated. Such an element would have to be complexed with a hydrophobic protein to be removed. Other components that make up the water in reef systems that fall into the lipid or protein category may be removed to some reasonable extent. However, when I think of a trace elements compounds like strontium, iodine, etc.. come to mind. These compounds are small and not very hydrophobic and will therefore not be skimmed efficiently.

I'm not saying that skimmerless is a bad idea. I just hate that this hobby is plagued by people (not pointing any fingers b/c everyone does it) spreading "facts" that appear to have scientific merit, but in fact have none.

 

[wooglin]

I use a Std AquaC Urchin in my sump with a Mag 7. I am one of the people that is overdriving their AquaC Remora/Urchin line skimmer that AquaC cant figure out. Mine takes out one full cup of the nastiest stuff you can imagine a day (if I pour is down the sink in the kitichen my wife gets real mad it smells like poo for an hour). I dont have problems with bubbles with my urchin in the sump. When I had a Remora on my 30 I got rid of the microbubble problem using some airline tubing split to create a good seel between the collection cup, and the foam tower. It is hard to explain.

 

[fishdoc11]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9336865#post9336865 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by c_stowers
I just hate that this hobby is plagued by people (not pointing any fingers b/c everyone does it) spreading "facts" that appear to have scientific merit, but in fact have none.

I can't say amen enough to that one

The worst part is the "experts" who do it on a regular basis

Chris