ati skimmer
- Thread starter rickyjai8
- Start date
lvpd186
Reefing in NE
Well, part of your problem might be the size of the tank you have it on (if your sig. is current). Having a BM250 on a 65g tank is probably way, way over-kill. My guess would be that once the skimmer cleaned the water up that there isn't much more for it to skim. Having the BM250 on my 120 is probably over-kill as well. It skims a little bit everyday, but I'm sure it would come alive on a much bigger tank. I also have a small bio-load right now so there just isn't a lot to skim out.
hahnmeister
In Memoriam
Re: ati skimmer
For all those out there who are experiencing similar... all I gotta say is 'told you so'... lol.
Reason is that the skimmer has a very short and turbulent path for the bubbles. As the tank matures and the skimmer catches up with the bioload of the tank, there is less for the skimmer to skim.
Now, there are two methods to detail here: One is where you have a tall skimmer, or less turbulent skimmer where each bubble will have a good amount of time to 'grab on' to proteins in the water. The other is where each bubble has very little time, but there are more bubbles. The ATI leans on the more air/less time side of things.
The more air/less time model will allow for better skimming as long as you can keep the available amount of skimmate in the water at a high level. So this design is really meant for systems with a high-load that doesnt let up. The disadvantage is that as a tank matures or if the skimmate production of the system goes down... so does the skimmers ability to function. For some, it gets so bad that they either have to set the skimmer to skim wet, or not at all, because the bubbles just pop in the neck. Its better to have a skimmer that is too small (rather than too large) with these types of skimmers... so they never run out.
The less air/more time model will allow for better skimming after your skimmer has caught up with the tank, and/or the tank matures and is able to process more of its own waste. The tradeoff is that the skimmers maximum capacity is lower because there is less air... sure... but over time, this skimmer will continue to function as the system matures. Its better to oversize with these skimmers if anything because they can continue to perform if skimmate levels are lower over time. If the skimmate level in the water goes up for some reason, these skimmers tend not to skim much more like the other model.
Think of the proteins in the water like soap in water for blowing bubbles. If the amount of soap in the water gets too low, the bubbles pop easier. Now, for a skimmer, the best way to insure each bubble has more 'soap' is to provide it with a longer path... so it grabs more proteins on its way out. Think Im full of it? Look at freshwater skimmers... they are tall and narrow because it takes even more time for freshwater bubbles to collect enough proteins to be stable.
The ATI's may have bubble plates, but they are not the ones we are used to like with Bubble Kings where the plate is used for turbulence reduction. The ATI's have increased their air/water output steadily, and force alot of air and water through the skimmer. Its pretty much a 10-12" shot straight up to the neck through a 7" diameter (the outer tube is just a 'sorting' area, the actual skimmer is the inner tube). Anyways, its 2000lph of air, and 3000lph of water... thats 5000lph, or 1322gph being shot straight up a 7" tube in a co-current manner. Its alot of air.... sure... but not alot of dwell time for each bubble.
There are two solutions, or mods that would help the ATI BM 250. One... make it taller. This would also cut down the air intake though, and the Sicce pumps are 'touchy' to say the least. When you have pumps that make alot of air intake with a low amount of water throughput, they are very sensitive to height placed on the skimmer. Of course, keeping the skimmer in a deeper water level would help... but this is alot of modding for the usual owner.
The other option is to slow things down a bit. Its a guess, but if you remove one of the pumps, and plug the other hole, you will drop the velocity of the air/water in the skimmer by 1/2. 900-1000 lph of air is still good for a 180g, and by lowering the throughput, you can also raise the water level inside the skimmer. In effect, you will be lowering the skimmer's capacity (but you overshot it by alot in the first place), but increasing each bubble's efficiency.
Oliver of ATI has ideas about how proteins work that I dont agree with... like throwing a magnet through a pile of nails. Problem is, proteins in the water arent something that is so abundant... look at what you pull out in a day. A liter or so of 150 gallons (567 liters) per day? Keep in mind that most of that is still water. If you condense the skimmate, you will see that its a very small percentage of the total tank volume we are removing with the skimmers (thank god...lol... or my top-off would be going nuts!) Proteins and other hydrophobic substances are not so concentrated in the water... on liter of 567... and of that, 90% or more is water, easily. So we are easily in the parts per thousand range if not slightly lower. Thats like moving a magnet around a 20'x20' floor with only a few nails to find. You can either use alot of magnets (more air), but if those magnets dont get a nail within a short amount of time, they will become useless... as the bubble in the neck pops without anything to hold it together. So you use less magnets, and give them a longer time... you may not be able to remove as many nails total, but every magnet will have something to take away... much like stable bubbles in the neck of a skimmer.
For all those out there who are experiencing similar... all I gotta say is 'told you so'... lol.
Reason is that the skimmer has a very short and turbulent path for the bubbles. As the tank matures and the skimmer catches up with the bioload of the tank, there is less for the skimmer to skim.
Now, there are two methods to detail here: One is where you have a tall skimmer, or less turbulent skimmer where each bubble will have a good amount of time to 'grab on' to proteins in the water. The other is where each bubble has very little time, but there are more bubbles. The ATI leans on the more air/less time side of things.
The more air/less time model will allow for better skimming as long as you can keep the available amount of skimmate in the water at a high level. So this design is really meant for systems with a high-load that doesnt let up. The disadvantage is that as a tank matures or if the skimmate production of the system goes down... so does the skimmers ability to function. For some, it gets so bad that they either have to set the skimmer to skim wet, or not at all, because the bubbles just pop in the neck. Its better to have a skimmer that is too small (rather than too large) with these types of skimmers... so they never run out.
The less air/more time model will allow for better skimming after your skimmer has caught up with the tank, and/or the tank matures and is able to process more of its own waste. The tradeoff is that the skimmers maximum capacity is lower because there is less air... sure... but over time, this skimmer will continue to function as the system matures. Its better to oversize with these skimmers if anything because they can continue to perform if skimmate levels are lower over time. If the skimmate level in the water goes up for some reason, these skimmers tend not to skim much more like the other model.
Think of the proteins in the water like soap in water for blowing bubbles. If the amount of soap in the water gets too low, the bubbles pop easier. Now, for a skimmer, the best way to insure each bubble has more 'soap' is to provide it with a longer path... so it grabs more proteins on its way out. Think Im full of it? Look at freshwater skimmers... they are tall and narrow because it takes even more time for freshwater bubbles to collect enough proteins to be stable.
The ATI's may have bubble plates, but they are not the ones we are used to like with Bubble Kings where the plate is used for turbulence reduction. The ATI's have increased their air/water output steadily, and force alot of air and water through the skimmer. Its pretty much a 10-12" shot straight up to the neck through a 7" diameter (the outer tube is just a 'sorting' area, the actual skimmer is the inner tube). Anyways, its 2000lph of air, and 3000lph of water... thats 5000lph, or 1322gph being shot straight up a 7" tube in a co-current manner. Its alot of air.... sure... but not alot of dwell time for each bubble.
There are two solutions, or mods that would help the ATI BM 250. One... make it taller. This would also cut down the air intake though, and the Sicce pumps are 'touchy' to say the least. When you have pumps that make alot of air intake with a low amount of water throughput, they are very sensitive to height placed on the skimmer. Of course, keeping the skimmer in a deeper water level would help... but this is alot of modding for the usual owner.
The other option is to slow things down a bit. Its a guess, but if you remove one of the pumps, and plug the other hole, you will drop the velocity of the air/water in the skimmer by 1/2. 900-1000 lph of air is still good for a 180g, and by lowering the throughput, you can also raise the water level inside the skimmer. In effect, you will be lowering the skimmer's capacity (but you overshot it by alot in the first place), but increasing each bubble's efficiency.
Oliver of ATI has ideas about how proteins work that I dont agree with... like throwing a magnet through a pile of nails. Problem is, proteins in the water arent something that is so abundant... look at what you pull out in a day. A liter or so of 150 gallons (567 liters) per day? Keep in mind that most of that is still water. If you condense the skimmate, you will see that its a very small percentage of the total tank volume we are removing with the skimmers (thank god...lol... or my top-off would be going nuts!) Proteins and other hydrophobic substances are not so concentrated in the water... on liter of 567... and of that, 90% or more is water, easily. So we are easily in the parts per thousand range if not slightly lower. Thats like moving a magnet around a 20'x20' floor with only a few nails to find. You can either use alot of magnets (more air), but if those magnets dont get a nail within a short amount of time, they will become useless... as the bubble in the neck pops without anything to hold it together. So you use less magnets, and give them a longer time... you may not be able to remove as many nails total, but every magnet will have something to take away... much like stable bubbles in the neck of a skimmer.
Fishdude1984
New member
you've been waiting to say that for a long time haven't you 
hahnmeister
In Memoriam
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10549125#post10549125 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Fishdude1984
you've been waiting to say that for a long time haven't you
Yes, yes I have. I tried to say it a while back in the big Bubblemaster thread, but I was shut down as being one of those guys who doesnt own one so Im just jealous. My current skimmer is the functional equal to the BM 200 though. Its an 8" diameter, 30" tall AquaEuro Recirc 265 that I gutted and put a Sicce PSK 2500 threadwheel on with a bubble plate on the outlet 20" from the top so its just like the ATI... even the neck diameter is the same from what I remember. I just dont have the central neck around the bubble plate, since I have the remaining 10" below the plate for sorting. But yeah... my new tank is all old liverock, with just some new sand added. The corals are all pretty well established, and I have a 20g fuge on the tank (125g) with only a few smaller fish so far... so the skimmer just doesnt have that much to work with.
I was planning on changing to something that stands next to the tank, 8" in diameter, with a single eheim needlewheel at the bottom. The skimmer would be 4-5' tall, and direct fed from the tank's overflow... then the eheim needlewheel/threadwheel would be force fed by an Alita 40 from the basement for about 2000lph of air... and since the pump is force fed, that would mean less water turbulence than if using multiple needlewheels... so getting 2000lph into an 8" body would be simple... and a bubbleplate would be almost useless. That would be too big though I imagine... so maybe Ill just get a 6" diameter body and just one pump force fed to about 900lph... something tells me that I would really have to pack that 125g full to need 2000lph of air... I barely need 1000lph as is. With a taller skimmer, 500 is prolly loads. Im actually thinking that I might as well put the skimmer in the sump and just make something like the DAS EX-2 to go in there. Who knows... but yeah, I know what you mean about the BM's just not skimming after a while. My similar one behaves the same way (and mine has much less turbulence too technically).
You could try extending the neck a bit... perhaps a piece of cast acrylic pipe to simply slip over the outside of the cup's bottom ring, and then a ring to go inside the neck adapter on the body. Adding about 6" to the height could greatly improve the bubble efficiency, while lowering the total air intake a bit (but who cares... not like you dont have some to spare). The water level is controlled by a gate valve on the new one, so that would be easy. If you have an older one, you might have to add on some PVC pipe to the overflow.
but an aftermarket neck extension (much like with becketts) might be a cool thing for these skimmers. Raise the neck up so the skimmer is 28-30" tall... that could help alot.
SuAsati
New member
Re: ati skimmer
As hahnmeister detailed, if you want more skimmate thanyou are getting, at this point, you need to adjust the skimmer to skim dry, basically by reducing the amount of water(and air) flowing through, you are increasing the contact time similar to shutting one of the pumps, but on a smaller scale...... if that makes sense.... if you have the gate valve mod, start closing it slowly until the desired skimate amount is achieved, if you have the telescope type, start raising the output until you like it..... with telescope you can reach the limit pretty fast, as oppose to the gate valve control....
You could also raise the water level, but as hahn mentioned, you can't go too far before the pumps start to choke... HTH.
As hahnmeister detailed, if you want more skimmate thanyou are getting, at this point, you need to adjust the skimmer to skim dry, basically by reducing the amount of water(and air) flowing through, you are increasing the contact time similar to shutting one of the pumps, but on a smaller scale...... if that makes sense.... if you have the gate valve mod, start closing it slowly until the desired skimate amount is achieved, if you have the telescope type, start raising the output until you like it..... with telescope you can reach the limit pretty fast, as oppose to the gate valve control....
You could also raise the water level, but as hahn mentioned, you can't go too far before the pumps start to choke... HTH.
Re: Re: ati skimmer
Re: Re: ati skimmer
you kidding me :lol:
i test the BM250 with long neck 32" high and standard way to , the result was the same and the performance was good on both way.
the true is this skimmer clean the tank for real and after a while the skimmate in the cup was lower then it was in the first month .
i also swap skimmers to test it and the other skimmer didn't skim because the water was clean (and there wasn't a break in time needed....) .
Re: Re: ati skimmer
you kidding me :lol:
i test the BM250 with long neck 32" high and standard way to , the result was the same and the performance was good on both way.
the true is this skimmer clean the tank for real and after a while the skimmate in the cup was lower then it was in the first month .
i also swap skimmers to test it and the other skimmer didn't skim because the water was clean (and there wasn't a break in time needed....) .
hahnmeister
In Memoriam
I did cover that in what I said mavgi. It would seem that your system's skimmate production has kept up with the skimmers ability to collect it. With a high enough concentration of skimmate in the water, more height wont do anything as you mention... just air throughput. If your system had a severe maturation phase, or your fish population went down (for most, their fish load goes up since even as the systems matures, and less skimmate is produced from rocks, the number of fish often goes up, and the fish get larger as well), you would see that the air throughput isnt everything... height of the skimmer would play a greater role.
On the other hand... you may experience the same skimmate production despite a change in height if the total amount of proteins in the water is just that low... you cant skim what isnt there.
I suppose an extreme example would be needed, but try a 6' tall skimmer. You cant even set it to wet skim because the head is so rich and dense with waste. One 6' skimmer I know only can be adjusted for coffee through dark tea... skimming wet just doesnt happen unless you just start having water flow into the cup. So there is something to height that I think many makers overlook.
On the other hand... you may experience the same skimmate production despite a change in height if the total amount of proteins in the water is just that low... you cant skim what isnt there.
I suppose an extreme example would be needed, but try a 6' tall skimmer. You cant even set it to wet skim because the head is so rich and dense with waste. One 6' skimmer I know only can be adjusted for coffee through dark tea... skimming wet just doesnt happen unless you just start having water flow into the cup. So there is something to height that I think many makers overlook.
i have 17 fish in my system except my 2 damsels 2 clown and flame angel all of them 4" and up . i also have 5 big shrimps and 2 mandarine and the skimmer skim most after feeding no more...
i sold my skimmer and i am waiting for new toy... i am going to play with other pump meantime on my Euro Reef skimmer with some different type of mesh....
meantime the system clean and i stop for now 4 weeks to do water change let see what will happen ....
if the new BK was available i was try it to maybe i will do it when it will be and compare it to other skimmer to....
the true that it was a very good skimmer and i can't complain about it....
rickyjai8 :
i don't know what type of return pump you have and run in your system i also don't know how you maintain the pump to....
if the return pump dirty you can see that there is no good water movement intro the pipe to the sump and this can reduce a lot from the skimming performance .
again i don't know how it's work in your system but it's another thing you want to check.
i sold my skimmer and i am waiting for new toy... i am going to play with other pump meantime on my Euro Reef skimmer with some different type of mesh....
meantime the system clean and i stop for now 4 weeks to do water change let see what will happen ....
if the new BK was available i was try it to maybe i will do it when it will be and compare it to other skimmer to....
the true that it was a very good skimmer and i can't complain about it....
rickyjai8 :
i don't know what type of return pump you have and run in your system i also don't know how you maintain the pump to....
if the return pump dirty you can see that there is no good water movement intro the pipe to the sump and this can reduce a lot from the skimming performance .
again i don't know how it's work in your system but it's another thing you want to check.
pjf
Premium Member
Restating a Theory
Restating a Theory
Hahnmeister,
I believe you are saying that:
• Tall skimmers can in time reduce a tank’s DOC concentration to a lower level than a short skimmer can. The dwell time afforded by a tall skimmer will allow bubbles to collect dissolved organic compounds even when the DOC concentration is low.
• Short skimmers with high air input are faster at removing dissolved organic compounds initially but cannot skim when the DOC concentration drops below a certain level.
Have I summarized your position correctly?
If so, please keep in mind that this is controversial. Here are two opposing views:
• “It is important that the air bubbles have as much contact time with the water in the column as possible, and contact time is enhanced by tall columns. We have seen skimmers for large systems that were over 2.6 m (8 ft.) tall! Of course, this is not practical for most home aquaria, but the contact tube should be as long as possible. Long columns also allow more time for drainage to occur, producing dryer foam, especially with high volumes of air input.†â€"œ Delbeek & Sprung, The Reef Aquarium, Volume 3, page 321.
• It makes perfect sense that in water with high levels of organics, the interfacial area will be rapidly occupied by organics. That is because there are enough in the local area around the bubble to saturate the interface. When the concentrations are lower, organics have to diffuse from farther and farther away from the bubble to saturate it. Additionally, different organics have different binding strengths to the air/water interface. Compounds which bind more strongly will slowly replace those already at the interface which have weaker binding. Thus, a bubble which is completely occupied with organics might still be changing with time upon further exposure to aquarium water. It will not, however, go on increasing its organic load indefinitely. For these various reasons, there's no certain amount of time that is necessary for organics to fully saturate bubbles. Further, it is incorrect to claim that it is always better to increase the contact time between bubbles and the aquarium water. â€"œ Randy Holmes-Farley (http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2006-08/rhf/index.php#21).
Restating a Theory
Hahnmeister,
I believe you are saying that:
• Tall skimmers can in time reduce a tank’s DOC concentration to a lower level than a short skimmer can. The dwell time afforded by a tall skimmer will allow bubbles to collect dissolved organic compounds even when the DOC concentration is low.
• Short skimmers with high air input are faster at removing dissolved organic compounds initially but cannot skim when the DOC concentration drops below a certain level.
Have I summarized your position correctly?
If so, please keep in mind that this is controversial. Here are two opposing views:
• “It is important that the air bubbles have as much contact time with the water in the column as possible, and contact time is enhanced by tall columns. We have seen skimmers for large systems that were over 2.6 m (8 ft.) tall! Of course, this is not practical for most home aquaria, but the contact tube should be as long as possible. Long columns also allow more time for drainage to occur, producing dryer foam, especially with high volumes of air input.†â€"œ Delbeek & Sprung, The Reef Aquarium, Volume 3, page 321.
• It makes perfect sense that in water with high levels of organics, the interfacial area will be rapidly occupied by organics. That is because there are enough in the local area around the bubble to saturate the interface. When the concentrations are lower, organics have to diffuse from farther and farther away from the bubble to saturate it. Additionally, different organics have different binding strengths to the air/water interface. Compounds which bind more strongly will slowly replace those already at the interface which have weaker binding. Thus, a bubble which is completely occupied with organics might still be changing with time upon further exposure to aquarium water. It will not, however, go on increasing its organic load indefinitely. For these various reasons, there's no certain amount of time that is necessary for organics to fully saturate bubbles. Further, it is incorrect to claim that it is always better to increase the contact time between bubbles and the aquarium water. â€"œ Randy Holmes-Farley (http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2006-08/rhf/index.php#21).
hahnmeister
In Memoriam
pjf, you are kinda correct in your summary of my position. I believe that talking about short vs. tall skimmers really comes down to reliability/consistency for collecting that skimmate. With a taller skimmer, the bubble just has a greater chance to contact with DOC's as you put it. With a shorter one, there is a greater chance that the bubble will never collect enough DOC's on its surface to make a stable foam head and make it into the cup... the bubble is more likely to pop in the neck. I actually have found common ideas, or ways that all the theories on skimming provided by Escobal, Holmes-Farley, and Delbeek/Sprung line up. Their explainations vary, but the end results, or 'ideal skimming conditions' are the same.
When is the last time you heard of a tall skimmer that could only skim wet?
Another factor here that I havent mentioned is the neck diameter. The ATI skimmer has a wide neck. If the neck were narrower, then when DOC's get low, there wouldnt be a need for as many DOC's to move skimmate into the cup. This may be another solution... although more of a 'compensation' than an actual performance adjustment.
The 'ideal' that many skimmers have is something around 60-70 lph/square inch of neck area. 1800lph of air going through a 6" neck is 63.69 lph/square inch for instance. For a shorter or more turbulent skimmer, this number should be higher though, like 90-120, and for a taller or calmer one, this number can be lower... like 40. Perhaps a narrower, yet taller neck would be a good idea for the ATI's... at least when the DOC's get low. The risk is that if the DOC levels, or rather the surfactant levels spike due to chemistry changes (like shutting off the lights)... then you are more likely to get overflows.
Look at ER skimmers and compare...
RC80 = 104 lph/in^2
RC135 = 81
RC180 = 60
RC250 = 56
RC500 = 101
RC750 = 126
RC1000 = 108
Now, I dont know how many of you have been keeping track, but the RC 180 and 250 are known to be ER's two most reliable recirc skimmers. They are pretty much set & forget with very reliable output over time. The RC80 has a reputation for overflowing, although it is short and turbulent, so its not so bad unless you have a spike in DOC's/surfactants I'd say. But look at the RC750 and 1000. Considering the air output and height... its no wonder the narrow necks cause the collection cups to easily overflow. I know someone who tried a RC750, to see if he needed something larger than his 4' deltec. It overflowed so many times he returned it, and the dealer didnt even contest it. No wonder... with 3000lph of air going through a 5.5" diameter neck... thats not a neck for skimmate collection... thats a foam cannon!
When is the last time you heard of a tall skimmer that could only skim wet?
Another factor here that I havent mentioned is the neck diameter. The ATI skimmer has a wide neck. If the neck were narrower, then when DOC's get low, there wouldnt be a need for as many DOC's to move skimmate into the cup. This may be another solution... although more of a 'compensation' than an actual performance adjustment.
The 'ideal' that many skimmers have is something around 60-70 lph/square inch of neck area. 1800lph of air going through a 6" neck is 63.69 lph/square inch for instance. For a shorter or more turbulent skimmer, this number should be higher though, like 90-120, and for a taller or calmer one, this number can be lower... like 40. Perhaps a narrower, yet taller neck would be a good idea for the ATI's... at least when the DOC's get low. The risk is that if the DOC levels, or rather the surfactant levels spike due to chemistry changes (like shutting off the lights)... then you are more likely to get overflows.
Look at ER skimmers and compare...
RC80 = 104 lph/in^2
RC135 = 81
RC180 = 60
RC250 = 56
RC500 = 101
RC750 = 126
RC1000 = 108
Now, I dont know how many of you have been keeping track, but the RC 180 and 250 are known to be ER's two most reliable recirc skimmers. They are pretty much set & forget with very reliable output over time. The RC80 has a reputation for overflowing, although it is short and turbulent, so its not so bad unless you have a spike in DOC's/surfactants I'd say. But look at the RC750 and 1000. Considering the air output and height... its no wonder the narrow necks cause the collection cups to easily overflow. I know someone who tried a RC750, to see if he needed something larger than his 4' deltec. It overflowed so many times he returned it, and the dealer didnt even contest it. No wonder... with 3000lph of air going through a 5.5" diameter neck... thats not a neck for skimmate collection... thats a foam cannon!
King-Kong
New member
My BM250 seemed to be have skimmed everything out of my tank until I started feeding less oily foods.
I typically fed a combination of PE Mysis and pellet/flakes several times a day and production was slow on my 90g with ~10 fish (sometimes 1 quart every 2-3 days).
I then made my own food using raw seafood, and a bit of rinsed mysis and cyclopeeze.
Now I make 1 quart of skimmate a day, no tuning needed, very consistant, and very nice.
Nothing more has changed, just the type of food I use.
I typically fed a combination of PE Mysis and pellet/flakes several times a day and production was slow on my 90g with ~10 fish (sometimes 1 quart every 2-3 days).
I then made my own food using raw seafood, and a bit of rinsed mysis and cyclopeeze.
Now I make 1 quart of skimmate a day, no tuning needed, very consistant, and very nice.
Nothing more has changed, just the type of food I use.
Aqua Keepers
New member
KK, have you noticed any change in SPS color since switching to DIY food? Are you blendering this to a moosh?
King-Kong
New member
Pito: I just started feeding it this week.
The first time I tried to make my own food I used a blender; it failed miserably. It was pure paste, no chunks large enough for the fish to eat.
The second time I used a small food processor unit that has larger, slower blades. It leaves nice small pieces that the fish can eat, and makes SOME mush that im sure the SPS love.
The real benefit for me is: I dont rinse it, and it improves my skimming. Ill have to see long-term how it helps (or hurts) the corals.
The first time I tried to make my own food I used a blender; it failed miserably. It was pure paste, no chunks large enough for the fish to eat.
The second time I used a small food processor unit that has larger, slower blades. It leaves nice small pieces that the fish can eat, and makes SOME mush that im sure the SPS love.
The real benefit for me is: I dont rinse it, and it improves my skimming. Ill have to see long-term how it helps (or hurts) the corals.
RichConley
New member
King Kong, I feed pretty much just DIY fish food, and have no problems either, and my skimmer is a total foam cannon.
I'm pushing roughly 200 lph/in2
(1800ish lph in a 3.5" neck)...yeah, its a little tweaky, but feeding home made food definitely helps. PE mysis is like DIY-oil slick
I'm pushing roughly 200 lph/in2
(1800ish lph in a 3.5" neck)...yeah, its a little tweaky, but feeding home made food definitely helps. PE mysis is like DIY-oil slick
Aqua Keepers
New member
Rich, are you useing the BM250 as well? If so, on what size tank?
Similar threads
