Beckett vs. Needlewheel skimmers
- Thread starter alwest45
- Start date
hahnmeister
In Memoriam
It seems that it just took a little longer, and the right input from the right people to finally get to the bottom of which is better. According to Escobal's book, and what Randy's article on 'what is skimming', the recirculating skimmer, or one that provides at least a 2 minute interface, is the ideal (this could also be a recirculating beckett, or airstone driven).
http://reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=8732183#post8732183
Sorry, but those 10 second interface times in a becketts just arent enough to get everything it seems.
http://reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=8732183#post8732183
Sorry, but those 10 second interface times in a becketts just arent enough to get everything it seems.
JC VT
New member
It seems that it just took a little longer, and the right input from the right people to finally get to the bottom of which is better.
The "right people" is Randy, and critical thought from ourselves.
Sorry, but those 10 second interface times in a becketts just arent enough to get everything it seems.
This is not proven in any way, shape or form
The "right people" is Randy, and critical thought from ourselves.
Sorry, but those 10 second interface times in a becketts just arent enough to get everything it seems.
This is not proven in any way, shape or form
bernie lyons
New member
skimmers
skimmers
Since we all can't agree on the "exact" science on what makes the "best" skimming , simply put two skimmers into one system :
Air driven - counter current for dwell time , and an beckett - non recirculating for high turnover rate . I done this in the past with good results from both types of skimmers.
bernie lyons
skimmers
Since we all can't agree on the "exact" science on what makes the "best" skimming , simply put two skimmers into one system :
Air driven - counter current for dwell time , and an beckett - non recirculating for high turnover rate . I done this in the past with good results from both types of skimmers.
bernie lyons
hahnmeister
In Memoriam
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8738442#post8738442 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by JC VT
It seems that it just took a little longer, and the right input from the right people to finally get to the bottom of which is better.
The "right people" is Randy, and critical thought from ourselves.
Sorry, but those 10 second interface times in a becketts just arent enough to get everything it seems.
This is not proven in any way, shape or form
Well, according to Randy and Escobal, a counter-current skimmer that maximizes the interface of air and water through each other's path, as well as an ideal 120 second exposure time. Neither one of these attributes can be associated with a downdraft or a beckett skimmer, or most single pass skimmers.
http://www.hawkfish.org/snailman/skimmer101.htm
"By far the most efficient way to run a skimmer is in the counter current flow condition as it causes the bubbles to have a longer contact time with the water compared to the co-current flow condition. It was estimated by Escobal that some proteins take upwards of 2 minutes contact time with air to attach properly. Now when it comes to air introduction method, methods #2, #3, and #4 all use the pump powering the skimmer to introduce air into the skimmer at the same time the pump pumps water into the reaction chamber. While this works just fine, it does limit the user to not being able to independently control water flow rate through the skimmer and the air volume injected into the skimmer reaction chamber."
Unless of course, you have some proof that Escobal and Randy are incorrect, I think that expert opinion is as good a proof as any.
hahnmeister
In Memoriam
Well, Randy's opinion seems to be nearly the same... a counter-current skimmer with an extended air/water interface.
JC VT
New member
How is Randy's opinion an indictment of Beckett skimmers?
What is your basis of 120 second exposure time? You are mixing and matching Randy and Escobal. This might be OK if not for the fact that Escobal says it takes a long time for a protein to attach to the bubble, while Randy says the orientation of proteins happens rather quickly at the air/water interface.
So Randy says this: "Once a skimmer has generated a large amount of surface area, the next process involves allowing organics to actually diffuse to the interface."
I don't think he conclusively says that counter current is the absolute best and only way to combine organic laden water with air/water interface. This is obviously one method, and people have great success with cc skimmers. On the other hand, a beckett combines organic laden water with air/water interface directly at/after the beckett. So I'd imagine that the absorption to the air/water interface occurs right then and there. Not counting the turbulence in the box (which Randy intimates will help decrease absorption time), OR the large amount of air/water interface in the first riser.
What is your basis of 120 second exposure time? You are mixing and matching Randy and Escobal. This might be OK if not for the fact that Escobal says it takes a long time for a protein to attach to the bubble, while Randy says the orientation of proteins happens rather quickly at the air/water interface.
So Randy says this: "Once a skimmer has generated a large amount of surface area, the next process involves allowing organics to actually diffuse to the interface."
I don't think he conclusively says that counter current is the absolute best and only way to combine organic laden water with air/water interface. This is obviously one method, and people have great success with cc skimmers. On the other hand, a beckett combines organic laden water with air/water interface directly at/after the beckett. So I'd imagine that the absorption to the air/water interface occurs right then and there. Not counting the turbulence in the box (which Randy intimates will help decrease absorption time), OR the large amount of air/water interface in the first riser.
JC VT
New member
Also, let's lay to rest the long contact time to bind "stubborn" proteins. I thought we already had, but it keeps coming up. Randy mentions in his article that there are molecules that run the gamut in terms of hydrophicity/hydrophilicity, but goes on to mention this:
Many suitable molecules will instantly stick, if they happen to randomly contact the interface. So one question is how rapidly they diffuse.
There is not a long time for the binding to take place. It is time for diffusion to take place. I agree that if it took a second or a minute or 5 minutes for the actual binding to the interface to take place, then contact time itself would be critical. That might happen for certain very complex proteins, but I do not believe that plays a dominating role in reef aquaria
The only other possible mechanism (that I know of) that would suggest that longer dwell time is useful is the time it takes a protein to become denatured (to change its three dimensional structure) and so to more fully adsorb to an air water interface. However, I think that once a protein adsorbs enough to begin to denature, it is probably stuck to the bubble and won't get away.
Many suitable molecules will instantly stick, if they happen to randomly contact the interface. So one question is how rapidly they diffuse.
There is not a long time for the binding to take place. It is time for diffusion to take place. I agree that if it took a second or a minute or 5 minutes for the actual binding to the interface to take place, then contact time itself would be critical. That might happen for certain very complex proteins, but I do not believe that plays a dominating role in reef aquaria
The only other possible mechanism (that I know of) that would suggest that longer dwell time is useful is the time it takes a protein to become denatured (to change its three dimensional structure) and so to more fully adsorb to an air water interface. However, I think that once a protein adsorbs enough to begin to denature, it is probably stuck to the bubble and won't get away.
sherm71tank
Premium Member
.
sherm71tank
Premium Member
.
sherm71tank
Premium Member
I edited my last post. It's just not going anywhere anymore. If you aren't using the skimmer I'm using then you are wrong and some people just cannot get past that point. Even when asked VERY politely to leave your skimmer of choice OUT of the conversation and only reference bubble contact time and the STILL unnamed "stubborn particle" that exists in our reef tanks that needs to be taken out. I had fantastic results with beckett skimmers. Better than any other skimmer I've used. I am also doing just fine with a recirc NW skimmer right now. I've also used air stone skimmers that worked great. The bottom line as far as I'm concerend: If you don't mind the pump needed for a beckett and can deal with the heat, they are the best. If not, a NW recirc - or non recirc - or any number of venturi skimmers or DD skimmers or even air stone skimmers if sized properly and maintained will do the job just fine.
hahnmeister
In Memoriam
sherm71tank, this isnt your '120 second' thread, but the beckett vs needlewheel thread, and your request for people to leave out their skimmer of choice doesnt make sense... wrong thread, no? I posted this here as to NOT interfere with yours. The whole point of THIS thread is to compare Becketts vs. NW.
The 'stubborn particle' question was answered, you wanted to know where this idea came from, and if its valid, and the response is that its in Escobal's book. He states "Some organics require up to 2 full minutes of contact time with air bubbles in a skimmer before they are removed via foam fractioning. Thus the need for a slow wate flow through the skimmer is crutial for proper design and function." Thats all there is to it until the current survey of skimmate is completed, or someone can prove otherwise.
JC VT, I am not mixing Randy and Escobal. Have you read the snailman skimmer page? Have you read, I mean: REALLY READ Randy's article?
Randy said "Likewise, the way the bubbles move relative to the water is important. If the bubbles are moving against the water's flow, or are in a turbulent environment, the required absorption time will be lower (because the flow helps bring organics to the interface) than if the bubbles are moving with the flow. " FWIW, I dropped the whole 120 second thing... some people dont think it holds true, or that Escobal knows enough about skimming. Fine, I wont defend it... I dont have to. Randy makes statements that support the counter-current skimmers more than single-pass/Becketts.
So unless you know of any counter-current becketts... he conclusively says that counter current is the absolute best and only way to combine organic laden water with air/water interface... as per your words and his. There you go. Bubbles moving AGAINST THE WATER FLOW = COUNTER CURRENT.
The 'stubborn particle' question was answered, you wanted to know where this idea came from, and if its valid, and the response is that its in Escobal's book. He states "Some organics require up to 2 full minutes of contact time with air bubbles in a skimmer before they are removed via foam fractioning. Thus the need for a slow wate flow through the skimmer is crutial for proper design and function." Thats all there is to it until the current survey of skimmate is completed, or someone can prove otherwise.
JC VT, I am not mixing Randy and Escobal. Have you read the snailman skimmer page? Have you read, I mean: REALLY READ Randy's article?
Randy said "Likewise, the way the bubbles move relative to the water is important. If the bubbles are moving against the water's flow, or are in a turbulent environment, the required absorption time will be lower (because the flow helps bring organics to the interface) than if the bubbles are moving with the flow. " FWIW, I dropped the whole 120 second thing... some people dont think it holds true, or that Escobal knows enough about skimming. Fine, I wont defend it... I dont have to. Randy makes statements that support the counter-current skimmers more than single-pass/Becketts.
So unless you know of any counter-current becketts... he conclusively says that counter current is the absolute best and only way to combine organic laden water with air/water interface... as per your words and his. There you go. Bubbles moving AGAINST THE WATER FLOW = COUNTER CURRENT.
sherm71tank
Premium Member
I would assume many of us interested in actual results and not just heresay are following both threads just fine. You posted a link to the thread. Remember that?
Some organics? Once again, skirting around my question. What organics that exist in a reef aquarium? To suggest that "Thats all there is to it until the current survey of skimmate is completed, or someone can prove otherwise." is not evidence and still prooves nothing. Stop dancing around the topic. "Some particles" does not answer my question and you know it doesn't.
Some organics? Once again, skirting around my question. What organics that exist in a reef aquarium? To suggest that "Thats all there is to it until the current survey of skimmate is completed, or someone can prove otherwise." is not evidence and still prooves nothing. Stop dancing around the topic. "Some particles" does not answer my question and you know it doesn't.
hahnmeister
In Memoriam
Well, if you are looking for exact chemical names, MSDS data sheets, and verified NIS experiment data with exact chemical interaction times, etc... well, then no. Nothing like that exists... yet. Nothing like that exists for just about anything in this hobby. So I suppose in that case, no methods in this hobby are proven as you would like. I find this qualification of yours a little excessive because it would mean that you have no real foundation for even setting up a reef aquarium... as the various methods 'eco', 'jaubert', and 'berlin' arent really 'proven' in any way. Many Marine Biologists even suggest that skimming itself isnt even a proven benefit to a reef aquarium... that what we are removing is part of the eco-system and should be left in the water to be processed. So many steps back do you want to take this? What constitutes a valid response to you? It seems like you will only accept responses from scientists or something. Well, if thats the case, you posted in the wrong forum.
sherm71tank
Premium Member
I'm glad you finally understand what I was looking for.
JC VT
New member
On the other hand, a beckett combines organic laden water with air/water interface directly at/after the beckett. So I'd imagine that the absorption to the air/water interface occurs right then and there. Not counting the turbulence in the box (which Randy intimates will help decrease absorption time), OR the large amount of air/water interface in the first riser.
JC VT
New member
Also Hahn,
YOU are the only one in this discussion saying that one style will not work.
I've acknowledged several times that needwheel/cc will work just fine.
You have not even come close to qualifying this statement:
Sorry, but those 10 second interface times in a becketts just arent enough to get everything it seems.
YOU are the only one in this discussion saying that one style will not work.
I've acknowledged several times that needwheel/cc will work just fine.
You have not even come close to qualifying this statement:
Sorry, but those 10 second interface times in a becketts just arent enough to get everything it seems.
hahnmeister
In Memoriam
Okay, Im not saying that Becketts dont work or something... obviously they do. I just think that NWs/countercurrent skimmers/recircs work better... thats all. Sorry for suggesting that Becketts dont cut it, I only meant it in comparison to the counter-current skimmers. IE: winner vs loser, as this thread was supposed to be NW vs beckett.
You are right, nothing I can say or show you can convince you that anything is our skimmers needs more than 1 second to get extracted (or whatever number you want there). Being that Randy Holmes-Farley and Escobal arent good enough sources, I would also like to point out then that there is no scientific proof that protein skimming is actually beneficial at all for our reef aquariums in the first place. NONE.
You are right, nothing I can say or show you can convince you that anything is our skimmers needs more than 1 second to get extracted (or whatever number you want there). Being that Randy Holmes-Farley and Escobal arent good enough sources, I would also like to point out then that there is no scientific proof that protein skimming is actually beneficial at all for our reef aquariums in the first place. NONE.
Similar threads
