Cone vs Non-Cone Skimmers

[arrowheadpuffer]

Cones seem to be VERY pricey, I am looking at skimmers with a max of $400. So the Super Reef Octopus Cone XP-2000 is 398.99 and for the same price I can get a Super Reef Octopus SRO-3000.

Which is going to skim better?

-in short, for the $ it seems you are getting more skimmer by not going with a cone style, do they really preform that much better?

 

[Johnny C]

Cone style skimmers are definatly becoming the 'standard' design for protien skimmers. With that being said, the XP-2000 is one helluva great skimmer and would work excellent on the 90G displayed in your signature.

 

[arrowheadpuffer]

What I see is a smaller overall skimmer with a smaller pump. Some how because of the shape its that much better? To me it seems that cones are a fad right now, so the inflated price, I could imagine they skim better than a semi cone design, (like the SRO3000) but not $100+ better. I mean the SRO3000 is bigger and has a bigger pump for the same price, is the simple shape of the XP2000 so much better that is can be smaller pump size and body size that it skims better?

 

[nanojg]

cones use a smaller pump because there is less pressure, therefore, they are more efficient

 

[HighlandReef]

Not gonna be a major difference between the two because of the new hybrid designs on the sro's, I have the sro5000 on my system and simply put it rocks
you might get a little bit better performance out of the cone but I don't know that it will be noticable to the eye
I think either one wil be fine. I would be more worried about either skimmers being too big for a 90 gallon. If you don't have a heavy bioload or planning and upgrade that is

 

[rbnice1]

Someone did the math and posted it on here a while back. I dont have the liunk and dont remember the equations he used but the cone design produced 8-10% better efficiency do to less head pressure and less turbulence.

Rather then compare the xp2000 to the SRO3000 what tank is this for? What you really should be doing is matching the best skimmer in your price range with your tank. You oversize your skimmer and your just wasting money.

 

[stanlalee]

Rather then compare the xp2000 to the SRO3000 what tank is this for? .

I agree with this. better and capacity are two different things. the SRO3000 will handle a bigger tank and would be better for a bigger tank. The XP2000 will likely perform incrementally better [for its size] but I'm not convinced cones are a substitute for sheer power and size of a larger skimmer when that is needed just because its a cone (in other words I dont believe you can undersize the skimmer just because its a cone).
with that said the XP2000 is suppose to pull and handle something like 1400lph of air so if this is for the 90g (or even moderately larger) I see no reason to go bigger than the XP2000. I'd take the design over size since size isn't going to be beneficial.

 

[mytshall]

Bubble Magus NAC7

Bubble Magus NAC7

This has been a great cone skimmer. If you ask me my 2 cents I think the cones will have a better resale value as well.

 

[Crowed]

Cone skimmer pump, compared to same/similiar height cylindrical skimmer body will have better perfomance (if they use same pump, of course) because of lesser pressure on pump, and when skimmer go taller, difference will be bigger. Yes, thats true, but you also must know that cone put less pressure because they hold less water in body, so, that means shorter dwell time.. and that is not something for throwing away just like that. Also, till this day, no one of cone manufacturers has not made counter current flow skimmer, and that is pretty important thing too.. Some cone skimmer are great, no doubt, but im just trying to say that cone body itself dnt mean so much for perfomance, especially for shorter skimmers. They get their popularity mostly because ATB start to produce them and they use Laguna based needlewheel pump(s), (AirStar, Red Dragon, etc..) ie. best needlewheel pump on the world, at least for now. And pump is skimmer heart, so..
And, theoreticlly, if you take cone body with smaller pump vs. cylindrical body with little bigger pump, you will get same perfomance in air draw, with few watts more, but also with 40-50% more water volumen, ie. longer dwell time. And what all that means?, maybe nothing, and you will never see any visible difference no mattter what design you choose, but its fair to know all the advantages(and disadvantages) of each design.

 

[tkeracer619]

From personal experience a cone skimmer stacks bubbles better then a standard design. To the eye it seems like the next step in reducing turbulence after bubble plates.

 

[James77]

There is zero turbulence inside my ATB cone, the bubbles just very slowly rise. No skimmer I have had, including high end ones, have had that little turbulence. It is not a night and day difference performance wise over a standard skimmer, but it is a definite and noticeable improvement.

 

[arrowheadpuffer]

Rather then compare the xp2000 to the SRO3000 what tank is this for? What you really should be doing is matching the best skimmer in your price range with your tank. You oversize your skimmer and your just wasting money.

The tank is being re-established, I am doing a home remodel and need to tear the tank down and move everything.

When its reset up I plan on keeping mostly softies, few LPS, few montipora and other easy SPS, and a derasa clam. Fish stocking would be:

Fairy Wrasse
2 Black and White Clowns
Royal Gramma
Possibly a bristle tooth tang

Thats all I have planned for now, but I could see a few more small fish.

So would assume thats not a heavy bioload right?

I would like to keep the skimmer price under $300 but I could stretch to a absolute max $400 shipped to my door. Currently I am running a Coralife SuperSkimmer 220 in my sump. It skims out a ton of waste every day, but I would like to try and start vodka dosing and want to make sure I have a more than big enough skimmer to remove all the bacteria.

Thanks for all the help so far.

 

[rbnice1]

So a light to medium stocked 90 gallon. the sro3000 is really going to be overkill for you unless you upgrade your display or run pretty heavy stocking. I would stick with something along these lines.

Super Reef Octopus XP-2000
Gen II Vertex 180
SWC Xtreme 160 Cone (Again could go over board with SWC XTREME Cone Protein Skimmer Mini S, but I really dont think its needed.)
Eshopps S-150(this would be toward the bottom of my list.)

Im sure there are others out there.

 

[arrowheadpuffer]

How much difference will there be from my current Coralife SuperSkimer 220 with those ones?

 

[tkeracer619]

How much difference will there be from my current Coralife SuperSkimer 220 with those ones?

Night and day.

IMO for your tank a SWC Extreme 160 would be plenty and they have a great price point.

 

[rbnice1]

How much difference will there be from my current Coralife SuperSkimer 220 with those ones?

LOL! take the SS and break it in half and then throw it as far as you can. Its not really a skimmer. More of something that sucks your soul out.

 

[bayreefer415]

Im running a SWC Xtreme 160 Cone on my 24x24x20 50G SPS dominated tank but low nutrients is a must for my setup and this skimmer gets the job done and I like the look....by the way am I in trouble for talking about the SWC Xtreme 160 Cone that I purcased for $250
*Censored*

 

[Mounda]

Night and day.

IMO for your tank a SWC Extreme 160 would be plenty and they have a great price point.

I second this, the price is just right. The XP 2000 is overpriced imho and the SRO is too big unless you are upgrading some time soon. The MSX 200 and the Reef octopus extreme 200 are also good alternatives at around $280-290, their capacity is larger than the SWC 160.

 

[Crowed]

From personal experience a cone skimmer stacks bubbles better then a standard design. To the eye it seems like the next step in reducing turbulence after bubble plates.

Yes, when the body is smaller in diameter, what else can be happen after large quantity of bubbles enter from wider base under speed.. Cones are great reducers, no doubt, almost all (needleew)skimmers have them, just not have the whole size cone.. But,if we talk about skimmer body itself, i dnt know do its better for bubble to touch surface or not..

 

[Crowed]

There is zero turbulence inside my ATB cone, the bubbles just very slowly rise. No skimmer I have had, including high end ones, have had that little turbulence. It is not a night and day difference performance wise over a standard skimmer, but it is a definite and noticeable improvement.

You cannot see what happen inside of body farther from walls. In some skimmers(at least, in non-cones) bubble density is larger at the walls, especially in the models(like some recirculating design before few years) what spin water(and bubbles to rise) in circles, something like centrifulgal force..
And, when you say that bubbles rise slower, that is because surface slow down bubble speed, and for sure bubbles on walls travel slower than ones what are 'depper'.. But also, there is other factors, like pump air:water ration, well made bublle plate, etc..all that slow down water flow/turbulence..so bubbless rise nice and uniformly. After all, Atb is one of the greatest, because of them, cone gets their, wide spread, popularity.. I dnt even like so much cone skimmers compared to you guys, but imo, if we count all factors, Atb is best skimmers manufacturer today. And, if we compare customer service, (maybe even what kind of people they are, Anton vs Klaus), then perhaps they are like day and night; )