Downsixing skimmer

[NorwayEagle]

Hello
I bought 3 years ago an Eco Dreambox with a Deluxe 200 internal skimmer directly from RE in Germany.
Since I experience that the skimmer may be, as they warned me, a bit to big for my tank of app 720-750 litres with low to medium bioload, I do think about downsizing skimmer.

Therefore I look at the Mini BK 200 with RD3 Speedy pump, either the normal or if possible the Slim version, as a suitable size.

I see 2 possible benefits; a more stable skimmer that work optimal on my bioload, and to get som more space in the Dreambox as the pump on Mini BK's are within the skimmerbody, not outside.

I use a AquaDriver® SkimClean 200 HELIX unit on todays Deluxe 200, and I will prefer to select a version that fits this, that means the Mini BK version that has a 200 mm skimmercup, I do not get it from the usermanual the exact diameter difference of the two versions.

From the pictures of Mini BK's I see a drain hole with a plug on the skimmer cup, can this be equipped with a coupling and drain tube as on the Deluxe skimmer?

I hope Slief or others can give me some inputs.

 

[NorwayEagle]

Deleted

 

[slief]

You'd likely get a bit better consistency from the Mini which the Helix would fit on. You could also try to run the Deluxe a bit more wet by raising the level up inside the Deluxe and see if that improves the consistency. How many fish do you have in your system?

 

[NorwayEagle]

I have adjusted the level height up and down in periods, but I do not get the stable production consistency as I hope for. It works great for some days, and then the production decreases. Thats why I believe the Deluxe 200 may be somewhat to large.

If I understand you correct the Helix will fit on the standard BK Mini 200, but not on the slim version?

How about the drain, is it possible to retrofit with a coupling and tube to the hole?
This I see as necessary to take full advantage of the HELIX.

The no's of fishes are limited now, but mye goal is to increase when I find the system stable enough

 

[slief]

I have adjusted the level height up and down in periods, but I do not get the stable production consistency as I hope for. It works great for some days, and then the production decreases. Thats why I believe the Deluxe 200 may be somewhat to large.

If I understand you correct the Helix will fit on the standard BK Mini 200, but not on the slim version?

How about the drain, is it possible to retrofit with a coupling and tube to the hole?
This I see as necessary to take full advantage of the HELIX.

The no’s of fishes are limited now, but mye goal is to increase when I find the system stable enough

The helix will fit on any of the 200’s including the slim. I still think if you adjust the line where bubbles turn to foam up high enough, you would see an improvement. Try getting the line where bubbles turn to foam up about 1/2”- 1” above the bottom of the collection cup. As for adding a drain to the drain hole, some have threaded the hole and screwed in a John guest fitting or glued in a PVC stub and stuck some silicone tubing on the end of the stub.

You can also take a look at what this member did for his drain. Scroll down the page. He’s got pictures and an explanation in a subsequent thread. His was a mini 180 but the drain size is the same. As a side note, the cup lifts right off on the mini. It’s not threaded in so draining the cup is pretty simple if you want to just life it off and spill it out into something.
http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2617915

 

[NorwayEagle]

If I can manage to get better efficiency out of existing, I prefer that instead of buying a new.

I'll keep you posted about the results

 

[slief]

If I can manage to get better efficiency out of existing, I prefer that instead of buying a new.

I’ll keep you posted about the results��

You could always add more fish! :thumbsup:

 

[NorwayEagle]

An update.

On Friday I dismounted and cleaned the complete skimmer and pump, it is only 2-3 months since last time.

Installed it again as follows:

Waterlevel in sump; 24 cm.
Installed with original lid, not the Helix.
Raised the wedge pipe to maximum, the tubing is stretched to its limit...
Turned the wedgepipe about 2 cm clockwise, which I believeis about 25-50 % closing?
Started with 28-30 watts, and the waterlevel was about the level of threads/bottom of skummercup, skim stopped (after hours) 3 cm below neck top.

Since the skim production never reached the top, I have gradually increased watts to 40.
During the weekend I have gained about 1,5 cm of medium to light coloured skimmate.

This morning I continued to increase by setting 42 until this afternoon.

My fish collection is as mentioned small, consists of.

1 Lo vulpinus medium/large
1 pair medium sized clowns
4 small bangais
1 pair V. strigata sandsifting gobies
2 S. cristata molly miller blennies
4 N. magnifica firefish
1 M. ornatus wrasse

To get fish:

1 more M. ornatus wrasse
4 ea A. japonicus Powder Browns small/medium
1 pair small blue throat triggers
3-4 dwarf angels, G. bellus
8-10 Anthias small to medium size
+Probably some other temptations...

I definitely think/experience the skimmer is way to big now, but can it still be to big with above mentioned bioload?

I can if helpful increase the sump waterlevel a cm or two, is that worthwhile doing?
Or close the wedge pipe more?

If I think correct, the goal must be to gain a more stable skimproduction if I can use a lower wattage?

Even though the bioload is low I have nuisance algaes in the tank, the main reason I want more effect out of skimmer.

 

[slief]

An update.

On Friday I dismounted and cleaned the complete skimmer and pump, it is only 2-3 months since last time.

Installed it again as follows:

Waterlevel in sump; 24 cm.
Installed with original lid, not the Helix.
Raised the wedge pipe to maximum, the tubing is stretched to its limit...
Turned the wedgepipe about 2 cm clockwise, which I believeis about 25-50 % closing?
Started with 28-30 watts, and the waterlevel was about the level of threads/bottom of skummercup, skim stopped (after hours) 3 cm below neck top.

Since the skim production never reached the top, I have gradually increased watts to 40.
During the weekend I have gained about 1,5 cm of medium to light coloured skimmate.

This morning I continued to increase by setting 42 until this afternoon.

My fish collection is as mentioned small, consists of.

1 Lo vulpinus medium/large
1 pair medium sized clowns
4 small bangais
1 pair V. strigata sandsifting gobies
2 S. cristata molly miller blennies
4 N. magnifica firefish
1 M. ornatus wrasse

To get fish:

1 more M. ornatus wrasse
4 ea A. japonicus Powder Browns small/medium
1 pair small blue throat triggers
3-4 dwarf angels, G. bellus
8-10 Anthias small to medium size
+Probably some other temptations...

I definitely think/experience the skimmer is way to big now, but can it still be to big with above mentioned bioload?

I can if helpful increase the sump waterlevel a cm or two, is that worthwhile doing?
Or close the wedge pipe more?

If I think correct, the goal must be to gain a more stable skimproduction if I can use a lower wattage?

Even though the bioload is low I have nuisance algaes in the tank, the main reason I want more effect out of skimmer.

Raising the sump level will increase the level inside the skimmer allowing you to reduce the power for increased contact time. You can also use the telescope tube to raise the level inside the skimmer to get it up to the bottom of the neck then use the wedge pipe to fine tune/raise the level some more. 42w is too high in my experience for that skimmer. That is the max suggested speed for 250 sized skimmers. You will need to use the wedge pipe to raise and telescope tube raise the level inside the skimmer above the bottom of the collection cup. Maybe up 1/2 inch above the bottom of the cup. And yes, your fish load is still low for that skimmer but raising the level inside the skimmer will help. Be sure to use the telescope tube.

 

[NorwayEagle]

New update

Sorry! I discovered I used the term wedge pipe both on telescope and the 360 degree pipe. I meant the telescope pipe was raised to maximum in my last post.

Anyhow I have now raised the sump waterlevel about 2 cm which is the absolute maximum to avoid overflowing at powerbreaks, kept the telescope on top and closed the wedge pipe a bit more to app. 50 % by turning it so it is about 90 degrees between the black dots.

Just few minutes after start with 30 w on pump capacity it looked like the first picture.
This morning I found about 0,5 to 1 cm skimmate.

By the way, the second picture shows the skimmate collected between Friday evening and Monday afternoon, the result of using higher pump wattage.

 

[slief]

New update

Sorry! I discovered I used the term wedge pipe both on telescope and the 360 degree pipe. I meant the telescope pipe was raised to maximum in my last post.

Anyhow I have now raised the sump waterlevel about 2 cm which is the absolute maximum to avoid overflowing at powerbreaks, kept the telescope on top and closed the wedge pipe a bit more to app. 50 % by turning it so it is about 90 degrees between the black dots.

Just few minutes after start with 30 w on pump capacity it looked like the first picture.
This morning I found about 0,5 to 1 cm skimmate.

By the way, the second picture shows the skimmate collected between Friday evening and Monday afternoon, the result of using higher pump wattage.

Looks MUCH better! It may slow down a bit as it will only remove the dissolved organics that are available but I think you have it tuned better.

 

[slief]

New update

Sorry! I discovered I used the term wedge pipe both on telescope and the 360 degree pipe. I meant the telescope pipe was raised to maximum in my last post.

Anyhow I have now raised the sump waterlevel about 2 cm which is the absolute maximum to avoid overflowing at powerbreaks, kept the telescope on top and closed the wedge pipe a bit more to app. 50 % by turning it so it is about 90 degrees between the black dots.

Just few minutes after start with 30 w on pump capacity it looked like the first picture.
This morning I found about 0,5 to 1 cm skimmate.

By the way, the second picture shows the skimmate collected between Friday evening and Monday afternoon, the result of using higher pump wattage.

The higher wattage would have accomplished a similar result to what you have now with the increased sump level and wedge pipe adjustment. The advantage now is easier tuning and better contact time with the reduced flow going into the skimmer.

 

[NorwayEagle]

Thank you for all your inputs Slief.

I see I am closer to the maximum possibilities with this skimmer. I think and hope it will produce better now, at least when I finally and slowly increase bioload.

 

[NorwayEagle]

A little update about how it looks today.

As mentioned the telescope tube is as high as possible, the airtube to the pump is really stretched...
The wedge tube position is still 90 degrees, and the sump waterlevel is about 29 cm, which is the maximum I can use to avoid overflows in my Dreambox if power outlets.

The pump is now adjusted to 36 W and I get maximum 0,5 cm of quiet dark gunk pr 24 hours. If lower wattage there are no skim reaching the cup.

Fishload is still the same, meaning low.

May it be a good choice to exchange the airtube with a bit longer to raise the telescope tube further?
And as a result reduce the wattage a bit?

 

[slief]

Your best bet is to raise the sump water level as opposed to increasing the length of the tubing which will create additional draw pressure on the air intake side. if you have the telescope tube extended all the way, then you really should increase your water level inside the sump.

 

[NorwayEagle]

As mentioned that is not an option because the sump will overflow at eventual power stops.

 

[slief]

As mentioned that is not an option because the sump will overflow at eventual power stops.

Then the only other option is closing the wedge more, raising the pump speed which you have already done or adding a bunch more fish. The pictures you posted on June 6th looked pretty good. Keep in mind the skimmer will only remove the dissolved organics that are present so with a light fish load, you can’t expect too much skimmate anyways. As such, you could be chasing your tail so to speak.

 

[NorwayEagle]

I think I have to stick to the physical adjustments I have now and only increase/decrease the wattage as little as possible/necessary until after the summer, when I am ready to buy more lifestock.:thumbsup:

In the meantime, back to my initial thougt of downsizing to a Mini BK 200 with RD 3 pump. I still consider this possible option to get some more flexibiliy, and maybe some better space in the sump for other equipment

After studying manuals, pictures etc it seems to me that the only differerence between the standard and the slim line is the orientation of pump compared with the telescope tube?
Meaning that both units are identical in Dimensions?

 

[slief]

After studying manuals, pictures etc it seems to me that the only differerence between the standard and the slim line is the orientation of pump compared with the telescope tube?
Meaning that both units are identical in Dimensions?

That is correct. The only difference is the location of the pumps intake.

That said, I don't think you will see a big difference in skimmate production if any going from the Deluxe 200 to the Mini 200. The Deluxe is a actually a bit more flexible in terms of load due to the fact that it also has the telescope tube which allows additional adjustments.