Is a cone skimmer realy better

Status
Not open for further replies.
jlaudiofreak

jlaudiofreak

New member
I am still trying to figure out what skimmer to buy, I keep seeing all these cone skimmers. Is there realy a big advantage to using a cone skimmer?
 
I have been looking at the ATB , ATI , the Alpha and even the Avast cone skimmer. Just trying to figure out if there realy is any pro's to running a cone over a regular skimmer . Or is this just the new thing and realy no big difference in performance
 
IMO I don't see how they are worth the extra money. The cone design is for tapering off the bubbles as they flow to the top. A lot of the new skimmers though have tapered off ends as they go into the collection cup anyway. I've been told that the bigger area and more contact time with the air/water mixing (bubbles) the better. Well traditional skimmers have more volume and more contact time, and with tapered ends, I don't see the need for the extra money for a cone. This is just my thoughts, no on paper results to back anything up. I'd love to hear other opinions/facts.
 
same thing I was thinking , I was just thinking its just the new fad and everyone is jumping on the band wagon yea know. I do think they look good . I also would like someone that has some kind of prof that they are better would chime in .
 
i just bought the eshopps s150 cone works really nice the biggest difference that i found is internal pump wich makes the footprint only 9 inches
 
Moving parts.

Moving parts.

Having used needle wheel designs for years and then returned to a beckett style later I can only add that my experience was the fewer parts the better and the taller the better. I understand the theory, and I hope if you decide to give a cone skimmer a try you'll keep us updated on your thoughts, but my personal gut feeling is this is one technology where the cost isn't yet proven to be worth it.
 
The best skimmer is not one size fits all. You need to state the tank size you have. The dimension of where it will go. How much you are willing to spend. What you want to keep. Then you can decide what skimmer is best: cone, traditional becket HOB I do have a cone skimmer and the traditional type (Euro Reef). The price has really come down on skimmers and they're lots of good choices.
 
Moondoggy
I understand about sizing the skimmer to the system . I am just trying to figure out if there is realy any pro's to a cone skimmer over a traditional. System wise its going to be on a 120g heavy stock with SPS and fish. 30 gallon fuge 40 gallon sump and a 30 gallon frag tank.
 
JpMagyer
I have had beckett skimmers, needle wheels skimmer in the past. The becketts always pulled alot of gunk out but have to clean the injectors all the time and the power hungry pumps made me try a needle . The needle wheel did very good job for me I just was not in the whole modding thing. I dont think you should spend several hundred dollars on a skimmer and then have to turn around a modd it to get it to perform . I do how ever understand on needle wheels there are big difference in pump and needle wheels.
 
The cone isn't a fad. It clearley helps with foam head production. Look into Octopus SRO XP line. There aren't any mods needed to those skimmers.
 
Buddy and I have home tanks and work tanks. At home we both have/had BK Mini 160s. At work we both had Tunzes. When my buddies BK Mini pump went out ($400 to replace) he ordered a SWC Cone 160 thinking when he gets the other repaired he would use the SWC as a back up. The SWC ($270) worked just as good as the BK ($850); the BK now repaired is on the shelf as backup (not that either is better; just came down to why swap back). We have both sold the Tunzes (his 9010; mine 9002) and I picked up a SWC 120 Cone. The SWCs are great skimmers. Can't speak to the science behind it all - just passing along real life experiences.
 
JAustin said:
The cone isn't a fad. It clearley helps with foam head production. Look into Octopus SRO XP line. There aren't any mods needed to those skimmers.
Click to expand...

Hey J,

I am in no way trying to argue and really, truly am curious, but my question is do you have any links to research that helps prove cones improve skimmate?

Thanks a bunch!

JP
 
The cone skimmers are definitely all the latest rage and with good reason. Personally, I like that less strain is put on the motor, less water is over the pump and your replacing that water volume with very light air bubbles which will remove more waste per gallon. I should state this second reason hasnt been verfied by anyone with a PhD after their name but I have a decent grasp of the concept. I think as air rushes in a more uniform direct route to the top more bio matter will attach to those bubbles in less time. Add in the bonus that these airbubbles have a more direct line to travel straight up the sides into a smaller area which increases the bubbles velocity which will get you less gunk accumulation in the neck and place it in the collection cup where it belongs. These body changes should do nothing but improve the outstanding efficiencies of todays skimming pumps.
 
This is just my personal feeling on this but I think the newer "hybrid" models are the best of both technologies. You have a large body/mixing area with an elongated cone shaped transition to the neck. The larger volume in the lower section makes for slower moving water and you can pack more bubbles in. That also allows more contact time and I would think less turbulence. Then the cone shaped transition gently lines up the bubbles and concentrates them as they flow up into the neck.

I'm sure lots of other factors come into play. Just thinking out loud.
 
A cone is absolutely better...for the manufacturer. They can charge more for it than a cylindrical design. Does it perform better...if it did then the ratings for a similar size cone would be higher than a cylindrical one, but that is not the case. A cone has up to 30% less volume, hence rated for a smaller tank. The manufacturers do have a conscience and that explains the smaller tank rating. The shape does have some interesting design concepts for concentrating foam, but the reality to date shows no increase in efficiency or value to a cone design. Many of us are equipment junkies and the "latest and greatest" has appeal and we buy them based on marketing claims. The link that KSED showed should be a reminder that marketing does not equate to reality. Matching a volume of air and water to a given volume of body is what skimming is all about, bubble size helps efficiency. A cone will allow foam to rise, so will a cylinder and so will a square box. I find it interesting that the airstone powered skimmer performed as well as the downdraft, venturi and needle wheel skimmers. The high dollar "hyped" skimmers did not perform significantly better.

In short, the cone does not live up to the hype. Of course they work, but they are not better, they just cost more and are rated for a smaller tank.
 
I recently got a SWC 160 for my 75g and really like it. I prefer the quieter internal pump to my old Urchin/Mag 3 combo and it has a larger collection cup. The "neck" on my Urchin was small and needed to be cleaned very regularly. Also, the flow was loud because it trickled out the side. Lastly, I could not adjust the height or air flow like I can with the 160. Ultimately, it's not any "better" because it does the same thing. It's just a bit fit for me, so I'm pleased.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

B
Chemiclean & protein skimmer
Replies
9
Views
194
bcwalz
B
P
Replacing pump in Bubble King Mini 160 (AC) with a RD X (DC)
Replies
4
Views
90
Misled
Misled
griss
Skimmer Help
2
Replies
20
Views
979
asmodeus
asmodeus
D
Skimmer just stoped producing foam
2
Replies
22
Views
543
davidwillis
D
spotfin
Looking for suggestions on a skimmer and lighting
Replies
9
Views
230
spotfin
spotfin
Back
Top