my diy needle wheel dart pump

[Beenalongtime79]

Jonathan,

Are you saying you have just 11 chromis sitting in 1100 gallons of saltwater and no live rock and no live sand either I bet. Hehe. Sometimes, people forget that live rock and live sand can add a significant bioload to any tank.

Anyways, either way you explain it and I've certainly heard that argument before, but of course I still don't believe it. I still think the angle doesn't make a difference and you might as well just raise your water level or cut your tube down. The angle serves only as a lower lip in which your foam will spill over and any additional height given by that angle will serve nothing but to redirect the foam toward the lower lip. There's a reason none of the "premier" skimmer makers use that design.... IMO it serves no purpose. If you want to do it, great, just don't expect massive returns. Hehe

Peace,
John

 

[hahnmeister]

You are correct Rufio...Fish and the critters that we select are usually a small portion of the bioload of any reef tank, usually the rock, corals, bacteria, etc are the major component (I say usual because there are those with a hundred fish in a 200g tank, this is a different situation).

I dont see any agvantage of the angled overflow on the neck either, but would be open to further talk on it. IMO, the collection cup lid should be designed in such a way to direct the foam over the lip and downward by simply using a piece of pipe about 10-20% larger than the neck's peak, facing downward over the neck so that air forces the foam downward on its own.

 

[LA-Lawman]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7213917#post7213917 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by jnarowe
say what? you mean put markings on the cup and calculate rise vs. time?

that. or measure the volume of output.

 

[otolith]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7209169#post7209169 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by spazz
thanks john. if you like this you will have to see my new reactor im building. it dont run on co2. thats all im going to say on the subject. you will have to wait until i get it running to see how it works. it might be the reactor of the future. you never know.

ha ha ha i love to torment people. especialy when they say really nice things about me.

I believe I know what it's going to run on. Don't worry Spazz, your secret is safe with me. Unless I get a chocolate bar in the mail from someone. :lol:

 

[jnarowe]

Chocolate? Did someone say "chocolate"? I have chocolate...in fact I eat more chocolate than protein. I'll send you some chocolate. In fact, if you make me a NW for my Sequence 4200 I'll send you enough chocolate to kill yourself with.

 

[jnarowe]

I dont see any agvantage of the angled overflow on the neck either, but would be open to further talk on it. IMO, the collection cup lid should be designed in such a way to direct the foam over the lip and downward by simply using a piece of pipe about 10-20% larger than the neck's peak, facing downward over the neck so that air forces the foam downward on its own.

That is a very common design used by a lot of manufacturers and IMO it stinks. Forcing the foam downward is in direct competition with the desire to get the foam out. I don't believe even allowing the foam to hit the top of the cup is in the best interests of getting the foam to leave the water column. Just because everyone is doing it doesn't make it a good design. (not that you and others posting here do believe that) When the foam comes into contact with that horizontal surface it begins to compress, and as it compresses it gains weight and collapses. You get some foam out but not nearly as much as you could be.

I really don't want to lecture about it. I have a 1,100g system with crystal clear water using a skimmer that burns 120W and dishes out copious foam and jet black skimmate. Don't believe it then come and see it. And BTW, it's SQUARE! Enough said.

I still strongly believe that with a spazz style NW it would be significantly more efficient.

 

[Roland Jacques]

deleted

 

[weatherson]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7215310#post7215310 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by rufio173
I personally think cutting the riser tube at an angle gives you no advantage. It's not advantageous or disadvantageous.... I think it's pretty much the same as saying, cut your tube down a few more inches so that the riser tube is shorter.

It doesn't hurt, but doesn't really add any additional efficiency and with that angled cut design, it makes it harder to design a wet neck for it. IMO folks.

Peace,
John

John, I think you are missing the purpose of the slanted top cut tube. It's not to make anything more efficient other than in the manner of having less foam head at any given moment. What it does do is "bend" the top head of foam over to fall and tear off from the rest still in the tube. This, rather than sitting atop the head of foam longer until it is heavy enough and falls to one side. Essentially, it keeps the foam moving instead of sitting longer until it falls over. As to the wet-neck, the slant cut was never intended to be incorporated together with a wet neck. I would guess that few actually build in wet necks for its sheer complication. The slant cut top is simply just another design idea. If you look at the following mini-movie, you can just start to see it in action at the very end of the movie.

Short skimmer movie link.

Joseph

 

[jnarowe]

Joseph, thanks for the post. Unfortunately that movie doesn't do the idea justice and most people don't have the inclination to test different designs to understand why something like that works. I know mine rocks and I thank you for that!

Got my fish in. One Kole with some blotches on it but try as I might I cannot capture it. Hopefully it is just discoloration.

 

[spazz]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7216981#post7216981 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by jnarowe
That is a very common design used by a lot of manufacturers and IMO it stinks. Forcing the foam downward is in direct competition with the desire to get the foam out. I don't believe even allowing the foam to hit the top of the cup is in the best interests of getting the foam to leave the water column. Just because everyone is doing it doesn't make it a good design. (not that you and others posting here do believe that) When the foam comes into contact with that horizontal surface it begins to compress, and as it compresses it gains weight and collapses. You get some foam out but not nearly as much as you could be.

so your saying that all the manufactures out there are inefficient designs and they should convert to square skimmers and angle cut risers . right?????

some of these skimmer companies have been around for 20 years. they do tons of research and development. deltec is one of the most efficient designs on the market. by what your saying there crap (factory skimmers) and you skimmer would out perform a deltec of comparable size and volume.

if this is the case i sould quit doing all this research and get a life other than being here for 15 hrs a day 7 days a week doing research and development. trying to improve the equiptment this hobby uses.

 

[jnarowe]

Go easy Scott. I have no idea what a Deltec of the same size would do because I cannot afford one. Based on the limited photos I have seen of them in action, they don't even come close to what you and Bill are working on.

I am not at your level of expertise by any stretch of the imagination and I just threw in the "square" comment to harrass you. I really don't mean any offense by it. I have no doubt that a round skimmer of the same volume as mine would be a more efficient skimmer just based on the fact that there would be far less burst bubbles colliding with the angled body. I don't have the round tube because I didn't want to spend the cash on it. Those things are wicked expensive and my whole goal was to make an affordable skimmer for a large system.

I do believe the angle cut riser is an easy way to get more foam to fall off the riser and that if Bill utilized that shape with such a large head of foam that he would experience better skimmate production. And like any other business, product built for sale is comprised of many compromises based on cost of materials, target market etc. and there will never be commercially produced skimmers that will equal the designs developed by people such as yourself, Joseph, Bill, etc.

I am just happy mine is working so well and want to encourage more DIY projects that encompass saving electrical energy while improving skimming performance.

 

[Beenalongtime79]

I have a 1,100g system with crystal clear water using a skimmer that burns 120W and dishes out copious foam and jet black skimmate.

Of course your water is crystal clear, it's only got 11 chromis in it... Hehe :rollface:

Allright, I have obviously stepped on your toes on the subject, so I'm just going to let it be except one other note, using your reasoning, it would actually be better to just have a long riser tube in the cup and then just drill some big holes a couple inches below the riser tube top along just one face of the skimmer and just let skimmate spill out from the holes while still allowing foam formation up top. Or better yet, why not just route a big vertical notch out of the riser tube and let the foam spill out of the notch while foam supposedly still forms around the notch?

Anyways, I'm pretty much done with this argument, it's something that can't be won on either side since there really is no proof, I'm just saying that some of the best skimmer manufacturers out there have failed to do this.... something as simple as angling a riser tube... I wonder if any of them have ever taken the 5 minutes it would take to do this and then test it to see which performs better.... hmmm

Oh yeah, I'm glad your tank is looking good, that's the only thing that really matters. Now, start putting more fish in that sucker! Unless you want your Chromis to grow up to a foot long!!!

Peace,
John

 

[jnarowe]

You mean like this?

 

[trodder]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7217459#post7217459 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by jnarowe
You mean like this?

does anyone know if somebody has actually bought one of those???? This things look like a wast of $$$$$$ how efficient can you skim when the foam has to sqeeze through the little tube hole????

 

[jnarowe]

Here's a shot that may better explain the cut off riser:

And here's one of my new arrivals...

Aren't they cute!

 

[Beenalongtime79]

Jonathan,

I actually thought you were going to show a picture of the new/old reefconcepts aerofoamer skimmers...

Thanks for the pic though, it's neat, but actually doesn't support your reasoning at all. Hehe. For instance, the exit tubing for the foam is at the top of the angled riser tube, which is actually the opposite of what you are touting as the next best thing since sliced bread. Given your reasoning, Tunze has actually made a huge mistake, because not only is the foam collapsing, but it's actually collapsing way before it can even reach the exit hole, which probably makes it pretty INEFFICIENT.

Oh by the way, I wouldn't put Tunze skimmers in the same category as Deltec, H&S, or a bubble king.

It is a pretty cool looking skimmer though, I like the double barrel shotgun approach, but of course the Bill Wann Special beats it in terms of sheer size. Haha

Nice tank pic Jonathan. Oh, when will I be able to keep a school of tangs. Hehe. So now it suddenly looks like you have 11 Chromis, and 5 tangs, and what looks like some live rock back there.

Peace,
John

 

[trodder]

wouldn't the tops on that compress the bubbles as you describe???

 

[trodder]

sorry rufio... I was too late. You beat me to the punch

 

[jnarowe]

New shot of the ric rock...notice that there is some sort of boring sponge (I guess) creating large holes & channels in this rock.

Has anyone dealt with this before??

 

[Beenalongtime79]

Hey Jonathan,

How much rock do you have in there, and where'd you get it? Looks like it's got a good amount of life on it.

Bill, more pics!!! I want one with you in it getting pushed into the collection cup! Haha

Peace,
John