BeanAnimal
Premium Member
Are you sure that the eheim will outperform the OR3700? that is a lot of cash to spend for a step sideways.
New Skimmer – Price is no Object!
- Thread starter pjf
- Start date
hahnmeister
In Memoriam
It will outperform the OR3700 for sure, but like I said... so would a Quiet One 3000. Considering its only $40-50 at most places, its another good option... takes about 5-10 minutes to turn into a threadwheel... just like the Sicce PSK's.
hahnmeister
In Memoriam
1000lph in a 6" OD body is about the limit though... An eheim can easily go over 1000lph as a needlewheel when force fed.... over 2000lph as a threadwheel.
BeanAnimal
Premium Member
mavgi, see the photos of my skimmer several pages back in this thread.
I force feed the skimmer with an alita pump. The OR3700 chokes at around 25 SCFH. I know the skimmer will handle a lot more, but I don't want to pump more water to get more air.
I force feed the skimmer with an alita pump. The OR3700 chokes at around 25 SCFH. I know the skimmer will handle a lot more, but I don't want to pump more water to get more air.
i test laguna max flo 1300 the pump pull 16LPM (34 SCHF)easy on 30" high skimmer with 8" diamter . the pump use 45 watt . the pump creat very nice foam and easy to mod . the mesh i use on this pump it's different from the PF4 . i am waiting for PF4 and i want to compare the result . the problem is that the cover limit the mod of the mesh on the pump and i can't put wider mesh (to make this pump work better need to build cover like the RD pump i believe the pump will pull after that 20LPM and more ) but the skimming result and the foam that this pump make are great. if you want after i get the PF4 mesh i can send you this pump to test it and see if you like the result.
BeanAnimal
Premium Member
I am not familiar with the pump. I will look into it. Thank you for the offer, but I would not want to be responsible for borrowing your pump.
Noise is also a consideration and one of the reasons I am considering the eheim.
Noise is also a consideration and one of the reasons I am considering the eheim.
pjf
Premium Member
Pump Acting as Airstone
Pump Acting as Airstone
I am trying to build a bubble diffusion chamber for a recirculating skimmer and need help with designing the water flow. I am considering two alternative designs.
The blue lines in the drawing below show what I think is the traditional water flow:
In this traditional design, the recirculating pump inlet draws water from the main skimmer chamber. I believe that this creates turbulence in the main skimmer chamber.
The blue arc in the drawing below shows a flow design that I am considering. The pump is intended to replace the airstone. The pump will inject a high air-water ratio mix into the diffusion chamber and remove a lower air-water ratio. The design is intended to deliver fine air bubbles to the diffusion chamber but keep recirculating water flow and turbulence within the inner chamber. Has anyone experimented with this type of flow design? What are the problems with it?
Thanks for your comments!
Pump Acting as Airstone
I am trying to build a bubble diffusion chamber for a recirculating skimmer and need help with designing the water flow. I am considering two alternative designs.
The blue lines in the drawing below show what I think is the traditional water flow:
In this traditional design, the recirculating pump inlet draws water from the main skimmer chamber. I believe that this creates turbulence in the main skimmer chamber.
The blue arc in the drawing below shows a flow design that I am considering. The pump is intended to replace the airstone. The pump will inject a high air-water ratio mix into the diffusion chamber and remove a lower air-water ratio. The design is intended to deliver fine air bubbles to the diffusion chamber but keep recirculating water flow and turbulence within the inner chamber. Has anyone experimented with this type of flow design? What are the problems with it?
Thanks for your comments!
BeanAnimal
Premium Member
You do not want the pump to recirculate air, every liter of air that is recirculated is a liter of air that is not climbing the skimmer. It is a loss in efficiency 
It may or may not produce finer bubbles. That will depend on a lot of factors.
It may or may not produce finer bubbles. That will depend on a lot of factors.
hahnmeister
In Memoriam
pjf, thats the whole idea behind the bleeder valve on the bubble plate (posted it about a year ago now... Spazz uses it on his Volcanos)... What you want though is BOTH inlets you have shown, and then two valves (one for the intake from the bubble plate, and one for the intake from the skimmer). OR you dont need valves if you get the restrictions just right. Pulling all from the bubble plate wont work well though... it will drop the pressure under the plate too much... you really want to drop the pressure to that 'sweet spot' where the bubbles are allowed to exit the top through the plate with just a bit of pressure... yet enough to keep larger bubbles from forming.
As for the threadwheel Lagunas.... too big for Bean's pump, and no threads on the inlet/outlet. The only models to mod are the 1500 and 2400. The smaller ones have a much smaller volute, as mavgi pointed out. The 1500 though is in the 60scfh+ crowd, and the 2400 is in the 90-120scfh crowd... much too large. Bean only needs something that can do 1000lph at most for a 6" diameter skimmer.
As for the threadwheel Lagunas.... too big for Bean's pump, and no threads on the inlet/outlet. The only models to mod are the 1500 and 2400. The smaller ones have a much smaller volute, as mavgi pointed out. The 1500 though is in the 60scfh+ crowd, and the 2400 is in the 90-120scfh crowd... much too large. Bean only needs something that can do 1000lph at most for a 6" diameter skimmer.
BeanAnimal
Premium Member
Can we talk in SCF... I don't (and never will) think in liters, meters, and other thing metric. 
Funny that I think I may have been the one to propose the bleeder port for the diffuser chamber and have never even tried one. Then again, maybe some ancient skimmer philosopher came up with it and I am just a putz with a bad memory and a big head.
I would be willing to bet that it decreases the turbulence in my skimmer... but alas I will never get around to doing it. If I ever built another skimmer, there are a lot of things I would do differenntly. That is not going to likely ever happen...
Funny that I think I may have been the one to propose the bleeder port for the diffuser chamber and have never even tried one. Then again, maybe some ancient skimmer philosopher came up with it and I am just a putz with a bad memory and a big head.
I would be willing to bet that it decreases the turbulence in my skimmer... but alas I will never get around to doing it. If I ever built another skimmer, there are a lot of things I would do differenntly. That is not going to likely ever happen...
pjf
Premium Member
Okay. I’ve searched for your “bleed hole†posts in the Lighting/Filtration forum and think that I may have found some of them. Thanks very much!
http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=10262902&highlight=bleed#post10262902
http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=8123495&highlight=bleed#post8123495
Tuning the bleeder will be difficult. I can now see why you adopted your “bleeder-less†design.
On the subject of using a wetneck as a primary water feed:
• Can Spazz’s wetnecks be disassembled for cleaning?
• Is a 75-gph wetneck flow rate realistic for a 4†to 6†neck diameter?
• If I gravity-feed, will a garden hose rubber mesh ring in a union keep the wetneck from clogging?
http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=10262902&highlight=bleed#post10262902
http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=8123495&highlight=bleed#post8123495
Tuning the bleeder will be difficult. I can now see why you adopted your “bleeder-less†design.
On the subject of using a wetneck as a primary water feed:
• Can Spazz’s wetnecks be disassembled for cleaning?
• Is a 75-gph wetneck flow rate realistic for a 4†to 6†neck diameter?
• If I gravity-feed, will a garden hose rubber mesh ring in a union keep the wetneck from clogging?
here it's a picture of the skimmer runing now with laguna 2400
i keep the pump at 85 SCHF with 88 watt i can pull more air but the skimmer small for that . the pump creat very nice foam but i need to empty 2 time a day the cup . on the 1300 i am going to work on the volute when i have a time but the pump pull without problem 34 SCHF with 45 watt and creat nice foam to.
there is no threads on the inlet/outlet as hahnmeister said but there is a way to mod them . more then that there is a way to pull the same air and to reduce the water volume when you play with the inlet size but at this way the watt in the pump increase to.
i keep the pump at 85 SCHF with 88 watt i can pull more air but the skimmer small for that . the pump creat very nice foam but i need to empty 2 time a day the cup . on the 1300 i am going to work on the volute when i have a time but the pump pull without problem 34 SCHF with 45 watt and creat nice foam to.
there is no threads on the inlet/outlet as hahnmeister said but there is a way to mod them . more then that there is a way to pull the same air and to reduce the water volume when you play with the inlet size but at this way the watt in the pump increase to.
hahnmeister
In Memoriam
Yeah, I was thinking that some custom machined PVC 'quick connects' on the outlet would be an easy way to convert these pumps to threaded inlet/outlet... either that or cut the buggers and bond some PVC on.
Those Lagunas do rock though. Quiet, variable torque/speed (built in control electronics that self-adjust the pump for the best efficiency/performance). Cool running as well. Its a hard pump to beat... if they were threaded, Im sure they would be the most popular pump in the industry for CL flow applications and skimmers.
My 2400 peaks out at about 120scfh at just over 80 watts (83-85 if I remember)... with nice low waterflow.
Those Lagunas do rock though. Quiet, variable torque/speed (built in control electronics that self-adjust the pump for the best efficiency/performance). Cool running as well. Its a hard pump to beat... if they were threaded, Im sure they would be the most popular pump in the industry for CL flow applications and skimmers.
My 2400 peaks out at about 120scfh at just over 80 watts (83-85 if I remember)... with nice low waterflow.
Serioussnaps
New member
I have been reading this thread and been thinking this the whole time....what happened to C dosing?
pjf
Premium Member
CDOM
CDOM
Gelbstoff, Gilvin or chromophoric dissolved organic matter (CDOM) is not degraded by bacteria. Here is a definition of Gelbstoff (http://oceanography.expert-answers.net/glossary-word/en/Gelbstoff.html):
"Dissolved material in sea water that is resistant to bacterial attack. Its name comes from the yellow color it imparts to the water. Brown algae, the principal algae group growing in coastal waters of temperature and higher latitudes, excrete phenolic compounds. These polyphenols are converted into a brown polymer by secondary reactions with carbohydrates and proteins of algal origin. The properties of the resulting substance are identical with Gelbstoff. Its concentration in sea water is around 1 mg/l and it is removed mainly by precipitation since its phenolic nature renders it resistant to bacterial attack. This is also known as yellow substance or gilvin. See Riley and Chester (1971)."
Apparently, macroalgae filters may be a source of CDOM. If CDOM is the result of bacterial degradation of a DOC that can be skimmed, I'd like to see a link or a reference to the source of that information. Traditionally, carbon or ozone filtration are used to remove CDOM.
My personal views are:
(1) If skimmer performance is to advance, it should advance in the direction of skimming more soluble DOCs, such as CDOM. To date, skimmer advances have been in the areas of energy efficiency, speed of surface skimming, noise reduction, and size reduction.
(2) If a skimmer can remove CDOM, then it will remove surface proteins even better. In more scientific language, if a skimmer can skim a DOC of solubility K, then it will be able to more readily skim all DOCs of solubility k < K.
(3) You will not find two skimmers, A & B, such that A will skim X better than Y and B will skim Y better than X. Both A & B will skim the less soluble DOC more readily.
(4) I have not found any information that says CDOM cannot be removed by foam fractionation. If someone can find such information, please post the link or reference to the source. If foam fractionation cannot reach the CDOM, then we can refocus our energies to other filtration technologies, such as carbon, ozone or sugar dosing.
CDOM
Gelbstoff, Gilvin or chromophoric dissolved organic matter (CDOM) is not degraded by bacteria. Here is a definition of Gelbstoff (http://oceanography.expert-answers.net/glossary-word/en/Gelbstoff.html):
"Dissolved material in sea water that is resistant to bacterial attack. Its name comes from the yellow color it imparts to the water. Brown algae, the principal algae group growing in coastal waters of temperature and higher latitudes, excrete phenolic compounds. These polyphenols are converted into a brown polymer by secondary reactions with carbohydrates and proteins of algal origin. The properties of the resulting substance are identical with Gelbstoff. Its concentration in sea water is around 1 mg/l and it is removed mainly by precipitation since its phenolic nature renders it resistant to bacterial attack. This is also known as yellow substance or gilvin. See Riley and Chester (1971)."
Apparently, macroalgae filters may be a source of CDOM. If CDOM is the result of bacterial degradation of a DOC that can be skimmed, I'd like to see a link or a reference to the source of that information. Traditionally, carbon or ozone filtration are used to remove CDOM.
My personal views are:
(1) If skimmer performance is to advance, it should advance in the direction of skimming more soluble DOCs, such as CDOM. To date, skimmer advances have been in the areas of energy efficiency, speed of surface skimming, noise reduction, and size reduction.
(2) If a skimmer can remove CDOM, then it will remove surface proteins even better. In more scientific language, if a skimmer can skim a DOC of solubility K, then it will be able to more readily skim all DOCs of solubility k < K.
(3) You will not find two skimmers, A & B, such that A will skim X better than Y and B will skim Y better than X. Both A & B will skim the less soluble DOC more readily.
(4) I have not found any information that says CDOM cannot be removed by foam fractionation. If someone can find such information, please post the link or reference to the source. If foam fractionation cannot reach the CDOM, then we can refocus our energies to other filtration technologies, such as carbon, ozone or sugar dosing.
Last edited:
hahnmeister
In Memoriam
Well, any time you put a pump this big on a body of water... its going to cause problems... it is, after all, the equal of almost 4 eheim pumps on its own. There needs to be some sort of turbulence diffusing system. At that... its water throughput is actually rather low in ratio to the air throughput. Consider this... the Dart is a 3600lph needlewheel at best and it is a 3600gph pump normally. The Laguna 2400 is a 2400gph pump capable of 3400lph of air intake. Thats 33% less water throughput with 95% of the air, so at the very least, it is getting a better air/water ratio than the ReefFlo. The comparative wattages would support that... 85 watts vs. 120-140 on the ReefFlo... as well as the heat output. The Lagunas are very quiet and cool pumps, with electronics built in to balance speed and torque with a good power factor on the pumps, making them very efficient and cool. All things considered, the 2400 is prolly one of the best skimmer pumps possible.
I was planning to call Askoll next week, but another size that gets looked over is the big-dog monster Laguna PT-352, aka the 4200. Sure, its 160 watts normally, but I think it might be an overall much larger pump than even the 2400/2900 (2400/2900 share the volute, only the impeller is slightly different, so as needlewheels/threadwheels, the 2400 is better because it is tuned to a lower wattage when used as a threadwheel). The 4200 is just odd though... it doesnt seem to share any parts with the 2400/2900s... but it has similar head-handling... just loads more flow... but for only 30 watts more... makes me wonder what it might do.
Ill just have to find out. I have tinkered with the 1500 and really went to town with the 2400... but I am interested in seeing what the 2000 and 4200 might do now as well.
Similar threads
