POLL: Reef Dynamic vs SWC cone

[huskysglare1]

From the way i see it, Reef Dynamics just doesn't want to put in the money and effort to upgrade their skimmers. How much more will it cost to make a cone skimmer and adding bubble plates? It'll cost a lot if you're not made from a chinese manufacturer.

If a defuser plating doesn't work, why do all the top manufacture utilize it? Bubble king, Deltec, and ATB all use it.

If cone skimmers doesn't improve the performance, then why do people who switched from cylinder to cone see a drastic improvement in performance. This is not from some 1 time research, but from everyday users who see a different after switching to cone.

Sedra performs worst than a sicce. Eheim costs $350 and everyone can tell you Askoll out performs it hands down.

It has been shown cones have no real advantage and it is beyond me how a diffuser plate would do anything but decrease pump efficiency. They do look cool but I am also not trendy with this stuff.

I absolutley hate high end pumps thT can not bet serviced. Sedra and Eheim are two good choices.

 

[slow_leak]

My sedra's been in service 5 years without issue. Sicce uses some of the same motor blocks that Tunze uses and are good pumps too.

Skimmers change designs because consumers want new products. I have read reviews showing no real advantage with cones. Less volume will be less contact time and more contact with acrylic walls. Needle wheel skimmers gnerally pull 20-25% of DOC out of water and reach at different amount of time.

Enjoy it if you like but your following a trend not a signifigant improvement.

 

[huskysglare1]

From my point of view, if you're going to get anything other than an SWC with Askoll, go with SRO. I am prejudice because i prefer Italy made Askoll over Chinese made Bubble Blaster. I think Sicce is not as good as Bubble Blaster though.

I'd just purchased a SWC 300 that will be arriving on Wed or Friday.

The way i look at it, SWC and SRO are made from the SAME chinese manufacturer. However, it seems that SWC put more thoughts and effort into making their skimmers. SWC has the little things like Bubble dialer and removable bubble plates for ease of cleaning. Those little things just shows they're constantly trying to improve their skimmers and i like that.

 

[huskysglare1]

Please google Legit Cone vs Cylinder Skimmoff! Luke has done a side by side comparison between a Cone and a Cynlinder Skimmer. The Cone skimmer clearly pulls more and darker skimmate.

Skimmers change designs because consumers want new products. I have read reviews showing no real advantage with cones. Less volume will be less contact time and more contact with acrylic walls. Needle wheel skimmers gnerally pull 20-25% of DOC out of water and reach at different amount of time.

Enjoy it if you like but your following a trend not a signifigant improvement.

 

[moondoggy4]

Reef Dynamics is a small company with a couple of employees, kinda of hard to scan the internet all day spend a lot of money on R&D and then have it ripped off by the vary Chinese company that you paid to have a new line built. To order a skimmer in China they want 5000 units for the first order, a lot of money especially in this economy. What I would like from RD is a choice of better pumps you pick the body and pick the pump and they assemble it. Not every skimmer company has to follow every new trend out there.

 

[slow_leak]

Here's something more scientific and modeled for different suppliers. Can't give an exact link apparently but it is second study of skimmer efficiency by Feldman at Penn State. It show 7 models including a cone. Styles were Venturi, needlewheel, airstone, downward draft, recirc pinwheel, larger needlewheel, and cone needle wheel. The factors were about five repetitions, with volume of skimmer, extraction time, extent of extraction, and a linear correlation, and included costs that were outrageous in some cases, whereas SWC is reasonable.

What is being expressed in this side by side comparison Legit Cone vs Cylinder Skimmoff thread, is extraction rate may be faster with this cone but the extent %DOC is likely identical. Must be feed a lot though. All rates and efficiencies will be anemic compared to Granular Activated carbon.

I moved out of the realm of protein monger about a year ago as I run high flow turf scrubber that turns nitrogen phosphorus and CO2 in to algae that leaks DOC that I feed corals, and mechanically export algae. Like Vodka methods Hair and diatoms are a thing of the past. I compare it to putting out the fire(nutrients) and leaving smoke (DOC) with gentle skimmer. ATS has side effect of bacterial growth mulm that needs some gentle skimming. SPS growth is great. I don't post results here though. Scrubbers tend to get emotional reactions on RC.

From, the results of the experiments described here, it appears that only 20 - 35 % of the measurable TOC meets this hydrophobicity criterion (= [TOCl] defined earlier) whereas the remaining 65 - 80 % does not (= [TOCr] defined earlier). In essence, bubbles are a rather poor media for removal of organic nutrients from aquarium water compared to, for example, GAC. However, they do have the distinct benefit of being cheap.

On the other hand, there are no statistically significant differences between the rate constants k for the EuroReef CS80, the Precision Marine ES100, the Precision Marine AP624 and the ETSS Evolution 500 skimmers. The rate constants k for the Bubble King and the Royal Exclusiv Cone are indistinguishable. Nevertheless, even the statistically significant differences in rate constants for TOC removal are not large, only spanning an approximately 10x range from the smallest to the largest. Since the rate constant k is an intrinsic measure of the skimmer's ability to remove TOC, and it takes into account all of the physical factors that contribute to that removal (i.e., skimmer geometry, bubble size, bubble flow rate, foam coalescence characteristics, water characteristics, etc., etc.), there does not appear to be any compelling reason to favor one type of skimmer design/bubble generation mechanism over any other amongst the seven skimmers examined (Reef Octopus 150 excepted). That is, the inclusion or omission of a bubble plate does not seem to have any decisive effect on the rate constant for TOC removal, nor does a change in skimmer geometry from cylindrical to cone-shaped. Likewise, all methods of bubble generation examined appear adequate.

If you accept this article which I largely do, my interests are power consumption, and maintenance. I have more interest in good quality pumps, and watts used. I have had good luck with Eheim and Sedra. I would encourage looking at supplemental husbandry and not upgrading skimmers if you don't have a huge mismatch.

 

[huskysglare1]

That article is filled with mumble jumble that noone understands. It doesn't seem like they're doing all 7 skimmers at the same time. If they're not doing the test at the same time, the result will varied depending on which skimmer skims first. If it's on different system, then the result varies as well because no 2 system are the same.

The whole experiment is extremely confusing. Unlike Luke's experiment that have two skimmers of similar size and ratings with the same pump and everything else except the shape of the skimmers. The result is shown in the skimmate plain and simple.

You can see the color of the skimmate and the amount of skimmate in the Cone Vs the Cylinder. It's not like the skimmate from the Cone is lighter and the cylinder is darker. They're both similar in color, which determines the density of DOC. It's clear from the result that the cone is better.

 

[slow_leak]

The article is describing rate of extraction and extent of extraction. Ken's article states that bubbles and energy demand will regulate skimming more than geometry.

SWC makes a good product. For my system that has no algae and feather dusters and and encrusting sponges, millions of white dots like things, I don't want to clean out diffuser plates and cones often.

 

[ksed]

Ken does also mention that the darker skimmate has more DOC. It is very possible that the one with less and lighter skimmate has more DOC. Pick up a bottle of amino acid which typically contains carbohydrates etc .the liquid is clear.

 

[shifty51008]

husky like I said before the cone skimmers need the bubble plate because of the shape of the cone not because they make a skimmer work better. you also need a diffrent pump on the cone skimmers than a cyclinder one because of the bubble plate. they are 2 diff. skimmers.

but you can just keep thinking the way you are. there is no point in argueing because you already have you mind set. if you think his way of testing the skimmers side by side with the same pump is enough then go for it.

 

[AM916]

husky like I said before the cone skimmers need the bubble plate because of the shape of the cone not because they make a skimmer work better. you also need a diffrent pump on the cone skimmers than a cyclinder one because of the bubble plate. they are 2 diff. skimmers.

but you can just keep thinking the way you are. there is no point in argueing because you already have you mind set. if you think his way of testing the skimmers side by side with the same pump is enough then go for it.

Than why are a lot of the companies putting bubble plates and diffusers on cylinder type skimmers???

 

[huskysglare1]

Are you saying the bubble plate on a cylinder skimmer is useless, but it's effective on a cone skimmer?

Explain to me more on "you need a different pump on the cone skimmers then a cylinder skimmers because of the bubble plating." what does the bubble plate have to do with the pump performance? How is the pump's performance different on a cone and a skimmer?

 

[shifty51008]

http://www.youtube.com/user/lafishguy#p/search/6/gGDBvr7s-U4

he explanes it much better than I do.

and here at about 4:30 about the bubble plates.
http://www.youtube.com/user/lafishguy#p/search/9/5v-vCri7Xk4

they work well on bigger dia. cyclinder skimmers not the smaller dia. ones that most use.

 

[huskysglare1]

I am not a skimmer expert. I am just a reef geek. I am only speaking from experience. I used the Euro Reef RS 180 before i got my SWC 200. From experience, I can tell you that the SWC 200 Kicks the S*** out of the RS 180. It produce 3-4 times more skimmate than the RS 180. A lot of people who used ER skimmer notice a drastic improvement in in performance after switching to brands like ATB, SRO, SWC, and BK. That's a fact.

Euro reef was one of the best, back in the days. Their skimmers are just behind the time. Not many people use their skimmer because it just doesn't perform as well as the other brands. If ER skimmers perform as good, if not better than the other brands, people will use them and cut through the bs and the gimmicks. However, that's just not the case. Other brand using bubble plates and cone just prove to have worked.

Let me ask you. What skimmers have you used and what skimmer are you using now?

 

[shifty51008]

sorry for late reply I work nights. but I am also not a expert by a long shot on skimmers just learning a few things here and there.

I am not for or against cone skimmers or reef dynamics just what I have seen.

I have used ASM, AquaC remora, NAC77, and now use a reefmania ps6 skimmer. never used a euro reef or reefdynamics. I am more of an external skimmer person and hard to find cone skimmers that are external for one thing but I am getting a much better skimmate with the reefmania skimmer than I did with any of the other skimmers I have tried out.

I was looking at getting a RD skimmer but they are 2x as much for a external skimmer than a in sump model rated for the same size. much diffrent than alot of other companies where it may only be a hundred or so diffrence.

and no offence to AM916 but just because companies add stuff to their product don't nessasarly mean it makes them better.

 

[mojo~]

well just thought I would throw in my 2 cents if it matter to anyone.

I have owned both these skimmers... And not the same by a long shot. They are very different. The Swc uses a small pump with a little air and water throughput withlittle contact time. with a more current design. Having owned this skimmer I would suggest it fora 30 to 40 g tank. Nothing more.


The RD 80 or euroreef in 80 goes with a more brute force approach. It pulls about a 100 lph more air and pulls more water as well with a greater contact time. And I have yet to come across a euroreef that did not skim well. The 80 would be good for up to a 75g reef IMO.

The swc 160 is better value than the 120 imo as it uses the atman 2500 pump and pulls a good amount of air and is better balanced than the 120 imo. The 120 has a great footprint and is wonderful for those smaller tanks.


guys and gals this is my opinion on the skimmers from a lot of past experience from about every skimmer on the market.

I actually voted for the RD 80.

Good luck and hope that this info is helpful

Mojo~

 

[sjm817]

Mojo, your input is always appreciated. To take this one step further, how does the RD compare with the equivalent Vertex? Except the "80" models since the Vertex 80 is different with the internal pump. How would the 100, 180 compare?

 

[ksed]

Mojo, your input is always appreciated. To take this one step further, how does the RD compare with the equivalent Vertex? Except the "80" models since the Vertex 80 is different with the internal pump. How would the 100, 180 compare?

+1 Mojo Agree with your comments 100%

Scott

I think the major difference would be the different pumps and a bubble plate.
Perhaps Mojo can correct me if I am wrong.

 

[sjm817]

I think the pumps are the same (despite different names). The Vertex puts it sideways down low with a bubble plate and the RD is a traditional higher input.

 

[slow_leak]

Along the lines of the show and tell skim off thread, here is a side by side in the same tank of a Euro-Reef CS8 24" with 90 watt Sedra versus an algae turf scrubber. If I turned of skimmer ATS would have grown faster.

I don't claim this is scientific, nor is the other skimmer comparison thread. I am removing algae biomass and comparing it to small particulate and DOC extraction. The skim off is comparing rate of skimming, demonstrating how much and not at all extent of skimming (% of total DOC)

None of this means much without seeing how algae free tank is.