Pushing the limits on bubbles in skimmers

[crn005]

^I agree with the frustration of the trend of current skimmers. I go so far as to not necessarily agree with the claims that the plates reduce turbulence (or at least on a level that's significantly beneficial). So, how do we achieve that level of skin on the bubble and non-turbulent interaction time with such limitations of skimmer height? Is it possible?

I have a calculator I have built using the findings from many of the brands of skimmers, I take one gallon of tank water dehydrate it and then remove the salts, and analysis and weigh the remainder. Then compare it with one gallon of skimate done the same way. calculate this against the time it takes to collect a full gallon of skimate and the amount of non-organics it is stripping out of the water column. I have a friend that is a engineer and owns a testing service and contracts for a large wast treatment facility. He does all my testing. I find most HOB are just about useless, lower than 2% Even some of the big RK2 are not that great, I was told recently that they now only recommend the smaller RK2 units for keeping crabs and fish at your local market and not reef tanks. These units start at about 5k and reach over 50k in pricing

Any chance we could get you to catalog a lot of different types/brands of skimmers? I'm sure if I started a kickstarter for it that people would all be willing to chip in a few bucks to get the ball rolling.

 

[crn005]

I was thinking about what crazzyreefer mentioned about the nature of bubbles needing to be in a state of non-collision before they can be effective and the counter-current style skimmer. If what he says is true, it seems a counter-current skimmer is counter-productive.

 

[Big E]

I believe a correctly designed counter-current skimmer has way less turbulence by design ifyou were using air stones. The water moves down to meet the rising air bubbles, this is the best and most eficient way to skim to me from a logic and physics standpoint.

My old Deltec AP703 the best skimmer I owned,was external and the two eheims created the bubbles with a third pump supplying the water. They pumps outlets were designed to create circular vortex in a 10" body that was short. I think this helped minimze some of the turbulence and there was enough contact time to work well

I think when you see the bubbles rising and then going back down is when the turbulence is a problem from colliding and breaking apart.

Apparently the bubble plate resolves this but I still don't get the small reaction chambers? That is just marketing to me so the skimmers can fit under a tank stand at the sacrifice of skimmer performance.

 

[Crowed]

they produce much less turbulences because there are much less water flow, water produce most turbelences and with air driven you can have better air-water ration than in any other design.
-its not only a marketing, for sure, taller skimmer works better, but most people dnt have separate room and like to have all equipement underneath their tanks.. for that, low pressure needlewheel pumps works perfectly

 

[buffalo123]

Apparently the bubble plate resolves this but I still don't get the small reaction chambers? That is just marketing to me so the skimmers can fit under a tank stand at the sacrifice of skimmer performance.

I've been wondering about the effectiveness of the bubble plate because as i read many who mod their skimmer with bubble plate did not know if it was a worth while mod compared to say a gate valve.

QUOTE BY Big E
They keep getting smaller and smaller claiming less turbulence with the plates. That's fine I guess, but the bubbles go straight up and out and to the top of the skimmer in seconds. I'm wondering just exactly where are the bubbles grabbing these dirt molecules in a one pump internal skimmer that has a small 6" diameter and the reaction area is maybe 15" at best. These are your basic 300g+ rated skimmers. QUOTE

I was wondering the same thing recently as i looked at the curve series of skimmers. Those skimmer are very small and some of the chamber space taken up by the pump that sits underneath.
I currently have an old 29 inch skimmer measured from base to top wishing i could fit it under my reef. Substantially more contact than the newer skimmers.
Are they better more efficient . I don't know . I don't see how they could be better than the old large skimmers that didnt fit under you reef.

 

[crazzyreefer]

the skimmer I run is counter current, turbulence of the water does not to my knowledge affect the bubble only the rise rate, it only when they collide and rub against one another. So back to 3' skimmers.... there is better and worst ones, but we are talking single digit performance increases from one to another. I tried a number of Ideas, having the bubbles travel in a liner flow, had the length and could fit under the tank, but didn't work, I made a convection system, worked, but took an enormous amount of pumps, and power and I got the same results out of my counter current. so is there a great 30" skimmer? the manufactures will tell you that there is.

So why does a skimmer that is 30" work on some tanks? Answer= they do not feed heavy and they have a huge amount of living filter feeders, ie corals and sponges, and live rock to break down what is left. all combined is most of the filtering. the skimmer only needs to take out the larger organics and oils that collect.

 

[buffalo123]

I Did try experimenting with a long neck skimmer and i thought it worked quite well for what it was. I recently took it out and replace with with another skimmer that i got for an excellent price. (couldnt refuse it).
It did have issue with the collection cup fulling but i believe it needed a riser pipe rather than a gate valve or have both riser and gate valve.
I thought it worked well other than that. Should have lots of contact time
I would like to make another one with slightly different design a longer neck not reduced.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aOG1xGdW7uo

 

[crazzyreefer]

No skimmer needs a collection cup, this is just for show, it needs to be plumbed into a drain. The neck will stay clean once there is enough contact time. Mine I use a 2"elbow pointed upwards I tried a T but it continued to foul, The system I use now uses compressed air and this is what moves the foam skimmate, I have a new design much simpler but just as effective, in some case more, It will work for most people, Cheap to build but cost more for the installation than anything else. This is the main reason for not releasing it. I still trying to determine if is is worth the time and money to patten it prior to release.

 

[ken6217]

I will try to post pics but Its so tall it just looks like pipe...

Can you post some pics?
Ken

 

[Timber77]

The only way to push it over 13% would be by increasing pressure on the system, kinda hard to do in a home setting. Turbulance used to be a desired effect in a skimmer and extended dwell time, the current generation of easy to ship from china skimmers don't advertise this fact. I have 6.5 feet tall skimmers that work very well. I have an H&S 300 which is around the 30 inches your comparing , it does well, the foam is very dry and probably rises 10-12 inches above the standing water level in the skimmer. my taller skimmers both have a constant foam head up top. the shorter skimmer requires 3 pumps in the 12 inch body than just one pump on the taller 8 inch body skimmer. Both work about equal IMO. I would say the 3 pump skimmer is pushing closer to escobals theoretical 13 % to accomplish this due to height restrictions, were the taller one doesn't require it, I have had dual pumps on the taller skimmers and they do work a little better but not significantly better.