mojo~
Skimmer Guy
the sklimmers are the same as they have been for a while just changed the pump. the work well and should be a bit more quiet now.
Skimmer Q&A Thread
- Thread starter mojo~
- Start date
the sklimmers are the same as they have been for a while just changed the pump. the work well and should be a bit more quiet now.
mike&kel
New member
Looking for anyone that has knowlege about the Vertex IN-250. I was planning on purchasing one today, but I have been told to only buy the generation 3. Does anyone KNOW what the difference is and how to determine that from the package or model number? If anyone has an idea for a similarly priced skimmer <$350 that might perform better id be open to hearing your suggestions. MOJO???
mojo~
Skimmer Guy
the 160 would work fine. what is the display ? that is where the load is. Nice skimmers.
mojo~
Skimmer Guy
I would stay away from the 250 model. it is very tall. the extra head pressure isnt good on the pump. Can you fit the 280 or 180 is same as 250 but shorter and a little smaller pump
Gen 1.
bad shafts and very high bubble plates and no air silencer
Gen 2
improved shafts lower bubble plate and air silencer built in to the wedge pipe
gen 3
re designed bubble plate
You might consider the new octopus extreme xs 200.
http://www.reefspecialty.com/p734/Octopus-Extreme-XS-200-Protein-Skimmer/product_info.html
etss
etss
I currently run an etss 700 on my 90 gallon mixed reef (mostly sps). This is the only good skimmer I have ever owned. How would the SRO 2000 internal compare to the ETSS. I would like a skimmer that is more cost effective, smaller, and more quiet. Would the SRO be a good replacement? Would there be any downsides to replacing the etss?
etss
I currently run an etss 700 on my 90 gallon mixed reef (mostly sps). This is the only good skimmer I have ever owned. How would the SRO 2000 internal compare to the ETSS. I would like a skimmer that is more cost effective, smaller, and more quiet. Would the SRO be a good replacement? Would there be any downsides to replacing the etss?
mojo~
Skimmer Guy
not sure what feed pump you are using but the sro would pull a higher air to water ration but cycle less water overall than the etss. the sro would be more quiet and efficient over the etss.
mojo~
Skimmer Guy
well the saying goes if it isnt broke dont fix it. The new skimmers will be more effiecient at what they do. but what you have gets done what it needs by sheer horsepower. As long as you are happy with the skimmer I wouldnt change it. I dont think your tank would see a difference. Now if your pump went out. it might be time to think about a upgrade.
Skimmer plumbed directly to overflow good or bad?
Skimmer plumbed directly to overflow good or bad?
Basically I want to add a new skimmer to an old 75 set-up but the problem is space won't allow me to add anything but a super small skimmer unless I plumb one externally. Plus adding an external skimmer would allow me to add a refugium in my smallish sump by removing the older skimmer. It was for the longest time a FOWLR but I decided to add some more inverts thus the need to enhance my skimming. I was thinking of going with an Octopus DNWB-110 Needlewheel Recirculating Skimmer, or maybe the 150 which might be overkill, to allow me to plumb it in various ways but was wondering if T-ing off my main drain line directly to the skimmer is good or bad? Would it be better to just have a pump from the sump feed it or take advantage of gravity for a free flow to the skimmer? What about detritus and other stuff going directly to the skimmer? Also is that a good skimmer to begin with?
Skimmer plumbed directly to overflow good or bad?
Basically I want to add a new skimmer to an old 75 set-up but the problem is space won't allow me to add anything but a super small skimmer unless I plumb one externally. Plus adding an external skimmer would allow me to add a refugium in my smallish sump by removing the older skimmer. It was for the longest time a FOWLR but I decided to add some more inverts thus the need to enhance my skimming. I was thinking of going with an Octopus DNWB-110 Needlewheel Recirculating Skimmer, or maybe the 150 which might be overkill, to allow me to plumb it in various ways but was wondering if T-ing off my main drain line directly to the skimmer is good or bad? Would it be better to just have a pump from the sump feed it or take advantage of gravity for a free flow to the skimmer? What about detritus and other stuff going directly to the skimmer? Also is that a good skimmer to begin with?
Quill*fighter
New member
Mojo,
Really enjoy reading the thread - wish I had the patience to read every page
Was hoping to get an opinion on which skimmer would offer the most bang for the buck on my current set up.
250 Gallon display heavily stocked (mostly Fish) with a 180 gallon sump/fuge
Currently I'm using a MRC MR-3R. I'm looking to get the same or better performance while decreasing my electric bill.
I have $1000 or a little less to spend on the upgrade. Less would be better.
I was considering taking advantage of the discounted prices on a BM300 or the ATB 1050 1.5 but after reading this thread it seems the money might be spent more effectively somewhere else.
Thanks in advance.
Really enjoy reading the thread - wish I had the patience to read every page
Was hoping to get an opinion on which skimmer would offer the most bang for the buck on my current set up.
250 Gallon display heavily stocked (mostly Fish) with a 180 gallon sump/fuge
Currently I'm using a MRC MR-3R. I'm looking to get the same or better performance while decreasing my electric bill.
I have $1000 or a little less to spend on the upgrade. Less would be better.
I was considering taking advantage of the discounted prices on a BM300 or the ATB 1050 1.5 but after reading this thread it seems the money might be spent more effectively somewhere else.
Thanks in advance.
JG1
New member
Which is the better skimmer?
SRO XP2000 (internal)
or
http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1901061
http://glassbox-design.com/2010/ati-powercone-gridwheel/
SRO XP2000 (internal)
or
http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1901061
http://glassbox-design.com/2010/ati-powercone-gridwheel/
mojo~
Skimmer Guy
I would go with the 150 over the 110 first off.
as far as feeding it off the drain, it can work for some but it is not suggested that you do this. It is not always constant. it can sometimes cause surging and overflowing. I would use a constant feed pump something like a maxijet 400 or 600 would work well.
JG1
New member
It uses a Sicce PSK 2500. How does that compare with the bubble blaster?
mojo~
Skimmer Guy
Mojo,
Really enjoy reading the thread - wish I had the patience to read every page
Was hoping to get an opinion on which skimmer would offer the most bang for the buck on my current set up.
250 Gallon display heavily stocked (mostly Fish) with a 180 gallon sump/fuge
Currently I'm using a MRC MR-3R. I'm looking to get the same or better performance while decreasing my electric bill.
I have $1000 or a little less to spend on the upgrade. Less would be better.
I was considering taking advantage of the discounted prices on a BM300 or the ATB 1050 1.5 but after reading this thread it seems the money might be spent more effectively somewhere else.
Thanks in advance.
The 1050 is really nice.
I would look at the hurricone cat 2 or 3
the MSX 250 A. this would be a great choice.
and the SRO 5000
those would be the cheaper options. but A bk mini 200 would work like a champ too.
The 1050a would bea great fit though
mojo~
Skimmer Guy
The NAc 6 uses a atman 2500 pump. Works well but is a rather inexpensive pump. That can be good and bad. Havent really had any issues with them and cheap to replace. Cons on a NAC 6 are the that while the main body is built well the bubble plate is pretty flimsy.Also, I like the pump being inside for the smaller footprint but you have to take the pump out of the body to work on it. MAy or may not be a con in your eyes. All in all a good bang for the buck skimmer
The sro 1000 will be built a little better than the NAC 6. Pulling just slightly less air than the NAC 6 but does a good job and uses a little heavier duty pump. It is well balanced and will work well too. Cons... More expensive pump to replace and with the pump being outside of the body you may get more hum noise. Solid performer.
the Nac 6 and sro 1000 will both work well. If it was up to me..... it would depend on sump level and space. the SRO skimmers work well but need a shallower level of water to run in. This is do to the air draw of the pump and the smaller necks. THe Nac 6 you can run from about 6 inches to 8 or 9
the sro I would keep between 5 to 6
The sro 1000 will be built a little better than the NAC 6. Pulling just slightly less air than the NAC 6 but does a good job and uses a little heavier duty pump. It is well balanced and will work well too. Cons... More expensive pump to replace and with the pump being outside of the body you may get more hum noise. Solid performer.
the Nac 6 and sro 1000 will both work well. If it was up to me..... it would depend on sump level and space. the SRO skimmers work well but need a shallower level of water to run in. This is do to the air draw of the pump and the smaller necks. THe Nac 6 you can run from about 6 inches to 8 or 9
the sro I would keep between 5 to 6
Similar threads
