Skimmer Q&A Thread

Gtt1988 said:
My budget is anywhere between 200 and 700$ the water level is any as I have not set up my sump yet
Click to expand...

The ATB 840 would be one of the best for your setup. The SRO 2000 int, the bk mini 160, the jns sk2 are a few that I would take a look at.
 
pblogic said:
I got to thinking about how we actually measure the performance of skimmers and found this interesting article:

http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2010/1/aafeature

Conclusions
Many factors contribute to the "value" of a skimmer to an aquarist, including quality of construction, size, footprint, noise level, ease of cleaning, energy efficiency of the pump, and of course, the ability to remove organic waste from aquarium water. Our data show that there are not compelling or remarkably large differences in measurable skimmer TOC removal metrics among the seven skimmers tested, although the Reef Octopus 150 consistently underperformed compared to the other skimmers. However, in the larger picture, it is equally apparent that if an aquarist runs a skimmer continuously (24/7), then any of the skimmers tested would perform adequately in terms of rate of TOC removal; the only practical differences might involve the frequency of skimmer cup cleaning. A perhaps more interesting observation to emerge from these skimmer studies involves not the rate of TOC removal, but rather the amount of TOC removed. None of the skimmers tested removed more than 35% of the extant TOC, leading to the conclusion that bubbles are really not a very effective medium for organic nutrient removal. If fact, the presence of refractory, or unskimmable, TOC, coupled with the likelihood that endogenous TOC consumers (bacteria, among others) also do not remove all of the TOC present (cf. Fig. 4), suggest that in an operational sense, TOC can be categorized as follows:

1.TOC that a skimmer removes
2.TOC that a skimmer does not remove
3.TOC that is consumed by microbes
4.TOC that is not consumed by microbes
5.TOC that is (indirectly or directly) harmful to tank livestock
6.TOC that is not harmful to tank livestock
The last two categories must be included as a result of recent work of Forest Rohwer (See the January 2009 Advanced Aquarist article for a discussion), and they really highlight why an aquarist might be concerned with rising tank TOC levels. Of course, there will be much overlap between these categories. Ultimately, the crucial question for sustaining aquarium livestock health over the long term is, "How much of the harmful TOC (#5) is removed by either biological consumption or by skimming?" That question remains unanswered at present.

The results to date on protein skimming as a means of aquarium water remediation form a consistent picture that is at odds with some of the cherished dogma in the marine husbandry area. According to the data presented in this and the earlier paper (Advanced Aquarist, January 2009), protein skimmers appear to have a much larger variation in their prices than they do in their ability to remove TOC from aquarium water. Recent design innovations like bubble plates, conical sides, or pinwheel impellers do not seem to impact significantly on either rate of TOC removal or amount of TOC removed, at least for the skimmers tested. Thus, skimmer manufacturer claims about enhanced organic removal capabilities should be met with skepticism in the absence of compelling and quantitative TOC removal data.
Click to expand...


Mojo I'm curious your thoughts on this article. I've seen it posted many times. And not to sure what to take from it. It does seem to use some outdated equipment...compared to now.
 
Hi Mojo,

I was wondering about AquaC EV-180/240 w/ Eheim 1262, Reef Octopus Extreme XS 200 and an ATB 840 v2 and would like your opnion about that. I know this three models are very, very different and I don't know if it possible to compare them, but I've had an AquaC-180 back in '04 and wondering if it still worth - that time was an excellent skimmer!

In fact I'm ready to purchase the ATB 840 v2.0, but it is seems that product is not avaliable and unfortunatelly I just have this next week to close the deal (i'm going in a trip and id like to take the opportunity to get it!)

Thanks a lot!
 
mojo~ said:
atb 840, sk 181 sro 2000 int.
Click to expand...

Just wanted to let you know I went with the Skimz SK-181 Kone. IMO, the quality of this thing far surpasses my SRO XP-1000sss. I think these things will become very popular as people start finding out more about them. Very nice acrylic, silent pump, and well priced. Thanks for the input!
 
ludiNano said:
Mojo I'm curious your thoughts on this article. I've seen it posted many times. And not to sure what to take from it. It does seem to use some outdated equipment...compared to now.
Click to expand...

I'm still very curious about this as well. I know it uses old equipment but I don't think anyone else has even attempted to do an update which seems REALLY strange. I know this is kind of a niche hobby but it seems far large enough to warrant reviews. I've never been involved in any hobby that doesn't have professional scientific empirical reviews of products and it's frustating to think about laying down hundreds or thousands of dollars for pieces of acrylic that must cost very, very little to produce when there are no measurements to actually back up any of the claims.

In my opinion that is really the biggest downfall of this hobby, very little professional reviews of some very expensive equipment that may or may not work. It's one thing to have things like pumps rated. GPH is GPH barring any fudging of the numbers but there are NO metrics regarding skimmer performance. For all I know my 150$ eshopps is doing just as well as a 3000$ bubble king. Without an independent system for measurement and review the best we can do is guess.... "oh that skimate looks darker" etc... all anecdotal and meaningless. We can't measure what impact it's actually having on our systems one skimmer to the next.
 
dustinc said:
Just wanted to let you know I went with the Skimz SK-181 Kone. IMO, the quality of this thing far surpasses my SRO XP-1000sss. I think these things will become very popular as people start finding out more about them. Very nice acrylic, silent pump, and well priced. Thanks for the input!
Click to expand...

glad you like it. I have had 2 of them now and planning on another for my 50 cube
 
Sizing a sump and skimmer

Sizing a sump and skimmer

How can I be sure that the skimmer will fit in the sump and that the water level will be at the right height?

I need a sump no longer than 24in. The eshopps Refugium R-100, 2nd Generation seems to be the biggest at 24x14x16. But the skimmer compartment is pretty small at 6.5in, can I use the refugium section instead? Would that water level be too high for most skimmers? There is also the Octopus Reef Sump / OCT-RS100-small which is 24x12x16. It has a much larger main chamber but not as wide. What is the best sump in this size range?

For a skimmer I was thinking of the SRO 2000int skimmer or the Royal Exclusiv Alpha 170 Cone Protein Skimmer but I think both will be too big.

This is going to be for an elos 70, 50 gallon display. If these skimmers are too large what would be a good replacement?

Thanks
 
still loving my skimz sm202

Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 124 I got to thinking about how we actually measure the performance of skimmers and found this interesting article:

http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2010/1/aafeature

Conclusions
Many factors contribute to the "value" of a skimmer to an aquarist, including quality of construction, size, footprint, noise level, ease of cleaning, energy efficiency of the pump, and of course, the ability to remove organic waste from aquarium water. Our data show that there are not compelling or remarkably large differences in measurable skimmer TOC removal metrics among the seven skimmers tested, although the Reef Octopus 150 consistently underperformed compared to the other skimmers. However, in the larger picture, it is equally apparent that if an aquarist runs a skimmer continuously (24/7), then any of the skimmers tested would perform adequately in terms of rate of TOC removal; the only practical differences might involve the frequency of skimmer cup cleaning. A perhaps more interesting observation to emerge from these skimmer studies involves not the rate of TOC removal, but rather the amount of TOC removed. None of the skimmers tested removed more than 35% of the extant TOC, leading to the conclusion that bubbles are really not a very effective medium for organic nutrient removal. If fact, the presence of refractory, or unskimmable, TOC, coupled with the likelihood that endogenous TOC consumers (bacteria, among others) also do not remove all of the TOC present (cf. Fig. 4), suggest that in an operational sense, TOC can be categorized as follows:

1.TOC that a skimmer removes
2.TOC that a skimmer does not remove
3.TOC that is consumed by microbes
4.TOC that is not consumed by microbes
5.TOC that is (indirectly or directly) harmful to tank livestock
6.TOC that is not harmful to tank livestock
The last two categories must be included as a result of recent work of Forest Rohwer (See the January 2009 Advanced Aquarist article for a discussion), and they really highlight why an aquarist might be concerned with rising tank TOC levels. Of course, there will be much overlap between these categories. Ultimately, the crucial question for sustaining aquarium livestock health over the long term is, "How much of the harmful TOC (#5) is removed by either biological consumption or by skimming?" That question remains unanswered at present.

The results to date on protein skimming as a means of aquarium water remediation form a consistent picture that is at odds with some of the cherished dogma in the marine husbandry area. According to the data presented in this and the earlier paper (Advanced Aquarist, January 2009), protein skimmers appear to have a much larger variation in their prices than they do in their ability to remove TOC from aquarium water. Recent design innovations like bubble plates, conical sides, or pinwheel impellers do not seem to impact significantly on either rate of TOC removal or amount of TOC removed, at least for the skimmers tested. Thus, skimmer manufacturer claims about enhanced organic removal capabilities should be met with skepticism in the absence of compelling and quantitative TOC removal data.
Click to expand...

in reguards to this article, personally really hard to get a accurate measure between the skimmers in this type of test. unless you set up 5 tank's put the exact everything and exact same systems equipt and so forth, and let them run for several months before hand and started all the skimmers at the same time and ran for same amount of time. fed the same and so forth
 
Euler Kernighan said:
Hi Mojo,

I was wondering about AquaC EV-180/240 w/ Eheim 1262, Reef Octopus Extreme XS 200 and an ATB 840 v2 and would like your opnion about that. I know this three models are very, very different and I don't know if it possible to compare them, but I've had an AquaC-180 back in '04 and wondering if it still worth - that time was an excellent skimmer!

In fact I'm ready to purchase the ATB 840 v2.0, but it is seems that product is not avaliable and unfortunatelly I just have this next week to close the deal (i'm going in a trip and id like to take the opportunity to get it!)

Thanks a lot!
Click to expand...

the 840 is more efficient and will skim very well. The ev does a good job but is kind of old school. It will cycle more water volume so it would work on a little larger tank than the 840 but not near as efficient of a job.
 
mojo,

Running an IN-100 on my 100g SPS tank and I love this little skimmer, does a great job. Just concerned it may be a little undersized for my tank (maybe I shouldn't be because it does pull out a ton of crud).

Do you think a Aquamaxx am 150 would be a better fit? Or even an IN-180?
 
jg1 what would you say your real total water volume is ? i ran the in180 on my 80g heavyyyy stocked system and it was too much for the tank. loved that skimmer though lol tried it twice i liked it so much
 
NyReefNoob said:
jg1 what would you say your real total water volume is ? i ran the in180 on my 80g heavyyyy stocked system and it was too much for the tank. loved that skimmer though lol tried it twice i liked it so much
Click to expand...

I'd say probably around 110g.

I was running an ATB 840 before and hated it but I think it may have been too much for my tank.
 
Question for you guys,

I have a 240g tank with a 55g sump. I recently picked up a used Reeflo orca 200 and the needle wheel pump on it is god awful loud. What would be good pump to replace the current pump I have?
 
Question for you guys,

I have a 240g tank with a 55g sump. I recently picked up a used Reeflo orca 200 and the needle wheel pump on it is god awful loud. What would be good pump to replace the current pump I have?
Click to expand...

dont think you can use any other pump, check the impellar and magnet and make sure everything is seated correct and no wear on the magnets or out of round on the nw
 
I'd say probably around 110g.

I was running an ATB 840 before and hated it but I think it may have been too much for my tank.
Click to expand...
how heavy stocked is the tank ? i also had the in100 with a atb mini airstar pump that produce almost twice as much with the in100 as the factory pump did, probably one of the most well balanced skimmers i have owned when i putthe atb pump on it { sicce with custom volute } that body can easily handle 600-700 lpm
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

R
Replacement Pump for Vertex Omega 150 Protein Skimmer
Replies
4
Views
2K
r1racer
R
S
Why do oversized protein skimmers not adequately remove protein from a tank?
Replies
17
Views
3K
Guygettnby
Guygettnby
S
Small Sump Leak - Worth fixing?
Replies
1
Views
126
griss
griss
Broken reefer
Skimmer
Replies
7
Views
762
wvned
wvned
S
Back up power supply
2
Replies
24
Views
3K
ironwill723
ironwill723
Back
Top