jfeva0049
Member
yeah true. i have a total of 8 fish right now but none are large. my biggest is a really fat and happy royal gamma.
Skimmer Q&A Thread
- Thread starter mojo~
- Start date
yeah true. i have a total of 8 fish right now but none are large. my biggest is a really fat and happy royal gamma.
Bunkerbean
New member
Alright, i am going back and forth between the coneS co3 and the EM500. What ate your guys thoughts
Drae
RAIDER NATION!
That ConeS co3 is a non space saving model with an 8"body and 1020 lph of air pull and I'd say it would handle a heavy stocked 200 gallon tank.
HillbillyYoda
No Affiliation
Would a Reef Octopus 6 be ideal for a 33g with a 20g high (24" x 12" x 16") sump? I have a wide open area in the sump for this. I'm looking at all the hardware eye candy and this one seems the most appealing. Any thoughts?
Bunkerbean
New member
Well it should be on its way from MD
moondoggy4
Team RC
skimmer
skimmer
I think it is harder to skim a small tank then a large one, too small of a bio load to keep a foam head going, so I would think a small skimmer would do nicely, I would not up size it at all, No particular order Aqua Maxx EM100, SWC 120 Eshoop S120 with the Sicce pump The new Aqua Maxx Cone 1 skimmer
skimmer
I think it is harder to skim a small tank then a large one, too small of a bio load to keep a foam head going, so I would think a small skimmer would do nicely, I would not up size it at all, No particular order Aqua Maxx EM100, SWC 120 Eshoop S120 with the Sicce pump The new Aqua Maxx Cone 1 skimmer
bernie lyons
New member
skimmer choice
skimmer choice
You've got a darn good skimmer (H&S) they are well built and in my opinion for what it is worth I've owned one of the largest H&S skimmers produced for the home market - 450 external (5 x ehiem 1260 pump/piwheel) set up for 2 years . This thing was a serious beast and was capable of skimming up to over 2000 gallon tanks ! My tank was very full and was 450 gallons but I needed something very effective to remove organics. The only problem is , pinwheels get very expensive when getting into big units that are built well enough to last a long time , however I sold that H&S beast to cash in on the savings and purchased an MTC HSA -3000 dual beckett skimmer with an Iwaki 70RLT pressure pump. The pump used less than 230 watts of power but the skimmer was Awesome as far as performance is concerned. Overall this beckett design easily matched what my 450 external H&S could do on my tank and was alot cheaper to purchase - $4000.00 dollars cheaper in fact !!! So the point being the best performance to dollar ratio especially that you are now upgrading to a seriously big tank system , would to consider the beckett design over anything. They are very efficient in removing waste, oxygenate the water extremely well and can and will remove phosphate's out of the system . Pinwheels albeit quieter, cannot compete with the best of the beckett design's ect, (Marine techincal concepts) in my opinion. Just my 3 cents for what it is worth...
skimmer choice
You've got a darn good skimmer (H&S) they are well built and in my opinion for what it is worth I've owned one of the largest H&S skimmers produced for the home market - 450 external (5 x ehiem 1260 pump/piwheel) set up for 2 years . This thing was a serious beast and was capable of skimming up to over 2000 gallon tanks ! My tank was very full and was 450 gallons but I needed something very effective to remove organics. The only problem is , pinwheels get very expensive when getting into big units that are built well enough to last a long time , however I sold that H&S beast to cash in on the savings and purchased an MTC HSA -3000 dual beckett skimmer with an Iwaki 70RLT pressure pump. The pump used less than 230 watts of power but the skimmer was Awesome as far as performance is concerned. Overall this beckett design easily matched what my 450 external H&S could do on my tank and was alot cheaper to purchase - $4000.00 dollars cheaper in fact !!! So the point being the best performance to dollar ratio especially that you are now upgrading to a seriously big tank system , would to consider the beckett design over anything. They are very efficient in removing waste, oxygenate the water extremely well and can and will remove phosphate's out of the system . Pinwheels albeit quieter, cannot compete with the best of the beckett design's ect, (Marine techincal concepts) in my opinion. Just my 3 cents for what it is worth...
Fish Biscuit
Active member
I need a skimmer for a 40 breeder, medium bioload. Tank's not set up & I'm undecided if I will do a sump/fuge or just go with a HOB skimmer. I don't want to go broke on equipment but I want something that will last. The tank is at work & will be unattended to on the weekends.
If I go HOB skimmer my choice would be the JNS. For in sump would a Bubble Magus Curve 5 or Eshopps PSK100 work? Would I be better off saving up for the Aquamaxx Cone 1?
Thanks!
If I go HOB skimmer my choice would be the JNS. For in sump would a Bubble Magus Curve 5 or Eshopps PSK100 work? Would I be better off saving up for the Aquamaxx Cone 1?
Thanks!
YoungREEFA
New member
Should I get the bubble magus nac 5.5 or curve 5 for my 65 gallon reef?
reeftivo
Skim junkie
Nac 5.5
It has a better bubble plate IMO
It may be a trade off though because I think the 5.5 has the gasket around the neck where it inserts into the body and the curve has the smoother transition with the collar in the neck.
Last edited:
Drae
RAIDER NATION!
Do a sump and go with the bubble magus.
YoungREEFA
New member
So its either smoother bubble transaction or better bubble plate
Skimmer Identification
Skimmer Identification
Could someone identify this Reef Octopus skimmer and tell me a little more about it? All I know is it has a 10" body, a bubble blaster pump, and possibly a 5000 model.
Would it work well on my 300 gallon display with a 100 gallon sump?
How does it compare to the newer skimmers and my H&SA200x1260?
Thanks in advance!
Skimmer Identification
Could someone identify this Reef Octopus skimmer and tell me a little more about it? All I know is it has a 10" body, a bubble blaster pump, and possibly a 5000 model.
Would it work well on my 300 gallon display with a 100 gallon sump?
How does it compare to the newer skimmers and my H&SA200x1260?
Thanks in advance!
Attachments
Last edited:
bernie lyons
New member
skimmers
skimmers
Just curious , but why do you want such a small skimmer for your 300 +100(sump) display ?
skimmers
Just curious , but why do you want such a small skimmer for your 300 +100(sump) display ?
It has a 10" body with an overall height of 24"... Is that considered a small skimmer?
bernie lyons
New member
skimmer
skimmer
Yes ! I've had large aquariums and would use nothing less than a 48" overall height of a skimmer. People seem to think that these stuby skimmers are "miracle working" devices that somehow defeat the laws of physics in so-called "miracle skimming" ! Bottom line is , the newer skimmers are much smaller because people are demanding "in-sump" units and suddenly these manufactures come out with these stuby units and say it is as good if not better than the larger /taller equivalent. It's a marketing thing , nothing more I'm afraid ! A good size tank ,like you have , needs a good tall but very efficient skimmer, I recommend the beckett designs because they work BETTER than these stuby skimmers and you will see the difference in you tank as proof - trust me !!!...Been there done that , as they say !
skimmer
Yes ! I've had large aquariums and would use nothing less than a 48" overall height of a skimmer. People seem to think that these stuby skimmers are "miracle working" devices that somehow defeat the laws of physics in so-called "miracle skimming" ! Bottom line is , the newer skimmers are much smaller because people are demanding "in-sump" units and suddenly these manufactures come out with these stuby units and say it is as good if not better than the larger /taller equivalent. It's a marketing thing , nothing more I'm afraid ! A good size tank ,like you have , needs a good tall but very efficient skimmer, I recommend the beckett designs because they work BETTER than these stuby skimmers and you will see the difference in you tank as proof - trust me !!!...Been there done that , as they say !
You seem to contradict the majority of the opinions in this thread.
Contact time is still important, small high air skimmers don't allow this. Some compounds may adhere to a bubble quickly and some (according to Escobal) may take up to two minutes to attach to a bubble. So while the short contact time skimmer may remove the easily attached compounds, it will not remove the more difficult to adhere to compounds, this is where contact time is important. Yes the short skimmer will produce skim but a taller one, or one that allows more contact time, has the opportunity to remove more. If you have room for a taller skimmer, it may be a better option, if you do not then the point is moot.
One thing is for certain, we may never invent the perfect skimmer, or it has already been invented and we have marketed ourselves right out of it.
This is one of the best explanations I have ever seen, and it is certainly plausible.
Originally Posted by ChemE
...to explain the difference between water dwell time and air dwell time reread my post on the first page; it was long winded but I thought thorough. I'll summarize here.
The protein will remain captured by the bulk fluid until it embeds in the bubble wall. This process can take up to 120 seconds. Allow me the use of an analogy that might make things clearer...
I have terribly slow reactions, so much so that it takes me 120 seconds to catch a basketball thrown at me. Throwing millions of basketballs at me very quickly will not help me catch even one. What you need to do is throw the basketballs extremely slowly, so that they take 120 seconds to pass near to me thus giving my slow reflexes time to kick in and catch it. Now, it is impractical/impossible to throw things this slowly since gravity makes them move faster than that so we'll throw me too. If you throw me at the same speed as the ball, then I get my 120 seconds next to one ball and am able to catch it.
It is the same way with bubbles and proteins in the water. It doesn't do us any good to pelt a protein with a cloud of fine bubbles because it doesn't spend enough time next to ONE of them. Sure, it might get pelted for 120 seconds before it exits the skimmer but that is not how embedding works, it needs 120 seconds next to the SAME bubble to embed. If it is in contact with one bubble for 2 seconds and then it moves away and is in contact with a new bubble the embedding process must by definition start all over. 60 such restarts before exiting the skimmer will produce no result (at least not the one I want).
I think bombardment rate is a load of crap unless I completely misunderstand it (possible).
The only thing that makes any sense whatsoever is one bubble being in contact with one protein for long enough that that hydrophobic portion of the protein moves inside the air/water interface and becomes captured by the air bubble. This increases the surface tension of the air bubble and if this surface tension is increased enough, it will not pop until it is in the skimmer collection cup. Then and only then is a protein removed from the system.
One thing is for certain, we may never invent the perfect skimmer, or it has already been invented and we have marketed ourselves right out of it.
This is one of the best explanations I have ever seen, and it is certainly plausible.
Originally Posted by ChemE
...to explain the difference between water dwell time and air dwell time reread my post on the first page; it was long winded but I thought thorough. I'll summarize here.
The protein will remain captured by the bulk fluid until it embeds in the bubble wall. This process can take up to 120 seconds. Allow me the use of an analogy that might make things clearer...
I have terribly slow reactions, so much so that it takes me 120 seconds to catch a basketball thrown at me. Throwing millions of basketballs at me very quickly will not help me catch even one. What you need to do is throw the basketballs extremely slowly, so that they take 120 seconds to pass near to me thus giving my slow reflexes time to kick in and catch it. Now, it is impractical/impossible to throw things this slowly since gravity makes them move faster than that so we'll throw me too. If you throw me at the same speed as the ball, then I get my 120 seconds next to one ball and am able to catch it.
It is the same way with bubbles and proteins in the water. It doesn't do us any good to pelt a protein with a cloud of fine bubbles because it doesn't spend enough time next to ONE of them. Sure, it might get pelted for 120 seconds before it exits the skimmer but that is not how embedding works, it needs 120 seconds next to the SAME bubble to embed. If it is in contact with one bubble for 2 seconds and then it moves away and is in contact with a new bubble the embedding process must by definition start all over. 60 such restarts before exiting the skimmer will produce no result (at least not the one I want).
I think bombardment rate is a load of crap unless I completely misunderstand it (possible).
The only thing that makes any sense whatsoever is one bubble being in contact with one protein for long enough that that hydrophobic portion of the protein moves inside the air/water interface and becomes captured by the air bubble. This increases the surface tension of the air bubble and if this surface tension is increased enough, it will not pop until it is in the skimmer collection cup. Then and only then is a protein removed from the system.
Drae
RAIDER NATION!
I will not argue against beckets and down draft skimmers and units with a tall body and lengthy reaction time but... results are results and I can't argue against people who have great tanks large and small that use "stubby skimmers". Last time I checked there's plenty of totm's that use short needle wheel skimmers with great tanks and forests of sps doing splendid. Considering that even the very best skimmers on earth are only skimming about 30% of toc's from the water column total, it would seem to me that needle wheels are just fine because the protein skimmer isn't the only form of filtration. We change water, utilize reactors,use porous live rock, macro algae, sand beds, filter socks (which I know for a fact traps organics because the protein skimmer produces less on my system when I use one), algae turf scrubbers, etc. Why would I use a loud power hogging, space taking, gigantic skimmer if I don't need to? Show me any tank that uses a 4' tall skimmer that looks good (plenty out there) and I'll show you two that use "stubby skimmers" that look just as good. Like I said "results are results" period.
Similar threads
