Reefaquariumnut
Premium Member
Honostly, I don't think scott has a clue. He never tested the 1850. For instance, telling Tom no alita would be needed or telling me all my modifications wouldn't be nessessary. I would put a gate valve on it.
Volcano club
- Thread starter tom obrecht
- Start date
Reefaquariumnut
Premium Member
I still don't have the custom needle wheel, diffuser plate, or venturi and expect I won't. His attitude and products are a complete joke.
That statement from scott is crazy, 5500 to the skimmer. usually it is 1 to 1 1/2 time's, so your flow should be 750-1000gph, considering sump volume.
Reefaquariumnut
Premium Member
Exactly, 1.5 times...like I said, he doesn't have a clue.that's why I had to back my gate valve off 65% so that the thru put into the skimmer is roughly 1500 gph. I'm still adjusting with this to get it correct...how he sells a product based on theory, and not actual results, blows my mind.
dascharisma
New member
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13398090#post13398090 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Paulairduck
That statement from scott is crazy, 5500 to the skimmer. usually it is 1 to 1 1/2 time's, so your flow should be 750-1000gph, considering sump volume.
I have always assumed the following; The optimum flow for the skimmer doesn't have much to do with the tank size. The issue is the size of the skimmer. As long as the tank is draining enough water to turn over the entire volume of the tank at least every hour or so, the max flow ought to be determined by the size of the skimmer. The skimmer works best with the right combination of bubble density, turbulence, and dwell time.
That being said, I have seen the turbulence in my volcano pushing between 1000-2000 gph, and I can't imagine that 5000+ would work well. But I can't say that I've tried it.
Brad
A post on another thread of RC by Goodwin9 on 05/01/2007 05:12 AM.
quote:
________________________________________
Originally posted by spazz
below you will find the recomended thickenss for that aquarium. this calculator is from the cyro wesite. that tank will end up with a noticable bow in it over time. im not sure who is building that tank but they should have used at least 3/4" acrylic if not 1" acrylic for the fornt and back. the sides could have been 3/4" and the top and bottom could have been 1/2" acrylic. you may not have any problems with the tank bursting but it will bow. there is no doubt in my mind of that because of how long the tank is.
H Enter Height of Tank [in] 24
L Enter Length of Tank [in] 119
Is the top closed ? (yes or no) yes
q Maximum Water Pressure [psi] 0.8664
L/H L/H 4.958333333
a Maximum Allowable Stress for Acrylite GP in Aquarium [psi] 750
b b 0.94
Tc Thickness of Sheet required with top [in] 0.791
________________________________________
This aquarium, and four prior to this have been built by The Aquarium Company in Winthrop, MN. Spazz, you haven't been the first to question the thickness of the tank and I thought that I would send off your thoughts directly to the builder for his comments. I thought that I would post his reply to me for others to see.
"Lot of armchair aquarium builders out there. It never ceases to amaze me the number of "experts" that present themselves in fields where they have very limited working knowledge or experience. You have nothing to worry about on your aquarium. The bow you see right now is what you will see 5-10 years from now. The bow and flex reaches its maximum at about 3.2X the height of the material ie. the bow of a 24" tank reaches its maximum flex at about 77", this is from Rorke, the military spec data on materials stress and strain, materials with a fixed top and bottom. As for the calculator, it just doesn't fit for your construction. First, it is for a two part polymerized joint, not solvent. The polymerized joints in real world use, just are not as strong or durable and do require thicker materials. Second, it does not figure for a Euro-Brace. There are dynamics with this that are not addressed. Third, it figures for a 750 PSI allowance on a joint that will see about .85 psi. Also, this spreadsheet formula has nothing to do with bow, and bow is what your expert derives from the formula. These are flawed conclusions drawn from inaccurate information from a non-applicable formula. Chuck, I just don't know how to nicely word this for a Reef-Central response with-out being drawn into some web drama with the rest of the web experts.
Let me share with you one of my favorite flawed conclusions, which unlike above, is actually based on ACCURATE statistical information.
"Everyone has only a 50% chance of every dying."
Half of the population of mankind that has lived on earth, since the beginning of mankind, is alive today. The population of man on this earth is an exponential
quote:
________________________________________
Originally posted by spazz
below you will find the recomended thickenss for that aquarium. this calculator is from the cyro wesite. that tank will end up with a noticable bow in it over time. im not sure who is building that tank but they should have used at least 3/4" acrylic if not 1" acrylic for the fornt and back. the sides could have been 3/4" and the top and bottom could have been 1/2" acrylic. you may not have any problems with the tank bursting but it will bow. there is no doubt in my mind of that because of how long the tank is.
H Enter Height of Tank [in] 24
L Enter Length of Tank [in] 119
Is the top closed ? (yes or no) yes
q Maximum Water Pressure [psi] 0.8664
L/H L/H 4.958333333
a Maximum Allowable Stress for Acrylite GP in Aquarium [psi] 750
b b 0.94
Tc Thickness of Sheet required with top [in] 0.791
________________________________________
This aquarium, and four prior to this have been built by The Aquarium Company in Winthrop, MN. Spazz, you haven't been the first to question the thickness of the tank and I thought that I would send off your thoughts directly to the builder for his comments. I thought that I would post his reply to me for others to see.
"Lot of armchair aquarium builders out there. It never ceases to amaze me the number of "experts" that present themselves in fields where they have very limited working knowledge or experience. You have nothing to worry about on your aquarium. The bow you see right now is what you will see 5-10 years from now. The bow and flex reaches its maximum at about 3.2X the height of the material ie. the bow of a 24" tank reaches its maximum flex at about 77", this is from Rorke, the military spec data on materials stress and strain, materials with a fixed top and bottom. As for the calculator, it just doesn't fit for your construction. First, it is for a two part polymerized joint, not solvent. The polymerized joints in real world use, just are not as strong or durable and do require thicker materials. Second, it does not figure for a Euro-Brace. There are dynamics with this that are not addressed. Third, it figures for a 750 PSI allowance on a joint that will see about .85 psi. Also, this spreadsheet formula has nothing to do with bow, and bow is what your expert derives from the formula. These are flawed conclusions drawn from inaccurate information from a non-applicable formula. Chuck, I just don't know how to nicely word this for a Reef-Central response with-out being drawn into some web drama with the rest of the web experts.
Let me share with you one of my favorite flawed conclusions, which unlike above, is actually based on ACCURATE statistical information.
"Everyone has only a 50% chance of every dying."
Half of the population of mankind that has lived on earth, since the beginning of mankind, is alive today. The population of man on this earth is an exponential
Klaus Jansen
.Registered Member
I think so.... the Volcano skimmers are to high for using a Laguna, Red Dragon or Siccis. The Construction of a Volcano.Skimmer is not bad, or i see an improvement potential at the pump, the nozzle and the bubbleplate. Are the Skimmers to high, he need so much more Electricity for high airintake and the Waterflow is to high and make to many turbulences..
@Spazz, if you read her, please make more Needles in your Needlewheel and testing the Pump again. Reduce the Skimmerhigh 30-40 %.
A Cone is not the answer of the Problems with Pumpperformance. This is anouther way..
regards... Klaus
hahnmeister
In Memoriam
Hello Klaus,
I agree about the pump (more pins). But you mentioned reducing the skimmer height by 30-40%... and thats really where the cone comes in (besides just cutting down the overall height)... or one of the other similar options. Just adding more air alone could turn into more of a problem with the neck... you start going over 4000lph on a 8" neck... well... the cone helps there too. The cone (or curved supermarine style cone) helps because it allows you to set the waterline lower where the neck is wider, but the foam duesnt just collect below a reducer. That was all. So no, the cone body in itself is not a complete solution (as it would still put the waterline rather high unless you go over 4000lph)... its part of a simpler solution (than having to modify the motor(s), body, and neck)... otherwise I see needing to rip off the reducer as well as making a whole new collection cup... which seems even more expensive to me.
PS: I dont want to dwell on it (but Im sure some of you might wonder), but if my restriction is to not post in ATB related or competitor threads, well... this is neither (Spazz Quit), so maybe I can help you guys out. But I was thinking, maybe so as to not step on anyone's toes who has a Volcano, and loves it (this was supposed to be a club thread), maybe a seperate thread, perhaps something like 'DIY ways to improve the Volcano' would be better.
I agree about the pump (more pins). But you mentioned reducing the skimmer height by 30-40%... and thats really where the cone comes in (besides just cutting down the overall height)... or one of the other similar options. Just adding more air alone could turn into more of a problem with the neck... you start going over 4000lph on a 8" neck... well... the cone helps there too. The cone (or curved supermarine style cone) helps because it allows you to set the waterline lower where the neck is wider, but the foam duesnt just collect below a reducer. That was all. So no, the cone body in itself is not a complete solution (as it would still put the waterline rather high unless you go over 4000lph)... its part of a simpler solution (than having to modify the motor(s), body, and neck)... otherwise I see needing to rip off the reducer as well as making a whole new collection cup... which seems even more expensive to me.
PS: I dont want to dwell on it (but Im sure some of you might wonder), but if my restriction is to not post in ATB related or competitor threads, well... this is neither (Spazz Quit), so maybe I can help you guys out. But I was thinking, maybe so as to not step on anyone's toes who has a Volcano, and loves it (this was supposed to be a club thread), maybe a seperate thread, perhaps something like 'DIY ways to improve the Volcano' would be better.
His skimmer 25.5" high 12" diameter and the worst the neck it's 2.5" diameter .... in this toy laguna 1500 will be good enough but also 2 sicce can be better since they flow less water and more air and this is IMO what he will need because of his narrow neck...
he got 4 OR 2700 and as i thought those pump pull no more then 7LPM so he flow more water then air....
On the big skimmer IMO if spazz will use the same needle wheel as the Reeflo skimmer have it will be better and maybe to add 2 pump , or to mod a con shape like Hahn mention .... this will reduce the water volume and back pressure to... but IMO he need to work on the pumps since he have there problem.... and even with short body still his needle wheel impeller not build good enough to create nice foam and the result of the air pump will not help to maybe more bubble but nothing real will change the performance.....
Mr James
Premium Member
I must agree in all fairness. I do not have the actual "Volcano" product that we know of today. I have an early model. Maybe a prototype if you will. But it makes for some fun DIY stuff.
Klaus. I respect your information and admit that I may have jumped in over my head with that comment. I should have said that I am willing to look into whether or not a conical body is the answer, for my skimmer that is. Thanks for the heads up and keep the positive dialog going!!
Mavgi. As always, thanks for your assistance!! I was considering asking Scott to make me a taller, more "conical" top with a bigger opening that what I have. I agree that my opening should be more than the 2.5" that it is. Maybe Scott can help. (Uh oh, just read he quit - what does that mean??) Otherwise, I may have to look into it myself. Yikes! Would a conical body, still with the 2.5" neck and smaller pumps, still be a problem?? Do I need to consider a bubble (diffuser) plate too??
Last edited:
if it was my skimmer i was doing that.... first i was getting laguna 5000 it's the cheapest laguna pump maybe $90 and mod this one to the skimmer body .... this pump can adjust from 20-45LPM and all your 4 pump not pick together more then 20LPM.... so you will need to low the water level becuase the air and start skim before the funnel...
and to be honest i don't care who build the skimmer but if i need to fix it or to change the body you can get new one less cost and bottom line it will work better and also you can attached to it the laguna 5000 .
if you can give me time i will send you my 1500 with few reducer at this way you can adjust from 20-35LPM and see how it work before you spending money..... but it will take sometime....
My skimmer is classified as a "2460" This means it has a 24" body tube and 60" of height. It is force fed with an alita 80. I have a valve on the air input to adjust the amount going into the skimmer. After a quick learning curve on how to adjust the air input to control the type of skimmate it produces I love my skimmer. For wetter skimmate I crank up the air, it does get turbulent but I can knock out a quick head of foam to polish the water. For gentle cleansing I open the valve and bleed off much of the air. The bubble density and action looks like a BK or ATB. I prefer to keep my valve partially open,which means I am bleeding off a small amount of the air going into the skimmer. This produces consistent, thick sludge unlike anything I have seen before in any skimmer. I get very little "skimmate" but instead have to take a spatula to scrape down the neck where everything collects.
Through all of this my water level inside the skimmer stays consistent. I do not change the water level as I change the air input.
Needless to say these skimmers take some time to get used to to get their sweet spot for a system. I would use an air pump on any of them and use a control valve to adjust the rate of air input to match your criteria. From my experience I haven't seen a skimmer yet that compares.
My skimmer wasn't plug and play. It took me awhile before I realized how to contol the air input to really maximize my skimmer. Their are certain air settings that just don't work.
I would get an oversized air pump and play with controlling the air input with a valve. It works great for me and has been problem free. I haven't even had to clean the needlwheel in two years.
I like the fact that I can adjust my air input and make the skimmer function to meet my particular needs.
For instance if I treat the tank with medicine and I want to strip it out quickly I adjust the air input to get the most air possible into the skimmer. This gets really turbulent but still cranks out alot(like gallons) of wet skimmate quickly.
MY BEST ADVICE: if my skimmer doesn't get enough air it just doesn't produce like I need it. Add the air pump and a valve to adjust the air input amount. Get an oversized air pump and bleed it off or back it down with the valve. You should see great results. That is how mine is set-up. Hopefully it will work for you.
Other than that I wouldn't change anything else. If that doesn't work than go ahead and try some of those other plans.
Through all of this my water level inside the skimmer stays consistent. I do not change the water level as I change the air input.
Needless to say these skimmers take some time to get used to to get their sweet spot for a system. I would use an air pump on any of them and use a control valve to adjust the rate of air input to match your criteria. From my experience I haven't seen a skimmer yet that compares.
My skimmer wasn't plug and play. It took me awhile before I realized how to contol the air input to really maximize my skimmer. Their are certain air settings that just don't work.
I would get an oversized air pump and play with controlling the air input with a valve. It works great for me and has been problem free. I haven't even had to clean the needlwheel in two years.
I like the fact that I can adjust my air input and make the skimmer function to meet my particular needs.
For instance if I treat the tank with medicine and I want to strip it out quickly I adjust the air input to get the most air possible into the skimmer. This gets really turbulent but still cranks out alot(like gallons) of wet skimmate quickly.
MY BEST ADVICE: if my skimmer doesn't get enough air it just doesn't produce like I need it. Add the air pump and a valve to adjust the air input amount. Get an oversized air pump and bleed it off or back it down with the valve. You should see great results. That is how mine is set-up. Hopefully it will work for you.
Other than that I wouldn't change anything else. If that doesn't work than go ahead and try some of those other plans.
Reefaquariumnut
Premium Member
Stan -
When I look at pictures of you skimmer its a little different than mine.
1 - Your venturi is shorter than mine and I have a feeling that Scott custom built your venturi.
2 - Your diffuser plate looks like it has more and smaller holes.
3 - If he knew you were "bleeding" air off before the skimmer why wasn't this a standard option added to the skimmer?
4 - Your diameter is 24 and mine is 18. That could make a huge difference in performance.
The fact that Scott can't give me answers why my 1860 isn't skimming effciently and just says "I'll will some new parts that should improve performance" troubles me. Why didn't he just equipt the skimmer with these parts at first? He also says my needle wheel is a standard wheel because "a custom one would make the skimmer much more expensive"...I never once asked about price, but I did ask a hundred times about simplicity and performance.
I hardly ever can get a hold of Scott and i don't have any standards (instructions) to go by. I doubt Scott ever did any testing on these models. I think he went off your skimmer as well as the St. Judes skimmer and made some assumptions about smaller models.
Now that Scott is done, he told me he had to get a job out of town, what do you expect me to do? I have a glorified 60 gallon holding tank that I need modifications on that will need time, money and effort. I told Scott at the beginning I wanted something "plug and play" or as close to that as possible.
So I sit and wait for parts (and answers), brainstorm with people here and online, adjust anything that i can, research other possible solutions, and all the while my patience just keeps growing thinner and thinner.
If you bought a Ferrari and were told (after you paid for it) there might be some additional tuning of the engine and transmission (and they might need to send you some parts) to get it run correctly, what would you do?
When I look at pictures of you skimmer its a little different than mine.
1 - Your venturi is shorter than mine and I have a feeling that Scott custom built your venturi.
2 - Your diffuser plate looks like it has more and smaller holes.
3 - If he knew you were "bleeding" air off before the skimmer why wasn't this a standard option added to the skimmer?
4 - Your diameter is 24 and mine is 18. That could make a huge difference in performance.
The fact that Scott can't give me answers why my 1860 isn't skimming effciently and just says "I'll will some new parts that should improve performance" troubles me. Why didn't he just equipt the skimmer with these parts at first? He also says my needle wheel is a standard wheel because "a custom one would make the skimmer much more expensive"...I never once asked about price, but I did ask a hundred times about simplicity and performance.
I hardly ever can get a hold of Scott and i don't have any standards (instructions) to go by. I doubt Scott ever did any testing on these models. I think he went off your skimmer as well as the St. Judes skimmer and made some assumptions about smaller models.
Now that Scott is done, he told me he had to get a job out of town, what do you expect me to do? I have a glorified 60 gallon holding tank that I need modifications on that will need time, money and effort. I told Scott at the beginning I wanted something "plug and play" or as close to that as possible.
So I sit and wait for parts (and answers), brainstorm with people here and online, adjust anything that i can, research other possible solutions, and all the while my patience just keeps growing thinner and thinner.
If you bought a Ferrari and were told (after you paid for it) there might be some additional tuning of the engine and transmission (and they might need to send you some parts) to get it run correctly, what would you do?
Reefaquariumnut
Premium Member
from where to where? cylinder? cylinder and cone? base, cylinder, and cone? base, cylinder, cone, and neck?
From the floor to start of neck (end of cone) is 50"
From the floor to start of neck (end of cone) is 50"
just dave
11th in '11
What do you mean by "done? Done with you, this thread, the business....?
I follow a lot of these threads to gain info for my customers that may be interested in some of these items and I can say that from someone on the outside looking in I'm kinda angry so I can only imagine what those of you left holding the bag must feel like.
If it were me I would go the air pump route. It seems to be the least expensive way to get the results you're after. The other alternatives require you to experiment and could lead to more expense with unsatisfactory results.
Good luck.
Herpervet
New member
Energy,
One more question: What kind of valve are you using to bleed off air? It sounds like the one you are using allows fairly precise fine-tuning.
Mine is very touchy and I am thinking that a different valve might help.
I know it is a very big hassle to drain and open up the dart, but I would like to see a pic of your pin-wheel to compare to mine if it is possible.
One more question: What kind of valve are you using to bleed off air? It sounds like the one you are using allows fairly precise fine-tuning.
Mine is very touchy and I am thinking that a different valve might help.
I know it is a very big hassle to drain and open up the dart, but I would like to see a pic of your pin-wheel to compare to mine if it is possible.
Last edited:
Reefaquariumnut
Premium Member
Well if he got another job (out of town), I don't know how that leaves him time to build skimmers and skimmer research and development? I have an air pump and have tried to use max air and partial air and there just isn't enough of a foam head to skim much of anything. I can skim pretty wet, but the foam head is something like 1-2". I think short and fat bodies (like energy's) are better for skimmate production...as well as the other 3 items I noted above in this thread
Similar threads
