Warner Marine K2

[mojo~]

Hi Jeremy,
Just wondered how the Neck on the new Warner MArine K2 looks compaired to the Alpha. I know they are both threaded. I just didnt see pics on your website yet and was really curious of this. I know there has been a lot of work done on the K2 to bring the build quality to those compairable to the royal exclusive line. I havent seen the new K2's that were shipped this week. What do you think?
Mojo~

 

[vanillagorila]

Mojo, I don't think PA sells WM skimmers.

 

[mojo~]

They are not on there site yet. They got some in this week from my understanding. I know I talked with Jeremy in the past and they were getting some.

 

[vanillagorila]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15059582#post15059582 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by mojo~
They are not on there site yet. They got some in this week from my understanding. I know I talked with Jeremy in the past and they were getting some.

oh, cool. I wonder if they are going to carry the H series?

 

[ct_vol]

Re: Warner Marine K2

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15059194#post15059194 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by mojo~
Hi Jeremy,
Just wondered how the Neck on the new Warner MArine K2 looks compaired to the Alpha. I know they are both threaded. I just didnt

Threaded as in screw on??? I figured they were compression fitted like the ATB's... Is there a pic somewhere of the either the K2 and/or the Alpha's neck I could look at???

 

[plantguy]

They are in stock, but I don't think he has had a chance to check them out yet as they just got checked in.

 

[mojo~]

the neck itself I guess looks like this.
http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1642389

 

[ct_vol]

Thanks for the link mojo... What was your opinion of the threaded neck??? I tend to agree with what Scott said, thats why I asked about it...

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15063872#post15063872 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by sjm817
JMO, I didn't like this feature on the Alpha skimmer when I had it. Spinning the whole cup around a couple times to remove and install just seemed silly with no real benefit. Some other Alpha owners agree. I prefer a simple slip fit neck. Its not a real big deal, but some people may not like it. Just FYI.

 

[mojo~]

I like it ok. Unsure really. some necks taht slide in are really tight and you have to hold the skimmer to get it off. other pop right off.

 

[Jeremy B.]

The neck is indeed threaded. One thing I was surprised about was how short the cone was, versus how high the bubble plate sets. There is only 8" from the bubble plate to the top of the collar where the cup sits.

 

[mojo~]

I think that is to make room for the VBT. HAve to ask Jon Warner to be sure. the body is wider too. Well compared to the ATB. I havent gotten one yet. MAybe in another day or two I ll have one to take some pics of and play with. How does the neck compare to the one on the ALpha?

 

[Jeremy B.]

It takes 2.5 turns to get the cup off, which is similar to the Alpha. The neck diameter is 4.5", pushing 950LPH. This one is very comparable to the Alpha 170 which is 900LPH at a 4.7" neck.

 

[mojo~]

So the alpha with the super nozzle will pull about 900 lph of air with only a 6.75 inch base of the cone right? the WM has like a 10 in base though. The body on the k2 is much larger than that of a 170. At least from what I can see from the specs. Not sure but I think the k2 will have more reaction time vs the alpha 170. air draw is similar in the specs but the the alpha goes from a 6.75 base to a 4.7 inch neck the K2 goes from about 10 inches to a 4.5 inch neck. Alot more taper and cone shape on it compared to the alpha 170. Only 2 inches different from the base to the neck on the 170. where the k2 has about 5.5 inch difference. It will be interesting to see how much more the taper has an effect on performance. I have seen the k2 and ran it. With the bigger body and greater taper it had a more gentle bubble pattern in it than most of the other cones. I cant wait to hook up the k2 and check the air draw on it. The prototype one i hade actually pulled closer to 1100lph over the 950 it was rated for. Well time will tell. I hope the smaller alpha perform better than the 250 did for me out of the box. it seems that if you cut the nozzle down to get more air out of it it works pretty good. At least thats what I have been hearing from those emailing me on it. So I wonder if you change the length of the nozzle on the smaller alpha's if you will ge tmore air as well. hmm

 

[Jeremy B.]

The K2's base plate is 10", however the actual acrylic body is closer to 9". The top of the bubble plate is pretty high up in the body though, and the body diameter is only 7" where the bubble plate is, so really you are going from 7" down to 4.5" which is 2.5" drop. You still get a little more angle than the Alpha, but it's still a pretty close taper, going down 2" on the Alpha, and 2.5" on the K2.

I've had 3 people who weren't satisfied with the Alpha 250 who have ran it. In my opinion the systems they were on just didn't have the bioload capacity for them. If you look through the "Alpha cone club" thread you'll see plenty of dark, nasty gunky skimmate.

Another thing I am noticing with the cones I have ran so far (ATB 840, Alpha 250, SWC 250A) is that they all run the water level really high up into the neck. Even the 840 runs the actual water level (water level determined in the skimmer after feeding mysis to the system) at the bottom of the collection cup. The Alpha 250 has actually had the lowest running water level out of those three skimmers so far.

 

[mojo~]

what is the measurement of the alpha 170 where the bubble plate is?
I have probably had a dozen or so people email me on the 250's but once they made changes to the nozzle were much more pleased with the performance.
I guess I not really compairing the two skimmers as the alpha's are not here yet. As the cone gets wider towards the bottom i allows the water exiting the skimmer a wider path and to slow down some creating less turbulence. At least that is the theory. I ll have to go back on my video and revisit the flow pattern in the skimmer. Now looking at the alpha 200 it has more of a cone shape than the 170. Thats just from the pictures. And well How much does the cone shape even matter? That is a question that can be argued back and forth I am sure. Just like the ATB vertex in 100 comparison you are doing. Great comparison. To me its all about a balance of air, water, and skimmer design. Alot of good cylinder skimmers are getting overlooked for ok cone skimmers. I am not pointing out any names at all. But I am on my 4th cone skimmer and not all are created equal and am on about 30 or so different skimmers in all. Not all work the same even though specs are similar. a little change here and there can make a world of difference in performance. Just my two cents. Sorry ddint mean to hijack anything. Great work Jeremy. I would like to see the alpha 170 vs the vertex in 100 or maybe the alph 200 vs the vertex in 200. Be interesting to see.

Mojo~

 

[Warner Marine]

Hey Guys...

Hope it's OK for me to pop in and explain a few things.

1) Bubble Plate Height

With the VBT in action... there is no need for the tall "skirt" that other skimmers use on TOP of their bubble plates. The head of bubbles literally "lays" on top of the bubble plate... maybe 1" above. So to compare apples to apples... compare the height of our bubble plate to the height of the top of the skirt on other skimmers. And MOJO's correct... the wider base reduces turbulence and micro-bubbles.

see picture below

SO one needs to compare the actual section of cone being used... what is the volume of cone that has bubbles up against the wall of the cone? Skimmers that use the skirt lose several inches of cone volume, but it's necessary because if they don't they'll have problems with micro-bubbles. Hence the VBT...

http://reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1487984

2) Air Flow

Depending on the meter, we see between 34-38 SCFH (950-1100LPH) from the K-2. When the water level in the body is low, it can be even higher. The Sicce is very sensitive to restriction on the air feed so a small meter like an RMA will read lower than a low restriction RMC.

That's all... just wanted to clarify the whole plate height and "usable cone" issue...

Jon

 

[mojo~]

Now this is an old video from the first prototype and maybe I should wait till I get the new one but this shows the bubble going to the side like Warner Marine Mentioned.



Maybe this will be helpful. I know some improvements have been made to make this even better. We will see. I ll have mine tomorrow.

 

[mojo~]

I can take a hd video with my camera so you can see the flow pattern in the cone. But here is the other video I had of the prototype. Again it has been refined quite a believe since then. I will find out tomorrow night.

Mojo~

 

[sjm817]

You can compare and contrast technologies and design specs all day long, but in the end, what matters is, does it skim well or doesn't it? The proof is literally in the pudding. The side by side test that Jeremy is doing is a great idea. Two very different skimmers that in the end, have similar skimming capability.

I will comment on the Alpha cone since it has been brought up. I was one of the ones who was not happy with it. Nothing to do with the design per se. The fact that it only pulled out 1/2 as much skimate as my MSX250 with an Askoll pump was the issue. I have ~ 240G TSV and have sufficient bioload. The skimmers are the same height, similar base size, same neck diameter, same cup size, both with Askoll 1500 pumps. Pretty close match up. I never got the chance to try the shorter 47mm tube mod that Jeremy came up with. I would suspect that it helps quite a bit.

My point is again, design stuff aside, in the end, the skimmer has to skim. That is what you buy it for.

I hope that Jeremy does more actual skimming tests on these products. The technology and products change so rapidly, its hard for a consumer to make an informed decision based on specs alone.

The reviews that Mojo has been doing are very valuable as well.

In addition to performance, noise level, reliability, ease of use and serviceability are other important things to consider.

 

[mojo~]

I totally agree scott. Just becuase it cost a ton doesnt mean it skims well. I would think overall performance should be top on the list. Everyone has a different way of doing things. But in the end, Which way works the best. Thanks for the kind words as well scott .

Mojo~