Warner Marine K2

[Big_D]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15087560#post15087560 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by 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.

I agree as well... there's only one problem with that though, one persons results with a particular skimmer may vary from anothers. Simple as that!!!


Just as Scott posted above as well as you have Mojo on many threads, you feel the Alpha 250 has issues. By the both of you saying this, you have most likely swayed the decision of a few reefers that could have not only benefited from purchasing this skimmer, but they most likely would have loved it!


I will say now, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the Alpha 250 skimmers. They are incredibly well built skimmers that perform phenominally!!! Klaus definately knows what he's doing when it comes to skimmers, if he didn't all of these other manufacturers wouldn't be copying his pump design! Just because you or Scott didn't have great success with your Alphas doesn't mean that they are not built properly or the neck is too large like you have stated many times... here's living proof.


This is the second load of skimmate from my Alpha250 on my 180gal, about 4 days after cleaning the cup from the initial cup full.

My case in point... I should have said the second load of skimmate from YOUR Alpha 250... this is the same exact skimmer that you claimed could not perform and had too large of a neck!!! I picked it up from PA after you sent it back. This is living proof that your tank was no where near large enough for this skimmer to perform.

I'm not a newb to the skimmer game, I've definately owned more than the average reefer... Scott I'm sure you remember me raising a little heII on the MSX threads when Luke was around. This Alpha replaced an OctoPro 250 with the upgraded Askoll 1500 pump, which replaced my MSX300, which replaced a DAS EX-3, which took the place of an MR2... so far it has out skimmed every one of them and is in a completely different league when it comes to build quality (the MR2 is the only one that comes the close). I've owned many more and still do, but most of them aren't even worth the mention... maybe my Euroreef CS12-2 back in it's day.



My point in all of this is like I said earlier... one persons results will most likely vary from anothers when it comes to performance... there are many factors that come into play! You saying the Alpha250 doesn't perform... well I prooved it WRONG! Back to your original statement:

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15087560#post15087560 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by mojo~
I would think overall performance should be top on the list

So far this one is tops on my list!


Of course I'm not afforded the luxury of retailers shipping me their products to try out everytime they release a new model... I have to actually buy mine. That's why I do my homework and study every aspect I can... glad I didn't listen to every review on this one though!



I'll get off my soapbox now... I just really think you guys are doing this fine piece of equipment a true injustice and it's for no reason... it does perform!




D

 

[sjm817]

Big D, I'm very happy yours is working well for you. Unfortunately, I didn't have as good luck with it as you did. I posted my honest exp with the skimmer, and is not meant to sway anyone one way or another.

This is a K2 thread and it is off track. My comments were more in general that a skimmers performance cant always be judged on specs alone. Real performance testing as being done by Jeremy is a real benefit to the consumer.

 

[Big_D]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15088868#post15088868 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by sjm817
This is a K2 thread and it is off track. My comments were more in general that a skimmers performance cant always be judged on specs alone. Real performance testing as being done by Jeremy is a real benefit to the consumer.

I'll agree with you on all of these Scott...

There's a lot of options out there now and it's a very tough decision to make. I truley believe Jeremy's comparison testing will prove to be very valuable to customers.





D

 

[mojo~]

LOL I love that box, Well I have much to ad but not about the k2 so Ill keep it to myself. I am glad you are having better luck with the skimmer did you do the nozzle mod? Shoot me pm on this as I dont want to add to the K2 neck thread. And I can say I have paid for every skimmer that I have reviewed up to the alpha. The alpha was the first one I had a chance to try. So please do a little more homework before you accuse me of getting everything for free. I have spent thousands of my own money to review all of these skimmers. I dont know that you proved anything really. Comparing to its competition is what I was trying to do. If dont agree its ok. Not everyone always sees eye to eye. Its all good.

Mojo~

 

[Jeremy B.]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15086922#post15086922 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Warner Marine
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.

Thanks Jon, I always wanted to take some of these skirts on the bubble plates and cut them off just to see what would happen. We don't use them on cylinder skimmers, so why bother with the cones. Interesting....

 

[Warner Marine]

Which equally sized skimmer design offers more "usable cone area"?

 

[mkarston]

I'm posting mostly to "subscribe" to this thread, as I find there has been some really good discussion here.

Having done much research on skimmers lately, PMing many fellow reefers, calling vendors, distributors, manufacturers, etc... I do feel the only way to have a good idea of comparing skimmers is with these real-world comparisons and evaluating"external" quantifiable metrics that effect the customer/user. These are things like skimmer dimensions (i.e. footprint), power usage, ease of maintenance(i.e. cup removal, build quality) and skimmate production. Things like air draw, water draw, body shape / angle, neck diameter, etc.. are all things that make up the "specs" but are "internal" attributes of the skimmer. That is, these are things that are happening "under-the-hood" and as mentioned don't necessarily related to good or bad performance.

That all being said, I also agree with that the same skimmer may behave differently on 2 different systems. So, if Jeremy does a side-by-side comparison and skimmer "A" proves to be better then skimmer "B". I might do that same comparison and find that skimmer "B" performs better for me. But, this sort of comparison is meant as as reference and is the best we sometimes have to go on, when getting ready to spend money on a piece of equipment.

I agree with much of what has been said so far, and think that further exploring topics such as "The Cone Design - Explored", and "How to compare skimmers" are interesting topics, but as pointed out, not the topic of this thread, but I would love to see new threads created to discuss this more.

 

[Big_D]

Great post mkarston... couldn't agree more!






D

 

[sjm817]

I would say the usable cone would look something like this:

I would even go so far to say the area below the bubble plate is a usable part of the skimmer. There is air/water/bubble contact down there which must do some good.

 

[Warner Marine]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15094526#post15094526 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by sjm817
I would say the usable cone would look something like this:


I would even go so far to say the area below the bubble plate is a usable part of the skimmer. There is air/water/bubble contact down there which must do some good.

Scott, In this case Jeremy and Mojo were talking about usable cone. Remember the cone concept is to guide the air/water mixture gently UP to be compressed and concentrated leading to the neck. This is accomplished by the foam contacting the cone wall and traveling up. That is "usable cone" volume/area. The lower bubble plate chamber is a highly turbulent "mixing chamber" and as such, little organic bonding occurs.

 

[sjm817]

Right. Thats what I meant by "some good" and didn't have it in the red triangle. I think it would be hard to exactly say how much bonding is done there at a molecular level. Its all theory.

My point was more I think the part of the skimmer just above the bubble plate is a usable area.

My actual point on this thread is this is the problem. This stuff can be beaten to death. Much of it is theory that may or may not translate into actual skimming capability. I'm not referring to any mfgrs technology, just in general. This is what makes actual performance testing useful.

Since this is a K2 thread, I dont think it is the best place to discuss general cone or skimmer technologies in general. That might be best done on a separate thread.

 

[mojo~]

Well all in all, I have had 4 cone skimmers now. I can say that most of the cone skimmers have had extra time and thought into making them better. Like nice pumps, quieter ect... I am not sold on the cone design yet. I would say the K2 is the least amount of turbulence of the all the skimmers I have tested. Now if I get the new k2 in the mail I have to do some more testing on it. But They are not all created equal that is for sure. Just because you bought a cone skimmer doesnt mean you hit a home run sort of speak.
All in all the recent changes in the skimmer have really helped the consumer. Being able to buy an askoll powered skimmer for about half of what they used to be. Sicce pump skimmers pulling over 1000 lph of air on pinwheel. The manufactures have really stepped up totry to bring the best product they can and still keep the price down. Alot of them have been forced to go to china to get this done. Which is sad in this economy of ours. Buts it is reality.
The k2 is a solid product and should not be overlooked. I think that it can be used on a wide variety of systems with great results. Just my two cents.

Mojo~

 

[Jeremy B.]

Jon -

I just fired one up here, can you give me a recommendation on the water level I should be running it at?

Thanks,
Jeremy

 

[Warner Marine]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15121088#post15121088 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Jeremy B.
Jon -

I just fired one up here, can you give me a recommendation on the water level I should be running it at?

Thanks,
Jeremy

Hey Jeremy,

Most are happy around 8"...
start there and see how it looks.

 

[Jeremy B.]

Thanks, will try it there.

 

[GSMguy]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15090505#post15090505 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Jeremy B.
Thanks Jon, I always wanted to take some of these skirts on the bubble plates and cut them off just to see what would happen. We don't use them on cylinder skimmers, so why bother with the cones. Interesting....

its there as microbubble insurance not necessary really, sang cut his off last year and it worked just the same.

 

[GSMguy]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15090505#post15090505 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Jeremy B.
Thanks Jon, I always wanted to take some of these skirts on the bubble plates and cut them off just to see what would happen. We don't use them on cylinder skimmers, so why bother with the cones. Interesting....

its there as microbubble insurance not necessary really, sang cut his off last year and it worked just the same.

 

[mojo~]

Not trying to stir any pot. but I fired up the k2 today. And i had a club member there as well. Even before breaking in hte turbulence in the k2 is amazing. The bubbles just simply rise. no swirl at all. Now I am a big fan of some other skimmers but this is the least turbulent of all the ones thus far without a doubt. Hopefully that produces more skimmate. About 7 to 9 inches on the k2. 8 being about perfect. it pulls a little more air at 8 inches.

 

[mojo~]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15094526#post15094526 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by sjm817
I would say the usable cone would look something like this:

I would even go so far to say the area below the bubble plate is a usable part of the skimmer. There is air/water/bubble contact down there which must do some good.

I looked back at my videos and the bubbles on the k2 start on top of the bubble plate to the outside of the cone.
On the other they dont hit the side until they get past the ring. some may swirl around some coming down.
Hope this is helpful.

Mojo~

 

[Buganddoug]

I have used many skimmers in more than 15 years of reef keeping.
I have the K2 skimmer running on my 180 now for two months. The K2 has the least turbulent of any skimmer I have used. It pulls very hard.
My last Skimmer was a MRC-2. I have to say it was the worst skimmer I have ever used. I had to adjust it every day just to keep it skimming and it used a power hungry pump 180w. the K2 only uses a 21w pump and my air draw is the same if not better than the MRC-2.
When I found the sweet spot on the K2 I never had to make adjustments. That was a BIG PLUS for Me!! and I can not complain about the 159 watts savings.
By the way Jon is awesome to deal with at WM. I have spoke to him many time and I give him a A+.
I am looking forward to meeting him at MACNA this September.
Daniel