Waterfall Turf Algea Filter: CHEAP and EASY to build
- Thread starter SantaMonica
- Start date
Flatlander
Premium Member
Yes, same for me, although not really a pain, just adding more weight. Mine ran well and never failed to dump.
Flatlander
Premium Member
Did you check out the picture of my unit. It was designed to sit on the back 1ft. portion of a standard 4ft. by 2ft. type tank of something similar, I would guess. Then, {at least from the pic I seen when they were being sold}, a standard PFO or Hamilton double halide light hood would sit on the front 1ft. portion, which I,m guess was raised to work in the tank.
As mine was behind a wall, it sat on a shelf type set up, with just the dump chute in the tank itself. It could also sit over or just the chute portion, in a sump. Problem is when just running the chute in a tank or sump another 3ft. is needed length wise for the scrubber.
SantaMonica
Well-known member
I will indeed post results/efforts. Just ordered the pump and timer, and still trying to figure out how to order the seeded screen from IA. If not a seeded one, I'll use some of the examples from above.
Surge: I do like and understand the surge idea, even if it's just "filling the box up with a pump", but it just seems to introduce too many negatives for the small easily built unit that this is supposed to be. A real surge is just too difficult, but even a pumped fill-the-box technique means that algea will for sure cover the box as well as the screen (and cleaning the box will not be as easy, since it is small). So my first attempt is going to try to keep the box dry, while getting as much flow over the whole screen (no dead spots) as possible. Remember that tabletop waterfalls use the spraybar concept, and they are totally covered using very little flow. A side-benefit to the smallness of the unit is that it can easily be set on top the tank. You might not get lots of surge, but you'll get all the food from it.
By the way, in some further reading I just found out that not having alternating wet/dry/wet/dry cycles (in other words, an algae trough with no air) cuts processing by 50%. Thus, having the timer on the pump should allow the unit to be one-half of the size if it were continuous flow (i.e., no timer on the pump).
Surge: I do like and understand the surge idea, even if it's just "filling the box up with a pump", but it just seems to introduce too many negatives for the small easily built unit that this is supposed to be. A real surge is just too difficult, but even a pumped fill-the-box technique means that algea will for sure cover the box as well as the screen (and cleaning the box will not be as easy, since it is small). So my first attempt is going to try to keep the box dry, while getting as much flow over the whole screen (no dead spots) as possible. Remember that tabletop waterfalls use the spraybar concept, and they are totally covered using very little flow. A side-benefit to the smallness of the unit is that it can easily be set on top the tank. You might not get lots of surge, but you'll get all the food from it.
By the way, in some further reading I just found out that not having alternating wet/dry/wet/dry cycles (in other words, an algae trough with no air) cuts processing by 50%. Thus, having the timer on the pump should allow the unit to be one-half of the size if it were continuous flow (i.e., no timer on the pump).
biomekanic
New member
Thought on the "Spraybar" and surge:
Have you looked at using a SCWD and 2 'spraybars'?
Unfortunately I am file posting lame ( as well as CAD lame ) so getting a drawing up isn't an option.
Hook your pump up to 2 spraybars, each angled to faced one side of the screen, as the SCWD alternates feed, one side will be dry and the other submerged. With only 200gphs there would be a fairly decent dry period.
HTH
Have you looked at using a SCWD and 2 'spraybars'?
Unfortunately I am file posting lame ( as well as CAD lame ) so getting a drawing up isn't an option.
Hook your pump up to 2 spraybars, each angled to faced one side of the screen, as the SCWD alternates feed, one side will be dry and the other submerged. With only 200gphs there would be a fairly decent dry period.
HTH
SantaMonica
Well-known member
Well the scwd is an option for timing, but, I've had two for the tank already and they both locked up in a few months. Also, I'm not sure how much "spray" from one side would leak through to the other. Also again, you can't adjust their timing. Oh, and the noise. 
So, I've got some spraybar ideas I'm going to try. Super simple, just got to find the pieces and get them. Mean time, I got the pump and timer already, and I've setup the test bucket (pics below) with clip-on lights. And I'm still trying to get that seeded screen from IA.
Hydor L20 adjustable flow pump (ultra quiet), and JBJ Ocean Pulse Duo timer:
Test bucket with 5100K 23 Watt CFL Lights (120 watt light output equivalent):
So, I've got some spraybar ideas I'm going to try. Super simple, just got to find the pieces and get them. Mean time, I got the pump and timer already, and I've setup the test bucket (pics below) with clip-on lights. And I'm still trying to get that seeded screen from IA.
Hydor L20 adjustable flow pump (ultra quiet), and JBJ Ocean Pulse Duo timer:
Test bucket with 5100K 23 Watt CFL Lights (120 watt light output equivalent):
Interesting. Another piece of the ocean into the tank. Our skimmers do the surf; the fuge does the shallows, etc. I'm not inclined to do this much tinkering, and am quite happy with my fuge, but I'm all for experimentation in "new" tech. I didn't use the Berlin method in my last reef (before this one) because it was still too new for my lfs.
I've seen a lot of these things come and go---some work---the live rock thing---some don't work that well (the fluidized superfine sand column: boy, was that a mess!) but I'm all for somebody trying it out and seeing if it's ready for prime time.
Our skimmers do the surf; the fuge does the shallows, etc. I'm not inclined to do this much tinkering, and am quite happy with my fuge, but I'm all for experimentation in "new" tech. I didn't use the Berlin method in my last reef (before this one) because it was still too new for my lfs.I've seen a lot of these things come and go---some work---the live rock thing---some don't work that well (the fluidized superfine sand column: boy, was that a mess!) but I'm all for somebody trying it out and seeing if it's ready for prime time.
paulsilver
In Memoriam
I too don't mind being PM'd for a thread whose topic I had previously shown interest in, but I can understand how some may... and even if the poster intends to market the scrubber as a product at some point, why does that mean it is any less interesting to me?
So, I really like the compact size of this, assuming it will work.
That said, I have the Dynamic Aquaria book here on my lap. Adey states that their research showed that: "algae, in a well developed turf, can absorb typically 0.3 to 1.2 grams of N a day per square meter of screen." He goes on to say that too much scrubbing can result in reduction of N levels to where blue Green algae dominate, which absorb less nutrients than the turf algae does. His examples indicate a scrubber size of about 3.3 sq cm per liter (120 gallon coral reef aquarium) This is well more than 1 sq. inch per gallon... more like 3 sq in per gallon. So the size might need to go up to gain the action Adey reports. And this assumes high lighting levels using MH intensity bulbs. Lesser light intensity will result in lesser algae production, and so less nutrient extraction. Important point...
He stresses the need for intense lighting on the turf scrubber... he uses metal halides in most instances... just FYI, so his analysis of nutrient removal rates depends on the high levels of light, which he also says is a goal of the surge, which creates shimmer, and intensifies the light reaching the algae.
As far as I can tell, the surge issue pertains to creating a natural surge environment in the scrubber which maximizes metabolism in the turf algae, according to the book: "Assuming adequate light, algal production is limited only by inadequate exchange of metabolites -- oxygen, carbon dioxide, and nutrients -- between the water and the cells of the attached algae. We have demonstrated a strong correlation between wave surge and improved metabolic interchange: when we occasionally stop the wave generators in our main reef tanks -- while maintaining a constant rate of circulation and level of light -- immediately there is a 50% reduction of oxygen production. The surge generated by the wave maker produces a back and forth motion within the tank, preventing the development of semi stagnant boundary layers that occur when a constant flow of liquid passes a fixed object. A steady current would tend to pin the filaments in an immobile position, and a surface layer of very slow moving water would develop." So say Adey and Loveland.
So for their model, the surge action is deemed an important aspect of the scrubber, keeping the algae moving and enabling higher rates of metabolism, which means faster growth, and better nutrient export. Refugia just don't do this as well, but they seem to work for me.
As for comparisons with refugia, I would have to say that Eric Borneman has said that he felt a refugium would have to be about the same size as the display to have a real impact on water quality, but that it is fine to be smaller if using it as a refugium for pod growth rather than as a scrubber. So I can say I agree with small being effective, so Borneman supports the size ratios described in Adey to some extent, when he talks about refugia and size. Yes, in this instance, size does matter... ;-)
Never the less, I use a Chaeto based scrubber/refugium on my 210 + 90 = 29 that is only 75 gallons in size, has a deep sand bed (6") and a few pieces of LR... it acts to reduce nitrate somewhat, and also Phosphate to a greater degree... My feeling is that the Nitrates are removed more through the deep sand bed action than by the algae scrubbing, and that a good portion of the phosphates are as well. But still I use the Chaeto. And the 75 is nearly full of it, tumbling around in there.
As for the cleaning I would be very careful with the electrical aspects, as pointed out by Dendro982 above, both in terms of splash, creep and seepage, but especially when removing and replacing the screen... perhaps there should be some accommodation for sliding the box away from the lights for the screen removal.
Regarding Spray bars: these tend to clog, almost without exception, so the holes for this, and for the drain must be large enough to make this a non-issue, and must be cleaned regularly. So I would look to this issue as well.
So, where to now?
Perhaps a larger size is needed, but since lighting can be done from both sides, the box/screen combo might need be only half as large as a more traditional scrubber. But still much larger than discussed so far, as per both Adey & Loveland, and Borneman. At least according to these experts. Technical issues such as the cleaning and spillage/creep are in need of addressing, especially for a "commercial" version.
Hope this helped, and hope to see more comments here.
So, I really like the compact size of this, assuming it will work.
That said, I have the Dynamic Aquaria book here on my lap. Adey states that their research showed that: "algae, in a well developed turf, can absorb typically 0.3 to 1.2 grams of N a day per square meter of screen." He goes on to say that too much scrubbing can result in reduction of N levels to where blue Green algae dominate, which absorb less nutrients than the turf algae does. His examples indicate a scrubber size of about 3.3 sq cm per liter (120 gallon coral reef aquarium) This is well more than 1 sq. inch per gallon... more like 3 sq in per gallon. So the size might need to go up to gain the action Adey reports. And this assumes high lighting levels using MH intensity bulbs. Lesser light intensity will result in lesser algae production, and so less nutrient extraction. Important point...
He stresses the need for intense lighting on the turf scrubber... he uses metal halides in most instances... just FYI, so his analysis of nutrient removal rates depends on the high levels of light, which he also says is a goal of the surge, which creates shimmer, and intensifies the light reaching the algae.
As far as I can tell, the surge issue pertains to creating a natural surge environment in the scrubber which maximizes metabolism in the turf algae, according to the book: "Assuming adequate light, algal production is limited only by inadequate exchange of metabolites -- oxygen, carbon dioxide, and nutrients -- between the water and the cells of the attached algae. We have demonstrated a strong correlation between wave surge and improved metabolic interchange: when we occasionally stop the wave generators in our main reef tanks -- while maintaining a constant rate of circulation and level of light -- immediately there is a 50% reduction of oxygen production. The surge generated by the wave maker produces a back and forth motion within the tank, preventing the development of semi stagnant boundary layers that occur when a constant flow of liquid passes a fixed object. A steady current would tend to pin the filaments in an immobile position, and a surface layer of very slow moving water would develop." So say Adey and Loveland.
So for their model, the surge action is deemed an important aspect of the scrubber, keeping the algae moving and enabling higher rates of metabolism, which means faster growth, and better nutrient export. Refugia just don't do this as well, but they seem to work for me.
As for comparisons with refugia, I would have to say that Eric Borneman has said that he felt a refugium would have to be about the same size as the display to have a real impact on water quality, but that it is fine to be smaller if using it as a refugium for pod growth rather than as a scrubber. So I can say I agree with small being effective, so Borneman supports the size ratios described in Adey to some extent, when he talks about refugia and size. Yes, in this instance, size does matter... ;-)
Never the less, I use a Chaeto based scrubber/refugium on my 210 + 90 = 29 that is only 75 gallons in size, has a deep sand bed (6") and a few pieces of LR... it acts to reduce nitrate somewhat, and also Phosphate to a greater degree... My feeling is that the Nitrates are removed more through the deep sand bed action than by the algae scrubbing, and that a good portion of the phosphates are as well. But still I use the Chaeto. And the 75 is nearly full of it, tumbling around in there.
As for the cleaning I would be very careful with the electrical aspects, as pointed out by Dendro982 above, both in terms of splash, creep and seepage, but especially when removing and replacing the screen... perhaps there should be some accommodation for sliding the box away from the lights for the screen removal.
Regarding Spray bars: these tend to clog, almost without exception, so the holes for this, and for the drain must be large enough to make this a non-issue, and must be cleaned regularly. So I would look to this issue as well.
So, where to now?
Perhaps a larger size is needed, but since lighting can be done from both sides, the box/screen combo might need be only half as large as a more traditional scrubber. But still much larger than discussed so far, as per both Adey & Loveland, and Borneman. At least according to these experts. Technical issues such as the cleaning and spillage/creep are in need of addressing, especially for a "commercial" version.
Hope this helped, and hope to see more comments here.
Aquarist007
New member
thanks for bringing this idea to may attention. I can't add anymore then the guys already have. But I will link this thread to the Refugiums and Macro thread--you might get some more responce from them
http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1349443
Personally I welcome all emails---I here to learn as well as to help others.
For those that want there privacy you can select to refuse email of any kind
http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1349443
Personally I welcome all emails---I here to learn as well as to help others.
For those that want there privacy you can select to refuse email of any kind
Aquarist007
New member
thanks for bringing this idea to may attention. I can't add anymore then the guys already have. But I will link this thread to the Refugiums and Macro thread--you might get some more responce from them
http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1349443
Personally I welcome all emails---I here to learn as well as to help others.
For those that want there privacy you can select to refuse email of any kind
http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1349443
Personally I welcome all emails---I here to learn as well as to help others.
For those that want there privacy you can select to refuse email of any kind
SantaMonica
Well-known member
sk8r: Glad you like the experiment. The nice thing is that the basic concept is known to work; it's just a question of how easy I can build and use it, before I've changed the design too much. Who knows... if it works in the bucket, maybe I'll leave it that way because it's SO simple and cheap (would then become a cousin of the bucket DSB.)
Paul: Very good points. I thought somebody might have that book somewhere. As for size, fortunately this is just a test that can't do any damage. Thus the first goal is to just see if I can get/keep turf on the screen using a waterfall and cfl lights (bare minimum setup.) I just ordered the seeded screen from IA today, should have it tomorrow; you have to call them to order it, was $10 per 4 inch square section, and is shipped wet in a bag.
Since this is a 5 gal bucket test... that will be the screen size. I can enlarge it later when I do the actual box, but even if 3 square feet is the recommended amount for 100 gal, I'm hoping that the double-sided approach does indeed cut that in half. Plus I think Aday was giving that recommendation with the thought of removing the skimmer, which I won't be doing for a while. If, in the end, I can max out the screen size that I have with turf, then I'll know I'm ready for a larger size, and/or halides. Halides may be harsher on the box material... would have to make sure acrylic would not melt.
As for the surge, maybe there is a way to cause a back-and-forth swaying motion (that does not use a bucket); have not attempted to figure that out yet. As it stands now, at least the water will be going from nothing to a flow and back again; it just won't be reversing.
This is very interesting: "I would have to say that Eric Borneman has said that he felt a refugium would have to be about the same size as the display to have a real impact on water quality, but that it is fine to be smaller if using it as a refugium for pod growth rather than as a scrubber." I always thought he and others recommended 30% to 70& of the main volume for scrubbing; I did not know about 100%. That bodes even more for the turf.
"My feeling is that the Nitrates are removed more through the deep sand bed action than by the algae scrubbing, and that a good portion of the phosphates are as well." I agree, but I think this is where you get to the core usefulness of turf: Both turf and a fuge reduce nutrients to an "extent" on a said feeding schedule, but turf seems to be able to absorb very large feedings and nutrient spikes that a fuge (unless huge) can't. Couple this with the theoretical possibility of skimmer (and even sump) elimination, and a small footprint (even at 3 square feet, as long as it's vertical), and I think that's where the power of turf shows itself. A vertical turf should not collect detritus, yet still grow lots of food. I currently don't do any filtering in my sump; I just see it a box of water taking up space.
Electrically, I see what you mean... when you pull the screen up and out, it could drip on the lights. Maybe a little lip on the box could go over the lights to cover them. But the unit will be small, so it certainly could be lifted out too. Even a 3 foot by 1 foot screen, if vertical, could be lifted out and taken to the sink.
The spraybar: I should call it a nozzle instead. There really is no spray; just today I cut some pvc tube to see what the flow would be. I made a slit 6 inches long by 1/8 inch wide, and the 190 gph could not even fill the whole slot (needs more flow). It's more of an "outflow" than a spray. It would be impossible to clog.
Capn: Thanks for the link to the "good bad ugly"... was actually on my list to read next.
Paul: Very good points. I thought somebody might have that book somewhere. As for size, fortunately this is just a test that can't do any damage. Thus the first goal is to just see if I can get/keep turf on the screen using a waterfall and cfl lights (bare minimum setup.) I just ordered the seeded screen from IA today, should have it tomorrow; you have to call them to order it, was $10 per 4 inch square section, and is shipped wet in a bag.
Since this is a 5 gal bucket test... that will be the screen size. I can enlarge it later when I do the actual box, but even if 3 square feet is the recommended amount for 100 gal, I'm hoping that the double-sided approach does indeed cut that in half. Plus I think Aday was giving that recommendation with the thought of removing the skimmer, which I won't be doing for a while. If, in the end, I can max out the screen size that I have with turf, then I'll know I'm ready for a larger size, and/or halides. Halides may be harsher on the box material... would have to make sure acrylic would not melt.
As for the surge, maybe there is a way to cause a back-and-forth swaying motion (that does not use a bucket); have not attempted to figure that out yet. As it stands now, at least the water will be going from nothing to a flow and back again; it just won't be reversing.
This is very interesting: "I would have to say that Eric Borneman has said that he felt a refugium would have to be about the same size as the display to have a real impact on water quality, but that it is fine to be smaller if using it as a refugium for pod growth rather than as a scrubber." I always thought he and others recommended 30% to 70& of the main volume for scrubbing; I did not know about 100%. That bodes even more for the turf.
"My feeling is that the Nitrates are removed more through the deep sand bed action than by the algae scrubbing, and that a good portion of the phosphates are as well." I agree, but I think this is where you get to the core usefulness of turf: Both turf and a fuge reduce nutrients to an "extent" on a said feeding schedule, but turf seems to be able to absorb very large feedings and nutrient spikes that a fuge (unless huge) can't. Couple this with the theoretical possibility of skimmer (and even sump) elimination, and a small footprint (even at 3 square feet, as long as it's vertical), and I think that's where the power of turf shows itself. A vertical turf should not collect detritus, yet still grow lots of food. I currently don't do any filtering in my sump; I just see it a box of water taking up space.
Electrically, I see what you mean... when you pull the screen up and out, it could drip on the lights. Maybe a little lip on the box could go over the lights to cover them. But the unit will be small, so it certainly could be lifted out too. Even a 3 foot by 1 foot screen, if vertical, could be lifted out and taken to the sink.
The spraybar: I should call it a nozzle instead. There really is no spray; just today I cut some pvc tube to see what the flow would be. I made a slit 6 inches long by 1/8 inch wide, and the 190 gph could not even fill the whole slot (needs more flow). It's more of an "outflow" than a spray. It would be impossible to clog.
Capn: Thanks for the link to the "good bad ugly"... was actually on my list to read next.
paulsilver
In Memoriam
There is one guy on this thread who showed a photo of his unit that had some baffles to create turbulence... from the Adey book, there is no indication that they thought the algae benefited from a dry spell... the point with the surge was more to loosen up the clumps and allow water to flow and disrupt the boundary layers that lead to dead spots within the clumps... Baffles might be enough to do the job, as with that unit in the photo...
Algae growing on the sides of the box is another story... one might have to use, lo and behold, an algae scrapper to clean it out...
Algae growing on the sides of the box is another story... one might have to use, lo and behold, an algae scrapper to clean it out...
Paul B
Premium Member
I have a few problems with the design but it would still work with a lot of maintenance.
In the first picture with the enclosed box, algae would grow on the inside of the box weather it was underwater or not. It will always be damp enough for algae. The water splashing on the sides will cause the light to diminish greatly very quickly. You can't use the plastic wrap method wery well because it would melt.
You can modify the box to be a little wider and put the screen in on an angle from top to bottom, put the light over the top and solve those problems but the unit would have to be larger and you would only be able to light one side of the screen.
I am not crazy about any method where there is plastic between the lights and the screen.
Whatever method you finally come up with I use plastic window screen but I first sandpaper it very well then rub wet cement over the screen. That will cause a thin layer of cement to stick into the sand paper scratches greatly increasing the growth of the algae.
Algae love cement. Thats the method I use in my trough which by the way uses no seperate pump or light.
Keep designing, You will get all the bugs out after many models and modifications.
In the first picture with the enclosed box, algae would grow on the inside of the box weather it was underwater or not. It will always be damp enough for algae. The water splashing on the sides will cause the light to diminish greatly very quickly. You can't use the plastic wrap method wery well because it would melt.
You can modify the box to be a little wider and put the screen in on an angle from top to bottom, put the light over the top and solve those problems but the unit would have to be larger and you would only be able to light one side of the screen.
I am not crazy about any method where there is plastic between the lights and the screen.
Whatever method you finally come up with I use plastic window screen but I first sandpaper it very well then rub wet cement over the screen. That will cause a thin layer of cement to stick into the sand paper scratches greatly increasing the growth of the algae.
Algae love cement. Thats the method I use in my trough which by the way uses no seperate pump or light.
Keep designing, You will get all the bugs out after many models and modifications.
bergzy
New member
well, i have been using my 5g bucket fuge for the past 5 years now with great success.
hard to beat a fuge that costs about $5 to build (or free if you just have spare parts lying around...like an old salt bucket). i have found in my 5 years of using the 5g (and even smaller) bucket fuge of various sized tanks with varying reef inhabitants (softies to sps') that a fuge (if properly designed and utilized) doesnt have to be remotely any percentage of the display tank. i am talking about most residential non extreme systems. if and when i get to setting up my 400g display with a 200g sump and 'maybe' 150g or so cryptic zone...i would still use the 5g bucket refugium for macro growth. that is how well it works.
it has grown macro faster than any method i have used and is so easy to construct. literally 2 minutes to make and install...no, really TWO minutes!
why does it grow chaeto so fast? i think it is because i am able to replicate the rotational motion that chaeto likes in nature. this exposes the colony maximally to nutrients and allows every bit of the ball to be exposed to light. there is no bottom where colony growth my be little to none due to light restrictions. plus, the high flow (120x turnover) lets the chaeto get the most chance to nutrient absorption.
here it is spinning. the colony is much larger than i normally keep it to show it rotating. i normally try and keep it trimmed to a softball size or a very non dense volleyball size colony.
and...
i thought that some might be interested to see my $20 (or less) external zeovit reactor made from 2g and 5g buckets. currently, there are no zeovit reactors this large and the largest one one the market goes for over $400. i have been using this reactor for just over two years.
sooooo...one could say that my experience is just a drop in the bucket!!!:lol: :lol: :lol:
Last edited:
paulsilver
In Memoriam
Not to hijack a thread, but has anyone built a Ca+ Reactor out of buckets?
I was not quoting Borneman, just speaking from my memory of his book or an article somewhere... might have been 80% or some such... I got the impression that bigger is best...
I was not quoting Borneman, just speaking from my memory of his book or an article somewhere... might have been 80% or some such... I got the impression that bigger is best...
o.c.d.
New member
I didn't read the whole thread but looks cool. I would test the angle of the crate before you fasten and pegs to hold in place. an increased angle instead of true vertical may get better dispersal, esp with growth that may occur more at the top then cause channeling. I have to periodically clean my waterfalls (in fuge) to prevent that problem.please post results LOL
herring_fish
Crazy Designer
Good Idea
Good Idea
I think you have a great idea that is worth trying. It looks like you have things worked out pretty well since you incorporated a suggestion or two, from the thread, into your design. I was glad to be invited to this discussion. It’s good to have a little fun experimenting. If I knew everything about this hobby, I wouldn’t post. I can only tell you what I think and what my experience has led me to believe.
I did read Dr. Adey’s book and loved it. I also got to go to the Smithsonian and talk at length to the curator as well as getting a full tour of the facility behind the glass. By the way that exhibit is now closed.
I used home made Algae Turf Scrubbers for more than 10 years without a skimmer. You can see my old tank and read a few articles about it at my web site My non-commercial web site Also, I have started a thread asking for help with the designing of my new tank. There is a fare amount of discussion about other scrubber designs including mine. It is long and flat with the fulcrum under it so that it can be moved to turn it after installation. See the postings at: New Design for a Non-Photosynthetic System
Some things to think about:
Without any surge however, you should see a 50 percent drop in effectiveness. There are several reasons why this happens that are mentioned above. The one that I did not see in this thread is the fact that when there is no surge, the algae strands tend to lay down parallel to each other and then get matted or packed down.
The water runs over the mat rather than flowing through the algae. Light has a harder time penetrating down into a mat. Agitating the strands allows light to get to virtually every cell in the colony. You would use a rotisserie for a roast in a barbeque oven wouldn’t you? Matted algae respiration is impaired for the same reasons. Additionally, I do think that you will get those dead spots that were mentioned in the thread. You could get some cheap rotating sprayers nozzles or hook up a motor to simply wiggle the screen. That being said, you can compensate for the 50 percent loss by making the screen bigger.
Light is another issue that you may have calculated already. I think that for a one hundred gallon tank, you will need about 430 watts. Splitting that light into two opposing directions might work well. You can use the cheapest K ratings but you do need the lumens. I bought some compact fluorescents that are long and narrow. If you have this type of lamps, you could point them straight down and use plastic to cover only the part that connects to the sockets. That way, if there is a little splash, the water will not hurt anything. I prefer not to have anything in between the lamp and the algae and I want the cool lamps as close as possible and safe.
I read about a few negative issues that are, I think wrongly, attributed to Algal Turf Scrubbers (ATS). Real issues all seemed to be avoidable if you think about these two points.
1. Size the scrubber correctly and have enough light on it. It stands to reason that an ATS or any other equipment, that is under sized or under performing, will not do a good enough job. It is better to build the scrubber too big and reduce the lighting time if it gets too efficient. Adey suggests, “When in doubt in a particular case, add 20-30 percent to (the) scrubber area.â€Â
2. Use the scrubber by itself. Once it is going and growing well, wean off of the other equipment while testing the water. If you have competing devices, the scrubber will not work to its potential and then you will be adding equipment to compensate for issues that the ATS is known to be great at taking care of. Of course when you add more equipment, the scrubber will be even more deprived of the nutrient that it needs and will operate even less efficiently. Sand beds, refugiums etc. are great if they complement and not compete.
I never saw a green tent in the water, although I looked for it ever since I started the scrubber. I have heard that you are supposed to look down the length of the tank to see it. Who does that?
I never had any slime, anywhere in my tank or equipment, once I started the scrubber.
Hair algae declined slowly but went away completely, despite the fact that I chronically over fed my tanks. As a matter of fact, I had a hard time keeping plants of any type in my main tank so I added fish based plant fertilizer on a regular schedule. This, with the skimmer disassembled in the garage.
The scrubber is an ideal home for algae with tons of intermittent direct light. In the main tank, light is absorbed exponentially with depth so filaments in the show tank, under several inches of water, can not compete with the algae in the scrubber, under 0 inches of water.
The scrubber should be lit a night when the main tank lights are off to help regulate pH fluctuations and raise oxygen level to near saturation levels.
Well, that's it. Most of all, have fun!
Good Idea
I think you have a great idea that is worth trying. It looks like you have things worked out pretty well since you incorporated a suggestion or two, from the thread, into your design. I was glad to be invited to this discussion. It’s good to have a little fun experimenting. If I knew everything about this hobby, I wouldn’t post. I can only tell you what I think and what my experience has led me to believe.
I did read Dr. Adey’s book and loved it. I also got to go to the Smithsonian and talk at length to the curator as well as getting a full tour of the facility behind the glass. By the way that exhibit is now closed.
I used home made Algae Turf Scrubbers for more than 10 years without a skimmer. You can see my old tank and read a few articles about it at my web site My non-commercial web site Also, I have started a thread asking for help with the designing of my new tank. There is a fare amount of discussion about other scrubber designs including mine. It is long and flat with the fulcrum under it so that it can be moved to turn it after installation. See the postings at: New Design for a Non-Photosynthetic System
Some things to think about:
Without any surge however, you should see a 50 percent drop in effectiveness. There are several reasons why this happens that are mentioned above. The one that I did not see in this thread is the fact that when there is no surge, the algae strands tend to lay down parallel to each other and then get matted or packed down.
The water runs over the mat rather than flowing through the algae. Light has a harder time penetrating down into a mat. Agitating the strands allows light to get to virtually every cell in the colony. You would use a rotisserie for a roast in a barbeque oven wouldn’t you? Matted algae respiration is impaired for the same reasons. Additionally, I do think that you will get those dead spots that were mentioned in the thread. You could get some cheap rotating sprayers nozzles or hook up a motor to simply wiggle the screen. That being said, you can compensate for the 50 percent loss by making the screen bigger.
Light is another issue that you may have calculated already. I think that for a one hundred gallon tank, you will need about 430 watts. Splitting that light into two opposing directions might work well. You can use the cheapest K ratings but you do need the lumens. I bought some compact fluorescents that are long and narrow. If you have this type of lamps, you could point them straight down and use plastic to cover only the part that connects to the sockets. That way, if there is a little splash, the water will not hurt anything. I prefer not to have anything in between the lamp and the algae and I want the cool lamps as close as possible and safe.
I read about a few negative issues that are, I think wrongly, attributed to Algal Turf Scrubbers (ATS). Real issues all seemed to be avoidable if you think about these two points.
1. Size the scrubber correctly and have enough light on it. It stands to reason that an ATS or any other equipment, that is under sized or under performing, will not do a good enough job. It is better to build the scrubber too big and reduce the lighting time if it gets too efficient. Adey suggests, “When in doubt in a particular case, add 20-30 percent to (the) scrubber area.â€Â
2. Use the scrubber by itself. Once it is going and growing well, wean off of the other equipment while testing the water. If you have competing devices, the scrubber will not work to its potential and then you will be adding equipment to compensate for issues that the ATS is known to be great at taking care of. Of course when you add more equipment, the scrubber will be even more deprived of the nutrient that it needs and will operate even less efficiently. Sand beds, refugiums etc. are great if they complement and not compete.
I never saw a green tent in the water, although I looked for it ever since I started the scrubber. I have heard that you are supposed to look down the length of the tank to see it. Who does that?
I never had any slime, anywhere in my tank or equipment, once I started the scrubber.
Hair algae declined slowly but went away completely, despite the fact that I chronically over fed my tanks. As a matter of fact, I had a hard time keeping plants of any type in my main tank so I added fish based plant fertilizer on a regular schedule. This, with the skimmer disassembled in the garage.
The scrubber is an ideal home for algae with tons of intermittent direct light. In the main tank, light is absorbed exponentially with depth so filaments in the show tank, under several inches of water, can not compete with the algae in the scrubber, under 0 inches of water.
The scrubber should be lit a night when the main tank lights are off to help regulate pH fluctuations and raise oxygen level to near saturation levels.
Well, that's it. Most of all, have fun!
SantaMonica
Well-known member
paulsiver: Yes I saw the baffles on that slanted screen. Very easy to do. But I'm going to go ahead and simulate waves by having the dry spell (already have the timer). He could easily add a timer too, and compare it (if it's powered by a pump).
Paul B: I see what you mean about it being damp enough for algae, even if it's not underwater, but I wonder why then no algae grows in my main tank just above the waterline; it had plenty of dampness and light. I agree that plastic between the lights and screen is not the best, that's why I mentioned the "open" option. And good point about coating a new screen with cement first; If I start with a new one I'll do it, but I first need to give the pre-seeded one from IA, so I don't have to wait three months for some thick turf.
bergzy: Well with all that success you've had in a bucket, I was motivated to get this thing working today (plus, I have to get light and water on the screen quickly, or else).
o.c.d.: Very good point. Even though the screen may get good water coverage to start, I can see how thicker algae at the top might divert the water. Will have to watch out for this.
herring_fish: Amazing run without a skimmer. And yesterday I believe I read the whole thread of your non-photo plans. Hopefully if my turf test works, I'll be able to feed enough to keep some dendro's. And I agree that the surge is important, but what amount of the 50% I lose, I hope to gain by having both sides going. And I see you give another vote for no acrylic in front of the light.
As for size, obviously the test bucket is the controlling factor, but a final build can certainly use your pointers in combination with what is learned from the test. If the test screen is full of algae, but there is still N and P problems, then it needs to be bigger.
Use it by itself? You mean unplug the skimmer from the start?
You never had tinting! That is great. I run carbon every so so, but I'd rather not. Slime?... I used to dose vodka and I'd get some slime in the sump; especially in the foam where the skimmer outputs. But it's the green film algae, in my case, that was the impetus to looking into turf. Glad you got rid of your hair aglae using turf (and no skimmer); I'm hoping that this green film will go away too.
And like you, I'm planning of night operations of the turf.
OK, so I got the seeded screen from IA today, about $100 including priority overnight to Los Angeles. Was in great shape, and more than enough to fill the bucket (had to trim it). It was stiff material that could stand up straight by itself, but still would be wavy and try to bend, so I put edge straighteners on the sides that I got from one of the tank dividers that were linked above. Then I trimmed the top to be narrow enough to fit into the slot that I cut in to the pvc pipe. I put it in and tried it with the Hydor 320 gph I just got (as an upgrade from the 190 gph), and it still just was not enough water to fill the whole slot.
I had to get something going soon since the algea needed light and flow, so the nearest lfs had a 690 gph that I got. The chart that came with it said at 4ft head (the bucket will be on the sink) it would have 375 gph. Was perfect! So slid the screen into the slot in the pvc, taped a hose from the pump to the pvc (amazing... does not leak at all), and it's done. So there it is in the pic above... a working bucket-turf-filter, held together with tape.
Here is a closeup of the "seeded" side of the screen from IA (they only seed one side) when no water is flowing:
Hi-Res: www.radio-media.com/fish/ScreenRightDry.JPG
Here is a closeup of the same seeded side when water is flowing. Note that water coverage is 100%...
Hi-Res: www.radio-media.com/fish/ScreenRightFlow.JPG
Here is a closeup of the "unseeded" side of the screen from IA, with no flow. Some of the turf made it's way to this side, but it's definately thinner, and there are many places on the screen that are bare plastic:
Hi-Res: www.radio-media.com/fish/ScreenLeftDry.JPG
And here is the closeup of the same unseeded side with flow (100% water coverage)...
Hi-Res: www.radio-media.com/fish/ScreenLeftFlow.JPG
Here's how I attached the screen to the spraybar... just slid it up into the slot in the pvc pipe:
Here are some video's of the flow starting; the noises you hear are the gurgling of the water in the tubes:
Seeded side:
www.radio-media.com/fish/ScreenFlowRight.mpg
Youtube: http://youtube.com/watch?v=wm65mMM1gDs
Unseeded side:
www.radio-media.com/fish/ScreenFlowLeft.mpg
Youtube: http://youtube.com/watch?v=tlDw2iWIZmo
So, all in all, it's nice to have gotten the screen on Friday morning, and get the turf running by friday night. Here are my first observations:
I'm sitting here listening to the gurgling of the fill/drain process, which (unlike the bucket system, I believe) can be eliminated with the proper angles of the tubes going into and out of the bucket. The tubing I used for this test was 3/4 inch ID. Now, imagining that the tubing has been adjusted to eliminate gurgling, all you would year is the water going down the screen; similar to one of those tabeltop waterfalls, or a bubbling brook.
After examing the screen, and as can be seen in the pics/vid, there is (thank goodness) a 100% water coverage of the screen. Now of course this is now; we'll have to wait and see about then, when the algae is thicker. The flow is strong, maybe even a "mini surge", albeit uni-directional. But nonetheless, the water is covering every single part of the screen... even the top outside parts at the rim of the bucket.
I've currently got the timer set at 30 seconds (30 seconds flow, 30 seconds stop). This seems to give the turf time to really dry out, and puts less on/off strain on the pump. Also, a longer time gives the bucket a chance to completely drain, thus exposing even the bottom part of the screen to air (otherwise there is some water in the bottom of the bucket, covering the screen.)
I will probably be adding a clip-on fan to the top of the bucket to give it more CO2. Should also help with more evaporation (which I need so I can drip more kalk) and lower temps.
Well I have to admit, I did not want to say it this soon, but the skimmer has seemed to stop working. At first I though something was clogged in the skimmer pump... you know the familiar site when the foam drops way down. That's what happened after connecting the turf. I checked everything on the skimmer and all checked out. I even tested it by putting a new filter sock in the water, and it almost exploded with foam. So it was working ok. But as of now, five hours after hooking up the turf, the skimmer foam as dropped so low that I can't get any output no matter how I adjust it.
One of the advantages of the pre-seeded screen from IA is that it should be ready to filter from hour one. I'm hoping that's what happened to the skimmer. There is a possibility that the extra flow from the bucket's drain (which goes into the sump) altered the skimming, so I'll have to wait to see. But nevertheless, the turf on the seeded side of the screen was a good quarter inch; given light and flow, it's got to do something right away.
One disadvantage of this setup occured to me: If the timer or the pump ever failed, the turf would quickly die from drying out. The only way around this would be to not use a timer, and just use a constant flow from an overflow or such.
Anyway, we'll see what happens.
Paul B: I see what you mean about it being damp enough for algae, even if it's not underwater, but I wonder why then no algae grows in my main tank just above the waterline; it had plenty of dampness and light. I agree that plastic between the lights and screen is not the best, that's why I mentioned the "open" option. And good point about coating a new screen with cement first; If I start with a new one I'll do it, but I first need to give the pre-seeded one from IA, so I don't have to wait three months for some thick turf.
bergzy: Well with all that success you've had in a bucket, I was motivated to get this thing working today (plus, I have to get light and water on the screen quickly, or else).
o.c.d.: Very good point. Even though the screen may get good water coverage to start, I can see how thicker algae at the top might divert the water. Will have to watch out for this.
herring_fish: Amazing run without a skimmer. And yesterday I believe I read the whole thread of your non-photo plans. Hopefully if my turf test works, I'll be able to feed enough to keep some dendro's. And I agree that the surge is important, but what amount of the 50% I lose, I hope to gain by having both sides going. And I see you give another vote for no acrylic in front of the light.
As for size, obviously the test bucket is the controlling factor, but a final build can certainly use your pointers in combination with what is learned from the test. If the test screen is full of algae, but there is still N and P problems, then it needs to be bigger.
Use it by itself? You mean unplug the skimmer from the start?
You never had tinting! That is great. I run carbon every so so, but I'd rather not. Slime?... I used to dose vodka and I'd get some slime in the sump; especially in the foam where the skimmer outputs. But it's the green film algae, in my case, that was the impetus to looking into turf. Glad you got rid of your hair aglae using turf (and no skimmer); I'm hoping that this green film will go away too.
And like you, I'm planning of night operations of the turf.
OK, so I got the seeded screen from IA today, about $100 including priority overnight to Los Angeles. Was in great shape, and more than enough to fill the bucket (had to trim it). It was stiff material that could stand up straight by itself, but still would be wavy and try to bend, so I put edge straighteners on the sides that I got from one of the tank dividers that were linked above. Then I trimmed the top to be narrow enough to fit into the slot that I cut in to the pvc pipe. I put it in and tried it with the Hydor 320 gph I just got (as an upgrade from the 190 gph), and it still just was not enough water to fill the whole slot.
I had to get something going soon since the algea needed light and flow, so the nearest lfs had a 690 gph that I got. The chart that came with it said at 4ft head (the bucket will be on the sink) it would have 375 gph. Was perfect! So slid the screen into the slot in the pvc, taped a hose from the pump to the pvc (amazing... does not leak at all), and it's done. So there it is in the pic above... a working bucket-turf-filter, held together with tape.
Here is a closeup of the "seeded" side of the screen from IA (they only seed one side) when no water is flowing:
Hi-Res: www.radio-media.com/fish/ScreenRightDry.JPG
Here is a closeup of the same seeded side when water is flowing. Note that water coverage is 100%...
Hi-Res: www.radio-media.com/fish/ScreenRightFlow.JPG
Here is a closeup of the "unseeded" side of the screen from IA, with no flow. Some of the turf made it's way to this side, but it's definately thinner, and there are many places on the screen that are bare plastic:
Hi-Res: www.radio-media.com/fish/ScreenLeftDry.JPG
And here is the closeup of the same unseeded side with flow (100% water coverage)...
Hi-Res: www.radio-media.com/fish/ScreenLeftFlow.JPG
Here's how I attached the screen to the spraybar... just slid it up into the slot in the pvc pipe:
Here are some video's of the flow starting; the noises you hear are the gurgling of the water in the tubes:
Seeded side:
www.radio-media.com/fish/ScreenFlowRight.mpg
Youtube: http://youtube.com/watch?v=wm65mMM1gDs
Unseeded side:
www.radio-media.com/fish/ScreenFlowLeft.mpg
Youtube: http://youtube.com/watch?v=tlDw2iWIZmo
So, all in all, it's nice to have gotten the screen on Friday morning, and get the turf running by friday night. Here are my first observations:
I'm sitting here listening to the gurgling of the fill/drain process, which (unlike the bucket system, I believe) can be eliminated with the proper angles of the tubes going into and out of the bucket. The tubing I used for this test was 3/4 inch ID. Now, imagining that the tubing has been adjusted to eliminate gurgling, all you would year is the water going down the screen; similar to one of those tabeltop waterfalls, or a bubbling brook.
After examing the screen, and as can be seen in the pics/vid, there is (thank goodness) a 100% water coverage of the screen. Now of course this is now; we'll have to wait and see about then, when the algae is thicker. The flow is strong, maybe even a "mini surge", albeit uni-directional. But nonetheless, the water is covering every single part of the screen... even the top outside parts at the rim of the bucket.
I've currently got the timer set at 30 seconds (30 seconds flow, 30 seconds stop). This seems to give the turf time to really dry out, and puts less on/off strain on the pump. Also, a longer time gives the bucket a chance to completely drain, thus exposing even the bottom part of the screen to air (otherwise there is some water in the bottom of the bucket, covering the screen.)
I will probably be adding a clip-on fan to the top of the bucket to give it more CO2. Should also help with more evaporation (which I need so I can drip more kalk) and lower temps.
Well I have to admit, I did not want to say it this soon, but the skimmer has seemed to stop working. At first I though something was clogged in the skimmer pump... you know the familiar site when the foam drops way down. That's what happened after connecting the turf. I checked everything on the skimmer and all checked out. I even tested it by putting a new filter sock in the water, and it almost exploded with foam. So it was working ok. But as of now, five hours after hooking up the turf, the skimmer foam as dropped so low that I can't get any output no matter how I adjust it.
One of the advantages of the pre-seeded screen from IA is that it should be ready to filter from hour one. I'm hoping that's what happened to the skimmer. There is a possibility that the extra flow from the bucket's drain (which goes into the sump) altered the skimming, so I'll have to wait to see. But nevertheless, the turf on the seeded side of the screen was a good quarter inch; given light and flow, it's got to do something right away.
One disadvantage of this setup occured to me: If the timer or the pump ever failed, the turf would quickly die from drying out. The only way around this would be to not use a timer, and just use a constant flow from an overflow or such.
Anyway, we'll see what happens.
