Waterfall Turf Algea Filter: CHEAP and EASY to build

Part 2 of 2:



Day 8:

LFSscreenDay08small.jpg

Hi-Res: http://www.radio-media.com/fish/LFSscreenDay08.jpg


Day 9:

LFSscreenDay09small.jpg

Hi-Res: http://www.radio-media.com/fish/LFSscreenDay09.jpg


Day 10:

LFSscreenDay10small.jpg

Hi-Res: http://www.radio-media.com/fish/LFSscreenDay10.jpg


Day 11: Skip
Day 12: Skip

Day 13:

LFSscreenDay13small.jpg

Hi-Res: http://www.radio-media.com/fish/LFSscreenDay13.jpg


Day 14:

LFSscreenDay14small.jpg

Hi-Res: http://www.radio-media.com/fish/LFSscreenDay14.jpg


Day 14, Removed (flash); Removed (no-Flash):

LFSscreenDay14removedSmall.jpg
LFSscreenDay14removedNoFlashSmall.jpg

Hi-Res: http://www.radio-media.com/fish/LFSscreenDay14removed.jpg


Day 14, Closeup of spots:

[pic limit]
Hi-Res: http://www.radio-media.com/fish/LFSscreenDay14closeup.jpg


Day 14, Cleaning:

LFSscreenDay14cleaningSmall.jpg

http://www.radio-media.com/fish/LFSscreenDay14cleaning.jpg


Day 14, Cleaned:

LFSscreenDay14cleanedSmall.jpg

Hi-Res: http://www.radio-media.com/fish/LFSscreenDay14cleaned.jpg


Day 14, reinstalled:

LFSscreenDay14reinstalledSmall.jpg

Hi-Res: http://www.radio-media.com/fish/LFSscreenDay14reinstalled.jpg


Results:

[pic limit]



Now, this bucket is way undersized for this application. It's only 144 sq in, with just average CFL lights, and the lights are not right-up-next to the screen (due to bucket design) the way they should be for optimum performance. His tank is 300 gallons, highly fed, with no rock and no sand. But the idea is not to see if N and P can be reduced; instead it's to see how fast a screen can grow with basically unlimited nutrients. Secondarily, yes, I'd like to see how much of a dent an undersized screen can make in N and P, as long as it is cleaned properly. (The acrylic box he's building is 300 sq in, and is only 4 inches thick... he's going to place several 150 watts along the vertical walls.)

P was always off the scale, although it was indeed getting to be a lighter blue. But since blue blocks a lot of light, you cannot tell how much off the scale it is because it starts looking gray.

In the first few days of the bucket test, there was major green growth. And the growth was in clumps, as opposed to how it grew in my system, which was more of an even film of brown and green. My guess is that since nutrients are so high in his tank, once a single spot of green starts on the screen, that algae is no longer limited by trying to attach itself; it now is only limited by how fast it can multiply (which with unlimited nutrients, is astronomically fast). I can only imagine if the bucket had proper lighting (like his new acrylic box will), how fast/much it would grow.

His main objective (not mine) was indeed N and P reduction. So on day 3, I figured I'd clean the screen even though it still had bare spots on it (it had only had a week to grow on my tank). The screen is not his only filter, so I did not have to clean just one side. Pulling out the screen, it was apparent that the stronger growth was on the upper part, near the light, showing once again the importance of strong light. I cleaned both sides and put it back; for some reason it cleaned all the way down to the bare screen, not leaving much behind. I used a toothbrush, but didn't scrub that hard. We also added some iron for the first time ever in this tank.

Disappointment on Day 5. Hardly any growth. I think what happend was the the base-growth that was on the screen when I brought it was from the one-week test on my 90, which means it would be a certain type of algae (diatoms, I believe). However his tank has different chemistry and as you saw in the pics started off with green hair clumps right away. So the base of brown diatoms died, and thus the screen basically went back to brand new in his tank.

This being the case, he could not wait any longer and said he needs to change water to get the numbers down. He did a 100 gal change (on 300 total volume) on Day 6, and I came back on Day 7 to measure: Almost no change! I think he's got detritus in the bio balls or the mechanical filter, or somewhere. Nevertheless, it's still a good nutrient source for my growth test.

Growth is solid again by Day 8. Have not seen this type of growth before... big clumps of dark brown slimey stuff, right next to areas of empty screen. Mine had always filled in evenly, but this is doing it in clumps. Almost looks like someone threw mud on the screen. Regardless, the flow goes right over the clumps with no problem. This time, I'm going to let the screen fill up before I clean it, otherwise only the same areas will start growing. Only after previously-grown areas fill up will the empty areas start growing.

By Day 13, the bottom of the screen was packed, and the top had only a few empty places left. The N test looked like it was coming down, but I did not really expect it too since the tank was so heavily loaded. I wanted to clean the screen that day, but the LFS guy was impressed that the N was not rising like it usually does, and even possibly dropping. Day 14, the end of two weeks, the N actually tested about 35. He was amazed, since it normally goes up every day. He wanted to keep it as-is, but I could see some spots developing on the screen from the pods, so I said we better clean it now.

After pulling the screen out, it was easy to see the spots. It had been 10 days since cleaning; way overdue. Definitely time to clean under tap water. The feel of the algae was amazing... like tar spilled on the beach that had been drying for a while. The screen seemed to weigh a full pound. I put it in the sink and just pushed the algae off the screen with my fingers (not fingernails). This was not turf, but it was thick and heavy. There is no timer on this setup, just constant flow, so I'm not really expecting turf to develop anyway.

So I put it back into operation. He's still waiting on his custom acrylic box to be delivered, so until then this bucket will have to work alone.
 
Today's screen of the day is the simplest one so far, complete with postitive test results. He says:

"After 4 days running, i has a green hair algae growth around 3-4 cm... and i didn't see any brown diatom algae. i use OSRAM 23W tornado day light. in the picture...this is 6 days result... the algae is a brown color... but the real is a green hair algae.... and this is just a test... so i use a small screen.. but i already see the result here. i didn't rub the algae to start... just has 24/7 lightning time. i just check my N yesterday [Day 10]... it's down greatly.. from 50 ppm become 35 ppm... and my P remover has work slower.... i always change the P remover once a week.... but it's already 2 weeks i didn't changed."

UserI_limantaraOnAC-all.jpg
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13295479#post13295479 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by 2_zoa
Rngrdave,

I don't know if fiberglass is rated to be a contact material. In my house i have some can light fixtures that are rated for direct contact with insulation and some that aren't. ( I don't understand why I am not an electrician ) Also is there any way for the insulation to absorb moisture causing it to become wet or like a wet rag? I think the best way to be sure of any thing is to remove the doubt in the situation... ie. moving the fixture to a dry area, I know it involves more time and money but nobody can put a price on safety...............??Can they??
No. And I agree with you completely. I've given it some thought and still haven't decided what I want to do. Right now I only use the algae scrubber when I'm home and I have installed a smoke detector and a fire extinguisher in that room. The whole setup seems to be very water tight and I've though over several scenarios to where the fixture actually might get wet. As it sits now there is no water that gets on the bulbs even though they are down in the trashcan. There might be a little salt mist but this gets on my main tank lights as well and hasn't caused any problem other than blocking out some of the light.

I'm considering putting a titanium ground probe in the trashcan and hooking it up to a dedicated GFCI circuit. This way if there is ANY electricity going to the water from the bulbs then it will trip the power before it caused a problem. I also calculated that the bulbs pull a combined 0.4 amps including startup. I will probably put a fuse on this line so that if there is any short in the circuit that the GFCI doesn't catch, then it will blow the fuse instead. Kind of like a safety backup.
 
aqua, probably not but they haven't realized the other drawbacks to an ATS yet either. I have asked SM - repeatedly - about drawbacks and he simply ignores me.
 
Correct... about one square inch per gallon, or one square foot (144 sq inches) per 144 gallons, if the screen is lit on both sides brightly. Brightly means at least one equivalent watt per square inch each side. So a 25 watt CFL, with a 144 watt equivalent output on each side, would be minimum. I'm currently using two on each side.
 
RonMidtownStomp if you proceed with building this turf algea filter, please let me know, I would love to know your first hand experience with it as I am fairly new to salt water ( my 2nd month so far) and I would certainly love to get rid of the small amount of green algae I have in my tank.

thank you.
 
wow what a read this thread is, i have to say that the information provided is more than adequate, seems like a good idea, i dont like the enclosed bucket type due to 2 factors, 1 electrical items not getting air around them and 2 i cant see whats happening inside, apart from that i think its a superb idea, and just a case of trying to think of a design that would work for me, i may well try it yet
 
My first reaction is that there are probably easier ways to go about doing that. Either my sailfin tang or my blue tang would probably trip over each other trying to eat it. I think emerald crabs eat it, too? Sounds like free fish food to me.
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13305322#post13305322 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by RonMidtownStomp
My first reaction is that there are probably easier ways to go about doing that. Either my sailfin tang or my blue tang would probably trip over each other trying to eat it. I think emerald crabs eat it, too? Sounds like free fish food to me.

It is. Research ATS'es and most public aquariums use them. But, they also use skimmers, carbon (for yellow water). The ATS does not replace them (in contrast to what SM claims). As the bacteria layers die off, they release agents that cause the yellowing effect in the water. Carbon removes them but new algae can't.

Phosphate reactors, macroalgae (refugium) are a lot better at filtering than an ATS is.
 
Concerning yellowing, this has to do with when and how the algae is scraped ("harvested"), and also what type of algae is growing. It's also something that folks years ago (along with all public aquariums) experienced, but most folks nowadays don't.

It's pretty well known that if you just leave the algae to grow and grow, that you'll definitely get yellowing. After all, the yellowing is coming from the chlorophyll's which are green-plant based. And if you don't harvest, the green algae will overtake the brown/red. But the actual turf we want is not green, it's brown/red. So this is why the current group of turf users get very high filtering (not needing any help), and no yellowing.

However another discovery has come about, resulting from the physical size of the unit. The units of the public aquariums are big and bulkly and not easily disassembled, and thus they just scrape the turf while in-place. Well, it looks like this causes a rupturing of algal cells, allowing the contents to be reintroduced to the tank water. The current batch of small scrubbers, including my turf bucket, requires you to take the screen off and clean it in the sink with running tap water. So this problem is solved. I know I have zero yellowing in mine, and I have heard of zero current yellowing in others. But if yellowing did occur for whatever reason, a monthly dose of carbon (that you need anyway to remove allelopathics) will fix it up.
 
I have been using a flatbed ats for a while now with no yellowing, santa is correct, you must remove the screen and harvest the algae every week then rinse the screen well with saltwater before you replace it.
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13305289#post13305289 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by RonMidtownStomp
So what are the drawbacks?
The main one is that a system with growing algae will never have Zero Nitrates or Zero Phospates, no matter what the test kits say.

If the alage is growing, then the water is, ipso facto, high in nutrients. A skimmer does a far better job at removing undesirables than any algae, turf or otherwise. Santa Monica cannot address this point, so he simply ignores it (on this and the other dozen reef boards he has posted this on.)
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13305305#post13305305 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by shiromeda
RonMidtownStomp if you proceed with building this turf algea filter, please let me know, I would love to know your first hand experience with it as I am fairly new to salt water ( my 2nd month so far) and I would certainly love to get rid of the small amount of green algae I have in my tank.

thank you.
Hi Shiromeda-
If you're new to saltwater, then I'd suggest you stick with the current tried-and-true methods, rather than hop aboard Santa Monica's resurrected ghost train. :)

Make sure your protein skimmer is working well, don't overfeed or overstock your tank, and do regular water changes. The algae will die off on its own, and you'll end up with cleaner water than you would with this turf algae method.

Also, keep in mind that every new tank goes through several phases of algae. So you're not alone! ;)

If you want to post pictures or more details of your setup, then we could give you more specific advice. Good luck! :)
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13306442#post13306442 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Tang Salad
If the alage is growing, then the water is, ipso facto, high in nutrients. A skimmer does a far better job at removing undesirables than any algae, turf or otherwise.
This is partially true... I agree about the part regarding "0" nitrate and phosphate... the simple fact that there is still algae growth shows that there are still nutrients being consumed from the water column.

However a skimmer can not remove these things. It simply removes dissolved organics which can lead to nitrate issues. I've used a refugium with mangroves and chaetomorpha algae for years. While it does not completely filter the tank on its own, it does a good job of lessening the amount of algae that grows in my display tank. By providing an ideal environment for algae to grow, you create a situation where the algae in the tank is competing with the algae in the scrubber. Since you provide the ideal environment for algae in the scrubber, then you will effectively reduce or eliminate any algae in the tank...

Most of our filtration processes mimic something already found in the ocean. A DSB mimics the sand beaches absorbing nutrients from the ocean. A skimmer mimics the waves crashing, creating foam which filters the water of organic compounds... And an ATF mimics natural algae growth along the shoreline. All of these are natural processes and all of them are part of the big picture when it comes to the oceans maintaining themselves...

I see nothing wrong with supplementing a system with an ATF... But I don't think it's the "final solution" either.
 
Aqua:

rinse the screen well with saltwater before you replace it.

I've been washing with tap water, for the purpose of killing the pod population that will consume the algae (see pic of spots on the 2-week LFS trial above). IA recommends FW too. Adey, of course, scraped in-system and did not have a FW option. I've not done a comparisoin of tap to RO, but the tap results have been so good that I'm not motivated to think more about it yet.

Salad:

The main one is that a system with growing algae will never have Zero Nitrates or Zero Phospates, no matter what the test kits say

The goal of this thread is to get N and P to measure zero on test kits. I think you're smart enough to know that. It is for the average new aquarist on their first or second tank, who probably doesn't even have test kits, and has green all over their rocks and glass. Nobody cares about true absolute zero.

If the alage is growing, then the water is, ipso facto, high in nutrients

Correct. Although the nutrients are being lowered as it grows.

A skimmer does a far better job at removing undesirables than any algae

If you are including NO3 and PO4 as the "undesireables", then you are wrong. Skimmers do not remove inorganic N and P at all. Not at all. That's why a skimmed system needs additional devices to take the inorganic N and P out.

Santa Monica cannot address this point

How is this entire thread, which has covered your simple question many times, not addressing the point?

so he simply ignores it (on this and the other dozen reef boards he has posted this on.

You're kidding. This thread, as well as others, were created for the sole purpose of showing how an algae filter brings down inorganic N and P.

By the way, what skimmer manufacturer/distributer/retailer do you work for?

rather than hop aboard Santa Monica's resurrected ghost train

If you mean that algae-filtering has been around for a long time, you are correct.

you'll end up with cleaner water than you would with this turf algae method.

Post proof.
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13306487#post13306487 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Tang Salad

If you're new to saltwater, then I'd suggest you stick with the current tried-and-true methods, rather than hop aboard Santa Monica's resurrected ghost train. :)

+1

If you're new to saltwater, you've got so much to learn already. Don't overcomplicate your learning curve.

I ran an ATS in 97/98...haven't felt the need to run one ever since.
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13306763#post13306763 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by SantaMonica
I've been washing with tap water, for the purpose of killing the pod population that will consume the algae (see pic of spots on the 2-week LFS trial above). IA recommends FW too. Adey, of course, scraped in-system and did not have a FW option. I've not done a comparisoin of tap to RO, but the tap results have been so good that I'm not motivated to think more about it yet.

Wait. In the beginning of this thread you said that everything skimmers, etc. were pulling out was food for something in the tank and thats bad, and now you are intentionally killing/removing that food? And you don't find that contradictory?

And, the aspect of using RO water versus tap water is a no-brainer. I bet the chlorine and chloramine you are adding to the tank is good for your corals though.

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13306763#post13306763 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by SantaMonica

The goal of this thread is to get N and P to measure zero on test kits. I think you're smart enough to know that. It is for the average new aquarist on their first or second tank, who probably doesn't even have test kits, and has green all over their rocks and glass. Nobody cares about true absolute zero.

Only if they don't know better. And anybody that knows then they know they don't want zero readings and they know why. I have alluded to that in the past by asking about the effects of true zero nitrates on some softies (zooanthids).

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13306763#post13306763 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by SantaMonica


Correct. Although the nutrients are being lowered as it grows.

And removing "food" in the process. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13306763#post13306763 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by SantaMonica

If you are including NO3 and PO4 as the "undesireables", then you are wrong. Skimmers do not remove inorganic N and P at all. Not at all. That's why a skimmed system needs additional devices to take the inorganic N and P out.

N and P are part of the "food" you claim that is being removed from the tank and is so detrimental. Contradictory to say the least.

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13306763#post13306763 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by SantaMonica
How is this entire thread, which has covered your simple question many times, not addressing the point?

It hasn't even come close to answering my questions. I have asked them repeatedly on another site where you proclaimed this bucket the savior of the newbes and you still haven't answered them. NOT A ONE.

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13306763#post13306763 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by SantaMonica


By the way, what skimmer manufacturer/distributer/retailer do you work for?

Is that your common defense? To accuse anyone who disagrees with you of working for a company that would want to quash ATS'es? You have accused me of the same thing and its getting quite old.

So, let me ask YOU. What Turf manufacturer/distributor/retailer do YOU work for?
 
Well SM I don't feel I need to respond to your points above, as others have already responded. They've responded here in this thread and in the multiple clones of this thread that you've started on other boards. If you'd spent any time reading here on RC (or other boards) you'd know these answers yourself.

It's interesting to me that the ONLY contribution you've made here at RC is to repeatedly exaggerate the glories of this outdated method. If you really know so much about the fundamentals of reefkeeping, why haven't you contributed to ANY other threads?
 
Back
Top