Waterfall Turf Algea Filter: CHEAP and EASY to build
- Thread starter SantaMonica
- Start date
UrbanSage
New member
I am presuming based on your past behavior that this challenge doesn't extend to this site?
If not, on what site was the challenge placed?
Because I really could use $100.00 as I am sure many others can.
But I guess this will be weaseled around in some fashion.
And on an unrelated note.
I think there is some great information in this thread, posted by you.
It is too bad however that you act like a rabid preacher in presenting your project.
I find it is too bad that you let a great informative thread turn into this mockery because you can't deal with criticism and questioning.
The fact that you wipe the cumulative experience of so many hobbyists off your of knowledge base would (if I actually was interested) make me shy away from your product simply because it is obvious that this is a product that the manufacturer will never think through.
You are arrogant, ignorant and soon largely discredited by anyone and everyone with a lasting interest in reef keeping.
One Dumm Hikk
In Memoriam
The issue was challenged Here
I agree with the rest of your post. I have always thought that an ATS may have a place on a reef tank setup. But only if you work on and solve some of the inherint issues with them.
Any filtration system has issues. Any of them. But, as you said, when you have the attitude that SM does about it, you get the attitudes in return that he has gotten from it. Especially if people question you and you either ignore them or attack there motives for asking the questions in the first place.
SantaMonica
Well-known member
Another Reader Cleans The Green!
Well it's been a good couple of days for clean-tank debuts. Minzuk on the UR site, who came up with the idea of using a gravel vac as a waterfall pipe, just checked in with great results. Here is what he did, along with the dates:
8/14: "I wont be discarding the skimmer or po4 reactor just yet, ill prob still keep them on even after this starts to work. I like new/ressurrected ideas, so though for 5 mins work ill give it a go. Seeding? I cant see anything about seeding in your write up. Rubbing green algae, do you mean the algae that will begin to grow in a few days? Do we let it build up and whilst harvesting it off, try and rub it into the screen?"
8/18: "im on day 6 and this is the result so far [very very light growth in pic]. Is this correct? Am I going on track? its more browny green then green. I can also see small hairy strands of green showing when viewed close up."
8/20: "Im using a 125w envirolite lamp with reflector to light up the area. I suppose I could move it closer down to the screen if needed. Power wise, im using a mj400. Do you think I would get better results with a larger powerhead?"
8/22: "well after moving the light much closer, the screen has started to fill like crazy, its turning into a sludge type algae and behind the brown stuff i can see green algae growing"
9/7: "Its been a few weeks since I made mine. Been busy so not had a chance to update. All I can say is, I was suffering a crap load of hair algae [in the display] and very dusty algea on my rocks, back and sand. Since I have added the screen, the back of the tank has literally cleaned itself bare. the rocks are all very purple again, and a not a cm in sight of any algae. The front glass has not built up any algae for a while. Im due to test tomm for NO3 and PO4 but I can honesly say just by looking at the sparkling water, clean sand and amazing rocks. This thing defo works.....thanks so much!! It has made a major difference to the tank and water quality."
Well it's been a good couple of days for clean-tank debuts. Minzuk on the UR site, who came up with the idea of using a gravel vac as a waterfall pipe, just checked in with great results. Here is what he did, along with the dates:
8/14: "I wont be discarding the skimmer or po4 reactor just yet, ill prob still keep them on even after this starts to work. I like new/ressurrected ideas, so though for 5 mins work ill give it a go. Seeding? I cant see anything about seeding in your write up. Rubbing green algae, do you mean the algae that will begin to grow in a few days? Do we let it build up and whilst harvesting it off, try and rub it into the screen?"
8/18: "im on day 6 and this is the result so far [very very light growth in pic]. Is this correct? Am I going on track? its more browny green then green. I can also see small hairy strands of green showing when viewed close up."
8/20: "Im using a 125w envirolite lamp with reflector to light up the area. I suppose I could move it closer down to the screen if needed. Power wise, im using a mj400. Do you think I would get better results with a larger powerhead?"
8/22: "well after moving the light much closer, the screen has started to fill like crazy, its turning into a sludge type algae and behind the brown stuff i can see green algae growing"
9/7: "Its been a few weeks since I made mine. Been busy so not had a chance to update. All I can say is, I was suffering a crap load of hair algae [in the display] and very dusty algea on my rocks, back and sand. Since I have added the screen, the back of the tank has literally cleaned itself bare. the rocks are all very purple again, and a not a cm in sight of any algae. The front glass has not built up any algae for a while. Im due to test tomm for NO3 and PO4 but I can honesly say just by looking at the sparkling water, clean sand and amazing rocks. This thing defo works.....thanks so much!! It has made a major difference to the tank and water quality."
SantaMonica
Well-known member
By the way, I have the following people blocked, so I can't see their posts:
One Dumm Hikk
Vitz
miwoodar
UrbanSage
Tang Salad
So if you have a question about anything they write, post it on the thread and I'll answer.
One Dumm Hikk
Vitz
miwoodar
UrbanSage
Tang Salad
So if you have a question about anything they write, post it on the thread and I'll answer.
miwoodar
Likey the bikey
Brilliant SM. 
I guess I'll go ahead and post then.
Here is a good link that would help anyone still reading this understand why PAR is more important than lumens and/or watts (http://www.reefkeeping.com/issues/2006-04/sj/index.php). This information will help you choose the best bulbs for your application.
Melev did a good comparison of two compact fluorescent options here (http://www.melevsreef.com/fuge_bulb.html). While he did not review the PAR of each bulb, he did an experimental comparison of growth rates between a 2.7K CF versus a 5.1K CF bulb. It's definitely worth the effort to get the 5.1K if you can find it. I recently saw a six pack of 5.1K bulbs at Costco. Unfortunately, lower K CF bulbs are *much* more common.
This is the grand pubba reference manual for turf scrubbing (http://www.amazon.com/Dynamic-Aquar...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1220911731&sr=8-1). If you are interested in following up on using a scrubber of any kind, this manual will be very helpful to make sure you get the most out of your efforts. Adey has written at length about many, many related subjects in extreme detail. Even if you don't use a scrubber, it's still an interesting read.
If you read the book you're going to find that Adey is a huge proponent of using high intensity lighting, especially metal halide. Here's a link to Sanjay's page should you decide to use a metal halide (http://www.manhattanreefs.com/lighting). (Yes, his website now rolls up under Manhattanreefs'.) You can use his site to determine the PAR (PPFD) of various metal halide lamps on the market. I *think* the 5.5K to 6.5K range will be best but I don't really know for sure. It looks like he will soon be posting some T5 numbers as well.
If you want currently available T5 PAR numbers, here's the latest split of Grim's 5 star 12,000+ posts T5 thread (http://reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=1460865). Just post in that thread about getting the most PAR out a T5 system and they can help you out. T5 systems have come so far so quick I haven't been able to keep up in the slightest (ahem, you might say that I am a T5 idiot). Grim and the heavy hitters on that thread are super gurus in the world of T5 lighting.
Lastly, if you're going to make a system that puts lights into an enclosed container of any kind or anywhere near water, please put them on a GFCI circuit so you don't electrocute yourself. Salt+water+electricity+closed container = danger. The GFCI will trip if anything bad happens.
Cheers again.
I guess I'll go ahead and post then.Here is a good link that would help anyone still reading this understand why PAR is more important than lumens and/or watts (http://www.reefkeeping.com/issues/2006-04/sj/index.php). This information will help you choose the best bulbs for your application.
Melev did a good comparison of two compact fluorescent options here (http://www.melevsreef.com/fuge_bulb.html). While he did not review the PAR of each bulb, he did an experimental comparison of growth rates between a 2.7K CF versus a 5.1K CF bulb. It's definitely worth the effort to get the 5.1K if you can find it. I recently saw a six pack of 5.1K bulbs at Costco. Unfortunately, lower K CF bulbs are *much* more common.
This is the grand pubba reference manual for turf scrubbing (http://www.amazon.com/Dynamic-Aquar...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1220911731&sr=8-1). If you are interested in following up on using a scrubber of any kind, this manual will be very helpful to make sure you get the most out of your efforts. Adey has written at length about many, many related subjects in extreme detail. Even if you don't use a scrubber, it's still an interesting read.
If you read the book you're going to find that Adey is a huge proponent of using high intensity lighting, especially metal halide. Here's a link to Sanjay's page should you decide to use a metal halide (http://www.manhattanreefs.com/lighting). (Yes, his website now rolls up under Manhattanreefs'.) You can use his site to determine the PAR (PPFD) of various metal halide lamps on the market. I *think* the 5.5K to 6.5K range will be best but I don't really know for sure. It looks like he will soon be posting some T5 numbers as well.
If you want currently available T5 PAR numbers, here's the latest split of Grim's 5 star 12,000+ posts T5 thread (http://reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=1460865). Just post in that thread about getting the most PAR out a T5 system and they can help you out. T5 systems have come so far so quick I haven't been able to keep up in the slightest (ahem, you might say that I am a T5 idiot). Grim and the heavy hitters on that thread are super gurus in the world of T5 lighting.
Lastly, if you're going to make a system that puts lights into an enclosed container of any kind or anywhere near water, please put them on a GFCI circuit so you don't electrocute yourself. Salt+water+electricity+closed container = danger. The GFCI will trip if anything bad happens.
Cheers again.
vitz
New member
well said
there's another folly to this whole deal, and that is using area of scrubber mat/gallon of water as a formula for capacity of waste processing
it's about as ridiculous as using watts/gallon for lighting capacity, heh
the surface area is a minor consideration-it's the total biomass of algae grown/time that determines the processing potential of the 'wastes' that algae uses to grow
why anyone wouldn't want to just minimize the waste input to the system, thereby circumventing the need for any type of high maintenance partial filtering system is beyond me
seeing algae 'take off' on a scrubber means just ONE thing-a highly polluted system
vitz
New member
you've never answered us directly (including the folks on rdo,heh, why would anyone think you'd answer us indirectly ? (without making false statements about what it is we've actually said, and without even quoting the criticisms for all to see on the other bb's you're presently spamming?)
vitz
New member
unfortunately-your argument is NOT anything like the 'arguments' santa is using
and also unfortunately-the 'con' arguments and subsequents 'proofs' for each method are different as well
for you to say that simply because a skimmer has been argued against, and then proven to be a good thing, hence the same must be true for an algae scrubber is laughable, and makes me wonder just how qualified your knowledge base is to be a sw lfs 'manager'-you seem to not be able to adress the comparative merits of each's m.o., and use the type of discussions performed to evaluate the methods ?
so, according to YOU-just how does a turf/algae scrubber WORK, per your above sentence-do you also claim it replaces all filteration methods including water changes, and adds no wastes of its own to a closed system ?
please address the phosphate cycle, the carbon cycle, the nitrogen cycle, terpenes, phenols, voc/hvoc's etc etc in your reply
your thoughts on 'pods' and how they act as a sink, if at all, would be most welcome
btw-i'm still waiting to know what types of 'pods' y'all are reffering to, as well as which species of turf algae you seem to be recommending, as santa seems to have hardly any true turf algaes growing on his 'unit'
piercho
New member
+1 for miwoodar' and Inland Aquatics last posts. I give this thread some big plus marks for people jumping in and trying these kind of algae filters which are separate from refugia and have the potential to be much more effective for export. Its gratifying to see people rediscovering what was known but forgotten, or not passed down, or just hated to death. But the white noise from the haters and SantaMonica himself ARE MAKING THIS THREAD NO FUN TO FOLLOW.
miwoodar
Likey the bikey
Alternate methods:
If you have algae issues you might consider using GFO. Check out this *really* interesting thread by JetCat (RIP) (http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/printthread.php?s=&threadid=1182318&perpage=352). Contrary to what you might be reading elsewhere, especially many books, phosphate is a better nutrient to keep your eye on than nitrates. That's not to say that nitrates aren't important to watch. It's just that phosphates will often be the limiting nutrient in algal growth.
Here's some words about phosphate binders from the reef chemistry guru Randy Holmes Farley (http://www.reefkeeping.com/issues/2004-11/rhf/index.php)
Here's a great article summarizing Randy's thoughts on using kalkwasser (http://www.reefkeeping.com/issues/2005-01/rhf/index.php). Lime water is expected to help bind phosphates as well.
Here's what he has to say about skimmers (http://www.reefkeeping.com/issues/2006-08/rhf/index.php). He knows what he is talking about.
Here's another good summary of skimmer basics by the talented Doctor Frank Marini (http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2002-06/fm/feature/index.php).
If you have algae issues you might consider using GFO. Check out this *really* interesting thread by JetCat (RIP) (http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/printthread.php?s=&threadid=1182318&perpage=352). Contrary to what you might be reading elsewhere, especially many books, phosphate is a better nutrient to keep your eye on than nitrates. That's not to say that nitrates aren't important to watch. It's just that phosphates will often be the limiting nutrient in algal growth.
Here's some words about phosphate binders from the reef chemistry guru Randy Holmes Farley (http://www.reefkeeping.com/issues/2004-11/rhf/index.php)
Here's a great article summarizing Randy's thoughts on using kalkwasser (http://www.reefkeeping.com/issues/2005-01/rhf/index.php). Lime water is expected to help bind phosphates as well.
Here's what he has to say about skimmers (http://www.reefkeeping.com/issues/2006-08/rhf/index.php). He knows what he is talking about.
Here's another good summary of skimmer basics by the talented Doctor Frank Marini (http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2002-06/fm/feature/index.php).
I tried it on 1 of my tanks which always had hair algae problem, I have a refugium for the system but never worked that well, after I implemented this similar idea, most of my hair algae problem is gone and I can really feed my corals / fish more now and run the lights for a longer photo period, I was sceptical at first but decided to give it a try, I'm glad I did, its now paying off BIG TIME!
miwoodar
Likey the bikey
But alas, the best single thread I've ever seen about skimmers was heavily attended by Anthony Calfo. Unfortunately that thread has sunk into the RC archives and no longer comes up. I have it saved to my C:drive though. I hope the great Mr. Calfo doesn't mind me posting some of his words as they are very helpful. Skimmer tuning isn't as intuitive as many of us would like to believe. Just because someone can claim that their skimmer never produces doesn't mean anything. My first thought when anyone makes that claim is that 'they don't know how to tune it'. The skimmer must be properly sized, properly installed, and above all, it takes practice.
Thank you Mr Calfo for this specific post:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
ya, know... its a funny thing too. I remember reefing in the 80's early days and thought I had a pretty good system going. I was smart enough to "know what I knew"... but not yet smart enough to "know what I didn't know." (a fab Fennerism). Time and life have opened my eyes to so many wonderful things, and (thankfully!) brought more humility along with that!
Daily skimmate production is an ideal that anyone can reach, presuming you want to use protein skimming as your primary means of (aggressive) nutrient export. There are of course many ways to run a healthy system with less skimming or no skimming at all. But thatââ"šÂ¬Ã¢"žÂ¢s not what we are chatting about here.
I was a marine aquarist already for more than a few years and had heard other experienced folks harping the same thing... daily skimmate, daily skimmate, daily skimmate! It was quite the push back then in "berlin style" reef days where the conscious attempt was to have a nutrient starved reef. It hadn't quite sunk in to us yet that reefs are not nutrient barren, but rather nutrient banked. All tied up in living mass that is rapidly converted/recycled, etc.
but I digress...
It was only when I leapt from basement farming (some basement... my 3K gallon discus hatchery ) to commercial activity (the greenhouse) that I really paid careful attention to hardware installations and maintenance. It was no longer a hobby anymore, but instead I had big money riding on the line
I had no intention of failing either with GH... to do so would mean that I'd have to get a real job someday. Perish the thought! But I digress... again
So with daily and systematic neuroticism, I micromanaged my greenhouse and made my skimmers (actually 6' DIY Nilsen style skimmers) work optimally. And what I saw happen was that in 240 gall tanks (20X)... most with single coral species... many getting no feeding at all (nearly fully autotrophic Xeniids, Briareum, etc)... and literally no fishes or only one per 240 gall (a copperband here for Sycon control... dragonet over there for acoel flatworms, etc)... I still got full cups of daily (coffee) dark skimmate! Simply amazing to see. And really just a matter of the gastropods grazing their daily diatom growth, and good water flow keeping their fecal pellets in suspension. Daily faithful supplementation (iodine, Vita-chem, Selcon) no doubt helped the diatoms continue to grow But my net daily import of nutrients was very small compared to what most folks today keep as fish and corals loads, feedings going in, sub par water flow in home aquariums, etc.
So Iââ"šÂ¬Ã¢"žÂ¢m now converted... harping to you like those kind, mother hen experienced aquarists that harped at me.
When you see a 240 gallon tank that gets no food, has no fishes, monospecific for Xenia, and only dry sand and dry rock for substrates (no LR or LS for fear of bringing in pests, predators or nuisance algae)... and the tank still yields 4-8 oz of coffee dark skimmate (!), you'd be converted too.
So... why donââ"šÂ¬Ã¢"žÂ¢t you get such daily skimmate? There are many common reasons for this.
The number one reason is the quality of water delivered to the skimmer.
Anything less than raw water overflowed straight into the skimmer is a compromise.
Hence the popularity and track record of Tunze rail- and top mount skimmers (they sit at the surface of the water).
I understand that this is not always practical. Top mount skimmers are unsightly, and not everyone can or wants to plumb their overflow directly into the skimmer instead.
So whatââ"šÂ¬Ã¢"žÂ¢s the next best thing? Well... overflowing raw water into a narrow and concentrated skimmer vessel (just slightly larger than the footprint of your sump model skimmer... or really... just the pump that feeds the skimmer). The easiest way to accomplish this is to seal a partition in the sump if the sump is large enough. Else, just get a small plastic or glass vessel (again... just large enough to squeak the skimmer into) and drill it to overflow into the sump. It will, of course, be kept next to and slightly higher than the sump for this strategic position between the overflow and the sump proper.
If instead you simply sit your skimmer in an open sump... you may just want to unplug it and save the electricity. I'm guessing you get a full cup of skimmate out of that skimmer once weekly or less. Itââ"šÂ¬Ã¢"žÂ¢s no great surprise. Some skimmers can perform well this way... but most do not. And itââ"šÂ¬Ã¢"žÂ¢s as much to do with size (small) and flow (high) of the sump that makes skimmers in open sumps work at all.
The problem with the majority of skimmers installed (and working poorly) in open sumps is that the fluctuation in water level (turbulence and/or evaporation) slightly affects the head (pressure) on the pump and in turn the amount of water forced into the skimmer. The open sump with slower flow also wreaks havoc on the collection/concentration of proteins (they can migrate back to the surface of the water as they do in the main tank) above the level of the skimmer pump in this case.
That reminds me of the problem with HOB skimmers... their feed pump is drawing water from several inches below the surface of the tank. Wanna improve HOB skimmer performace? Raise the powerhead as close to the surface as you can. Its not as good as getting overflow water (better concentration of surface protein overflow water)... but it is a huge help.
Back to those sump model skimmers... if you cannot seal a partition into your sump... and if you cannot fit a skimmer tank next to or above the sump... then stick the skimmer in a bucket in the sump so that it sticks up above the active running sump water level. Feed this bucket with (again) raw water from the display above, and simply let it overflow the sides of the bucket into the sump proper.
Another big design flaw of skimmers... poor exit control of water. Better skimmers have a gate valve (not a ball valve) for fine control and adjustments. Poor skimmers need one.
Maintenance: some organic/colloidal matter needs to build up (0-12 hours) on the inside of the neck to help skimmate climb... but after 2-3 days, it actually impedes skimmate collection.Clean your skimmer neck interior every couple of days for overall improved skimmate collection. Having two skimmers cleaned on alternate days for big tanks is particularly helpful.
Shall I go on?
Skimmer design. Sigh... we/I could talk for days about this. You'd think that if you spend $200+ dollars for a skimmer (even 300-500) you should get a wicked good performer, right? Well... one would think so. Alas, this is one area of the industry where the adage "good things are seldom cheap and cheap things are seldom" good actually doesnââ"šÂ¬Ã¢"žÂ¢t hold up. I would not take the majority of skimmers on the market for free.
Fortunately... on message boards like this with a lot of skilled aquarists, itââ"šÂ¬Ã¢"žÂ¢s not hard to see/read (archives) recommendations for quite a few good performing skimmers. My only beef with some of the better skimmers is that they are poor values (weak bang for the buck... or in otherwords: overengineered/overpriced).
Will you get twice the skimmate production/quantity out of the best $800 skimmer as you will out of the best $400 skimmer. Nope... not even close. There are some fab skimmers for $200-400... and I have yet to see a skimmer over $500 that was a good value.
Last of all... there is just daily tweaking and tuning and learning your skimmer. That is something we need to see more of... workshops at local clubs showing people how to install and maintain their skimmers. Dialing needle (air) valves on venturis (boosting the air injection)... showing the difference (benefit) of a gate valve on the outflow versus the inflow side.
I do hope I've given you some food for thought though.
FWIW... the best skimmers I've even used (total skimmate volume/quality) were those DIY Nilsen style skimmers. But admittedly, they are large, ugly, noisy and more (daily) work to keep going.
Nowadays... I am quite content with an ASM, Euro-Reef, or Aqua C skimmer. There are plenty of other great skimmers out there. I just figured I'd save somebody the keystrokes to type what brands I thought were good values
with kind regards to all,
Anthony
Thank you Mr Calfo for this specific post:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
ya, know... its a funny thing too. I remember reefing in the 80's early days and thought I had a pretty good system going. I was smart enough to "know what I knew"... but not yet smart enough to "know what I didn't know." (a fab Fennerism). Time and life have opened my eyes to so many wonderful things, and (thankfully!) brought more humility along with that!
Daily skimmate production is an ideal that anyone can reach, presuming you want to use protein skimming as your primary means of (aggressive) nutrient export. There are of course many ways to run a healthy system with less skimming or no skimming at all. But thatââ"šÂ¬Ã¢"žÂ¢s not what we are chatting about here.
I was a marine aquarist already for more than a few years and had heard other experienced folks harping the same thing... daily skimmate, daily skimmate, daily skimmate! It was quite the push back then in "berlin style" reef days where the conscious attempt was to have a nutrient starved reef. It hadn't quite sunk in to us yet that reefs are not nutrient barren, but rather nutrient banked. All tied up in living mass that is rapidly converted/recycled, etc.
but I digress...
It was only when I leapt from basement farming (some basement... my 3K gallon discus hatchery ) to commercial activity (the greenhouse) that I really paid careful attention to hardware installations and maintenance. It was no longer a hobby anymore, but instead I had big money riding on the line
I had no intention of failing either with GH... to do so would mean that I'd have to get a real job someday. Perish the thought! But I digress... again
So with daily and systematic neuroticism, I micromanaged my greenhouse and made my skimmers (actually 6' DIY Nilsen style skimmers) work optimally. And what I saw happen was that in 240 gall tanks (20X)... most with single coral species... many getting no feeding at all (nearly fully autotrophic Xeniids, Briareum, etc)... and literally no fishes or only one per 240 gall (a copperband here for Sycon control... dragonet over there for acoel flatworms, etc)... I still got full cups of daily (coffee) dark skimmate! Simply amazing to see. And really just a matter of the gastropods grazing their daily diatom growth, and good water flow keeping their fecal pellets in suspension. Daily faithful supplementation (iodine, Vita-chem, Selcon) no doubt helped the diatoms continue to grow But my net daily import of nutrients was very small compared to what most folks today keep as fish and corals loads, feedings going in, sub par water flow in home aquariums, etc.
So Iââ"šÂ¬Ã¢"žÂ¢m now converted... harping to you like those kind, mother hen experienced aquarists that harped at me.
When you see a 240 gallon tank that gets no food, has no fishes, monospecific for Xenia, and only dry sand and dry rock for substrates (no LR or LS for fear of bringing in pests, predators or nuisance algae)... and the tank still yields 4-8 oz of coffee dark skimmate (!), you'd be converted too.
So... why donââ"šÂ¬Ã¢"žÂ¢t you get such daily skimmate? There are many common reasons for this.
The number one reason is the quality of water delivered to the skimmer.
Anything less than raw water overflowed straight into the skimmer is a compromise.
Hence the popularity and track record of Tunze rail- and top mount skimmers (they sit at the surface of the water).
I understand that this is not always practical. Top mount skimmers are unsightly, and not everyone can or wants to plumb their overflow directly into the skimmer instead.
So whatââ"šÂ¬Ã¢"žÂ¢s the next best thing? Well... overflowing raw water into a narrow and concentrated skimmer vessel (just slightly larger than the footprint of your sump model skimmer... or really... just the pump that feeds the skimmer). The easiest way to accomplish this is to seal a partition in the sump if the sump is large enough. Else, just get a small plastic or glass vessel (again... just large enough to squeak the skimmer into) and drill it to overflow into the sump. It will, of course, be kept next to and slightly higher than the sump for this strategic position between the overflow and the sump proper.
If instead you simply sit your skimmer in an open sump... you may just want to unplug it and save the electricity. I'm guessing you get a full cup of skimmate out of that skimmer once weekly or less. Itââ"šÂ¬Ã¢"žÂ¢s no great surprise. Some skimmers can perform well this way... but most do not. And itââ"šÂ¬Ã¢"žÂ¢s as much to do with size (small) and flow (high) of the sump that makes skimmers in open sumps work at all.
The problem with the majority of skimmers installed (and working poorly) in open sumps is that the fluctuation in water level (turbulence and/or evaporation) slightly affects the head (pressure) on the pump and in turn the amount of water forced into the skimmer. The open sump with slower flow also wreaks havoc on the collection/concentration of proteins (they can migrate back to the surface of the water as they do in the main tank) above the level of the skimmer pump in this case.
That reminds me of the problem with HOB skimmers... their feed pump is drawing water from several inches below the surface of the tank. Wanna improve HOB skimmer performace? Raise the powerhead as close to the surface as you can. Its not as good as getting overflow water (better concentration of surface protein overflow water)... but it is a huge help.
Back to those sump model skimmers... if you cannot seal a partition into your sump... and if you cannot fit a skimmer tank next to or above the sump... then stick the skimmer in a bucket in the sump so that it sticks up above the active running sump water level. Feed this bucket with (again) raw water from the display above, and simply let it overflow the sides of the bucket into the sump proper.
Another big design flaw of skimmers... poor exit control of water. Better skimmers have a gate valve (not a ball valve) for fine control and adjustments. Poor skimmers need one.
Maintenance: some organic/colloidal matter needs to build up (0-12 hours) on the inside of the neck to help skimmate climb... but after 2-3 days, it actually impedes skimmate collection.Clean your skimmer neck interior every couple of days for overall improved skimmate collection. Having two skimmers cleaned on alternate days for big tanks is particularly helpful.
Shall I go on?
Skimmer design. Sigh... we/I could talk for days about this. You'd think that if you spend $200+ dollars for a skimmer (even 300-500) you should get a wicked good performer, right? Well... one would think so. Alas, this is one area of the industry where the adage "good things are seldom cheap and cheap things are seldom" good actually doesnââ"šÂ¬Ã¢"žÂ¢t hold up. I would not take the majority of skimmers on the market for free.
Fortunately... on message boards like this with a lot of skilled aquarists, itââ"šÂ¬Ã¢"žÂ¢s not hard to see/read (archives) recommendations for quite a few good performing skimmers. My only beef with some of the better skimmers is that they are poor values (weak bang for the buck... or in otherwords: overengineered/overpriced).
Will you get twice the skimmate production/quantity out of the best $800 skimmer as you will out of the best $400 skimmer. Nope... not even close. There are some fab skimmers for $200-400... and I have yet to see a skimmer over $500 that was a good value.
Last of all... there is just daily tweaking and tuning and learning your skimmer. That is something we need to see more of... workshops at local clubs showing people how to install and maintain their skimmers. Dialing needle (air) valves on venturis (boosting the air injection)... showing the difference (benefit) of a gate valve on the outflow versus the inflow side.
I do hope I've given you some food for thought though.
FWIW... the best skimmers I've even used (total skimmate volume/quality) were those DIY Nilsen style skimmers. But admittedly, they are large, ugly, noisy and more (daily) work to keep going.
Nowadays... I am quite content with an ASM, Euro-Reef, or Aqua C skimmer. There are plenty of other great skimmers out there. I just figured I'd save somebody the keystrokes to type what brands I thought were good values
with kind regards to all,
Anthony
Last edited:
SantaMonica
Well-known member
How about starting without the surge? It's nice to have, but the lighting strength and closeness are most important, and you can always add a surge later. I just picked up my acrylic box today, and I'll be posting pics soon.
miwoodar
Likey the bikey
Lastly, I could go on with more posts with short snipits of info and links to people's thoughts who are vastly more intelligent than I will *ever* be. I want to be very clear, anything I've ever posted...standing on the shoulders of other people...is what makes the RC commmunity so strong. I myself am *not* a good reefer, *WE* are good reefers. Rather than a bunch more links, I would suggest taking a long wonderous look at the TOTM archives. Aren't these the tanks we all dream about? Read how they maintain their systems and study their approaches. There may be no better place to conjure up ideas on how to address your specific woes.
http://reefkeeping.com/issues/subject/totm.php
http://reefkeeping.com/issues/subject/totm.php
....Actually for me I accidentally stumbled on with a idea like this about 1.5 years ago, doing something similar to what Santa Monica said but had the screens in my overflow box (1 on each sides with a simple screw on powercompact floodlight, twice a month, I would remove a screen to scrap off most of the algae growth on it, it end up exporting most of my nutrients out so no more food for my hair algae in the tank. The key is running the light for about 18+ hours, that way its exporting nutrients at night so during the day time, nothing for the hair algae to feed on. I had lots chaeto in a fairly decent size refugium which I had harvest many times but it just wasn't exporting it fast enough and besides, chaeto consumes nitrate more than it does for phosphate. I think its like a 16 to 1 ratio. With that said, the controlled hair algae screen method works REALLY WELL for phosphate exportation because hair algae favors phosphate more than chaeto does and consumes phosphate much faster as well. For those whom don't want to pay all that money to constantly switch out your Ferric Oxide Media (PhosBan) once a month and just do the natural way, this is the way to do it, its probably better for our environment also, no plastic containers and media to throw away.
SantaMonica
Well-known member
Way to go Navipro! Readers want pics you know Yours so far is the mystery screen.......
Yours so far is the mystery screen.......
miwoodar
Likey the bikey
I had lots chaeto in a fairly decent size refugium which I had harvest many times but it just wasn't exporting it fast enough and besides, chaeto consumes nitrate more than it does for phosphate. I think its like a 16 to 1 ratio. With that said, the controlled hair algae screen method works REALLY WELL for phosphate exportation because hair algae favors phosphate more than chaeto does and consumes phosphate much faster as well.
I would like to read up on that statement. Could you please post links to related discussions? Yes, 16:1 sounds right. But I didn't realize that microalgaes and macroalgaes had significantly different uptake ratios.
For those whom don't want to pay all that money to constantly switch out your Ferric Oxide Media (PhosBan) once a month and just do the natural way, this is the way to do it, its probably better for our environment also, no plastic containers and media to throw away.
No need to buy name brand here. One years worth of GFO for most tanks is $20 from bulk reef supply. If you buy a larger container it comes in a convenient reusable bucket.
I would like to read up on that statement. Could you please post links to related discussions? Yes, 16:1 sounds right. But I didn't realize that microalgaes and macroalgaes had significantly different uptake ratios.
For those whom don't want to pay all that money to constantly switch out your Ferric Oxide Media (PhosBan) once a month and just do the natural way, this is the way to do it, its probably better for our environment also, no plastic containers and media to throw away.
No need to buy name brand here. One years worth of GFO for most tanks is $20 from bulk reef supply. If you buy a larger container it comes in a convenient reusable bucket.
Similar threads
