scubasteve06
Jeeper Reefer
:lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao:
Why do you use a skimmer?
- Thread starter 121
- Start date
:lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao:
jeff@zina.com
New member
By the way, for the original poster, there are tanks with skimmers and there are tanks without. A skimmer is just another tool in the process and isn't required. It just makes some parts of the hobby a bit easier on most hobbyists. A skimmer removes many things, primarily organics, from the water column, preventing those organics and other "trash" from becoming a problem later.
There's a quote from somebody (Calfo? Moe?) that anyone who doesn't think a skimmer is needed should drink a week's output from a skimmer and see if they still believe that. Best argument I know of to use a skimmer.
Jeff
There's a quote from somebody (Calfo? Moe?) that anyone who doesn't think a skimmer is needed should drink a week's output from a skimmer and see if they still believe that. Best argument I know of to use a skimmer.
Jeff
LaOtIn
New member
There's a quote from somebody (Calfo? Moe?) that anyone who doesn't think a skimmer is needed should drink a week's output from a skimmer and see if they still believe that. Best argument I know of to use a skimmer.
Jeff
im so gonna try that!
While that sounds right, a protein skimmer actually removes very little in the way of proteins. Fats and lipids primarily, other dissolved organics, but there really aren't a large percentage of proteins in a tank. Beyond the living ones you prefer stay in the tank...
Jeff
Agreed, but what fun would it be to call it an " poop, amine, sugar, alcohol, and fat" skimmer. The truly amusing thing is we have been feeding this troll for the better part of a day while he has done nothing more than ask absurd questions. My hope is he will have some earth shattering new discovery that will eliminate our need to skim and cause us to lose our affection with the smell of nog in the morning. Sadly I doubt that will be the case.
scubasteve06
Jeeper Reefer
Agreed, but what fun would it be to call it an " poop, amine, sugar, alcohol, and fat" skimmer. The truly amusing thing is we have been feeding this troll for the better part of a day while he has done nothing more than ask absurd questions. My hope is he will have some earth shattering new discovery that will eliminate our need to skim and cause us to lose our affection with the smell of nog in the morning. Sadly I doubt that will be the case.
lol sirreal I feel the same way as you. For some reason there has been a rise of trolling today. I don't know what it is, I guess someone dumped a load of troll food into the cave today....:hammer::mtool::blown:
RVANANO
SWAGON
I was thinking the same thing. I feel like I should be lying on a comfy sofa pouring out my problems when posting in this thread.
I think the OP needs to head over to the chemistry section....
Uncle Salty 05
New member
I run a skimmer because it keeps my water well aerated and removes the following: by weight (approximately):
44 % of CaCO3
5% of MgCO3
11% of biogenic opal
34% of organic material
0.5% of phosphate
44 % of CaCO3
5% of MgCO3
11% of biogenic opal
34% of organic material
0.5% of phosphate
serpentman
part time superhero
Here is a good article on the analysis of skimmate. Uncle Salty posted the basic findings. However, if you want to read further in depth, here it is:
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2010/2/aafeature
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2010/2/aafeature
frankpayne32
New member
What trace elements are you specifically referring to? As far as I know it has never been sufficiently proven that protein skimmers remove any beneficial "trace elements" from the tank. When people make this argument they don't even know what trace elements are and therefore have no basis to argue either for or against removing them. Run a protein skimmer for a couple months. If you would feel comfortable dosing that skimmate into your tank to supply "trace elements" then by all means do so and quit using a skimmer.
:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:
Plus 12,583!
Most folks that lodge a rather indefensible position of "they remove trace elements" are using such a broad-sword definition of trace elements - that fish poop, anemone slime or dead animal tissues could fit the definition as well as anything!
How about his instead: WHat do they remove? Surface active compounds. Those that have a polarity/affinity for air bubbles ( I believe that is defined as a negative charge?)
Among that group are mostly waste compounds, But also calcium, which is easily replaced.
If we understand what tidal surge does to remove said surface active compounds, and we believe tidal surge to benefit the ocean in other ways ( oxygenation among other things) - then WHY would anyone question protein skimmers?
T
121
Member
LOL guys! :lmao:
I was hella drunk when I made this thread (the room was spinning). I was thinking 'out of the box' (literally) and out loud, pondering what the skimmer is actually removing.
Reefs organisms get their nutrients from upwelling and predation. P04 and N03 gets utilized fast in this process. Corals like SPS rely on their polyps to capture zooplankton in order to get the limited nutrients available.
This is not the case in a closed system as the zooplankton is skimmed out, leaving excess nutrients that overdrive zooxanthellae and mess with the coral's natural balance.
IIRC, Steve Tyree has a skimmerless system, with a cryptic zone for export?
I was hella drunk when I made this thread (the room was spinning). I was thinking 'out of the box' (literally) and out loud, pondering what the skimmer is actually removing.
Reefs organisms get their nutrients from upwelling and predation. P04 and N03 gets utilized fast in this process. Corals like SPS rely on their polyps to capture zooplankton in order to get the limited nutrients available.
This is not the case in a closed system as the zooplankton is skimmed out, leaving excess nutrients that overdrive zooxanthellae and mess with the coral's natural balance.
IIRC, Steve Tyree has a skimmerless system, with a cryptic zone for export?
bobbychullo
Super Abound
121
Member
I'm refering to free swimming zooplankton. Detritus has no where to settle in my system. I'm planning on having a place were it can settle so I can syphon it out with a turkey baster, preserving the free swimming food for corals like SPS.
So...based on that statement - don't you think you owe a bit more respect to this forum? Trying not to be frustrated with you here....I feel like we are all here trying to learn, discuss and contribute.
I can't see doing that successfully with someone admitting they are drunk when they post something.....
Perhaps you, or one of us should ask a moderator if they feel this is a good, and useful way to tie up bandwidth?
T
121
Member
In a system with fish, I can see the skimmer being the only current alternative for aggressive nutrient removal. We all pushing the boundary that is FOWLR with sensitive corals like SPS.
I didn't post anything derogatory. The thread was simply entitled 'Why do you use a skimmer'
I didn't post anything derogatory. The thread was simply entitled 'Why do you use a skimmer'
I don't think you see the point:
You created a troll( o.k. -drunk) thread, which - based on the number of respondants obvious frustration with your cryptic ( o.k. - drunk) responses was not in the best interest of anyone.
And - you don't see anything wrong with that?
T
You created a troll( o.k. -drunk) thread, which - based on the number of respondants obvious frustration with your cryptic ( o.k. - drunk) responses was not in the best interest of anyone.
And - you don't see anything wrong with that?
T
Similar threads
