Beckett injector

[Anonymous]

Ok I would post in the DIY but there seems to be some sort of "Internal Server Error"

So I will ask here.

I am in the middle of a skimmer project based on the ETS 800 Gemini. Along with several personal modifications I will be using two Beckett foam jets for injectors, on seperate injector tubes falling 23" into the mixing tower.

Though I have found several DIY plans for Beckett based skimmers, they all require the permantent instalation of the injector into the sealed injection chamber. I feel it would be most desirable to build this injection chamber such that the injector can be removed and dismantled for cleaning.

Does anyone have, or know where to find the dimensions and fittings used to run the Beckett foam jet on a pond application. If I could duplicate the fitting used in this application, which is obviously removable since they sell replacement injectors, the chamber could be designed to incorporate the fitting so the injector could be removed and replaced/cleaned as needed; without having to rebuild the injection chamber.

Thanks

Zerah
Lawton, OK

 

[Anonymous]

Thanks Reefz.

Curiuous what pump are you planing on runnign you skimmer with?

Randy I'm not sure I understand your question.
Do you consider the 800 Gemini to be the end all as is?
I am not using a modified one rather completely building one based loosely on the design. I am interested in effeciency. My grow-out sytems each consist of ~100gal stacked units of three 2x4x6" tanks. My hope is to be able to loop 5 or more of these stacked units to a common sump that also serves as a large refugium. I am looking for one skimmer that can truly handle 500-1000 gal of water. Not just ordinary tank load either. These units can hold 1000+ corals each. To buy such a unit or have one built would cost more than I want to spend. So since I like to fiddle anyway, have the tools and experience, I have decided to begin building protoypes and testing till I get the results I want.

Suggestions are always welcome.

Zerah
Lawton, OK

 

[Anonymous]

I'm in the middle of constructing a dual 36" injection tower downdraft similar to what you will be building. I am using Becketts as injectors. I suggest you buy one or two and decide how you want to mount them for your application. Using them in DIY requires a bit of precision if you want good air/water mix.

I also want to be also to remove them so I can sub other injectors to see how they compare. I'm using screw-on PVC fittings with the Beckett in a tube. There seem to be several approaches - I suggest you get 1-2 and just start experimenting. Remember, the Beckett has to be in a air/water-tight environment (end-to-end) to prevent feedback from the output.

There are several good DIY designs out there - be sure to read Chris Paris's discussion on design optimization.

Reefz

 

[Anonymous]

What is your reasoning behind modifications to the ETS 800?

------------------
Randy Holmes-Farley

 

[Anonymous]

I'm starting with a Mag Drive 1200 gph. If I suspect its underpowered, I'll move up to a bigger pump. I'm going to play with the design as a prototype and see how water flow, air flow, injector mods, tower height (and number of towers) and other factors affect performance.

I should have it running this weekend.

Reefz

 

[Anonymous]

Zerah:

No, of course I don't think the ETS 800 is perfection (despite owning one). The larger ETS models are almost certainly better.

Rather, I'm trying to understand what modifications you would make to it to make it better, and why you think that those modifications will improve efficiency.

As a separate point, if I really wanted a highly efficient skimmer, and didn't want to buy one, I'd start with a more efficient model to begin with, rather than trying random modifications to an existing design of moderate efficiency.

------------------
Randy Holmes-Farley

 

[Anonymous]

Randy,

The reason I choose the ETS800 as a base model is 1) compact size 2) efficiency as is 3) simplicity of design. I am sure these are some of the reasons you purchased the Gemini from ETS. The modification is not random. If you check Chris Paris' page and look at the measurements of flow and air quantites produced by the Beckett, it seems to be a more efficient choice. So as long as I am building one, and this is the design I want, why not try a more efficient means of air induction? I do not want a six foot skimmer. The model I am building hopes to handle 2000+gph. If we say that .25% of this # is a good figure for really efficient skimming capacity, then I hit my goal: A compact, efficient, simple, protein skimmer that is able to process ~500gal. Finally, it is going to cost me ~75$.

Oh, and if you have more efficient plans for a DIY skimmer, or a model more suited to emulation, than please let me know.

Zerah
Lawton, OK

 

[Anonymous]

I agree that reaction time is the key to producing a more efficient skimmer. But the air has to be there. The Beckett IMO will produce more air at a lower pressure than a traditional downdraft.

You are right that this will require some experimentatin and even then, the results ancedotal at best, and in the end my opinion over John Doe's.

Mostly I am looking to build a reasonably priced skimmer that performs to my desired end result. This skimmer is not for production but for my application. As long as it perform the desired function and does so reasonably efficiently, at a cost I find reasonable, it is a success.

I have also played with the idea for a copy of a large ETS like the 2000. I am not married to the Beckett just interested in its effeciency. The larger ETS styles improvement is where you mentioned, contact/reaction time. This has come into my design. The goal is an efficient skimmer. Would increased reaction time, combined with more air, approaching saturation, not improve this effeciency?

I would simply buy one, but am disatisfied with the way marketing has driven the price. These are very simple piecies of equipment, that use simple means for waste removal, why should we pay the money that HSA, and others charge for their skimmers. Do they know some trade secret. I think not. We pay those prices because some are willing to pay. I am not.

Zerah
Lawton, OK

 

[Anonymous]

I too am not pleased with paying $600+ for a good skimmer (good=works well in my application). Having studied downdraft, needle wheel etc. design carefully and purchased the same materials, I cannot grasp why they are priced as they are. This is not to infer that good effort didn't go into their design and optimization, but there aren't any high cost components or complex craftmanship involved (IMO). Perhaps its because they are produced in small quantity as "boutique" items.

One of the factors I'm going to vary is injection tower height - starting at 36". Contact time seems to be one of the big factors...someone made the point that later skimmer designs seem to be a compromise over earlier tall designs to enable the units to fit under a tank stand. Mine is going in a basement sump, so I don't really care what it looks like.

If anyone would like to share info on design optimization, I'm sure you will have a receptive audience.

Reefz

 

[Anonymous]

So your modification is designed to suck in more air with equal or less water?

I presume that you believe that if you accomplish that, you will have a more efficient skimmer. I wouldn't be convinced without some experimentation.

These skimmers aren't limited by air, they are limited by air/water interface. I don't think it obvious that more air gives more air/water interface. If it did, all you'd have to do is put an air pump on the inlet of the unmodified skimmer.

------------------
Randy Holmes-Farley

 

[Anonymous]

Hi,
If one goes to my pitiful web site, one can see just such a solution. The Becket injector, a few pieces of pluming, some Teflon tape, and presto! A dis-assemble head.