A
Anonymous
Guest
Look at the Octopus Cone. Looks pretty good and is priced well:
http://www.reefspecialty.com/Protein-Sk ... _info.html
http://www.reefspecialty.com/Protein-Sk ... _info.html
Well different skimmers show they are better when the tank improves, maybe its just the extra size of the chamber or amount of air being sucked. I didnt read the article and probably should. I actually did when it came out but cant remember it at all lol. I know I have used lots of different skimmer and no one is telling me the AquaC type injector is just as effective as a mesh wheel or pinwheel with a good pump. I would like to try the reeflo skimmers too they look like beast. I am not convinced on the cones just because it seems like less chamber area for production, and the octopus extremes have a cone neck anyway. I do like the diffuser plates and think they are here to stay. They calm the chamber down and make a nicer evenly filled chamber and IMO that increase's contact time. Didnt this book cover some of what makes protien skimmer effective Aquatic Systems engineering: Devices and How They Function by P.R. Escobal? I still love my BK I mean I spent the $ on it of course I love it. Like I said the BK Mini 200 Gen 2 I have did great on my 58, on my 160 it is struggling. Then again I am feeding a ton nowadays.
I've gone through literally dozens of skimmers in the past 20+ years, and IME most of them work well. I can't say my Deltec performs better than my past Euro-Reef or ASM or HSA or Bullet skimmers (or vice versa). They each have their advantages and disadvantages, but I'm unconvinced they make my tank cleaner/better. When I had the AquaC, it skimmed just fine. I had other issues with it, but it never failed to produce a lot of skimmate.
That said, all my skimmers have been "over-sized" for the tanks they were applied to, so maybe that's the reason why I didn't see any performance difference in the long run. The skimmers would all extract X amount of TOC over Y period of time; I wouldn't doubt some extracted it faster than others. However, in the long run, it made no difference. I suppose I should correct my statement and say that skimmers may perform differently, but over duration, a "properly sized" skimmer is going to extract the same amount of TOC. It's just a matter of how fast it extracts it, and I'm not sure this matters.
That said, all my skimmers have been "over-sized" for the tanks they were applied to, so maybe that's the reason why I didn't see any performance difference in the long run. The skimmers would all extract X amount of TOC over Y period of time; I wouldn't doubt some extracted it faster than others. However, in the long run, it made no difference. I suppose I should correct my statement and say that skimmers may perform differently, but over duration, a "properly sized" skimmer is going to extract the same amount of TOC. It's just a matter of how fast it extracts it, and I'm not sure this matters.
Buts doesnt TOC build up on a continual basis, leading me to believe that the faster you can take it out, more more the skimmer will be able to process overtime and the more you will be able to feed a tank. I like to feed alot and feel my corals grow faster the more I am able to feed to the fish. I've swithced almost completely to rods food now and go through a lot of it.
If alls thats being compaired is injection method thats one thing but are we not taking into consideration dwell time of the bubbles, amount of air in the chamber, and size of the chamber to me those are just as important. I love lots of skimmers too, my Bullet 3 was one of my favorites and made skimmate like crazy, even though it had a huge pump was noisy and very tall.
Ben":3r7n03xk said:
TOC builds up constantly, of course, but I think running a decently sized and designed skimmer on a given body of water would result in the same TOC removal over duration. It may take Skimmer A a little longer to remove TOC then Skimmer B (theoretically due to volume, contact time, turbulence, et al ... all unconfirmed hobbyist musings). But over any given period of time, TOC values in the tank aren't going to vary much from skimmer to skimmer. I have never heard someone going from a one skimmer of comparable size to another and proclaim this solved their algae or nitrate problem. I really don't think it matters. If I was on a budget, a mega-buck skimmer would be very low on my priority list (behind lighting and circulation).
The AAOLM article concludes they're striping the water at the same constant, though skimmers that process more water volume remove TOC faster. "Bubbles are bubbles."
So yeah ... I'm revising my original stance and say skimmers perform differently in the short term, but they all do the job in the long term.
I'm with Ben here, when I hook up my Coralife Super Skimmer 200 (or whatever it was called) and noticed how fast (if I can even use that word) brown water was pulled out, then compare it to my ASM G3 (which on paper shouldn't be able to handle as much), then it's no contest that the ASM skimmer pulls more gunk. Now compared to my BM they both stink to high heaven, but then again that's also a much larger skimmer on a much larger tank.
Yeah, but what was the total amount removed over a given period of time? Skimmers skim, then go "dormant," then skim again. The frequency between activity and dormancy will differ from skimmer to skimmer. But in the long term, how much has each skimmer removed as a function of how much water they processed? Is it different?
Another way to put it: Two skimmers will likely remove TOC at different rates of speed. But regarding final product water in a given period of time ... will one technology really strip more TOC from the water than another? Can a needle wheel with a diffuser rate really lower system-wide TOC below that of a needle wheel without a diffuser plate? Or does it just do it faster/slower?
I don't doubt for a minute some skimmers are poorly designed or that there's short term differences between good designs. What I doubt is whether two good designs will perform differently in the long run.
I don't doubt for a minute some skimmers are poorly designed or that there's short term differences between good designs. What I doubt is whether two good designs will perform differently in the long run.
When my new tank become a reality I plan on getting an upper mid ranged priced skimmer that is rated for a bigget tank that I will have. I tend to oversize my skimmers. My opinion is similar to Len's To a certian point the extra money get you a much better skimer then performance increase per dollar spent goes down. Most of the upper mid ranged to upper range use simialr sized chambers and similar pumps. I am not willing to pay 2x the money for a 10% increase in skimate production. Guess what I am saying, if you want to spend extra on a skimmer get a good skimmer that is slightly oversized.
Actually, my opinion is you don't see a 10% increase in skimmate production over time from one nice skimmer to another. You might see one skim 10% faster, but over time, I can't see how the TOC levels of the tank is different when comparing two well-designed skimmers, even of very different implementations.
I get what you're saying Len, but I don't buy it. Otherwise why don't we see magnificent tanks with people who run those ultra cheap knockoffs (Jebo, Odyssea, etc)? Those people who have switched from ultra cheap to "good" skimmer have seen dramatic differences in skimmate production as well as overall tank health (even if its anecdotal like diatom growth on the glass is much slower, or corals seem more vibrant with less algae on rocks). Also if that's the case with skimmers only being able to pull a certain amount then go dormant (which I can easily see), then why can't we undersize skimmers a ton? Why do we see differences when people oversize skimmers?
I mean overall there definitely can be other answers to those whys, but for me, I'll stick with the anecdotal evidence. I mean you can look at all the Sanjay lighting studies in the world, however what makes a good light is what will make your corals grow and look better under more so than a particular number, PAR or Color Temp, or wattage, or efficiency.
I mean overall there definitely can be other answers to those whys, but for me, I'll stick with the anecdotal evidence. I mean you can look at all the Sanjay lighting studies in the world, however what makes a good light is what will make your corals grow and look better under more so than a particular number, PAR or Color Temp, or wattage, or efficiency.
Wazzel":17owrm9s said:
No I don't, as I stated really early on. Now a BK160 might skim a bit better than the Octopus 150 but probably not not "5x better", and I'm not so rich that a $700 difference isn't really that much.
However from what I gather from what Len was saying, it seemed that it didn't matter what type of skimmer, or technology you used, they all pulled the same amount of junk, which I didn't particular buy.
Also I just skimmed briefly through the article Len posted and one thing confuses me... well first the "4 different technologies" don't seem that much different from one another but in the conclusions he states
But in his data he shows the ER CS80 removes 56 +/- 15 % of the BSA, where as the PM Airstone removes 95 +/- 5% of the BSA which to me sounds like a huge f'ing difference, although the "rate constant" (which I still haven't grasped) is comparable, to me the data shows one skimmer removes just about everything, where as the other removes half to two thirds.
But in his data he shows the ER CS80 removes 56 +/- 15 % of the BSA, where as the PM Airstone removes 95 +/- 5% of the BSA which to me sounds like a huge f'ing difference, although the "rate constant" (which I still haven't grasped) is comparable, to me the data shows one skimmer removes just about everything, where as the other removes half to two thirds.
Skimmers have gotten larger on average (much larger ... 8" diameter skimmers were elite a decade ago ... now it's standard, even base-model fare). Most people who upgrade skimmers usually go to a larger skimmer. My hypothesis is this is what accounts for better water quality, not any differences in the implementation/circulation of bubbles. I agree oversizing is much better then undersizing, I just don't see evidence, anecdotal or otherwise, that differences in how you form and distribute bubbles matter very much (if at all).
As I said, I believe you can make a bad skimmer (e.g. Skilter). I just think that once you get to a skimmer of competent design, you get very little improvement from one design to the next. Get a nice volume, plenty of air, and the right neck and you're golden.
And you know fanboys arguing their Bubble King, Vertex, Deltec, ATB, etc. are better ... they'll see and/or say things that aren't really there to justify their superiority.
Not only that, but hobbyists have a really wacky understanding of cause and effect. Amongst the host of reasons a bigger skimmer might result in a healthier tank and not be related to TOC/skimmate production at all ... oxygenation of the water.
As I said, I believe you can make a bad skimmer (e.g. Skilter). I just think that once you get to a skimmer of competent design, you get very little improvement from one design to the next. Get a nice volume, plenty of air, and the right neck and you're golden.
And you know fanboys arguing their Bubble King, Vertex, Deltec, ATB, etc. are better ... they'll see and/or say things that aren't really there to justify their superiority.
Not only that, but hobbyists have a really wacky understanding of cause and effect. Amongst the host of reasons a bigger skimmer might result in a healthier tank and not be related to TOC/skimmate production at all ... oxygenation of the water.Sponsor Reefs
We're a FREE website, and we exist because of hobbyists like YOU who help us run this community.
Click here to sponsor $10:
