Cone Skimmer thread, up for Discussion!

[mojoreef]

Sorry Charlie (couldnt resist) Thats about right. What makes it worse is that the water entry point into the skimmer is the same as the air (both operate off the same pump and are mixed as they enter the skimmer) so the air bubbles only see the water they come in on, that kills the bombardment rate, specially when its out of the skimmer so fast.

Skimming is not a performance point, its a matter of doing it right. Again to many folks look at the foam and get all excited, but just because their is foam dont mean its skimming.

Mike

 

[CarlaW]

Looks like it is time to start saving my pennies.

 

[mojoreef]

You could mod that one, save the pennys

Mike

 

[CarlaW]

How would you modify it?

 

[mojoreef]

ahh thats one for another thread


Mike

 

[Reefdaddy1]

Stones, Stones and more stones

 

[CarlaW]

ahh thats one for another thread


Mike

I'll start it, you finish.

 

[luke33]

Yep thats about right on the first part Charlie. On the second you go 2000gphour /60 minutes = 33.3gper minute/60 seconds = .55 gpsecond sooo then 7 gallons means that the dwell time in the skimmer is 3.7 seconds

So when one thinks that most moles take anywhere from 30 to 120 seconds your not winning .


Mike

Lets not start with the whole 2min dwell time is the best myth. Never was proved. That myth is like the wet neck imo. :lol: Not trying to be rude btw.

What makes the cone much better than another skimmer? Well the transition to the collection cup is better than any other design for one. There are no stumbles or transitions to bend around when moving up the skimmer body. The design also lets a pump run nearly unrestricted as the cone body makes it have little backpressure on the pump. Since there's less water volume and more bubble density. The air also moves in a vertical pattern that is smoother than any other design i've seen before. No disaray moving up the skimmer, its just a smooth transition. Now the pump has to be right for a cone, or any skimmer for that matter, so matching it up with a sicce or askoll is perfect. The sicce's pull 30scfh hooked up at 21w and push around 350gph water. The askoll pulls 65-70scfh hooked up at 65w and pushes around 600gph.

Normally when i rate a skimmer i use the 4-6-8lph air per g. For the cone I go with 1.5x's the normal rating just because they are superior to the cylinder tanks.

So to sum it up they are better because of the design, but the pump makes the cone just like any NW skimmer.

 

[mojoreef]

Lets not start with the whole 2min dwell time is the best myth. Never was proved. That myth is like the wet neck imo. Not trying to be rude btw.

Pretty insightful Luke Thanks for sharing your wisdom. Not trying to be rude either
DOC's come in a number of different forms, Hydrophobic = water fearing and hydrophilic = water loving. It also come in a variety of differing percentages between the two mixed. Hydrophobic docs bind very quickly as they seek the air water interface (these are the same kind you see from time to time on the surface of the tank) Hydrophilic doc's will not naturally attract to the surface of the air bubble (as they dont like air and love water) but these doc's will bind with the hydrophobic doc's that have bound to the bubble, this procedure takes more time as you have to wait for the first doc to bind.
On the wet neck, it was patented by a comercial protien skimmer manufacture, with the concept that it stops the protiens from forming on the neck of the skimmer, it actually works really well (just hard to replicate)but hey what do they know anyway they only sell their skimmers for tens of thousands of dollars around the world

Better to have a foam cannon

Mike

 

[luke33]

The wetneck to me was a great thought but they hurt skimming performance greatly. When runnin a wetneck i pulled 1/3 of what I normally did. Just because the wetneck didn't allow the foam head to stay formed as nicely as it pushed it down on the sides. Was a big bust imo. The beckett is still the best performing skimmer and always has been but if you can make an efficient type of beckett like skimmer your set. This is why i think the cone's are going to be the future. THey pull tons of air, smooth transition, but have better dwell time than a beckett. I've always thought of them as efficient beckett's without the beckett : )

 

[mojoreef]

The wetneck to me was a great thought but they hurt skimming performance greatly. When runnin a wetneck i pulled 1/3 of what I normally did. Just because the wetneck didn't allow the foam head to stay formed as nicely as it pushed it down on the sides.

For me it was the opposite, when I turned it on the foam head blasted up the neck. For me I couldnt keep it maintained (to fussy) so I scraped it. I think on really large skimmer (commercal grade) it works, small ones..not so well.

Truly I think thier is not much difference between this skimmer and a beckett skimmer either with they exception of electrical bill. I guess for me I just hate to see a simple peice of equipment like a skimmer cost so much money, wouldnt be so bad I guess if it actually followed the laws governing skimming.


Mike

 

[luke33]

Well, look at it like this. The double sicce is 720bux. Not a ton compared to the other similar sized cone's. Or high end skimmers. But there not cheap, thats for sure. They also aren't cheaply built with 1/4" acrylic. I wonder what kinda price they could have sold them at if they would have done the 1/8" cast like there other skimmers.

And yea, i have a few ideas I'm going to be trying in the next couple months for an efficient beckett, so we'll see what happens : ) Just got my garage tooled.

 

[Skimmy]

Hydrophilic doc's will not naturally attract to the surface of the air bubble (as they dont like air and love water) but these doc's will bind with the hydrophobic doc's that have bound to the bubble, this procedure takes more time as you have to wait for the first doc to bind.
Mike

so mike, how much longer does it take the hydrophilic doc's to bind compared to the hydrophobic doc's? is it like twice as long?

btw, i am loving this thread, even i am learning something

 

[Maxx]

1: flow rate through the skimmer. The formula for figureing it out is Hours=9.2 purity coefficient (which means that 99.9% of the water has been treated (gallons/gph) so this formula gives you an idea on how to see how many times a day the tank water runs through the skimmer in order to treat all the tank water completely. So an example of say my skimmer would be:I have a pump pushing 600 gph and my tank has about 1000 gallons of water and I want to have a treatment of 9.2 coefficient (which means 99.99% of the water is treated in the tank). Or (1000/600)9.2=15.3 So all my water will hae seen the skimmer every 15.3 hours. This formula works for all equipment.

2. Bombardment rate: Which is the number of times an assending air bubble hits a descending water drop with in the skimmer. This concept deals with the time the tank water spends in the skimmer and the diameter of the skimmer. Ok the formula for figuring this out is Bombardment rate (R) = the dwell time of the water/the dwell time of the air. So an example: my skimmer holds 30 gallons of water and is feed by that 600 gph so that means that the water completely passes through the skimmer every 180 seconds So my dwell time for the water is 180sec. The dwell time is a long formula and it just dont work for me, so I mickey moused it. I turned the air pump super low so thier was only a few bubbles in the skimmer. With the bubbles coming in and hitting the wwater flow in the skimmer I timed it out at a very approximate but it came out to 12 seconds, so my bombardment rate is 180/12= 15 bombardment rate. 10 is concidered to be perfect. So I should sow down the rate a bit.

The way a skimmer pulls off organics is really done in two seperate functions. One is mechanically and the other is chemically. With the bubbles hitting the water goblets it is mechanically pounding off the organics or seperating them from the water molecules. The chemical reaction is where the organic molecule is attracted to the surface of the air bubble. Now that chemical reaction does take time to occur, thus dwell time is very important.

Mike

Sorry Charlie (couldnt resist) Thats about right. What makes it worse is that the water entry point into the skimmer is the same as the air (both operate off the same pump and are mixed as they enter the skimmer) so the air bubbles only see the water they come in on, that kills the bombardment rate, specially when its out of the skimmer so fast.

Skimming is not a performance point, its a matter of doing it right. Again to many folks look at the foam and get all excited, but just because their is foam dont mean its skimming.

Mike

DOC's come in a number of different forms, Hydrophobic = water fearing and hydrophilic = water loving. It also come in a variety of differing percentages between the two mixed. Hydrophobic docs bind very quickly as they seek the air water interface (these are the same kind you see from time to time on the surface of the tank) Hydrophilic doc's will not naturally attract to the surface of the air bubble (as they dont like air and love water) but these doc's will bind with the hydrophobic doc's that have bound to the bubble, this procedure takes more time as you have to wait for the first doc to bind.
On the wet neck, it was patented by a comercial protien skimmer manufacture, with the concept that it stops the protiens from forming on the neck of the skimmer, it actually works really well (just hard to replicate)but hey what do they know anyway they only sell their skimmers for tens of thousands of dollars around the world

Better to have a foam cannon

Mike

Truly I think thier is not much difference between this skimmer and a beckett skimmer either with they exception of electrical bill. I guess for me I just hate to see a simple peice of equipment like a skimmer cost so much money, wouldnt be so bad I guess if it actually followed the laws governing skimming.


Mike

So if we had a cone style skimmer with a tall reaction chamber, (tall narrow cone maybe?), a downward water flow, (fed from upper area, bubbles injected in from bottom of skimmer, and an energy efficient pump like the Sicce's or Askolls, or whatever.....we'd have the ingredients for a truly effiecient skimmer? Get a slow flow rate through the skimmer to get your dwell time and bombardment rate and we'd be set....am I understanding you correctly Mike?

Well, look at it like this. The double sicce is 720bux. Not a ton compared to the other similar sized cone's. Or high end skimmers. But there not cheap, thats for sure. They also aren't cheaply built with 1/4" acrylic. I wonder what kinda price they could have sold them at if they would have done the 1/8" cast like there other skimmers.

And yea, i have a few ideas I'm going to be trying in the next couple months for an efficient beckett, so we'll see what happens : ) Just got my garage tooled.

I dont think these are too expensive compared to other high end skimmers out there. What would you consider an efficient beckett? I've never used a beckett on my tanks, because of two things I'd always read about them....need a powerful pump to run them, (which sucks up electricity), and they are finicky to adjust. If you can get past the pump part...I'd be willing to try one out.

so mike, how much longer does it take the hydrophilic doc's to bind compared to the hydrophobic doc's? is it like twice as long?

btw, i am loving this thread, even i am learning something

That's a great question and one I was going to ask...and I always learn things when Mike posts...

Nick

 

[Poseidon]

I turned my Beckett MR-2 into a recirculation model, and I noticed a small improvement, but I think I could do better with a smaller pump and longer contact times. I still move about 6 or 700 gallons per hour through the skimmer, and its volume has to be 2 maybe 3 gallons tops.

 

[mojoreef]

Man you guys are making me work here

so mike, how much longer does it take the hydrophilic doc's to bind compared to the hydrophobic doc's? is it like twice as long?

Tough to answer it depends on the compound and its make up. Most protiens (bad word by the way) are made up of many differing moles (what in detritus??) so your going to get many differing bonds when it comes to Philics attaching to phobics. As in their could be a component in the phobic that resists bonding from a component in the philic. To be honest according to some testing done for the aquaculture industry some protiens can take up to 4 minutes, but I think at some point we have to say good enough. Does that make sence??

So if we had a cone style skimmer with a tall reaction chamber, (tall narrow cone maybe?), a downward water flow, (fed from upper area, bubbles injected in from bottom of skimmer, and an energy efficient pump like the Sicce's or Askolls, or whatever.....we'd have the ingredients for a truly effiecient skimmer? Get a slow flow rate through the skimmer to get your dwell time and bombardment rate and we'd be set....am I understanding you correctly Mike?

No...Bad Maxx ..bad Maxx . The concept of a cone is probibly just that the top narrows so its easier to raise the foam through the skimmer chamber. Heres the big hint..or the point I am trying to make, STOP thinking about pumps, Stop thinking about shape and start thinking about the laws that govern skimming!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! If you are looking for cheap heres one for ya. Put a baffle in your sump where the water pours over the top and out the bottom, on the bottom put a source of air (say stones for ease), have a collection tray attached to the top of the baffle to catch the skimmate. As long as you follow the laws you can skimm properly.

Some other thoughts. Most all organics (once skimmed) are clear?? how come yours is so dark?? what are you actually skimming??

Only 15 to 20% of total water/foam in your skimmer is supposed to be bubbles, whats yours like?? plug the venturies and take a peek??

If your skimmer is powering out foam are you not frieght training whatever gets in it way?? good or bad??

The math is their just do some calculations and you can see where you sit.


ok back into my corner I go.


Mike

 

[JCTewks]

Mike, Don't take any disrespect in this

To me, the "laws" you are talking about are definitely not "LAWS"...they all appear to have come from Escobal, who did some pioneering work in skimmer design and though, but I would say that a lot of what He wrote could be argued strongly against these days. (although I am probaby not the guy to argue them )

The strong point of the cone is in it's dwell time, not so much the dwell in the body, but the dwell in the foam head. Now, You are not getting 120+ sec dwell time, but if the organics are making it into the foam head, chances are they are being removed. I really think you'd have to see what really goes on in one of these cone bodies to understand.

Really, there will always be skimmer debates...it's like ford vs chevy vs mopar...there is clearly no winner but almost everyone has a side

 

[luke33]

Also, if you had 15-20" of your skimmer full of air you'd have a seaclown : P .....joking with you man.

But like Jeff said, the cone has a huge foam head, like a beckett skimmer. The foam keeps bonding with doc's more and more as more foam pushes its way up, this gives the skimmer excellent dwell time. The big difference between the becketts and cone's is the fact that the beckett has to create a ton of water flow to pull the big air #'s llike 50+scfh. And they use lots of watts to do so. The cone uses 1/3 the wattage, pulls the same if not more air 60+ scfh and uses a ton less waterflow. And the reaction chamber is much less turbulent. The new way of skimming. Your old school Mojo : ) But your right about an air driven skimmer, there tough to beat done correctly, especially if you use an alita air pump : (). Drool. Check out Jnarrow's big ugly skimmer, but it pulls 105lpm.....yes, lpm at 100w.

 

[JCTewks]

:lol: jnarowe's skimmer may be ugly, but man is it efficient and effective...pulling 2-3 GALLONS of nasty funk from the water a day!!!

 

[JCTewks]

Some other thoughts. Most all organics (once skimmed) are clear?? how come yours is so dark?? what are you actually skimming??
Mike

Are you saying that "quality" skimate should be clear?