Mega-Powerful Nitrate and Phosphate Remover Replaces Skimmer, Refugium, Everything

[SantaMonica]

I'll answer these questions, but keep in mind that nowhere in my original post does it mention "SPS". Growing SPS is not the purpose of this thread; reduing N and P and algae in the display is.

Times have changed and the demand for even lower nutrient level have grown well past this type of filtration.

I haven't run low-nutrient comparison research, and I'm sure you have not either. It's up in the air how low in nutrients a properly set up turf system can get. I do know, however, that the pro-skimmer crowd has people who are paid by manufacturers (with either cash or free equipment) to promote, market, shill post, and argue in favor of skimmers. I know; it's what I do in my day job. To the casual aquarist, it looks like there is a lot of interest in skimmers, when if fact the interest is manufactured. Turf algae has no money to pay for such things.

Most folks now days think SPS when it comes to reefkeeping in general

I disagree. If you stand at the front door of an LFS (where the genral population of aquaria go; much more so than on these forums), and ask them if they currently have or want "SPS", 9 out of 10 will not even know what you mean. However, if you ask them "do you have problem algae growing in your tank that you'd like to remove?", 9 out of 10 will say yes. And yes, I'm doing this now at my LFS where I'm testing a bucket.

Will it support and sps system by itself. Thats a pretty simple no.

Blatently false, proven by many users.

if you can grow algae on the screen then you need to rethink overall husbandry.

Why then are there coil denitrators, gfo, polyfilters, ozone, vodka, zeo, UV, etc, if proper husbandry can do it all? Besides, this thread is for beginners who may not have learned good husbandry yet. Read from page 1 and you'll see.

Nutrient levels from from an sps perspective should be low enough that algae would never grow on the screen.

I disagree. Turf has some of the strongest nutrient-pulling power (per unit size) of anything in the sea. And there is research I posted on RC that covers this, so I won't post it here.

Take a look at all sides of the arguments.

I do. And I did before ever installing a screen.

 

[DonW]

Your not looking at both sides of the arguments and only defending your own and its obvious why the thread tuned out the way it did and we dont want this one to go in that direction.
The ability to grow the algae itself is a sure sign that the system is removing nutrients. The fact that the nutrients are there to grow the algae is the issue to most sps keepers. Its very easy to have a modest system that will starve off one of the algae screens in very short order.

Don

 

[Skimmy]

Not at all. I answered all their questions, and they avoided most of mine. When thier own evidence proved them wrong (that high doc meant healthier corals), they turned soley into personal attacks, including attack on family members. If you'll notice, only the pro-skimmer crowd gets angry. The pro-algae crowd does not. That's because the pro-algae crowd will not be losing any in-kind participation from manufacturers.

higher doc's mean healthier corals??? wtf?
again, your only talking about softies, and they could probably live in piss.



Yes, as I mentioned in my post, a lot of the mechanisms of turf have been on the forums for a while. I read most of them going back to 2000, and a few alt.rec.aquaria ones back to '93. And I also gathered info from those who used turf in the past, or read Dynamic Aquaria, which thereby brings us back to the '70s for using turf in aquariums. The "new" part, however, is just putting the turf into a bucket, and doing it for (basically) free. The only commercial turf unit you can buy today cost $3,000 USD, and is bigger than most tanks itself. Since basically nobody is going to spend that, and because it's so big, there has been no talk of turf in the last few years, and therefore folks new to reefs don't know about turf at all. Kinda like if there were a new type of skimmer that only cost $30 but outperformed every other type including becketts, but nobody was talking about it. The purpose of me posting is to get new folks involved, without making it too technical, so that we can all benefit from what can be learned about the turf.



How? None of them are running algae-only filtration. Not even trying to. And they, amazingly, were unable to produce any proof of long-term negative effects. And the proof they did produce (the "video research", that they did not even watch) actually dis-proved them. Now of course, we are talking here about SPS, which this thread is not about. I invite you to start a thread about long-term SPS success using turf-only filtration. I'll even help.

you keep talking about long term proof, so , how long have you ran a system this way??? several months doesnt really mean crap, unfortunately. and how well are you keeping track of progressive coral health/coloration/colonization? any comparative research or even just pics?
and really, it's a moot point anyway because we already know this doesnt work for low nutrient/sps.



The flaming is because they have no proof, and are risking their relationships with skimmers and their makers. BTW, I like skimmers. They just could not do the job I asked of them.

no one is risking anything, and you apparantly, arent buying the appropriate matched skimmers for your system.



The research has been done: It's now proven that an algae filter, by itself (of proper size, flow, lighting) can reduce N and P to levels unmeasureable by hobby test kits within four weeks. That's what this thread is for, about, and will continue to support.

your connotating that they remove these items completely, and they simply DO NOT. first off, unless your using lamotts $100 test kits or a gas spectrometer, your results are suspect right out of the gate...



Moot point, with regards to this thread. I again invite you to start a thread about long-term SPS success with turf-only filtration.

MEH, wht would i do such a wastefull, foolish thing???



See above. And please note that the letters "SPS" are not anywhere in the title, nor even anywhere in my entire first post (which was quite lengthy). I'll be excited to read your new thread about SPS once it's started.

you only mention it WOULNT be good for sps after i called you out...
you basically told people to throw out their gear in the thread title, but forgot to mention that you only do softies, which again, could probably live in piss



Please do, I'll be happy to see the results and post them on other sites for them to benefit from too.

no thanks, do your own experiments



Depends what you mean by "superior". They sure aren't free, so that's not superior. They have risk, so that's not superior. You could eliminate the cost by using vodka, but then you are back to the risk. Also, none of those methods do these things:

Absorb metals
Cool the water
Increase oxygen
Decrease CO2
Grow pods

well, if you outfitted your reef system appropriately, then those above items are all non issues in the first place.
bacterial methodologies are not easy, or for noobs. but they allow a dedicated aquarist to acheive results that would otherwise be extremely difficult to accomplish, and certainly unattainable by the "wonder bucket"

 

[SantaMonica]

It's Time For The Santa Monica 120 Acrylic!

Ok it's time to move my screen from the ugly bucket by the sink (with hoses, wires, timers, etc) to under the tank where it can sit on the sump. The idea for this design came from all the readers who tried to install their screens over their sumps. Low profile is important for me, as it is to anyone without a fish room, so I picked 6" as the max height. That would give me room to lift out the screen and pull it out of the stand, with room to spare. And at 6" height, the pvc pipe will take up 1", leaving 5" for the screen. So the screen will be 5 X 24 = 120 sq in. This is good for a decently-stocked 90 like mine, or a lightly stocked 200 with no real nutrient problems. Here is the initial layout that I gave to the acrylic shop:

Wide screens like this are more efficient and powerful (with the same light) than tall narrow screens, but require more flow. My screen will need 24" X 35(gph/in) = 840 gph. However the same 120 sq in screen placed vertically would only need 5" X 35(gph/in) = 175 gph. The vertical placement has a disadvantage in that the water at the top gets filtered by the top of the screen, but then has to travel over the lower parts of the screen. Since it's already been filtered at the top, not much happens on the bottom part of the screen. This problem is eliminated with a horizontal screen since all the water that passes over the 5 inches of screen needs filtering.

Another good use for a low-profile screen like this would be for on-top of tank, when you want the pods to drain directly down into the display. Or, if you don't have a sump, the on-top placement would work great if you put the pump in the display.

The acrylic box came back from the acrylic shop, finished beautifully. They still have the plans, so if anyone wants the same box, call Hastings Plastics at 310-829-3449 and say you want the "aquarium algae filter screen box". The only change would be the "U" cutouts for the pipe: Tell them to make them a little larger round, and a little deeper, since the pipe was hard to push into them (and it stuck out a bit which made the lid not close all the way. ). I did a little grinding, and now it's perfect. The cost was about $100, without shipping. Here's how is arrived:

[pic limit]


Unwrapped. Notice the bottom and ends are mirrored acrylic, with the mirror facing inwards:

[pic limit]

[pic limit]

The lid fits mirror-side down:

[pic limit]


The pipe fits snug so that little light will escape. I had to grind the "U" cutouts a little bigger and deeper so the pipe would not block the lid:

The lid fit perfectly after the pipe cutouts were enlarged:

Here are the lights. They come with a combo of 10K and actinic:

www.petstore.com/ps_viewItem-idProduct-CU01124-tab-4.html


I removed the bulbs, and got 6500K and 3000K from here:

www.plantlightinghydroponics.com/ge-t5-ho-fluorescent-lamps-c-73_623.html


I'm going to set it up with 6500K on one side and 3000K on the other. Nobody recommednds 10K for macros, except for one person: The guy at Inland Aquatics that has been growing turf screens for 10 years. So, I'll try 10K soon, but not to start. Maybe you can start with 10K on yours and let us know how it works

Then I placed the lights on the acrylic and marked off where the the bulbs will be shining through:

[pic limit]


Some method has to be used to mount the lights to the sides. I'm using acrylic blocks and acrylic glue:

[pic limit]


The light-mounting is a bit tricky, because the lights need to be removeable, yet be pressed up against the acrylic to minimize light leakage (which would be important for an above-the-tank placement in plain view). The lights are then placed in the mounts:

[pic limit]


The overall size ended up being 6.5" high X 6" deep X 24" long:

[pic limit]
[pic limit]
[pic limit]


Here's a size comparison; the inside of the stand was once filled with filtration devices, and now it's just water:

[pic limit]


Taped and ready for spray painting:

[pic limit]


First coat was a metallic silver, so that the inside would reflect more:

[pic limit]


After painting with black primer, and putting lights on:

End view:

Side view:

[pic limit]


Lid off, ready to use:

[pic limit]


The long, low-profile pipe and screen:

Lights on:

Setting on sump:

Running, with front light removed to see flow:

So, I rubbed algae from my original bucket into the new screen, then installed the screen and turned it on. I'm starting with the flow and lights on 24 hours, in order to speed up the growth. I'll decide later if I'm going to pulse the flow, and I'll wait for the algae to grow a bit before putting the lights on a timer. Also, there is no fan, because I wanted to make it as simple as possible for folks who wanted to try it themselves. I may try a fan later, but for now let's see how it does without one. Also also, I'm leaving my original bucket running, for safety, but of course this will slow down growth on the new screen.

 

[Herefishyfishy]

Some history of algal scrubbers

http://stason.org/TULARC/animals/aquaria/reefkeeper/2-9-Algae-Scrubbers-long.html

 

[SantaMonica]

fishy: Have indeed seen that site.

whisper:

higher doc's mean healthier corals??? wtf?

Yes that's what their research video evidence found.

your only talking about softies

No, that research was for hard corals.

you keep talking about long term proof

Correct: The long term proof that they always demanded. Not me. However, there are many people who run algae only tanks for years with sps.

how long have you ran a system this way??? several months doesnt really mean crap

Sure it does. It means that the goal of the thread, which (in part) was to prove that a scrubber can reduce N and P to unmeasureable levels within four weeks, was proven. You, however, seem to be talking about some other proof that you got into your head from some unknown place. It did not come from my original post on page 1, however; go read it.

you apparantly, arent buying the appropriate matched skimmers for your system.

No skimmer of any size, price or performance is going to reduce inorganic N and P, which (read the title of the thread) is the goal here.

your connotating that they remove these items completely

You need to learn to read: "unmeasureable by hobby test kits". It says that. I swear. Go look, nobody is tricking you. You can do it.

MEH, wht would i do such a wastefull, foolish thing???

Yes, starting a thread to talk about the thing you want to talk about certainly would be wasteful and foolish. But of course, if you did you would have no audience to hear your rants. Can't have that.

no thanks, do your own experiments

I am. Your tank is probably better off without you trying to do some.

"wonder bucket"

Can I trademark that?

 

[freetareef]

lol!!!! wonder bucket!!!

 

[freetareef]

so tonight when i got home i noticed my tank water was 3" low. and it was dead silent. freaked out for a sec but then figured it out... when my gf unpluged my lights she accidentally pulled the hole outlet thing. so thank goodness i set up my sump to handle all the drain back if the power went out...

what this is leading to is as i was restarting the suction on my overflow i looked at my ats and it was a brillant green!!! really bright not dark like the few spots of hair algae and i'm wondering if this is going to be turf? i took a pic but the lights really drown out the color... really crappy pic.

 

[SantaMonica]

Wow. How long was the power off? You are right, I can't see anything in the pic. However,m the pic you posted on Sept. 6, it looked like good growth. Did you clean it since then?

 

[sandollar]

This system would never work for me. The reason why is because where there aren't any excess nutrients present, algae won't grow so what's the point. I think probably more emphasis should be placed on how to keep your system balanced and stable rather than trying to inhibit algae growth. Just my 2 cents.

 

[Skimmy]

Can I trademark that?

yes you can, my fee is %10....lol

seriously dude, it's a good idea, IN CONJUNCTION WITH TRIED & TRUE METHODOLOGY. my only real gripe is that you told people to ditch their gear.

Sure it does. It means that the goal of the thread, which (in part) was to prove that a scrubber can reduce N and P to unmeasureable levels within four weeks, was proven. You, however, seem to be talking about some other proof that you got into your head from some unknown place. It did not come from my original post on page 1, however; go read it

see, most people arent interested in short term results, they want to know whats going on with a system like this after several months/years...
there's tons of stuff in this hobby that works great for a few months, then nothing... but in your defense, at least this doesnt cost anything...

No skimmer of any size, price or performance is going to reduce inorganic N and P, which (read the title of the thread) is the goal here.

mkay, now i know you've never owned a good skimmer...
so tell me what skimmers you have bought?
your on crack if you dont think skimmers can remove N and P, it's been done for years. in fact an appropriately sized skimmer removes nutrients BEFORE they decay and turn into N and P in the first place.

 

[SantaMonica]

where there aren't any excess nutrients present, algae won't grow

Correct. This thread is about removing N and P when they are indeed there.

your on crack if you dont think skimmers can remove N and P

I'm not going any farther until you state that you understand that skimmers do not remove inorganic N and P.

 

[DonW]

Correct. This thread is about removing N and P when they are indeed there.



I'm not going any farther until you state that you understand that skimmers do not remove inorganic N and P.

Skimmers do not directly remove N and P they remove it indirectly by removing the source before its released. So I guess skimmers DO remove N and P if you look at the break down of whats in the skimmate.
Skimming is just proactive and algae is reactive.

Don

 

[sandollar]

Skimmers do not directly remove N and P they remove it indirectly by removing the source before its released. So I guess skimmers DO remove N and P if you look at the break down of whats in the skimmate.
Skimming is just proactive and algae is reactive.

Don

Good point DonW and my point exactly. As mentioned earlier, more emphasis should be placed on keeping a system free of waste before it becomes a problem than to rely on something else to deal with the waste when it becomes a problem. Get to the source first and your ahead of the game.

 

[SantaMonica]

No. The point has to be made, without skirting around it (it's in the title of this thread), that skimmers do not remove inorganic N and P. Nuisance algae on rocks and glass feed on INORGANIC N and P. Not organic. Organic N and P is called Food For Fish and Corals. That is what we don't want to remove. That's how a skimmer works against you: It removes organic N and P like you said (i.e., food), yet it leaves in inorgainc N and P, which feeds nuisance algae. Algae scrubbers do the opposite: They remove only the inorganic N and P (thus removing nuisance algae), yet they leave organic N and P (food) for better coral growth. Not to mention that filter feeders can't live at all with a skimmer removing all the food.

 

[sandollar]

The majority of tanks (do a poll if you wish) with all varieties of corals have a skimmer in their setup or better yet, are not using an algae scrubber. People with algae scrubbers are in the vast minority. Do the math. It is plain and simple to figure out.

 

[SantaMonica]

The vast majority of americans are fat too. Majority numbers do not make it a better way.

 

[SantaMonica]

After having run my screen(s) for a while, I'm noticing an interesting situation with the nitrate that might be of interest. This really on applies to other folks once they's already reduce N and P to near zero, but it might good to know for others too.

After getting N and P to zero (Salifert hobby test kits), and keeping everything the same for a few days, I notice that the N start showing again, very very slightly, starting with a barely visible tint (maybe a .1 on the Salifert color scale), then more visible pink (about a .2), and if I leave things alone for a week, it might go all the way to 3. This is happening while P remain zero (absolutely clear on the Salifert phosphate color scale).

Now, I sometimes do over-feeding tests, using massive amounts of stuff that would be considered "pollution" by some folks, and sure enough when I do this I get a small increase in N, but also in P. Then when I go back to normal feeding, the levels go back to zero. But the situation I'm talking about here is not during an over-feeding test. It's just feeding and doing everything else at normally. After about a week the N start a very slight increase, but there is NO increase in P.

So after thinking about what I learned about the relationships between N and P, I remembered that you can sometimes have one of them limiting. I reasoned that P might be limited, and without P the screen can't grow to absorb the N. I wanted to just add P but did not know how, so instead I just fed a bit more. Presto! Zero N again. And again, and again. Every time my normal feeding habbit saw a small rise in N (but not P), it was corrected every time by feeding more! Now that is a nice problem to have. It since has been explained to me why my particular tank might be limiting in P, something to do with my dripping kalk and not using a CO2 reactor. But the solution that was offered was the same: Feed more.

Now of course in order for anyone to get to the point of (possibly) experiencing this situation, you first would have to get your screen to a functioning status, and get your N and P to zero. But it's just one of the smaller points to keep in mind as you fine-tune your setup.

 

[sandollar]

The vast majority of americans are fat too. Majority numbers do not make it a better way.

You are trying to compare two totally different things so don't be rediculous here. Hardly any comparison in scenarios. Algae scrubbers are a thing of the past not some new invention (incase you didn't know). There have been many advances in the hobby since algae scrubbers were introduced and guess what happened? They were pretty much replaced. I'm not saying that algae scrubbers don't/won't provide some positive impact on a system, but Mega-Powerful Nitrate and Phosphate remover replaces skimmer, refugium, everything is pretty far fetched. Incase you didn't know, harvesting algae in a refugium for nutrient export is similar to an algae scrubber in that it uses algae to perform the same function. Your title kinda contradicts itself.

 

[Herefishyfishy]

Ya, seems to be more a fun DIY project to play around with. Algal filters were state of the art a few decades ago. They were in vogue right before trickle filters which made them passé. Later Berlin system and skimmers pushed trickle filters to the sidelines except for basic FOWLERs.

Pretty hard to beat a skimmer and a fuge for simplicity and completeness.