Decent air pump for skimmer
- Thread starter toeside
- Start date
Quote:
One of the most efficient skimmers I own (in terms of dark skimmate) is air driven. Does that mean anything? Not really, because I have other skimmers that process far more volume.
"I ahve to say this made me laugh, after YOU had posted this article. Does darker mean better? Not at all. "
That WAS my point exactly. Please re-read my statement within that context. Thanks.
One of the most efficient skimmers I own (in terms of dark skimmate) is air driven. Does that mean anything? Not really, because I have other skimmers that process far more volume.
"I ahve to say this made me laugh, after YOU had posted this article. Does darker mean better? Not at all. "
That WAS my point exactly. Please re-read my statement within that context. Thanks.
- Messages
- 3,379
- Reaction score
- 4
How have you determined it to be the most effecient skimmer? You statemnet indicates because of the dark skimmate. How have you dtermined it to be so, otherwise?
- Messages
- 3,379
- Reaction score
- 4
ichthyoid;453134 wrote: Agreed. Needlewheel/pinwheel designs (or whatever else they may be called), are inarguably the most highly efficient, electrically speaking of course.
No, thats not necessarily accurate. How is a needlewheel more lectrically effecient than a venturi? This all backs up my point- you cant look at specific individual "stats" on a skimmer, and knwo anything about them. Its an overall picture.
Efficiency has historically been based on electrical energy consumption for electrically powered devices. This is of course, assuming that you have normalized for 'protein' removal %.
Simply put: ml of protein/watt consumed
Simply put: ml of protein/watt consumed
Interesting thread y'all... thanks for posting. I'm holding on to my old skimmer, but it seems that acquiring a new model with current technology makes sense.
I don't want to unleash a firestorm here, but I'm open to recommendations for a skimmer that will work well for a lightly-to-moderately stocked 55g (8 dillion bubbles per minute perhaps?
)
Links to existing threads would be cool too.
I don't want to unleash a firestorm here, but I'm open to recommendations for a skimmer that will work well for a lightly-to-moderately stocked 55g (8 dillion bubbles per minute perhaps?
)Links to existing threads would be cool too.
Not to beat a dead horse, but</em> I had time to think about this some more...
-regarding dark skimmate, as an indication of efficiency, I think is somewhat</em> valid...here's why:
Assume that I had a skimmer that pulled 100% of the water out of my tank (a ridiculous concept, I know, but bear with me here...), I could argue that this skimmer is 100% efficient, because it pulled all of the protein out of the system!
As we have to draw the line somewhere, and lacking any other 'yardstick' by which to measure efficiency (I don't have any cow pee, a cow, nor do I have ready access to anyone else's cow-and no, I wouldn't want to collect any even if I did-lol) 'we' came up with a 'comparative test'.
I have adopted visible colorimetry as my 'standard'. It is not without merit as there is scientific precedent for it. I do not have a 'reference' standard to 'quantify' the amount, so I adopted a 'qualitative' reference (my eyeball). I use the relative scale of "none, poor, better, good, best" to measure 'relative efficiency.
I think in the past many if us have done this, and were willing to defend our conclusions. Otherwise, how could you say that the skimmers used in those tests were "inferior"?
I would think the color indicates a concentration of waste product in the collected liquid. It would further seem that if a skimmer gathers twice the liquid but with half the waste concentration over the same time interval then you could argue it is as effective... or almost... even though the skimmate would be lighter in color. (Of course, you're losing more water and having to dump the cup twice as often.)
Good points. At the risk of verebally corrupting the protocol and data from the study (I don't remember all of the details here), unless and/or until someone validates any correlation between bovine albumin, TOC (tatal organic carbon) and fish pee, we are still on shaky ground as to what's the best for a coral reef. The differences between the bovine albumin and TOC removal were something like 50%. What about the fish pee?
So, gleaning a few brand/models from the thread... Skilter first choice of the discerning reefer :lol2:... Octopus and Euroreef... I also hear good things about Deltec. I noticed on a recent thread that folks with Coralife 125s are happy. Interesting.
So, can anyone suggest brands/models that work for you?
So, can anyone suggest brands/models that work for you?
I easily can take the same skimmer and have it produce the same amount</em> of skimmate, but at differing darknesses. My point? There are so many other factors involved that the darkness alone isn't a valid measurement.
I'm with Jeremy on this one. I have no solid evidence, but after 15 years of reefkeeping, I can tell when my skimmer is performing well or not. I can also tell that more modern skimmers are much more effective than older skimmers I've owned on the same system. While my gut doesn't prove anything, to say that there's not a marked difference in modern skimmers is just the ostrich sticking it's head in the sand.
Retorts to your comments. These are meant respectfully, for discussion only:
This is correct, but doesn't mean that improvements in skimmers haven't been made or that they are insignificant - this is just a generalization. I'm pretty sure the reef hobby wasn't too big in the 1930's, either. Skimmers weren't widely used until the 1980's - the Berlin method introduced them in the 1970's.
Airplanes were invented in 1903, but that's not to say that there weren't some huge advances in the 1960's.
In general, yes. But we don't need radical improvements. Even 10% improvement per year over 15 years is quite significant.
Respectfully, have you actually used a recent skimmer? This is like me showing you a late model car, and you pointing to a 1990's sedan and claiming that companies are only trying to claim obsolescence.
Just because there aren't any very controlled experiments and data available doesn't mean that designs haven't improved. There's simply no solid data points.
I've used skimmers for 15 years (quite a number of them, unfortunately) . Enough to have watched things changed.
"Enjoy considerable use" - Maybe - in older systems or aquariums.
"Enjoy considerable respect" - Where? Post those counter current, air-driven systems to any reef forum anywhere or ask anyone over an aquarium's equipment and see how much respect they'll garner - usually only as museum pieces.
My point here was they selected 4 different designs for comparison.
These were made by 3 different and respected manufacturers
(These companies', like Seachem, are well respected. Go on Reef Central or ARC and see how long one of their designs last in the "For Sale' section!)
My goal here was to generate some healthy debate, regarding a subject of great importance for us all. By the looks of things, I have succeeded! (lol)
Similar threads
