sea clone skimmer

[humahuma]

saltwater junky;159441 wrote: i see someone is not from the south, haha youze gyuys i havent heard that in a long time

Plus bad grammar.

 

[saltwater junky]

yeah my grammar is bad.

 

[wolfie]

saltwater junky;159485 wrote: yeah my grammar is bad.

I thought they were talking about me

 

[saltwater junky]

well i have bad grammar just cause im lazy and i say youze guy cause im from new york, go yakees

 

[george]

Back *on* topic: nobody in their right mind would argue that saving for a better skimmer isn't a better idea, but if it's not in the budget, it's not in the budget.

However having used both Seaclone models over the years and seen the ones people have had and still have in use do perfectly decent low-end skimming, I dispute the claim that it's a total waste of money which implies that if you can do the big money buy-in, you're out of luck.

Of course, if you're looking at buying a Seaclone new, I'd say buy a better skimmer used.

 

[maddog]

I agree with George. i had one for 3 years on my 75 gallon and it worked just fine for softies and a low bio load. Then i upgraded to a EuroReef, wow what a difference. As stated before if I was buying a new skimmer and couldn't afford a nice one, I would look at a good used skimmer, but Seaclones will work ok for some applications.

 

[saltwater junky]

you didnt tick me off amberjack, i have meet you and you are a very nice person.

 

[roland jacques]

George;160045 wrote: Back *on* topic: nobody in their right mind would argue that saving for a better skimmer isn't a better idea, but if it's not in the budget, it's not in the budget.

However having used both Sea clone models over the years and seen the ones people have had and still have in use do perfectly decent low-end skimming, I dispute the claim that it's a total waste of money which implies that if you can do the big money buy-in, you're out of luck.

Of course, if you're looking at buying a Sea clone new, I'd say buy a better skimmer used.

Lets face it there are many reef tanks with no skimmers at all, that do well for years. So because someone has success with one dose not Necessarily mean the Skimmer Had anything to do with the success. I recently pulled a sea clone off a tank because i felt the cons (Or potential cons) out weight the pros of that skimmer on a 55 tank. Yeah it skimmed a little of the waste, but when i started doing 30% monthly water changes and started using a fair amount of Top grade Carbon the skimmer basically stopped doing anything worth mentioning.

I don't mean to imply that you need to spend more money at all to get a better skimmer. I believe their are a few air driven skimmers at half the price of sea clones that out perform Sea clones. so I'm not trying to be a skimmer snob (well maybe a little) I'm just saying Sea clones ARE a waste of money because their are better/cheaper ways to deal with DOCs than that skimmer.

 

[george]

Roland Jacques;160354 wrote: Yeah it skimmed a little of the waste

Then I guess I got the one good one. After adjusting (and a break-in period of a couple days), the model 150 produced enough waste and kept water quality good enough in a 75g reef that I used it for over 2 years. Saying that a 30% water change with a "fair amount" of carbon negated the skimmer's contribution doesn't say much. There are few situations where increased water changes and use of carbon couldn't replace a skimmer in a typical home system.

It works reasonably well for a very cheap skimmer and does skim to a level that's useful. Now if your client had a model 100 on a 55g tank, then I agree, it probably was better to do water changes and carbon. Then again, Seaclone wouldn't be the first skimmer manufacturer to have flight-of-fancy ratings for its skimmers. Just as I think the model 65 Coralife is overshooting its capabilities by a factor of almost 2x, too.

It skims. It works. It removes organics reasonably well for what it is. If it's all you can afford, it's not a waste of money vs. using no skimmer at all.