View Full Version : Skimmers help Scrubbers breathe ?
It has appeared in research that surfactants produced by algae actually slow down air gas interchange. Could this be a good enough cause to run both together ?
http://po.gso.uri.edu/airsea/heidel.html
Does this pose answers to any of the current UAS symptoms, where surfactants may be getting concentrated on the screen algae ( causing brown stuff )?
Upon implementation of a scrubber, most users find that the skimmers do not produce skimmate. Thus they are turned off as I did. However through other testing events I resumed skimmer oxygenation ( not in an attempt to skim, just to aerate ). I soon noticed lots of skimmate being produced. This lasted for about 1 week, where skimmate production has almost stopped again. Therefore maybe a frequent "maintenance skim" could be beneficial.
Floyd R Turbo
08-23-2012, 06:28 AM
Interesting read, but how do you make the leap to skimmers removing surfactants, or surfactants being concentrated on the algae screen, or even being produced by algae for that matter?
I was unaware that phytoplankton produces surfactants. Even with that said, I find it interesting that while the base property of a surfactant (man-made, at least) is that it reduces surface tension which allows a liquid to spread out on a surface (such is the case with surfactants in cleaning products), this apparently means that it inhibits gas exchange. I would have thought it to be the opposite effect.
Not so much a leap Floyd, more an educated stride into the unknown;
http://environment.gov.ab.ca/info/library/7663.pdf
And this one sounds great, until you read it to the conclusion
http://www.int-res.com/articles/ab_oa/b010p131.pdf
Considering about 70% of photosynthetic exudant is sugar derived, can anyone explain why this link would not apply;
http://www.reefkeeping.com/issues/2008-08/nftt/index.php
Floyd R Turbo
08-23-2012, 04:22 PM
That's a good point, because it if that was the case, running an algae scrubber would be akin to carbon dosing. However I am not sure there is a parallel in type of concentration of carbon. So that's just off the top of my head.
SantaMonica
08-23-2012, 04:27 PM
Yes, the dissolved portion of the primary production of the algae (lots of glucose) is similar to sugar dosing.
Yes, the dissolved portion of the primary production of the algae (lots of glucose) is similar to sugar dosing.
And with that, the WATS ULNS is born (in my mind at least). Should keep me busy for a while !!
http://www.ultimatereef.net/files/2007Q1/LNS_Introduction.pdf
Ace25
08-24-2012, 01:32 PM
Another thing to think about, more so today with people moving to LEDs, is the spectrum.
LEDs normally do not have much, if any light below 450nm or above 630nm.. but both below and above are very important for bacteria to colonize/reproduce. If you are not adding those spectrums, you will have much less bacteria in the tank, leading to higher carbon amounts in the water. I have spoke to some other "lighting gods" about this topic and they agreed there seems to be a very strong corilation between tanks using T5 and MH and having much higher overall bacteria counts, much closer to NSW levels vs the LED lit tanks that run usually around 1/10th what NSW contains. If you don't have bacteria levels even close to NSW you won't have much in the way of stuff to remove that excess carbon. Aquariums are always about finding a healthy balance between things for me.
I added 24 425nm LEDs to my display, guess what, all my hair algae in the display went away in a couple weeks.. something an ATS couldn't do in 3 years. While not scientific per se, it does give me a very good indication that by adding the lower spectrum I was able to get much higher bacteria levels, which in turn actually lowered my phosphates by consuming a lot more of the bad stuff out of the water. First time since I started using an ATS that I have seen phosphates go down, not much, .41 down to .38 in a week, but it is a first time I have ever seen it go down without using GFO/Phosguard/Lanthinum.
Floyd R Turbo
08-24-2012, 01:37 PM
Well that is very interesting Ace. I am in the process of designing a half-and-half LED fixture to test out color blending, aesthetics, and power. One half will be 60x 3W and the other 16 x 20W Multi. Both arrays will have UV, the 3W True Violets from Steve's and 420 + 430nm 20W chips from ac-rc on ebay. I wonder if I should be adding some 660nm to the mix now.
Found this a few days ago if that's what you mean Ace;
http://i1269.photobucket.com/albums/jj597/Garf1971/222837bff65ae36b9c1d07f6f5ed6f87.jpg (http://http://i1269.photobucket.com/albums/jj597/Garf1971/222837bff65ae36b9c1d07f6f5ed6f87.jpg)
Ace25
08-24-2012, 01:40 PM
I used to think adding 660nm to a display was bad .. but last month I had 2 royal blues go out and I didn't have any replacements on hand, so I put 2 660nm in their place, WHAT A DIFFERENCE! My orange clownfish are almost neon orange.. reds really do bring out the colors much more than I imagined. I am sure that also helped a little with what I was saying above, but I only added 2 reds, I added 24 actinics at the same time which is why I felt it was the actinics providing the most benefit, although I am now sold on adding a couple reds to a display light, things really do look a lot better.
Ace25
08-24-2012, 01:43 PM
Found this a few days ago if that's what you mean Ace;
http://i1269.photobucket.com/albums/jj597/Garf1971/222837bff65ae36b9c1d07f6f5ed6f87.jpg (http://http://i1269.photobucket.com/albums/jj597/Garf1971/222837bff65ae36b9c1d07f6f5ed6f87.jpg)
Yup, those graphs are great examples of what I am talking about.. with MH lights, they use a lot of Mercury, which emits a UV spectrum (below 400nm). The add other halides with mercury in order to get the spectrum up into the visual range, but they are still mixing UV spectrum phosphors with others to get the overall color. On LEDs, that is not the case, the phosphors they use are much closer to the spectral output, ie 440nm + 460nm remote phosphor to give you a royal blue.
Floyd R Turbo
08-24-2012, 01:54 PM
So would there be any benefit to using 395nm or 405nm LEDs like these?
http://www.ebay.com/itm/20W-395nm-UV-LED-Panel-/270979456628?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item3f17a25e74
http://www.ebay.com/itm/20W-405nm-UV-LED-Panel-/270853984211?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item3f1027cfd3
Would encourage cyano wouldn't it ?
Ace25
08-24-2012, 02:57 PM
Cyano is a whole different beast in itself, and is SUPER adaptable to just about any light spectrum. You can get massive cyano outbreaks simply using all warm whites which contain very little blues and reds... heck, NASA put cyano OUTSIDE in space for 553 days, AND IT STILL LIVED!
http://news.discovery.com/space/record-breaking-microbial-star-trekkers.html
http://www.microbemagazine.org/index.php/06-2010-current-topics/1851-cyanobacteria-from-earth-survive-rocky-ride-through-space
http://www.thirdage.com/news/cyanobacteria-being-used-in-nasa-study-to-help-colonize-space_07-25-2011
http://www.saasta.ac.za/images/stories/New%20Downloads/APPENDIX%205%20FACT%20SHEET%20CYANOBACTERIA.PDF
http://event.arc.nasa.gov/syntheticbio/home/pdf/Sherman_NASA_SyntheticBio_ver11.pdf
http://biomassmagazine.com/articles/7206/nasa-looks-to-cyanobacteria-for-space-colonization/?ref=brm
(Growing up on an Air Force base that launches missiles and rockets into space regularly, and having a father who was a "Missileer", I got hooked on anything space related at an early age).
Good job really or none of us would be here to talk about it.
Ace25
08-24-2012, 03:56 PM
So would there be any benefit to using 395nm or 405nm LEDs like these?
http://www.ebay.com/itm/20W-395nm-UV-LED-Panel-/270979456628?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item3f17a25e74
http://www.ebay.com/itm/20W-405nm-UV-LED-Panel-/270853984211?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item3f1027cfd3
This goes back to my thinking of "finding a balance" within a tank. For the same reason I dislike bio-pellets, right now, the idea of adding any light at or under 400nm is just too questionable in my book at this time. Things to think about with UV light is 1. how much do you need to maintain bacteria levels at or near NSW without harming other things and 2. Is it worth the electricity and parts cost to add those LEDs which are outside the visual spectrum? My thinking is since I can't test bacteria levels, only go off N/P readings to tell me if I have a suitable population, I am starting on what I feel is the lower side/cautious approach by adding LEDs that are still within the visual spectrum but also provides a benefit for bacteria. I will keep my LEDs like they are now since it appears my P levels are slowly dropping, but if I see it stall out I will add other LEDs, possibly a few UV and IR LEDs to see if they help.
With Bio-Pellets, I feel you are just dumping a ton of food in the tank for bacteria and then putting your tank in a Yo-Yo scenerio for up to a year until everything stabilizes and finds a balance, but then by that time you refill the bio-pellets and start the process all over again. To me is just seems way to unstable of a method for my liking. I have seen them work for others, and that is great, but I still question the long term viability of them. If I can find a combination of LEDs that provide the same end result as bio-pellets without going to far (to the point my ATS screen won't grow) I think I will have found a perfect balance on my tanks using light instead of extra carbon dosing.
Like with the ATS, providing an ideal location for algae to grow, I feel this is the same for bacteria. If you provide it with the light spectrum it seems to colonize under, it will grow more. Since the ATS provides carbon to the tank, there is no need for anything extra. My end goal is to not have to use any media that requires constant replacing ($). I admit, my tank/corals have never looked/grown anywhere close to when I used to run a 20k MH with 4 420nm T5HOs, and I think I am finally starting to understand why.. the common LEDs just don't provide a good spectrum for bacteria like MH and T5s do, but now that I understand that I can fix it, and so far for me it seems to be working. My next experiment, instead of changing anything more with the display, is to change out the LEDs on my ATS. Right now it is still 6:1 660/455, I am thinking of changing it to 4 660s and 3 420's to see if that helps or hurts. I want to focus on just 1 of the types of chlorophyll (A) instead of 1 peak out of each of A/B just to see how it reacts, plus I am now thinking the 420nm LEDs will be much more beneficial than a royal blue.
Ace25 - I take it you stopped the bubble screen.
Ace25
08-24-2012, 05:06 PM
Definitely.. UAS is a huge no-go for me. I tore down the frag tank because it was a huge failure. I believe there is something fundamentally wrong with the UAS idea right now and I don't really feel like fixing it. I have some ideas on how to make it work better, and I do think they can work much better with some proper tweaking, but since my ATS is working as good as I expect it to, and I have found a new path to explore and experiment with (bacteria), I just don't feel like messing with something I don't think I would use. I still think the best one could hope for with a UAS is maybe perform as good as most ATS's today, but I think the ATS still has some room to make it better, and since I have spent years working on ways to make the ATS better, I will continue to experiment to see if I can squeeze every last bit of use out of it.
Off topic, but there really is something to look at in regards to the airflow thing. I have done that experiment with the same positive results probably a dozen times now... if you put A LOT of airflow over an ATS screen, it will grow at 2x the rate. On mine, I use a window fan with 2 8" fans, one fan on each side of the screen set on high.. it is blasting the screen with air, and every time I do the results are insanely good in terms of growth/harvest weight, but that never correlated into reduced phosphates, at best they just didn't rise as much during the week as they do without the fan, which is why I moved on to finding out how to remedy that and my search led back to light spectrum (like it always seems to do with me, and why I have been die hard into "light" for over a decade).
Ace25 is really good to have you back
Right now I just finished my LED lamp, each module is 28 currently led by a ratio of almost 3:1 blue and white, will place additional 2 cyan, 2 uv, 1 gren, 1 red
What do you think of this configuration is complete for hard and soft corals, and now you pose interesting enough on bacteria, very interesting
I leave a picture, there are 100% blue loas 700mA, 1050mA whites and the rest to 700mA
http://i973.photobucket.com/albums/ae211/tebolele/DSC02801.jpg
http://i973.photobucket.com/albums/ae211/tebolele/DSC02802.jpg
regards
Ace25
08-24-2012, 11:29 PM
Right now I just finished my LED lamp, each module is 28 currently led by a ratio of almost 3:1 blue and white, will place additional 2 cyan, 2 uv, 1 gren, 1 red
What do you think of this configuration is complete for hard and soft corals, and now you pose interesting enough on bacteria, very interesting
With the way it is now, and with what you said you wanted to add, I am sure it will be fine for all types of corals as long as you placed them properly. SPS corals will certainly grow fine if placed under the modules, and LPS and softies will grow in the dimmer areas. My corners are pretty dark on my 60G and candycane corals grow the best there, under about 40 PAR.
On the bacteria topic, maybe down the line once I see where all my testing leads me, I can design and build a special photobioreactor designed specifically for phosphate loving bacteria like they make for algae now. That way I can fine tune the flow in order to be able to have greater control over bacteria populations in the reactor. The way I am thinking now with adding the lower 400nm range to the display is more akin to vodka dosing where I am using the entire display to grow bacteria population by providing it with a better spectrum and hoping it is the phosphate eating bacteria that likes that spectrum more than other types. Early results seem to favor that hypothesis, but it is still very early in my testing. There are thousands of types of bacteria in a tank, so there is a lot of hoping on my part that I can find a specific light spectrum that matches with a certain bacteria preference and that bacteria being the type I want to grow more than others. This is where lots of testing and careful measuring of input/food comes in to play to make sure I have good data to go off of. Hopefully once I figure it out I can make a small unit the size of a calcium reactor but with near UV and/or IR LEDs around it and fed via output from a scrubber. Internally would be similar to a de-nitrate coil but it would use larger diameter clear tubing coiled up instead of small black tubing. Since the light that it will be getting will be almost out of the visual range there should be no algae buildup to worry about in the tubing. We know how a de-nitrator coil works, and we have a good understanding on how most of the algae works that we are growing in terms of N/P removal, I would like to find a way to use what I have learned to now make an ideal home for phosphate loving bacteria to grow in my system, and I think my idea is a good start but there is a long way to go.
Ace25 - I bought a UV T8 tube last month to try and get the corals to glow for photos. It was a failure. The whole tank looked like milk ( I'm guessing the bacteria showing up ). I don't mind putting this on my sump to see what happens, just for a test.
Afterthought - natural algae is exposed to intermittent strong uv. Although science says that this is damaging to plants and algae, perhaps there are some protective processes taking place which either use or produce materials not yet discovered.
SantaMonica
08-25-2012, 09:28 AM
If you don't have bacteria levels even close to NSW you won't have much in the way of stuff to remove that excess carbon
I think you'll find that the bacteria that consume carbon (DOC) are mostly heterotrophic, not autotrophic. Thus light will have little effect. It is the same mechanism as carbon dosing.
I think you'll find that the bacteria that consume carbon (DOC) are mostly heterotrophic, not autotrophic. Thus light will have little effect. It is the same mechanism as carbon dosing.
Yeah, you would imagine that the bacteria would at least need to produce pigments to be able to photosynthesise, and therefore be visible ( like cyano ). I definitely can't see 'em in my water.
Ace25
08-25-2012, 10:11 AM
I don't believe it is a case of the bacteria being photosynthetic and actual utilizing the light itself, it is just the preferential location to which they colonize under. My thinking is correct light spectrum is to some bacteria as the screen is to algae. Reading this picture below, it seems the bacteria are colonizing around algae cells at certain spectrums due to the chemical reaction taking place at the algae cell caused by the spectrum, so the light is making the algae produce the food source for the bacteria and that is why they group more around that spectrum. Since I am pretty sure the ATS screen is releasing tons of algae cells into the water, it seems like a perfect location to place a pump that would feed a bacteria bio-reactor. Again though, these are just thoughts in some very early stages of my experiments and as I progress my thinking may change completely.
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7257/7851958430_fe528bbf69_b.jpg
SantaMonica
08-25-2012, 10:21 AM
The algae are photosynthesising more in the red and blue, thus giving off more DOC. The bacteria feed on the DOC.
The algae are photosynthesising more in the red and blue, thus giving off more DOC. The bacteria feed on the DOC.
Or oxygen, so it says on the picture description. Gonna stick with my skimmer and turbo modified it with an air pump, see what happens. I'm certainly producing lots of DOC for the bacteria to eat, hopefully I will be skimming some of both out.
Ace25
08-25-2012, 10:47 AM
Exactly. :)
But the spectrums are slightly different it seems for algae growth vs bacteria growth. Algae uses more of the spectrum within the visual range (430nm/453nm/642nm/660nm), but bacteria seems to use reactions that are at the very ends of the visual scale (400nm/700nm). So what I am picturing is using the correct spectrum for algae growth over the screen where I want the algae to grow, and use the spectrum bacteria likes to process some of the algae cells that are floating in the water. I am thinking if it works like I hope, and I can fine tune the flow rate through a reactor, this will allow the bacteria to grow in population because the algae cells are providing all the food. The hope is as the algae cell enters the reactor the spectrum will allow it to give off the food initially, and then lack of other spectrums needed for the algae will lead it to die off in the reactor and be consumed before it exits. So the initial phase as the algae enters the reactor is to release carbon (docs), and the end phase before it exits is it dies and releases N/P, the other food source for bacteria. I would still use a skimmer as well, and have the output of the reactor into the skimmer intake just like one would do with bio-pellets. The reactor may turn into a dual stage type, where there is a large outter ring of clear tubing and an inner ring of black tubing so that there can be multiple types of bacteria within the reactor working together. Basically a more natural type of bio-pellet reactor that is more stable and easier to fine tune, utilizing things already in your system instead of adding an external food source. This way I can have the best of both worlds without harming either other, which is what happened when I tried bio-pellets in the past, it killed my ATS screen.
The million dollar question is can this be used to selectively find a species of bacteria that has more of an affinity to phosphates since that appears to be the piece lacking in the majority of systems. It may turn out the lower spectrum (near UV) is the wrong direction and something like 700nm+ IR light actually the secret ingredient to grow phosphate loving bacteria, or it may turn out none of this is true and I am on the wrong path with my thinking that light spectrum is the answer. I want to find out if any of that may be true, and if so, what is the ideal spectrum(s) to accomplish my goal, which is to find a natural and sustainable method to keep phosphates under control. It doesn't seem that algae is the answer to that problem, but algae is an answer to many other problems so it is a good natural method for a lot of things, just not phosphate control in most closed systems.
http://aslo.org/lo/toc/vol_37/issue_4/0882.pdf
If I am reading this right, this suggests the the ratio of phosphate uptake compared to nitrate is reduced when the carbon levels are increased. Ie without a skimmer, phosphate uptake is reduced !
Not at all sure about this though so I'm gonna do more digging.
Right! been doing some bacterial research. Turns out the N:P ratio of marine bacteria is 9:1 which is slightly less than the Redfield Ratio. When bacteria are removed from the system, this should gradually reduce the phos levels at a faster rate than Algae. Could the reduction of phosphates compared to nitrates be this simple ?
My test has shown there is no skimming effect when the screen has been cleaned, the skimming only kicks in when algae exudate reaches levels to cause bacterial population increase.
http://bionumbers.hms.harvard.edu/bionumber.aspx?s=y&id=106710&ver=4
SantaMonica
09-29-2012, 12:07 PM
Bacteria are like algae; their N:P:K numbers can vary widely from high to low based on the nutrients available.
My skimmer never worked this well before having a scrubber on the tank;
http://i1269.photobucket.com/albums/jj597/Garf1971/37e2cab679c7c07b0f217f9a53ad8ad0.jpg (http://http://i1269.photobucket.com/albums/jj597/Garf1971/37e2cab679c7c07b0f217f9a53ad8ad0.jpg)
Another fact;
http://bionumbers.hms.harvard.edu/bionumber.aspx?&id=106053&ver=1&trm=C:n:p ratio marine algae
Ok, so bacteria n : p ratio is 9:1, And green algae n : p ratio is 27:1 (may explain the recent trends in nitrate depletion), surely a mix of bacterial removal ( powered by algae exudate [skimming] ) and regular algae removal can, and perhaps should be, used in conjunction to provide optimal conditions and eleviate the reported coral losses due to bacterial encroachment, and provide a water n : p ratio of 27:1 to prevent cyano dominance.
This method could then manipulate water conditions as and when required to maintain this balance in favour of green algae which in turn provides the power source for bacteria and it's removal when required.
SantaMonica
10-06-2012, 09:54 AM
That link is not correct. Bacteria and algae have widely varying ratios, and even a given ratio will vary based on limiting nutrients. If a given alga has N:P of 16:1 during exponential luxury uptake, that same alga will grow at 10:1 when N is limiting (albeit slower).
Stated ratios are only "in the best situation that could exist". However algae (outside of blooms) don't live in this optimum situation for very long, if at all; so they adapt. Also, transitory uptake does not have to equal long term bioassimilation or growth, because of the N and P stores (P being stored in polyphosphates). We don't care about bioassimilation, only uptake.
That link is not correct. Bacteria and algae have widely varying ratios, and even a given ratio will vary based on limiting nutrients. If a given alga has N:P of 16:1 during exponential luxury uptake, that same alga will grow at 10:1 when N is limiting (albeit slower).
Stated ratios are only "in the best situation that could exist". However algae (outside of blooms) don't live in this optimum situation for very long, if at all; so they adapt. Also, transitory uptake does not have to equal long term bioassimilation or growth, because of the N and P stores (P being stored in polyphosphates). We don't care about bioassimilation, only uptake.
Yes, sure the numbers are generalised. However I have trouble reconciling the " everything adjusts theory ". Therefore no organism would become dominant, everything would live in harmony together (which would include display algae - it would just learn to grow at lower nutrient levels). From what I can tell "luxury uptake" is a survival strategy for nutrient depleted systems that have intermittent high levels of nutrient, and doesn't really apply in aquaria. Quite willing to change my mind if you got some good links proving otherwise though.
Another means of adjusting the ratio when kalkwasser and skimming is combined (all my cal, mag and ALK is through kalkwasser). Quote from RHF.
If the calcium carbonate deposits are growing, then phosphate may become buried in the growing crystal, which can act as a sink for phosphate, at least until that CaCO3 is somehow dissolved. Additionally, if these crystals are in the water column (e.g., if they form at the local area where limewater hits the aquarium water), then they may become coated with organics and be skimmed out of the aquarium.
If phosphate binds to calcium carbonate surfaces to a significant extent in reef aquaria, then this mechanism may be attained with other high pH additive systems (such as some of the two-part additives, including Recipe #1 (http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2006-02/rhf/index.php) of my DIY system). However, this potential precipitation of phosphate on growing calcium carbonate surfaces will not be as readily attained with low pH systems, such as those using calcium carbonate/carbon dioxide reactors or those where the pH is low due to excessive atmospheric carbon dioxide, because the low pH inhibits the precipitation of excess calcium and alkalinity as calcium carbonate (http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2002-04/rhf/feature/index.php), as well as inhibiting the binding of phosphate to calcium carbonate.
Another hair brained idea - considering my co2 and extra temperature mods on my scrubber are growing lots of algae on the lit part of the screen, and what I assume is bacterial slime on the unlit part of the screen (maybe nitrifying bacteria);
http://www.bioconlabs.com/nitribactfacts.html
How about feeding a skimmer with extra co2 and heat. There would be a roughed up unlit screen inside the skimmer body to allow growth of bacteria, when the aggregate of bacteria let go of the screen it should be skimmed out, therefore taking nutrients with it.
Ace25
10-29-2012, 05:00 PM
I have never understood the skimmer pictures.. I see it so often in the "My skimmer is better than yours" type of threads on other sites, either with a cup full of bubbles or various stages of 'black stinky stuff'.. I can easily make my skimmer do that any time by just turning the knob 1/16th of a turn in one direction and get it to fill with bubbles like the picture or turn it 1/16th the other direction and it will fill it with thick black skimmate but takes a couple weeks instead of days. Skimmers work just like algae, when there is something in the water which makes that particular form of filtration work, it works.. when there isn't stuff in the water for it to work, it sits mostly idle, although skimmers perform a secondary benefit, or in my case I call it a primary benefit, which is aerating the water even when it isn't pulling out the stuff that is capable of sticking to bubbles.
I do think the 'bacteria' line of thinking is the correct path to take at this point, but right now all of us are grasping at straws trying to figure out exactly what that entails. Keep on researching, at the rate you are going you will probably be the first one to figure out the correct method of supplementing the filtration with some type of bacteria filtration beyond what the tank normally does so keep up the good work.
iiluisii
11-04-2012, 12:53 PM
I have never understood the skimmer pictures.. I see it so often in the "My skimmer is better than yours" type of threads on other sites, either with a cup full of bubbles or various stages of 'black stinky stuff'.. I can easily make my skimmer do that any time by just turning the knob 1/16th of a turn in one direction and get it to fill with bubbles like the picture or turn it 1/16th the other direction and it will fill it with thick black skimmate but takes a couple weeks instead of days. Skimmers work just like algae, when there is something in the water which makes that particular form of filtration work, it works.. when there isn't stuff in the water for it to work, it sits mostly idle, although skimmers perform a secondary benefit, or in my case I call it a primary benefit, which is aerating the water even when it isn't pulling out the stuff that is capable of sticking to bubbles.
I do think the 'bacteria' line of thinking is the correct path to take at this point, but right now all of us are grasping at straws trying to figure out exactly what that entails. Keep on researching, at the rate you are going you will probably be the first one to figure out the correct method of supplementing the filtration with some type of bacteria filtration beyond what the tank normally does so keep up the good work.
ace so you recommend using a skimmer with an algae scrubber? i been thinking of running a skimmer with my scubbber for a while to see what it does. i also was thinking on stating to use filter socks.
Dont think I have posted this link before so here goes;
http://www.reefkeeping.com/issues/2006-08/rhf/index.php#16
Without the extra aeration provided by the skimmer, not enough carbon dioxide could be drawn into my system. Even if this aeration were the only useful effect of skimming, it would be worth it for my system.
Randy Holmes Farley.
kotlec
11-20-2012, 09:09 AM
Does we dont have plenty of aeration while running scrubber ?
Maybe, if your pH remains constant with heavy algae growth. PH increase means its using more Co2 than is being introduced into the water. Even more important if using Kalkwasser in my view, like I do.
iiluisii
11-20-2012, 12:22 PM
I just got me a reef octopus skimmer. Thanks Garf
Just to keep this thread alive, a few quotes from Randy Holmes Farley;
I'd also want a skimmer for aeration in my setup. While an ATS can add O2 when lit, it cannot bring in CO2, but rather depletes it, so it may not be optimal if you use limewater and have a need to bring in CO2. It also does not bring in O2 if the light is off, but rather depletes it.
I think it is just that many proce4sses lead to organics in the water, including those released from algae, but certainly other sources too. SO if you do not have a way to export them, like skimming or GAC, the organics and yellowing build up over time. Certainly, any dead algae would contribute to it.
just watch that the pH does not get too high if you do not have a skimmer providing aeration.
SantaMonica
12-09-2012, 11:39 AM
Be sure to stop feeding organics too.
Be sure to stop feeding organics too.
Could do without the flippant remarks thanks. My threads have been initiated to help the scrubber cause and investigate improvements, not to replace it.
Resurrection of an oldy.
seems like someone's "invented" a biological carbon dosing system similar to page 1 of this thread. It's called the TRITON method and you let the algae die, not remove it before its death.
http://www.reefcentral.co.uk/showthread.php?t=30948
Floyd R Turbo
05-04-2013, 04:46 PM
This was brought up on here a few months back...someone poo pooed it
This was brought up on here a few months back...someone poo pooed it
Well, algae exudate is about 10% of photosynthetic production (the rest is translated into growth). So when it dies it produces more death products (exudate). But whatever the mechanism, the end results is the same stuff being released into the water column. I prefer to keep the algae alive on a healthy screen, but it certainly confirms that algae derived amino acids etc can produce skimmable routes of nutrient export. When you think about it, there would be no need to light an expensive algae bed, a sheet of nori left to decay in a predator free area, may do the same. I feel another experiment welling up ! :)
Imo it's not about whether it works, as it clearly does, but it is because they call it and sell it as a new method ! when the only thing that I can see that is new about it is the secret magic potion they concoct for you. Does that really warrant being called a new method ?
On a side note...
The Lani led lights do look pretty slick, I designed a similar passive cooled modular rig over a year ago but never did get round to making it, but their idea of the two pcb's really interests me...so much so that I have now just completed designs for two very much the same.
Imo it's not about whether it works, as it clearly does, but it is because they call it and sell it as a new method ! when the only thing that I can see that is new about it is the secret magic potion they concoct for you. Does that really warrant being called a new method ?
The magic potion must just be a modified salt mix to account for the skimmed water and coral growth uptake. I imagine they've taken into account that most salt mixes are drastically high in elements, as are the different types of foods generally fed to aquariums? I've read somewhere that although about 100 elements are contained in the potion, they only test for 11 elements, presumably because algae tends to reduce trace elements to natural levels over time when exported, or skimmed (in this case). As to the "new method" I think as soon as folks find out the nature of the magic potion (whether my explanation is correct of not), the penny will drop and realise its not really new at all, and it's just a more natural form of carbon dosing (and more expensive).
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.9 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.