3G Scrubbers

[SantaMonica]

As I told Worley, I'm working on a new type of scrubber. Question:

The DIY bucket or sump scrubber is basically a level 1 project. Simple, free, easy DIY, and works great. Yes they are a bit large and ugly, but who cares. Level 2 are the acrylics. Self contained, small (only six inches or so thick), powerful, and nice looking. But they are so hard to make that only two people besides me have made them (and one of them I had to get made for him). I thought that since so many people made DIY sumps and tanks, many more would have made nice looking acrylics. Guess not. And only one person is on the builder list. Looks like a manufacturer will have to step in before lots of folks use acrylics.

Well now I'm working on level 3. Ultra small (one inch thick), high light power, unbreakable, etc. Basically the same scrubbing power as a level 1, but the size of a book. Problem is, they are impossible to DIY. So my question is, would anybody want to discuss the building of something that they can't build themselves? I think they are more of a topic for commercial discussions, since only real manufacturers can make them. And being such, of course, this site is the only place that they could be discussed.

[worley]

I think there would be enough people (once they start registering on the site!) to start talking about commercial versions.
Even if they don't make them themselves, everyone likes to chip in ideas for commercial products.
We need to make it very clear that any ideas put forward would be for the manufacturers to use as they wish, but in the public domain (so the company can build them and make money, but can't patent that particular idea, and the author can't then try and demand any money from the manufacturer etc.).
Lastly, I thought we'd change the terms from Level 1,2,3 to Generation 1,2,3 (e.g. the new ones would be 3G scrubbers - as the use in the phone industry).
Feel free to edit your post if you like it ;).
I'll kick this off in my next post.

[worley]

To start with, if we want them to be 1" thick, there are two major requirements:
Very thin lighting
Thin frame (probably plastic)

The lighting could be done in 3 ways that I can see:
CF: High output, flat, compact fluorescent bulbs (e.g. like the PLL bulbs I'm using)
[list:q229w6ie]Pro: Very high output light
Pro: pretty cheap
Pro: Available in a wide range of colour temperatures
Con: overall size would be maybe 2-3" thick (as my design)
Con: Can also produce detrimental UV light at very short distances - may cause problems with algae growth
Con: Requires an electronic ballast
LEDs: A big array of white (and maybe the odd blue to get the right colour temp.)
Pro: Becoming as effecient as CF bulbs, producing a reasonable amount of light
Pro: bulbs will last a very long time
Pro: Could be made pretty thin, maybe 1-2" thick
Pro: Being used commercially as metal halide replacements (http://www.tmc-ltd.co.uk/aquarium/aquaray-lighting.asp)
Con: Bulbs are more difficult to replace
Con: more expensive than CF to produce the same amount of lumens output
OLED sheets, similar to the way they are used to back-light new flat panel screens, but obviously only 1 pixel needed
Pro: Ultra thin (1mm? per sheet), could bring the overall depth down to 1" easily
Con: likely to be by far the most expensive technology
Con: more difficult to procure
Con: may not produce as much light as either of the above[/list:u:q229w6ie]

I personally would suggest the high output PL-L CF bulbs for people wanting to DIY their own ultra thin ATS.
Using high brightness array of LEDs, making a pretty thin, lit on both sides, model, but it would cost slightly more and may not produce quite enough light yet (I may be wrong).

Alternatively, a compromise would be to use more CF bulbs, e.g. 3 or 4 12W bulbs (there is easily enough for tripple the amount of bulbs in my design than I currently have, it's just not really needed!), would produce a very high light output, but only on one side to make it thinner, and mirror both out-sides.
To get around the UV issue, a glass sheet can be used to cut down the UV output. This design would easily be thinner than the thinnest HOB skimmers available today, and relatively cheap to produce.
Ideally you would want it so that it's either big enough to fit your hand inside to clean the glass, or the ability to open it up (maybe cut down the sides and use O-Rings to seal, with hinges or clamps).

Lastly, I think maybe the 1" thick idea is certainly achievable, but may not be practice commercially.
In what situation would a 1" thick ATS, with lower light output, therefore lower growth, be preferable over, say a 2" thick, high output light, high growth, unit?
I think the same idea goes for skimmers, you could make a 1" thick HOB skimmer easily by stretching the funnel that the bubbles travel up so that it's no longer a cylinder, and more of a curved edge rectangular box, but it's not been done yet, as it would likely cost a bit more to make and just isn't really needed as most people have 4"+ behind the back of their tanks.
However, for something like a wall-mounted unit, a thinner one would certainly look more attractive.

[worley]

Side View:
http://www.algaescrubber.net/img/ATSbluePrint1.png

[worley]

Front view:
http://www.algaescrubber.net/img/ATSbluePrint1-front.png
There may be space for a pump where the water comes in, but the chances are it won't have high enough flow at that size.
This design lets people attach it on a wall above the aquarium, with a pump inside the tank, or under the aquarium from an overflow, then down into a sump.

There would need to be some vents for the bulbs and the ballast as they'll produce a bit of heat, but not a huge amount.

Anyhow, that's just my 2p/2 cents worth.

[worley]

Another idea.
You could put a small float sensor just above the water outlet at the bottom, so that if the algae grows into the pipe, the water level would rise and it could sound an alarm, that it needs to be cleaned. And put another a few inches above as a safety cut-off to turn off the pump.
Both of these are pretty cheap and virtually no electronics needed to produce the desired affect.
The float sensors would have to be protected from algae clogging them up though.

[SantaMonica]

Nice design. I might have to remove the link on the pic in order to post it around though.

You're still thinking in the same dimension, however. My level 3 (or 3g design) eliminates all the drawbacks you mentioned, and is super simple, although very vard to build. Kinda like making a pentium computer chip, compared to making a buzzer.

I'll invite more folks to discuss, and decide what to do. There are advantages to limiting it to a few manufacturers, and advantages to explaining it to everyone.

[worley]

Show us already! :lol:
If you can get a sketch it'd be great to see something.

[nickq]

Hi guys,

If you're going the way of phone technology, how about a 2.5G?
Here's my idea...
Please excuse the diagrams!
[attachment=1:1qd52kk2]optic scrubber side.JPG[/attachment:1qd52kk2]

[attachment=0:1qd52kk2]optic scrubber front.JPG[/attachment:1qd52kk2]

Note that this diagram only shows 3 layers of fibre as I couldn't be bothered to draw them all! It would extend the entirety of the screen and on both sides, needs a 3D drawing really.

So the idea is that you have a standard bulb like a 65W SAD bulb (6400K very bright) and the size of the bulb really dictates the width of the screen.
The bulb is housed in a box at the top which a matrix of optic fibres connects to in order to transmit the light to the screen.
The advantages are:
1. Zero heat transfer to water.
2. Distance of end of optic fibre to screen can be as small as you want allowing for algae growth space. In fact it could be flexible so the algae pushes against it meaning the distance is always zero.
3. Optic fibre is water proof!

So the screen could be encased in a sandwich of thin flexible acrylic, just enough to act as a termination plate for the optic fibres.
Of course the optic fibre-screen interface manufacture is the most difficult part of this solution. But I'm sure it would be easier than a TFT screen type idea, and the light would be brighter as it would be dictated by the power of the light housed in the light box.

Hope this makes sense.

Good work on the forums by the way, you inspired me to have a go!

Nick.

[SantaMonica]

Very nice... maybe better that mine. I'll post a pic soon, when I pull it out of the water test. Gotta make sure it's possible to do this without shocking everything. You're right... yours would also be (basically) impossible to diy. But very easy to manufacture. Just like mine.

[cvermeulen]

My .02

I know your vision is a scrubber the size of a book, and visions are excellent when attempting to push new technology forward. As a DIY type of person, and a product designer for a retail market, I have a few insights here though.

1) Cool factor is great, but if I was going to choose between a 1" thick scrubber that used fiber optics, or had a bunch of parallel screens or whatever, and used specialized lighting, VS a 3" thick scrubber that took 18" fluorescent tubes I could buy at Home Depot, my vote is for the 3" version.

2) When it comes to a lot of installations, it won't matter if it's 2" or 3" thick, the bigger factor will be it's area. Personally, I'd rather have a cuboid thing with well placed inputs and outputs than a picture frame shaped thing I have to mount on the wall behind my tank to have room for it. (I know you said your design is small in all directions, all I'm thinking is that an inch of thickness is squat in terms of a selling feature.)

3) Sensors SUCK. If you can eliminate the need for a sensor in your design, by putting in an overflow return path or something, it will be a better design. Think about it, if the water starts to back up and shuts off the emergency flow switch, the pump shuts off, then the water drains down, then the pump starts back up, then the sensor goes off again - lame. Plus you'd have people who threw the manual out constantly wondering wtf the alarm was, and/or why their pump kept shutting down. Keep it simple.

4) Ease of installation, and frequency of maintenance amount to everything. Look at an FX5. Hook it up, dump some water in the main chamber and turn it on. Lesser filters that you have to carefully prime, or cut hoses, or clean every week, or whatever else, are a real pain in the behind. If your design is 1" thick, you will be constantly cleaning it so it doesn't back up. It takes the same amount of effort to scrape an inch of algae buildup off as it does 1/4" of buildup, so unless it's causing some problem (like my pump keeps shutting off) why would I clean it any more frequently than I had to? On the ease of installation front, a unit that is self contained with it's own pump, or that just has an input, output and a switch (external pump) and sits on the shelf above my sump, or resides in an HOB overflow (best idea yet) would be perfect. Fitting a scrubber into an envelope similar to say, an AC110 would be probably as thin as you'd reasonably need to go, especially if it's at the cost of complexity or sell price.

Anyway, opinions expressed. feel free to disagree!

[SantaMonica]

Ok I'll be posting mine in the hidden forum now. All current users will be able to see it; new users will need to be approved.

Nick, one thing about those fibers, it would seem very difficult getting enough light power through them. Same with TFT... would seem to be very weak. Maybe I'm wrong, but hopefully my design solves the light power problem.

[SantaMonica]

Worley your thin scrubber is nice... would be a real space saver. Certianly would require exacting acrylic skills, escpecially if HOB.

[jski711]

i wouldn't go as far as saying its not "filter" ready!!! FWIW it may look ghetto, especially mine, but i have run skimmerless since september and i have a pretty big bioload. My system is as follows

75g main display containing mainly sps
2 clowns
1 blue assessor
1 radiant wrasse
1 yellow coris wrasse
1 scooter blenny
1 green mandarin
1 yellow tang
1 yellow watchman goby

plumbed into the same system i also have is a 15g tank with zoas some sps and some acans and it also contains my spawning pair of psychedelic mandarins.

i also have a 36g sump which is where my scrubber is at.
So in total i have 11 fish no skimmer and a great looking aquarium. it could use a redesign by me its ghetto but it works awesome. just my 2 cents.

thanks.

Jake

[kcress]

SM nice graphics there, nothing to apologize about!

Sorry SM, I too build things for sale, and I agree with most of cvermeulen's assessments. A lot of things I build go for industrial controls. Even in this field where presumably the user will be technically competent all designs have to be combed thru to illuminate anything that could result in a "phone call". Often really precious features get the boot to head off wallet busting service calls.

Having used fiber optics many times and designed optical wave division multiplexer controls I have learned a lot about fiber optics. There are several issues with them that your design is going to have difficulty with.

1) They have a rather large bending radius requirement. The radius generally needs to be several inches. Smaller radii are possible but the fiber diameter needs to then be much smaller. (See next.)

2) Acceptance angle. All fibers have what is called an acceptance angle. That is the angle from the core center outward. They will 'accept', or entrain, or carry, light that hits the entry face only within a restricted cone of acceptance. Faced with a large distributed source like a CFL bulb, very little light will actually be accepted and the smaller the fiber the more restrictive it gets. Normally an individual laser with a very small source aperture is used in an attempt to maximize the accepted light energy. I would expect the light source to fiber, to screen, efficiency would be on the order of 10 to 15%.

3) CFLs of all types have the problem of light you are paying for, leaving, relatively uniformly, in all directions when we only want the light to go in, say, a specific direction. In the Book form you will have a pretty poor 'light on the subject' ratio.

You might look at light piping. It might work as then you are talking about a really large acceptance angle. Not sure about how to make the sharp bends carry the light around the angle though.

I understand your wish for a small hang-on-the-wall screen job that any aquarist could apply but It may be giving up too many cost alternatives to float.

Perhaps jettisoning the fiber and going with two walls of LEDs would work. It would sure be a more efficient light delivery method.

[kcress]

Hey, what's the splatter like on these various screens? Is there any? Does any water running down the screen hit algae and spring off the face of the screen? Spritzes?

What I'm after is how close could a piece of acrylic be to a screen and NOT get covered with salt staining or actual growth?

[SantaMonica]

Ha. Well you haven't seen it yet. You are commenting on nick's design, I belive. I took pics of mine today after a one-week water/power test, and will post shortly. I have to do a short writeup too. By not being ready to filter, I mean it is too low power. It is mostly a materials test, not a filter test.

[SantaMonica]

Those are not my designs that you are commenting on. :)

Mine will be in the hidden forum only, as soon as I do the writup. Last night I finished the drawing, too. The designs above are nickq's and worley's. I'm not doing anything with fiber; never even occured to me. But I'll comment anyways:


1) Cool factor is great, but if I was going to choose between a 1" thick scrubber that used fiber optics, or had a bunch of parallel screens or whatever, and used specialized lighting, VS a 3" thick scrubber that took 18" fluorescent tubes I could buy at Home Depot, my vote is for the 3" version.

Of course this would be just a price and size concern.


When it comes to a lot of installations, it won't matter if it's 2" or 3" thick, the bigger factor will be it's area.

It will matter, because many future scrubbers will be HOB, HOT, clip-on, or velcro-on, and a half inch makes a big difference. The nano market is now the biggest market, and there is almost no real current scrubber option for them.


an inch of thickness is squat in terms of a selling feature.

It becomes important as I stated above, and also when needing multiple screens in a limited size sump.


Sensors SUCK. If you can eliminate the need for a sensor in your design

I think you are referring to worley's drawing. Mine needs no sensors as far as I can tell, unless you have an external version and you are just watching out for overflow. But yes, maybe an overflow is better; would also keep the screen wet.


Ease of installation, and frequency of maintenance amount to everything.

Correct. My version has no maintenance (other than cleaning the screen), and does not burn out. And speaking of screen cleaning, my version will not start to yellow the water is left un-cleaned. You could not touch it for three months. Filtering would stop, yes, but no die-off of underlying layer would occur as it now does when buckets and acrylics are not cleaned for long periods.


If your design is 1" thick, you will be constantly cleaning it so it doesn't back up

The in-sump version of mine won't back up. An external version would just depend on design; could be designed with 3/4 inch space for growth. That's quite a bit. My acrylic does max out at about an inch, though.


I have learned a lot about fiber optics. There are several issues with them that your design is going to have difficulty with.

Since that is Nick's design, I'll let these ideas apply to him. From my limited knowledge of fiber optics, I thought it would be difficult getting enough light power through the screen.


Normally an individual laser

Now there's an idea to ponder, a laser. It could be scanned across the entire screen. You'd need a red one and a blue one.


I understand your wish for a small hang-on-the-wall screen job that any aquarist could apply but It may be giving up too many cost alternatives to float.

Even for mine, cost will be high. Probably similar to a high end skimmer. But who knows.


Perhaps jettisoning the fiber and going with two walls of LEDs would work. It would sure be a more efficient light delivery method.

Wait till you see mine in the hidden forum.


how close could a piece of acrylic be to a screen and NOT get covered with salt staining or actual growth?

Well my acrylic unit is probabably the closest I've see of any unit so far... 1.5 inches. Almost no splatter, and only a slight haze after a week (washes right off). In some peak sections of the screen, the algae will grow all the way to the acrylic and push up against it (after all, it's getting more light there.)

Keep a watch out in the hidden forum for mine.

[jski711]

i guess i was commenting on the over the sump design that i am using now. i got a little confused. i think the guys at inland aquatics would be pretty surprised at the turf im growing with such a simple yet effective and ghetto looking design!!! lol

[kcress]

Those are not my designs that you are commenting on. :)

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


I actually wondered - something confused me. Thanks for the clarification.

[nickq]

My idea was just a brain storm to provoke ideas :) I don't know anything useful about fiber optics.

Incidentally I switched my pond basket material screen in my nano trickle filter box for tank divider material. It looks like something is starting to grow now even under the 14W T8, I'll post an update when it looks more interesting. I'm still waiting for my 65W SAD bulb to turn up :roll:

[SantaMonica]

What is SAD?

[nickq]

Seasonal affective disorder.
Getting depressed because it's dark in the morning :D
Research has shown that strong full spectrum light doses help (like the sun rising in the morning).
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/DAYLIGHT-ENERGY-S ... 240%3A1318 (http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/DAYLIGHT-ENERGY-SAVING-65w-325w-LIGHT-BULB-PHOTO-SAD_W0QQitemZ270304385888QQcmdZViewItemQQptZUK_Hea lthBeauty_Other_RL?hash=item270304385888&_trksid=p3911.c0.m14&_trkparms=72%3A1301%7C66%3A2%7C65%3A12%7C39%3A1%7C 240%3A1318)

Might even be able to light the tank instead of T5s!

[nickq]

SAD bulb arrived!
Note the AA battery for scale :o
[attachment=0:248bq967]IMG_1194.JPG[/attachment:248bq967]

[nickq]

Here it is in position.
It's in a wooden frame and there's a piece of thin perspex over the trickle filter. Currently shielded by foil as it's uncomfortably bright when you walk next to the tank!
I had to cut some slits in the top as it's getting quite hot :cry:
Also should have got a screw fitting instead of BC, the BC sits quite loose as you can see from the angle the bulb hangs at.
I think perhaps I went overboard and ~25W would have been sufficient :!:
[attachment=1:2az122ww]IMG_1195.JPG[/attachment:2az122ww]
[attachment=0:2az122ww]IMG_1196.JPG[/attachment:2az122ww]

The photo doesn't do it justice, you can't actually see the sprial with the naked eye, it's so bright!

[SantaMonica]

What wattage it is. At least low-light won't be your problem.

[nickq]

65W supposedly equivalent to 325W.

[SantaMonica]

Oh yes plenty of power, even for a 12 X 12 screen. Maybe you can line the inside of the wood with reflective foil. I think a 23W would be fine.

[diy]

Santa Monica, Are you gonna show the designs to the public? I am very curious to what they look like. I am working on a ultra thin design that will incorporate sheet metal and plexi.

[SantaMonica]

If you mean the drawings, they are already here, available to anyone. If you mean actual built units, I'm not building any. I wish somebody would; many folks have asked where to buy them. 2G ones are certainly easy enough for a handyman to make. 3G is gonna take some manufacturing, though. Would be interesting to see yours.