Tinkering around this design:
Attachment 2350
All feedback is welcome...
Printable View
Tinkering around this design:
Attachment 2350
All feedback is welcome...
You will waste a lot of light with this reflector setup. Direct beam is the best thing you can want for lighting algae.
Another problem can be sediment on the bottom. Even small amount will reduce light even more.
I think this is a top down view
Looks like im too tired today . :)
First note still in business.
Indeed that's a top down view... so, kotlec, the sediment is not a problem...Quote:
Originally Posted by Floyd R Turbo
I know it's not the ideal but it woudl be an easy way of doing a 2 sided screen UAS on the simple side...
What do you think about it Floyd?
Well the issue is that the LEDs have a peak intensity that is like a bell curve right in front of the LED. So if that is not pointed directly at the screen, then you lose a lot of intensity. You would need to make the reflector a 45 degree angle or maybe just take the reflector you show (I know, it's just an example) and widen it and play with the arrangement to get the best coverage. Then you have to take into account refraction, etc. Not to get all into calculus and physics but the bottom line is that it could work, but you're going to lose quite a bit of intensity I would think, so account for that
I guess if we don't want to get very mathematical it would be matter of testing... I'll continue with the first trial I'm conducting to have a baseline to compare with... and maybe later try this design.Quote:
Originally Posted by Floyd R Turbo
Thank you Floyd
Although a reflector does lose light, there is a great benefit of 2-sided growth.
Santamonica, which factor woudl you consider outweights the other?Quote:
Originally Posted by SantaMonica
one sided screen efficient light transfer vs two sided lose light transfer
2-sided is more important.
SM, could you maybe start a thread that links to all the other sites where you have posted the UAS threads?
Probably not a good idea, since it makes it easy for the haters.
Would haters not make it easier to track progress and make improvements? Or would they be too big of a PITA?
Pain.
So I was thinking of a way to create some sort of way to force more bubble contact with the screen. I was debating on using an acrylic build kind of what someone else built, but my acrylic isn't my forte. http://algaescrubber.net/forums/atta...8&d=1331687632
A modified version of that is what I will be making. Ideally creating a U out of the mesh with a choke point to force the bubbles closer to the screen will promote more algae growth, and is simple enough for any one to make. I also plan on putting some sort of blocker so light doesn't get to the U part or the air stone. Before I make it, I want to experiment with other ideas of catching bubbles onto the net, but I have no idea where to even start with something like that.
Thoughts and comments appreciated.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v4...8at22335PM.png
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v4...8at23507PM.png
Just make the U out of solid/black/opaque plastic and you don't need the light blocker. It should be easy to bend a piece up, even if acrylic isn't your forte. Spend $2 on a plastic clipboard from Walmart and give it a try. You might be able to find flexible solid/opaque plastic-- maybe flexible cutting board material or shelf liners.
Hmm one of these? I don't really have a blow torch lol. I guess I can try to use a blow dryer. I will go to Walmart today and see what I can find.Quote:
Originally Posted by MorganAtlanta
http://lh3.googleusercontent.com/pub...Qm0QSXN9qDHuTV
Give it a try. You'll only be in for a couple bucks.
A hair dryer might work, and like wise I've heard of people using curling irons, regular irons or just heating in the oven to 300f.
You can try one of them black flexible cutting board for use in the kitchen.
I wound up not using the U, just because there is not enough space to make it efficient with the water level I have to work with. I will just wind up cleaning the air stones regularly. This is something that would work great in a sump though.
Here is a video of the scrubber before getting rid of the slotted pipe (was debating on doing both for a while till I cut myself and got pissed at it lol).
http://youtu.be/nS8XdWh6AjI
Here is after I got rid of the slotted pipe, and added another air stone.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fNvm29LzaY
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v4...y/75d54f02.jpg
What I am planning is similar to this. I'm going to cut a slot in a piece of PVC pipe just smaller than the air wand I use, the wrap a piece of clear plastic (like what you use in a report cover) and then slide the wand into the pipe with the plastic over the whole screen. The idea here is that is will 'hug' the screen, which forces the bubbles to rub the entire screen all the way up. Then when the screen grows out, the plastic will flex out with the growth but it won't allow the bubbles to bypass the screen.
I like that idea, more confined=less space for bubbles to disperse. I wonder if doing that will restrict growth too much though. So you are thinking of bending really thin acrylic to do that?Quote:
Originally Posted by Floyd R Turbo
No, like I said I will be using a sheet of plastic like you use for the cover of a report, like paper thickness
Quote:
Originally Posted by Floyd R Turbo
Gotcha, will they be hard, or flowy like paper?
Like the consistency of x-ray paper but clear
Cool, let me know how that turns out. Def want to see the plans on paper.
What are people doing to help prevent the massive amounts of salt creep from popping bubbles?
With the apparent problems with light intensity on the UAS instead of buying diffusers, couldn't you send another load of bubbles up to refract the light ( further away from the screen ). Then when you wanted to intensify the lighting, the light diffusing bubble set could be turned down or off. Sorry if this has already been talked about.
Waiting for the next version :)Quote:
What are people doing to help prevent the massive amounts of salt creep from popping bubbles?
Bubble do scatter the light more (like a prism), but I don't think they reflect light (like a mirror). So if the screen is green in some areas and not in others, more bubbles would probably help. But if the whole screen has no green, you probably just need to reduce hours. Or maybe increase hours. Still unshure.Quote:
couldn't you send another load of bubbles up to refract the light
Actually a fair portion bounces around the inside of the bubble and ends up going all different directions, effectively distancing the light source from the screen. I have even named this method of light control as Garfs Intensity Transformer, or GIT for short.
Is the upflow design proven that it should be better than a waterfall design? Or are we just hoping to keep tweaking it so that it performs better?
Seems like all the screens I have seen are not nearly as impressive as even poorly built waterfall designs.
This is really a version for people to test and try out. Further refinements will likely enhance effectiveness. Like the one I just made LOL
http://i611.photobucket.com/albums/t...t/DSC01222.jpg
http://i611.photobucket.com/albums/t...t/DSC01223.jpg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=feKNYV7QCcw
May have been discussed but has anyone looked at using skimmer with the air turned down to reduce the bubbles/skim production?
has it been determined yet if bigger bubbles are better or more smaller bubbles are better?
also in regards to getting more bubbles to touch the screen, how about trying to crowd the box full of bubbles. i see the screen tied to a
12 inch wood stone. can you just put two more wood stones in, one on each side of the first wood stone. or more depending on the size of box.
that way the bubbles would fill up the whole box and would push the bubbles together
pressing against the screen.
I think more air is always better, but it's not proven. And I not sure yet about bubble size, although larger bubbles would penetrate and move the hair algae better.
i found a youtube video that shows the concept of what i was thinking.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=en7tQisoA8g&feature=related
Attachment 2397
My intuition tells me that those micro bubbles are not going to work. At the very least, if growth gets thick, those bubbles would not be able to move the gha about, and thus the deeper layers would die sooner due to lack of light and flow. I'm sure there is an application for such a fog though...
What is the original purpose of that bubble generator?
See the last part?! "I'm sure there is an application for such a fog though..." a clue!Quote:
Originally Posted by SantaMonica
See what the "fog" seems to do to the light?! You would think it would block all/most of the light... but if you see it kind of fills saturates the water column with light... it may not be able to most the algae but what if you make flow do that...?
Dryworm... your on to something think you for sharing!
Quote:
Originally Posted by srusso
a clue... I think I have been watching to much "Blue's Clues" with my son....
This is what happens to light through bubbles. The end bit is of interest;Quote:
Originally Posted by srusso
http://www.philiplaven.com/p8h1.html
As we say, the bubbles are there for moving the turf algae around (turf algae being a class that includes GHA) so I agree that the micro bubbles in the video aren't great for that but to speak to your point of light dispersion, you can get just about as bad of a sun burn on a somewhat cloudy day as on a clear one right? That is largely do to refraction.
I kind of thought that at least a glory effect would take place without refraction but I guess that, if I'm reading it right, this article shows that flashing, glitter lines and water caustics do not occur with bubbling.
Of course, setting aside increased light absorption for a moment, light disbursement away from a 2-D surface can also lower the total lumens getting to the algae. On the other hand, we have a 3-D growth environment in this design so as algal growth is more mature (longer), the total light delivered to the algae increases.
I would think that light is delivered down to the root of those strands that are successfully separated by the bubbles. Some of this light would arrive normal or perpendicular to the surface of the strands for optimal penetration of the cells and therefor good utilization. It's like pumping little flash lights down deep into the algal mass instead of straight rays of light.
How bout we send the air pump to keep the skimmer company?
http://i136.photobucket.com/albums/q...e/IMAG1109.jpg
i checked out the hydroponic grow websites to see what the best reflective material they recommened. 1. foylon 2. mylar 3. flat white paint. i dont know if foylon or mylar is aquarium safe or not. but there is krylon fusion flat white spray paint. krylon fusion is aquarium safe. so you could even spray it on the inside of your acrylic. and if your using a cfl with the dome/bowl reflector you could spray paint the inside of that also. cheap and easy.Quote:
Originally Posted by RkyRickstr
has anyone ever tried to make their own air stone? take a piece of pvc pipe cap both ends. drill a hole in one cap and silicone the tubing to it or an airline adapter. then you could experiment different types of holes in it. drill different hole sizes. use a dremmel tool and make dashes ---- - - - or l l l l or / / / or whatever. maybe use two air pumps and silicone tubing in the other side too.
I remembered when I was researching a splash cover for the light on my old scrubber that glass doesn't transmit as much light as Plexiglass. Neither were great so I went without one and just cleaned the straight VHO's often. There is a tranmittance issue that has to be compensated for. It looks like for 1/4 inch of tank glass it would be something like 20% loss in light transmission. Here is a study that was done on 1/8 inch glass and acrylic.
Measured light transmission of standard soda-lime glass (typical
window/aquarium glass) and poly(methylmethacrylate) acrylic -
"Plexiglass" brand.
Wavelength (nm) % transmission
Glass acrylic
600 90 90
500 92 90
400 93 89
375 90 69
350 78 9
325 20 0
300 0 0
The thickness of the glass was 3 mm (glass thickness is metric in Canada)
The thickness of the acrylic was 1/8 " (ca 3 mm).
Borosilicate glass (pyrex) is transparent well out into the UV (at least
to 300 nm) but I don't know if it is available in sheets at a reasonable
price.
Different types or brands of "acrylic" may be different.
Kirk Marat
Dept of Chemistry
U of Manitoba
Are these measurements by a white light or was each test spectrum specific like from an LED?
I didn't look in depth so that is all that I know. I just thought about it and did a quick search. This is probably not the BEST study in the world. I picked it because they use aquarium tank glass, whatever that meant to them at the time. Most of the ways that they could have done it, the results would have been about the same because they are measuring the amount that goes in and what percent comes out. If you search under light tranmittance(tech term) or light transmition, more of the studies want to show that their glass transmits less light so the numbers would be worse.
If someone has concerns, they can do more Googling but you can just over build if this study is backed up by others. I would think that it is in the ball park. You can see that it transmits bluer and greener light very well but as you go redder, that the tranmittance problem goes up just a little. Yellow and red is not as good but still not bad. This is what you would expect. When you look through an empty tank's glass, it looks greenish blue. The tranmittance goes down quite a bit in the ranges that you don't need anyway. I always over light my scrubbers anyway. That way, I can always back off on the hours if I need to. If you over build, this shouldn't change anything
The only reason I asked is this would be typical of a white daylight florescent type bulb. These bulbs have much less reds in them so the test would show less. I might google it later. A good test should have showed a test at say so many inches without the glass or plexi then a test with the glass and plexi at the same distance. I know in water that blue penetrates the farthest but this is based on the sunlight and it has more blue anyway. Maybe on of these light guys can chime in and give us the scoop.
The week point of the study is that it doesn't go up to 6 1/2 or 7 hundred nm's but I'm sure that the methodology would stand up regardless of the light source. I just use this stuff as a rule of thumb anyway. If you go to a big pet store and look through a row of aquariums, what you can see through them drops to zero after 5 or 6 tanks. Like I say, I would just add 20% to my calculation as a safety factor whether I as going through glass or not.
So far I'm not liking the new style. Salt creep is horrible, I'm always cleaning the glass in front of the scrubber which when blocked inhibits the growth.
Yes the original test version requires glass cleaning with each screen cleaning. Salt creep is just a design parameter, however; the next version has very little.
Yeah the glass cleaning might end up being a deal breaker for the UAS as right now mine is in an acrylic sump.
Hello!
I am running an "in tank" version, and as SM say the salt creep is just an design parameter. I have no salt creep, no bubbles escaping to the tank and no cleaning of the display glass :)
Even though the design is an "in tank" version is is made as an closed box with plexi glass to let the light get to the screen. The whole scrubber box have to be cleaned of algaes though, but that is easely done when cleaning the screen, just lifting the whole box out of the tank and clean it in the sink when cleaning the screen.
jnad
I look forward to seeing that. The idea of the UAS is great. That is why I'm holding out on building anything right now of more permanent design. Thanks for the replyQuote:
Originally Posted by SantaMonica
When are we having the new design SantaMonica? couldn't you just skip a few days and publish it today ? come on man !! don't play hard
A general scrubber question: Do you all rinse/thaw your cubes of frozen mysis before feeding the tank? I know that seahorse owners are STRONGLY suggested to rinse before feeding to cut back on 'waste' products entering the system that isn't consumed by the seahorse.
But I wonder if the scrubber ratings are for the entire content of the cube, not just the mysis itself, if my scrubber wouldn't have to be as large. Or would it be in my interest to feed the entire cube and let the extras be food for corals/etc until they are converted down to the scrubber?
Any thoughts?
If you're talking PE mysis and a coldwater non-coral seahorse tank, that is pretty specific conditions and I would do whatever is suggested by seahorse keepers (I believe rinsing is in order). I even rinse that stuff before adding to my DIY reef food, it's greasy stuff. But the stuff from Brine Shrimp Direct or the like is much less to worry about, just thaw & pour off, maybe a quick rinse in RODI but that's it.
I have a bunch of soft coral and I'm wondering if they would gain benefit from the extra "stuff"...
Sizing does not matter, drained or not. The nutrients are the same, and are all in the solid food, which are converted quickly into urine by the animals. Urine (ammonia/ammonium) is mostly what grows the algae.
http://algaescrubber.net/forums/show...-Holmes-Farley
Yes, I have with fantastic results. :) I'm designing my scrubber now and using one of my acrylic air stones. I'll show you it once I'm done.Quote:
Originally Posted by dryworm
Instead of going through all this trouble making an upflow algae scrubber, and getting the bubbles to contact the screen evenly, why not just make a large co2 reactor, and put your standard waterfall algae scrubber inside it. then the algae will have all the co2 it wants.
What about PH ?Quote:
Originally Posted by thepotz
Bubbles also serve as circulation and agitation not just CO2 delivery as far as I understand
There is agitation and circulation in a waterfall scrubber. It's my understanding that algae responds best to nitrate, nitrite, phosphate, CO2, and light. all i'm saying is if you use CO2 already in your water column to grow plants, just make a large co2 reactor, and grow algae in it.
If you have a CO2 reactor already, using it will help stimulate growth if properly applied. That is true.
Please forgive me for sounding like a broken record but part of the point of having an up flowing bubble system is to create randomized turbulence, which helps prevent algae strands from sticking together. Strands that are stuck together can reduce the light that gets to the lower strands but the most important point is, in my opinion, that strands that are stuck together will begin to suffocate. If water can flow by all of the strands, the growth can increase by 50%.
Additionally, when matting is forestalled by agitation, algae death does not return nutrients to the water column. This means that while peak growth is not maintained when harvesting is delayed, algae will continue to grow and take up nutrients instead of going backwards.
So, if you can use CO2 while preventing clumping then all the better but clumping is a bigger issue.
Signed Mr. Turbulance :-)
OK, now I am understanding why turbulance and agitation are important!
Thanks!
The new Hang-On-Glass UAS with bubble remover:
http://www.algaescrubber.net/Post2.jpg
Looks good, now with the vent holes out of the water how do u make sure you have water flowing in and out of the scrubber chamber?
Water comes in the bottom, sucked in by the upflowing bubbles. It goes out of the spaces in the sides, or you can make holes in the sides.
ok.. did you make a corner version of this one?
No, just this simple 1-sided one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SantaMonica
Your design is pretty much the same thing I came up with after I posted my first video of my test 10 gallon.... Great minds think alike.... :)
When?
It doesn't matter when ... I just think it's neat that SM,s design and mine are similar and him and I didn't do any communication together until I posted a Vid on Monsterfishkeepers.Quote:
Originally Posted by herring_fish
I'm not here to start an argument....SM has the patent on it anyway...Congrats SM.....cheers.... :)
Patent pending :)
I'm not tying to start and argument. I have a similar mind as well. I was just wondering then.
The HOG was a nice little idea from last year... was going to wait until later this year to post it but some other folks were almost there already :)
That looks like a very good design. I may have to try this on a nano tank I have. I ran an algae scrubber for years and finally had to tear it apart because it worked too well... It produced so much algae that I couldn't keep up cleaning it. My tank looked spotless but the problem I had was my algae scrubber kept overflowing. This was just a design problem and I intend to fix it and get the scrubber back up and running. Good site BTW!
Yep the cool thing about an in-tank UAS is that overflowing = stuffed fish :)
OK. So I'm completely new to the algae scrubber scene and am interested in trying one. I have a 20 gallon sump on my 75 gallon reef tank and it seems that no matter what I do I can never seem to keep my nitrates and phosphates in check. I was wondering exactly what do I need to get one of these started? Is it just a screen, air pump, air stone strip, and light? And I see that the screens are angled, so I'm guessing that the air stone goes behind the screen so the bubbles roll up the back of the screen right. Sorry I have so many questions but this seems very cool and was highly recommended by a friend in my reef club. Thanks in advance for any advice and guidance.
Yes they are that simple. Screen does not have to be tilted, however:
http://www.algaescrubber.net/Post1.jpg
Cool! Thanks. And to do 2 sides I just throw on a mirror or 2 for reflectors and add another light? And does a scrubber replace a refugium? I would need to take all the rock out of my sump to use a scrubber. Does the scrubber replace all other gear besides my Skimmer? Can I change my sump to just having a drain, Skimmer, and scrubber and not use the refugium?.
I made my test scrubber in the beginning of February And posted my video on Utube one month after growth in March.Quote:
Originally Posted by herring_fish
Forgive me if I offended you, but your when with a Question mark ( When?) ... Looked like a prove it to me question....That's the thing about typing it can be taken this way or that way... :)
2-sided is always better, preferrably with a light; second best is a reflector.
Replaces a fuge. Leave the rock in. Replaces all other including the skimmer.
My fav sump is no sump. :)
Are the new scrubbers for sale anywhere? Is anybody building algae scrubbers to sell?
I am certainly no patent attorney but I would bet his patent would not hold up in court/re-examination since the design was posted on this very forum 2 years before SM announced it and it appears other people have patents for similar ideas. I am very curious to actually read Santa Monica's patent to see exactly what he was able to get a patent on.Quote:
Originally Posted by ruddybop
Look at this thread by herring_fish from November 2009 and tell me that isn't the same idea as the UAS.
http://algaescrubber.net/forums/show...ut-Green-Water
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8021/7...b916fbae9d.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by herring_fish
When I do a patent search I see quite a few different people having patents on algae type filters. As an example here is one I found when I was searching for patents for the idea I had for a HOB Super UAS filter. This patent was filed in 2008.
http://www.google.com/patents/US7682503
https://www.google.com/search?tbm=pt...e+filter&btnG=
Reminder that mine are pending, not issued.
Nevertheless the folks in-the-know have interesting ways of drafting claims in view of the prior art landscape. I have a hard enough time just explaining to them what I want :) BTW, Joe Norris is a member here.
[QUOTE=Ace25;21490]I am certainly no patent attorney but I would bet his patent would not hold up in court/re-examination since the design was posted on this very forum 2 years before SM announced it and it appears other people have patents for similar ideas. I am very curious to actually read Santa Monica's patent to see exactly what he was able to get a patent on.
Yes it would be interesting to see SM,s Patent request... I made a spinning Algae Scrubber in my 10 gallon just experimenting around. I did a search and a similar one has a patent on it.
http://www.google.com/patents?id=EUI...page&q&f=false
Not that I'm trying to patent my ideas. I just want my fish healthy with the easiest/cost effective way....
Look at this thread by herring_fish from November 2009 and tell me that isn't the same idea as the UAS.
http://algaescrubber.net/forums/show...ut-Green-Water
And Herring_Fish did you try your idea even though SM had doubts with it in the beginning. That would have encouraged me to try it... :)
And if you did try it how did it work...
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8021/7...b916fbae9d.jpg
Take a look at this one ruddy looks like the old aquariacare company were onto the wheel design also.
http://www.google.com/patents?id=Jps...filter&f=false
Yes... I just saw that one this morning and told the wife that my motorized design was already made and had a patent.... That patent uses the same gear pattern that I also came up with.Quote:
Originally Posted by WAK
Funny how most of our/peoples ideas have already been thought up...
Wonder why none of these are out for sale at fish stores......
Yes, with the amount of patents on the filters i wonder why its never gone mainstream
WAK: I would think that all of the patents held the ATS back. Dr. Adey was the inventor, the top authority and the big proponent of the scrubbers, started in the early 90's. He also took most of the flak that was more like a firestorm over it as well. He licensed it but the market was too small in the environment of all of the criticism that the ATS received. Of course turf is a group of plants that include GHA and Adey grew that.
Unfortunately, he decided not to personally produce his scrubbers for the hobby market and instead pursued the commercial market where the money was/is. Throw in a sprinkling of royalty wars and the ATS fell out of what ever favor that it had because the only people that could say that they had one were the people that could build one. Some of his most efficient designs were complicated and you had to have some design and building savvy to get one.
I'm a designer so I built one while I was reading the book and then went on to version 2 which I still use today. I was just on here getting advice on interim lighting for it. http://algaescrubber.net/forums/show...he-Dump-Bucket I had some articles publish that featured it but I was a reed in the wind. You can see them on my web site although they are very out dated. You can also see that design of the ATS and renderings of my old and new tanks on my web site. http://asaherring.com I only saw a few other articles that got published. In case you can't tell, my avatar is a rendering of the splash from that dump bucket on my old tank.
Then the Miracle Mud guys came out with there system that featured caulerpa as the biggest part of there design but the mud was the thrust of their marketing, not the algae. I feel that for that reason, it was not ridiculed as much as the ATS. Between that and the refugium that Adey proposed, algae slowly gained ground and algae, mainly cheato gained acceptance as a means of removing excess waist that the skimmer couldn't handle.
Actually since algae had gained general, although reluctant acceptance, SantaMonica's "scrubber in a bucket" rekindled interest in the ATS. It was easy to make and cheap so lots of people started playing with it. He also got a firestorm of criticism as well but not nearly as much. That, in part is why he is here.
Patents are a two edged sword. I think that the last of Adey's Patents run out this year. It is hard to make money while working around patents and money drive advertizement and articles. The scrubber in a bucket does not fall under any patents that I know of.
Ace25 and ruddybop: Thanks for pointing that out. Sometimes people forget where they saw something first. It probably didn't saulve a problem that he was interested in at the time and when the new problem did come up, so did the idea! It is nice to get the credit for what you do. I'm sure that he has improved the UAS but since then.
ruddybop: I never built it. I moved on to a better way to grow plankton in tall tubes along the wall in the garage. I built a 2 axis CNC type robot to feed the cultures and that has taken a lot of my free time. You can also see that design, renderings and video on my site.
is there a reason why the hog is black. i thought black absorbed light and white reflected light. would it be better if it was white?
Yes.... I actually saw that video on youtube ... Very time consuming designing and engineering a small cnc for feeding a unit of tubes. Setting it up, building it ,programing the plc parameters.Quote:
Originally Posted by herring_fish
I didn't realize that was your video. Nice Job...
The box for my LEDs is white, assuming that I'd want to reflect rather than absorb it.Quote:
Originally Posted by dryworm
HOG is black so ask to block out all light. I'm looking into making the inside white. Only red escapes the vent holes, and through the glass.
i understand what your saying herring_fish ,maybe all the patents on different designs have held it back.
There is a type of acrylic for signs that is white on one side and black on the other. The object is to allow someone to route out the white side just down to the black to create very high contrast lettering. (of course you can also route thru the black to have white lettering.) That would probably provide your white inside black outside.Quote:
Originally Posted by SantaMonica
Yes that sounds like one good way of doing it.
I have been tagging along for a while now and I have started an UAS in my sump. I have some pics that I will post but I am now intrigued by the new concept. I had decent growth after 10 days but I also had some cyano in an adjoining chamber of the sump. I left the filter sock in place which meant less flow in that section and the light was penetrating through the plexi. I have since removed the sock and have the screen in the same section as the return is discharging. Pics to follow.
Could a LED Moon light strip be used as a light source? I had growth on one of them previously and was wondering if I had found a new use for it.
I wouldn't use a moonlight as the light source, better to use red or warm lightQuote:
Originally Posted by TickyTy
No... not enough wattage.
Now that there have been some test run, I am wondering if people are getting good harvest quantities compared to ...say, a water fall scrubber? For those that over built on the lighting, I would guess that the answer is yes and even better but that is why you run tests. I have seen the pics of screen in the first few days of use. Now that some of you have some time under your belts, are you getting hands full of algae?
I have a 12gal long reef and am very interested in the new UAS concept. This is my 2nd attempt at reefkeeping. I gave up the 1st time because no matter what I tried, all I ended up with was a tank full of algae. I just went thru it again with this tank but have it under control by water changes, H2O2, GFO, etc.... The trouble is am afraid to feed the tank residents now! I would like to attempt some sort of UAS, preferably something smaller in tank or HOB. I have an Aquaclear 50 HOB that I could use and would appreciate thoughts on that. Any other suggestions would really be appreciated!!!
Welcome. Look through the UAS test builds... there is one made out of an HOB filter...
http://algaescrubber.net/forums/foru...Scrubber-(UAS)
As soon as I can, I'm going to run a Pepsi-challenge test on my tank, I'm going to put a waterfall scrubber (L2) on the same tank as the UAS and let them battle it out. Should be interesting.
I haven't been measuring and weighing my harvests from the UAS, at this point I've just been trying to work out the kinks. I think I've got it all down now though, added suction cups to hold the bar down and full-size diffusers in front of the LED fixtures
This on has the HOB listed: http://algaescrubber.net/forums/show...rry-s-UAS-testQuote:
Originally Posted by Bobba
i have to say.. with the new scrubber i see alot less growh.. a lot. However wihin a week of setting it up algae started dying.. seems like is more power with less growth ime
Should not be any dying.
Well, stopped at a craft store and picked up a sheet of #7 mesh and roughed it up with a hole saw. Sure seems like algae would grow on it. I may give the AC50 HOB a try. I feed about 1/2 cube a day so I am thinking 3"x4" would be ok? Need to find a 3"long bubbler of some sort and was thinking maybe 2 660nm leds? Would the normal water flow on this type of setup be ok? Also noticed that Santa Monica is selling a UAS for a reasonable price. Has anyone tried one? Thanks for everyones patience!
I think he meant algae in the tank was dying. In that case there should be dying.Quote:
Originally Posted by SantaMonica
SantaMonica, do you have photos of the UAS you are selling?
Soon
I was wondering if an in sump UAS would work with just having the lights on the outside of the sump and the screen and bubbler inside but not fitted into a box.
Dennis
Yes it's the same as a nano. However any UAS will work better if it has a box (to confine the bubbles), and if it is 2-sided.
Well a short time ago I put one on my sons 40 gallon. I couldn't get anything to grow on the screen. I just happen to look yesterday after over a week of not even looking at it and the growth is un believable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jwoyshnar
Pictures mon!
Pee eye see tee you are e S! We need dem.
Look at my UAS thread, I have mine on sump with lights outside, started 1 sided and changed to 2 sided after 2 weeksQuote:
Originally Posted by DennisC
Is the 8"x8" screen too large for my 90 Gallon system? I have a light feeding load since I only have 3 damsels and 1 Hippa Tang. You can see my results in my UAS thread.
Feeding?
is it better to use a diffuser on a led setup or not?
I've seen seen several others who have used a diffuser and seemed to show improvement. My week old LED build was built with a diffuser from the get go. I think that if you have an imbalance of distribution of colors, like blue only in the middle, you would benefit to at least have the blue diffused. But For me it was easier to diffuse the whole array.Quote:
Originally Posted by dryworm
+1
I am of the opinion that diffusing when you group the LEDs closer than 2" spacing is required. On my UAS I put a 1" x 1" diffuser right in front of the blue LED, which was 1" from each of the reds and my screen filled in quickly. I diffused the whole array and it reach the growth level of the previous week in 4-5 days.
I like to diffuse all the LED's.
I am not feeding a ton of of food. Less than a cube per day. I am running 2 150W MH and 4 65W PC's in my DT. The fixture is 4 months old, the bulbs may not be the best that came from the supplier. The question is, would the UAS compete with algae from the tank due to poor lighting?Quote:
Originally Posted by SantaMonica
I of course am not running any blues.
All red works just fine too. I get hardier and longer growth with the blue added.Quote:
Originally Posted by SantaMonica
if i am running an in sump UAS should i let the calcium reactor drip in to the chamber the UAS is in so it will to take up the excess co2?
That's probably a good idea.
Any good updates for a UAS on a large tanks... say 600gallons? OR still think the waterfall would be better for it?
Neither is better or worse. It's what you can build.
I'm testing the UAS now in my 400G tank and I can say it does it job nicely !!!Quote:
Originally Posted by glarior
Good to know. I asked long time ago when it first came out and the answer was unsure at that time. Thank you!Quote:
Originally Posted by SantaMonica
Love my small UAS but its to small for the tank load. I am reading your thread nowQuote:
Originally Posted by acorral
Any news with july design revelation ?
Posting soon. It's really a non-revelation, but still useful.
A useful way to stop bubbles if your UAS is not in a box:
http://www.algaescrubber.net/Post3.jpg
Hey SantaMonica, or anyone really, I'm nearly finished with my 2nd version UAS double sided and I've got a couple of those 6x9 mirror cards you sell. Any ideas on how to afix them flush to 1/2" egg crate? My first thoughts are just to gel superglue across a bunch of the vertexes. Any other ideas?
Punch a hole and use try wraps.
You don't want any light going into the crate though.
Okay, can do. And just as an FYI to you/others, there is a paper backing that isn't ideal, in my opinion. I'm scrubbing it off to have one less unneeded biodegradable substance in the tank. Adding pics and video of the new build to my thread.
EDIT: Holes and zip ties worked great.
Also, advice for those using a slit pipe like mine, simply sawing a straight slit didn't work well for double sided. I ended up drilling a series of holes the length of the slit to make scalloped edges. That way even if the screen leans against one side or another the the high points between circles will keep the screen from blocking the bubble flow.
Here is what I just scraped off my mesh. 7 days worth
http://i279.photobucket.com/albums/k...r/ef21b5fd.jpg
Let's get your build pics up on a thread...
So, looking for a place to start for my UAS. I have a system that's about 125g and I feed around two cubes a day. Seems like there's a big difference between the old and new sizing guidelines. Should my screen be 11x11 or 5x5 or something different? Also, what abut light? It's going to be two sided.
Thanks for any guidance you can offer.
An example screen size is 3 X 4 inches = 12 square inches of screen (7.5 X 10 cm = 75 sq cm) with a total of 12 real watts (not equivalent) of fluorescent light for 18 hours a day. If all 12 watts are on one side, it is a 1-sided screen. If 6 watts are on each side, it is a 2-sided screen, but the total is still 12 watts for 18 hours a day. This screen size and wattage should be able to handle the following amounts of daily feeding:
1 frozen cube per day (2-sided screen), or
1/2 frozen cube per day (1-sided screen), or
10 pinches of flake food per day (2-sided screen), or
5 pinches of flake food per day (1-sided screen), or
10 square inches (60 sq cm) of nori per day (2-sided screen), or
5 square inches (30 sq cm) of nori per day (1-sided screen), or
0.1 dry ounce (2.8 grams) of pellet food per day (2-sided screen), or
0.05 dry ounce (1.4 grams) of pellet food per day (1-sided screen)
For LEDs use half as many watts.
I've seen this.
Does this mean 12 sq in per cube? So 6x4 or ~5x5 would work for me with 12 watts on each side. Please confirm this for me. Thanks.
Yes 12 per cube.
Would 12 watts of floodlight CFL for each side of the screen be sufficient?
Thanks again!
edit: also, The angle of the light may not be at a right angle to my screen due to space restrictions. They may be pointing downward at an angle towards my screen. Would this make a significant impact on my scrubber? Should I change the wattage or anything else? Should I rearrange everything to make sure to get the best angle of lighting?
Thanks once again.
2 cubes would need 24 watts if all the light were used. But you'll be losing half with the distance and the angle. So I'd double it.
Hi I'm in the process of making on of these but want to make the unit sealed but I can't find anywhere which says any amount of flow or if there's a to much flow? Can anyone help
Recommended airflow for UAS bubbler:
0.012 cfm of air per inch of width of screen.
0.005 cfm of air per cm of width of screen.
0.33 lpm of air per inch of width of screen.
0.13 lpm of air per cm of width of screen.
There is currently no recommended level of water flow.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SantaMonica
I know this is for air but the reason I ask is because I'm thinking of using a skimmer pump to pump water and air into my scrubber
Just try it.
I am planning on bigger tank. Should be 40 gal. Now it is time to decide what route to turn. After some time passed , can I get your findings regards waterfall vs UAS. What you would choose if you were free with your choice ? Either way scrubber will sit in back chamber. Be it waterfall I should not need addition of air pump.
Im planning feeding up to cube so one side 10cm wide and 15 cm long screen should be sufficient ? This way I would need 80 liter per hour air pump ?
Technically an upflow should be better because of the bubbles, but since you build your own, the bigger question is how you build and operate it. Easy of harvesting might be easier with an upflow too... just lift up the screen. 2-sided would always be much better, however.
Yes 80 lph.
Anyone with good UAS growth keeping an eye on ALK stability ?
I am interested in this as well, my water fall sucks the Alk dry!! (well almost)Quote:
Originally Posted by Garf
Same here .Quote:
Originally Posted by kerry
You know, the reason why the algae uses the alk is because there is not enough cO2, im dying to try injecting co2 into the scrubber chamber, i wonder if it would really lower the ph of the water significantly.
I worried about that to so I didnt, I even put a couple fans over the waterfall scrubber and didnt see any noticeable difference.
It seems like everybody is using LEDs for their UAS... I know nearly nothing about LEDs because when they started getting popular I figured I'd let them get figured out before I looked into them. Now, I'm in a spot where I think I would benefit from them... At least for my UAS.
Where can I get the best deal for some LEDs for a 5x5 screen? I don't think I want to do anything DIY for this as my free time is limited for now.
Thanks!
Floyd has good luck with rapidled and I use topledlights from ebay but, I get my drivers from rapidled lately as the topledlights has been out of the driver I really like to use. Rapidled even has a section to show you how to build a DIY unit.
Ive ordered from rapidled and never had a problem with them.
Just got 120 more Philips 660s from them :)
SM are there any good updates coming this next month??
I'm sure there are... need to look.
has anyone tried sunlight vs leds?
Yes there where some outdoor waterfall scrubbers built a while back.
Try stevesleds, his are a bit cheaper and he is fast as hell on the shipping. His 2700k 95 CRI Luxeon warm whites are pretty amazing for display builds too, they are the only whites I use now. He also has the cheapest Cree Royal Blues I have ever seen, if thats your thing, but personally I am all about the Luxeons now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Floyd R Turbo
Here was a fun little freshwater project with 14 Luxeon 2700k warm whites and 6 Luxeon Royal Blues, the color is accurate, the purplish hue is just as apparent in person, not just an artifact of the camera:
http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b1...21_1719361.jpg
I would like to see more pics of peoples scrubber "box" and more pics on how people are making the screens easy to remove for cleaning,,,I would also like to see how people are forcing the bubbles to make contact with the screens....please :)
any one use this unit for small nano tank say 20-30g ? I have biocube 29
Thanks
Is being used on a 2 gal.
Ia the Hog 2 comming out tomorrow?
No but I have not looked yet. Will be a few days.
Hi
a quick question about 1 sided or 2 sided, having the light on one side and a mirror on the other, does this make it 2 sided?
Thx
Sort of. Officially yes but the intensity on the reflected side is drastically reduced.Quote:
Originally Posted by southsiderlad
Probably another dumb question, but here goes anyway!!!
Is it better to have to much light (led's) and if it burns the algae just cut back on the lighting time rather than make it, and then find you don't have enough light????
Thx
Thx Garf for the earlier reply.
Yes, thats the way to do it.
SM, is this months release ready? Should be this right?
Hang-On-Glass (HOG) Scrubber, version 2
This is designed to be a manufactured version of version 1, for nano's only, and thus is the first retail-ready version to be posted. If made with the right finish, it will fit right in with everything else in the tank and will not be noticed (and actually it could add to the appearance of the nano). For DIY there will be a slimed-down version, but it will still take some building. For DIY Resellers, the slimed-down version will take a little work (at least for nano's). For manufacturers it is probably a three-piece molding. The nice-looking version would retail in the range of about $29 USD for a 0.1 cube/day, to about $69 for a 2.0 cube/day (lights included, but no air pump).
Will be posted in August
Available for advance viewing in May, $1000/month non-exclusive, $2000/month exclusive
Will be available in August for free DIY (difficult) and $5 DIY Resellers
Available in May for exclusive product licensing in any country except USA
Available in May for non-exclusive product licensing in any PCT country except USA
Available in May for exclusive brand licensing in any country except USA
Available in May for non-exclusive brand licensing in any country except USA
Available in May for manufacturing/marketing/distribution licensing in the USA
Not the brightest spanner in the box, but what the hell are you going on about ?
Not exactly, but hopefully interesting to look at.
Here we go...
http://www.algaescrubber.net/Post4.jpg
Very Cool! It looks nice and clean looking design. Good job.
Now I just need to find a manufacturer that can build it and/or license it :)
I have a 210 with a 70 gallon refugium at the bottom. One side of the refugium is already enclosed. Do you think I could use that side of the 70 gallon tank to put a UAS? What size would I need?
Could the hang-on UAS be placed in a sump under the tank?
A UAS can be placed anywhere. See sizing here:
http://algaescrubber.net/forums/show...-for-scrubbers
I like the bubble remover, however the screen looks hard to remove without taking the whole thing appart.
Screen should slide right out the top. Then the glass can be cleaned with a brush, or the whole unit can be moved a few inches and the fish can clean the glass.
This looking like a Nice unit Santa Monica.
Is the water going in and out the scrubber trough the same hole?
Jnad
Yes.
I would much rather have the exit a few inches higher.. it would assure me im getting propper flow.
Well for higher-nutrient systems, more dwell time will give the algae several chances to remove nutrients before the water gets out. This will artificially let the algae grow in a lower nutrient environment, which will grow more green.
In the HOG.5, with almost no flow-through, the algae still get all the nutrients they need. Any more and they would grow dark.
Yes but if thats the case then there are too many nutrients in the system that i want out. I rather have dark algae and know that my nutrients are high and work on them.. why would i want green algae and all the nutrients in d tank.. u know what im saying?
Because green growth will absorb the most nutrients, the fastest.
What do you think about this UAS design ?
It's a hybrid between HOG and the new one, pink stuff are magnets, the squared one is for fixing to the glass and the outside lamp, the rounded ones are for holding the UAS screen
Attachment 3040
Suggestions accepted...
Looks neat.
I would buy one of those
Why not ditch the magnets and make it hang on the rim of the tank? Would work for a glass tank, not so much for an acrylic tank, but I bet I could make even that work with a little thought.
Thought about that.... I guess the hard part is going to be making it stay very close to the glass so bubbles doesn't escape... That would be fixed using a clear panel but that would be an extra thing to clean...Quote:
Originally Posted by Floyd R Turbo
I'm thinking about a semi-permanent fixing outside for the lamp, as the one for vortech pumps... and just the magnets for holding the inside part and making it easy to remove, clean and place again in place
Made a first prototype in 1/4" pvc foamboard that I had around collecting dust...
Attachment 3041
Attachment 3042
This prototype made me take note of some changes for the next prototype... among them... change width to fit one commercially available air difusser, instead of 1/4" I'll use 1/8"the space for the screen needs more room... I'll make it 2" instead of 1"... and some other...
On monday I'll get some more material to build a second prototype...
Already ordered some neodinium magnets to test that part of the design...
Neo magnets need to be sealed. Can't put them directly in the water. Just FYI
Unless you get epoxy coated ones. They were recommended directly to use in SW. I've has some in my sump for months... they look brand new.