anyone run skimmerless tanks?
- Thread starter HuuTa
- Start date
inverted
Non-member
I'd certainly agree there needs to be 3 separate tanks. The skimmers may compete if they are in the same tank and confound the results. However, you want everything except the skimmer to be as identical as possible. So, for example, why would you need LR? It seems that that would add a potential source of variation without anything to gain. No?
Taking one water source and splitting it up should be okay though, as long as there is enough skimmable material in the water to support skimmers in 3 separate tanks after the water is distributed. Also, new skimmers have oils and such from the manufacturing process which can inhibit skimmate production. So, new skimmers may not work the same as "broken in" skimmers. However, as skimmers age, the materials they are made of may accumulate certain chemicals/organics etc..., which could potentially interact with the compounds you are trying to skim, effecting the composition of the skimmate. So, a skimmer that is, for lack of better terminology "too broken in" may also confound the results. The point is keeping things consistent is not that easy. I think though a simple experiment is possible and could provide interesting results. Just don't get too carried away and be realistic about the limitations.
It may seem like I'm being nit-picky, however, my M.S. is in Biostatistics and I do work as a statistician/statistical programmer on epidemiological studies. I think it will be easy to get results, but tougher to get results that are not misleading. If you want to show a result that isn't misleading, then it's probably quite a bit more complicated than might appear at first glance.
Last edited:
inverted
Non-member
Many people consider it biased if the manufacture provides the equipment. Even people who do experiments for our hobby, Sanjay, Dana Riddle , "Mojo", usually go out and buy the equipment themselves.
Often the manufactures claims are exaggerated. Ken's research, is very preliminary, but his research does seems to confirm that skimmers do not necessarily do as much some have claimed, at least with regards to DOC. I'm not sure that that necessarily means what you seem to think though. Until you can define what organics are in the tank, versus what are removed. And define what is detrimental and what is good for the tank, it is kind of complicated to draw those sorts of conclusions and comes down, in a large part to opinions and beliefs. Still though, it is important to realize that skimmers don't do as much as some have claimed, the interpretation of what that means is more open to interpretation though.
Last edited:
I wouldn't put mojo in the same category as respected scientists such as Sanjay and Dana Riddle. Mojo's skimmer "reviews" are laughable, comparable to testing a light fixture without a par meter. From the limited research that is out there I think there is pretty strong evidence that a filter sock and carbon will outperform any skimmer made today. I'll provide the filter sock and carbon for the big test.
inverted
Non-member
It definitely sounds interesting. I think the first step is to define 1) exactly what the hypothesis is 2) what the justification for that hypothesis is.
I think you need to very specifically define these in order to then determine whether or not the method used can address the particular question.
Maybe we should start another thread, as this could get lengthy
inverted
Non-member
Yes, exactly! That's the point. If you compare Ken's work to most of what we find in the hobby it is incredible, but his AA articles may be laughable compared to something you would expect to be published in Science or Nature for example. It is all relative. The hobby doesn't have the kind of funding for that level of science. Kens work is a huge step in the right direction, way beyond what most "hobby scientists" are capable of, but still has very significant limitations. Mojo's, just has a lot more limitations
Aquaman_68
too many gadgets to fail
Skimmers are not mfg by the standards that bulbs/pumps & heaters are. Those are all electrical devices that warrant UL testing......Skimmers are not....The pumps are cause they are electrical devices but that is it...That is why u have GPH ratings on the pumps supplied with skimmers....
How do u expect any one mfg to b willing to offer their product out for testing when their hasn't been a test developed yet to accuratly measure how effecient a skimmer is at removing organics? You can't compare apples to oranges, Kevin.....Par meters r an awesome way to test the intensity of a bulb......It's not that simple for testing a skimmer & it's organic removal!!!!!! I'll tell ya....when I bought my etss 800 pro skimmer the dam owner of the company could not tell me how to adjust it....He was the one who designed it & built it but he couldn't give me instructions on how to dial it in!!!! Took me close to 6 months to get it right after switching from a PM bullet skimmer...(both producing foam by different means I may add!!!)
There is no testing done on skimmers because it has not been developed yet...(but someday they will......I'm sure of it.....But don't hold ur breath for it or anything in the near future to be bond, or the gold standard rating!!!!)
If we come up with some concrete data in this endevour that helps us I'm cool with that!!!!I really don't care if some over educated pen pusher debunks our testing or considers it moot..... I'm not a guy that is hung up on the publishing my findings so others can copy & paste them to seem worthy!!!!!(not sure if I can say that about many) I don't feel a need to go down in the reef books as a pioneering GOD!!! Or will I b measured by how many articles I've published online... Not going down that road!!
Oh don't let me forget to mention the ones who r so educated that somewhere down the line......they lost their common sense!!!!
so to put it in a little nutshell for ya....
The major market for skimmers is mostly on the hobbiest level...... This exceeds the level present in the industry...thus the lack of true equipment developed for testing these devices.
Ok....I'm going to hear...."what about public aquariums & the fishing industry".......I say...What about it?
Anyway....doesn't matter how long any of us have been in this hobby......But I'll tell ya one thing!!!
I've been in this hobby long enough to know what it was like to not use a protien skimmer, Kevin.....(because they were in their begining stages of development...) airstone skimmers for foam fractioning was the cutting edge in my old marine tank world....Imagine how far we have come!!! I remember when they came out with the first airstone skimmers....I bought one of the first designs........cost me 225.00 for a peice of acrylic & an airstone connected to a tube. (something u could buy today for 30 bucks!!!) U furnish your own pump!!
So Kevin...since we're on the subject of filter socks.....Is that what u swear by? If so....How do u clean them?
Oh yeah & btw....Ur filter sock & carbon will work better than a skimmer... (it will take out more than u should!!)
(this disclaimer is placed here to allow everyone to read):
My discussion above is not directed to insult anyone participating in the discussion of this thread!!
Last edited:
Funny you should mention the wooden airstone skimmers. One of those studies showed how the wooden airstone provides the best bubbles for removing DOC's (by the way, I still have my wooden airstone skimmer tucked away somewhere). So it appears we haven't progressed, but have regressed. The only thing that has changed is the maketing hype and the bloated price tags. Have you even read this article, http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2010/1/aafeature ? Quite an eye opener....
I don't currently use a filter sock as I use a $50 gfo/carbon reactor instead as the GFO used to harden relatively quickly without constant attention in the filter sock. Glad you agree that the sock and carbon will outperform any skimmer, just curious how you came to the conclusion that the combo will actually take out too much?
I don't currently use a filter sock as I use a $50 gfo/carbon reactor instead as the GFO used to harden relatively quickly without constant attention in the filter sock. Glad you agree that the sock and carbon will outperform any skimmer, just curious how you came to the conclusion that the combo will actually take out too much?
inverted
Non-member
Just as a technical clarification, the article you linked is on TOC, not DOC. The airstone wasn't the "best", it did perform similarly to the other skimmers though. Airstone skimmers worked fine for a long time, but people found them to be unreliable and inconsistent. You need to replace the airstone every month, the air output changes and needs to be constantly tweaked etc... People didn't like this, so, they went to more consistent performing skimmers. I think there is a very good argument for not spending tons of money on a skimmer though. IMO, skimmers make bubbles and there isn't going to be much difference between a $200 bubble and a $1000 bubble. If the skimmer makes enough bubbles for your bioload and allows sufficient contact time between the bubbles and the stuff your trying to remove, then there really isn't much room for improvement.
I think your asking the other guy, but I'll just ask some of the same questions that haven't been answered. How much do you want to take out? What does DOC do? What is the primary source of food for reefs? How do plankton levels compare to those found in reefs?
DOC, POC, TOC, pretty much the same things as far as us hobbyists are concerned. There's a fine line seperating them. The problem with any of these experiments is they don't seperate living organisms that perish in the skimming process and dead particles, both which end up in the cup.
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2008/8/aafeature3
"What is Dissolved Organic Carbon (DOC), Particulate Organic Carbon (POC), and Total Organic Carbon TOC)?
Carbon in this context is a catchall phrase which refers to carbon-containing (i.e., organic) chemicals that are either dissolved in the water itself (= Dissolved Organic Carbon, DOC) or suspended in the water as small particles, including single-cell organisms (= Particulate Organic Carbon, POC) (Holmes-Farley, 2004). Together, these carbon sources are called Total Organic Carbon, TOC. The divide between DOC and POC is arbitrary and is based strictly on the capabilities of commercially available filtering materials. At present, the operational definition of DOC includes carbon-containing material that passes through the pores of a 0.2 micron filter. Any carbon-containing material left behind, which includes most bacteria/single-celled organisms, then is labeled Particulate Organic Carbon (POC) (Benner, 2002)."
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2008/8/aafeature3
"What is Dissolved Organic Carbon (DOC), Particulate Organic Carbon (POC), and Total Organic Carbon TOC)?
Carbon in this context is a catchall phrase which refers to carbon-containing (i.e., organic) chemicals that are either dissolved in the water itself (= Dissolved Organic Carbon, DOC) or suspended in the water as small particles, including single-cell organisms (= Particulate Organic Carbon, POC) (Holmes-Farley, 2004). Together, these carbon sources are called Total Organic Carbon, TOC. The divide between DOC and POC is arbitrary and is based strictly on the capabilities of commercially available filtering materials. At present, the operational definition of DOC includes carbon-containing material that passes through the pores of a 0.2 micron filter. Any carbon-containing material left behind, which includes most bacteria/single-celled organisms, then is labeled Particulate Organic Carbon (POC) (Benner, 2002)."
Aquaman_68
too many gadgets to fail
50.00 for GFO....How often u replace it? you ever consider using catalytic carbon passively instead of in a reactor? Has aprox 50 times the surface area for removal opposed to a carbon block on ro/di systems.... I've been using it in my reload cartridges for my ro/di for close to 8 years..... It is expensive....Like 425.00 for an 60lb bag... (that was the last price I got.....I bought two bags......)
That gfo thru a reactor is a stripping magnet...coupled with a filter sock for sediment...That is a knockout punch for removing everything & anything that comes in contact with it!!! Driving it thru a reator.....Oh man....unless u start that process slow & gradually work it into the regimen u can have major tank issues caused by biological chemistry u r playing with.... Problems range from stn,rtn nucience algae, biopsis, sudden fish & invert death, oh & don't let me forget....expelling of Zooxanthella in corals (bleachout syndrome)& don't let me forget.... just ordinary coral shut down.......
so to answer ur question:
Conclusion was acheived first hand.....Actually sent my water out for analysis probably close to 10 years. Three different sources across the country specializing in the testing of brine solutiuons. cost me upwards of 1500.00... (to find an answer!!!) Maybe people can understand why my demeanor is the way it is in this advanced forum now....
You know what the conclusive results were? My organic level was 3.4 ppm where my target level for flourishing sps should b 1.4ppm...Yeah there were traces of other minor elements but not the cause of my problem...(they were in the ppb range).
Bottom line to the cause.....I tried to use local NSW...first time I used it....The corals opened up like they never did before in close to 5 years of reefing....Next water change....still open but not as extreme...by the third water change event...nothing.....& over the course of 3 months....corals started shutting down!! (easy less delicate stuff in the stoney family I may add) problem was....the dieoff of live organisms in the nsw when the temp was elevated was food for the corals in the first round....Until it started to polute the system....
After the test I tried to run GFO thru a reactor I started to get stn with no explanation...corals were slowly withering away it got to the point where I started moving corals to different closed systems to see if they would rebound... (they did with quick results) I left them in the other systems for three months....I could not beleive the growth spurts they acheived nor how happy they looked... I stopped GFO use....(leathers started to open up with a few days....) I started doing 5 gal water changes once in the am & once at night for a whole month with synthetic salt & ro/di water... I gradually tailed it down to once a day somewhere in that month & then every other day & so on.....So pretty much from that....It has changed my thoughts on tank maintainence....water changes should b smaller & more frequent....
(THIS IS JUST MY EXPERIENCES...i DON'T EXPECT EVERYONE TO FOLLOW MY LEAD HERE!!) so many factors have to b added from filter systems to brand of salt to suppliments added to food being fed in the tank, lighting,indoor co2 levels etc etc...even if u replicate what I've done u still may not find the same results...(u could actually set two or three sytems side by side that r identical except for the live rock & end up with different findings) SO how can anyone find a concrete answer with a phd or not?
If u want to try U may b succesful...but ur going to need alot of money to support ur quest!! (no family,job & don't let me forget.....hang up ur reef hobby cause u won't have time for it) The point of this story....Was simple....R u interested in reefing & learning....Or just learning about the complexities of reefing but not actually reefing?
Please don't get the wrong idea here people....Learning more about this hobby has brought us to where we r today!!! moderation....in moderation....when the quest for answers exceeds a certain level when do u draw a line & say....why am I here in this hobby? to be successful...& if trying so hard to find an answer to being successful makes me unsuccesful where will I end up? O U T spells out!!!
Hey Kevin,
BTW....how high do u run ur alk/kh & where do u balance everything out at? Ur carbon is getting hard quick because something has to be percipitating out of solution.. Maybe we should start a thread to find a conclusion to that to!!!
Heck....Lets just do all kind of chemical experiments, spend mad time on it & neglect our reef tanks!!!
Just joking....
couldn't help myself.....
inverted
Non-member
The breakdown is somewhat arbitrary, but the size is important for a number of reasons. One would be polyp capture, certain sizes of organic material will be capture by certain organisms as a food source. Ideally, we probably do want to maintain a food web. The bacteria experiments (http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2011/3/aafeature) also showed reduced bacteria, in a skimmed tank compared to the ocean (although, as with most of these experiments, it wasn't specific about what exactly was removed, or what you want to remove and was limited in what it could detect, due to size and other properties). When dosing a carbon for example, my skimmer goes crazy, likely from the extra bacteria being removed. Wet weight of bacteria may not be that high in carbon compared to other stuff, such as water, but that is more carbon being removed. Also, the bacteria is consuming a lot of stuff that you want to export. Of course, at the same time, removing too little bacteria may be bad, so, we really want a balance I think. Some, such as the ATS guys argue the opposite of you for this reason though. They argue that skimmers are very efficient at removing food sources.
DOC is smaller food and feeds the bacteria. So, GAC will remove the food for the bacteria and potentially starve it, versus removing the bacteria. Which is better or worse I couldn't say. IME, the combination has produced better results for me, but I don't assume that my experience is the final word, as do some apparently. Another issue is metals, http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2002-12/rs/feature/index.php, luckily, most are tied up in organic complexes and do not pose as much of an issue as they could. Still, they may be high especially if your relying heavily on water changes. Maintaining reasonable levels of DOC can be important for metal binding. I don't think POC is as good at this, so, that may be another important difference. Likely there are more. A problem we encounter is we have some numbers now, but as you mentioned, these studies aren't yet separating out the specifics enough. There may be good carbon and bad forms of carbon. We haven't figured out exactly what these are, or the best way to remove/maintain them respectively.
Last edited:
inverted
Non-member
By the way, sorry, early this morning, I read "GFO" as "GAC" for some reason. As to GFO, there is essentially no phosphate in a pristine reef (.005ppm per http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2004-05/rhf/index.php), so, I find it tough to believe we are stripping too much, with the input (mentioned middle of post #46). People may see negative results, for other less understood reasons, although, tests, even if sent to a lab, may not be accurate at that level, so, tough to say.
