[karnivor]

Here is an interesting article on skimmers and their relative performance. It is interesting to read just how inefficient even the best of skimmers are.
Whilst they can remove high quantities of some TOC's, the overall effect of TOC removal seems rather poor.
So, maybe there is a place for Carbon or Purigen after all.

Make up your own minds:-

http://www.advanceda...010/1/aafeature

[tillysreef]

karnivor, on Feb 1 2010, 01:00 PM, said:

Here is an interesting article on skimmers and their relative performance. It is interesting to read just how inefficient even the best of skimmers are.
Whilst they can remove high quantities of some TOC's, the overall effect of TOC removal seems rather poor.
So, maybe there is a place for Carbon or Purigen after all.

Make up your own minds:-

http://www.advanceda...010/1/aafeature

i run all three at the moment but my skimmer was out for 2 days and i had cyano issues
tilly

[karnivor]

tillysreef, on Feb 1 2010, 07:37 PM, said:

i run all three at the moment but my skimmer was out for 2 days and i had cyano issues
tilly

Ahh but was that caused by lower redox because your skimmer was off?

[tommo]

realistically i dont think we over rely on skimmers, i think we wet skim too much and i also think that typical flow rates through sump type filters are way too fast for our filtration components

Tom

[chriss]

tommo, on Feb 2 2010, 02:04 PM, said:

typical flow rates through sump type filters are way too fast for our filtration components

Slightly off topic, but, speaking as someone with very low tank/sump turnover in the region of 2 times an hour, this is too slow as I was getting a noticeable build up of doc's in the tank that was affecting coral growth/coloration that I was not getting in the frag tank next to the sump which has the Deltec 851 on it. Since discovering this, I've stuck a V2 1000 on the end of the tank that I run for about 18 hours a day and it has made a significant improvement to things. When I get my arse into gear I'll improve the tank/sump turnover but with my remote sump it's not a simple task.

Back to the point in question, I don't think it's a question of "do we rely on them too much", I think we over estimate how good a job they actually do and in a lot of cases fit one under-sized, not 'configured' optimally and/or ignore/don't see the signs of nutrient build up in a system which is where better general maintenance/feeding regimes would be advantageous. Do I make sense?


Chris

[TrevC]

chriss, on Feb 2 2010, 02:35 PM, said:

Back to the point in question, I don't think it's a question of "do we rely on them too much", I think we over estimate how good a job they actually do and in a lot of cases fit one under-sized, not 'configured' optimally and/or ignore/don't see the signs of nutrient build up in a system which is where better general maintenance/feeding regimes would be advantageous. Do I make sense?


Chris

I totally agree with you Chris, we quite often overlook the basics and forget that the ocean has a VERY regular maintenance programme (every 6 hours).
Regular maintenance and hard work pay dividends in this game.

[ReefAnon]

I read that article as well... interesting read though a bit heavy on the maths for me. I did try running skimmerless years ago as an experiment and had to give in after 6 months or so. Whatever the science I find my tanks seem to run 'better' with a well-maintained skimmer. One thing I found a bit frustrating with the article was that they were good at saying what a skimmer doesn't pull out but not so good on what it does extract. They made the point that there was 'no protein' in skimmate and that TOC levels were reduced only by about 30% IIRC. They didn't seem to say what skimmers do actually pull out.