Skimmer Comparison Article

[PoonTang]

Here's a very interesting article comparing performance between several different skimmers. All very scientific and dry as dust but the results are kind of interesting.
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2009/1/aafeature2

[fencer]

Thanks...that was a very telling article...I should try a Precision Marine AP624 airstone skimmer

[untamed]

I thought that was a very interesting test. I hope they expand that methodology to test more recirculating type skimmers because I would like to learn more about flow rate variation....or keep testing skimmers using the same criteria just see if one stands apart for any reason. THEN...they could figure out why it stands out.

[digital-audiophile]

I skimmed through the article (pardon the pun) :p And am I reading the conclusion correctly that all four tested basically ened up on par?

[FlamesFan]

I seen this article over at Advanced Aquarist, I tried to read it but for some reason on that site it always turns into glancing through everything. Everything on that site always seems like a text book when you read it. Some articles are good though and yeh I got the same thing as you digital.

[PoonTang]

I skimmed through the article (pardon the pun) :p And am I reading the conclusion correctly that all four tested basically ened up on par?

Ya thats what i basically got out of it. Now if they would expand it a little and run some of the high end ones against the budget ones. It would be really interesting to see just how much you are getting what you paid for.

[untamed]

I skimmed through the article (pardon the pun) :p And am I reading the conclusion correctly that all four tested basically ened up on par?

That was what I got from the study. All removed to about the same level at about the same rate within the accuracy of the study.

[Samw]

Very interesting. I would have liked to see how diffusion skimmers such as Tunze performed.

[mike31154]

I've been running a simple air stone, counter current skimmer (looks like a DYI) on my 75 for just over two years and am quite content with its performance. The whole set up was used and I improved on the original configuration by simply adding a ball valve to regulate the output (aka water column height in the skimmer body). Had read an article about how flow (not necessarily a lot of it) can have a significant impact on skimmate removal. Don't remember the author, but it was quite in depth and I think the gentleman's name is mentioned in the article referred to in this thread. Maximum contact time of bubbles in the water column seems to be the goal and when I first set this thing up, I'm sure I was pumping water through it too fast. Currently using a small AquaClear 301 power head (175 USgph, 8 watts) and a Stellar W60 air pump (3.2 watts) to run it. Total of close to 12 watts, ultra quiet and low enough power consumption to run for extended periods on backup power. I have no problem with replacing the two air stones every month or so for a few dollars. I've even boiled some of them in a vinegar/water solution to rejuvenate them. When I set up my 90 in the future, I'll more than likely build something similar, only a little taller and with capability for another air stone or two. The fact that I can independently control water and air flow to fine tune it, is to me an advantage over skimmer types that use a single pump to produce both air bubbles and water flow.

One other improvement I made on this venerable old thing is to fashion a small acrylic manifold with threaded holes to enable easier replacement of the air stones. I tried an AquaC Remora with Mag 3 pump for about 4 months and did not like it at all. Pump was a beast and the thing made a ton of noise. Skimmate was watery and thin. My old air stone jobbie doesn't produce a lot of wet skimmate so no need to empty the container at the end of the drain tube very often. Produces nice gooey chunks of fairly dry skimmate. When I look at some of the current offerings, I often wonder about the high prices and if it's worth spending that amount of money for a possibly minimal improvement over the older technology.