Canreef Aquatics Bulletin Board  

Go Back   Canreef Aquatics Bulletin Board > General > Reef

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 10-09-2009, 02:34 PM
sphelps's Avatar
sphelps sphelps is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Lyalta, East of Calgary
Posts: 4,777
sphelps is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by banditpowdercoat View Post
Is because you make something, does that instantly make you an expert?
Nah that's not what I was getting at, I'm certainly no expert. It was sarcasm, kind of an inside joke to another thread

Skimmer ratings will never be accurate, what works for one won't work for another. The ratings are general guidelines and some common discretion is required from the buyer. However for the most part skimmer ratings aren't that off for the major brands (cheap novelty brands aside). I've used a Euro Reef 180 on a ~250 gallon decently stocked reef tank and it worked well for the system. Also your skimmer dependence actually decreases with a fish only, yes you can use a larger one and it can be beneficial but the higher nutrients won't necessarily cause a problem. Many people with FOWLR tanks don't even use skimmers and do quite well.
I can't see a bio-load rating being practical, how exactly do you rate bio-load? Either way it's common sense, if you plan on having a higher than normal bio-load for your tank you always have the option of using a larger skimmer. One could simply assume the rating is based on a standard load for the given volume.

Last edited by sphelps; 10-09-2009 at 03:33 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 10-09-2009, 04:12 PM
Gizmo's Avatar
Gizmo Gizmo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Spruce Grove
Posts: 384
Gizmo is on a distinguished road
Default

Just an off the cuff though, could you not rate a skimmer based on ml/hour of "dense" skimmate (i know dense is a relative term) so at least all skimmers are on a level playing field. You could then calculate how many ml/hr you would need based on your bioload and needs. (no I don't know what that calculation would be, but it wouldn't take much other than experimenting with a baseline skimmer, and varying bio-loads to come up with an approximation)
__________________
"what do you mean you need another tank??"
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 10-09-2009, 04:45 PM
sphelps's Avatar
sphelps sphelps is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Lyalta, East of Calgary
Posts: 4,777
sphelps is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gizmo View Post
Just an off the cuff though, could you not rate a skimmer based on ml/hour of "dense" skimmate (i know dense is a relative term) so at least all skimmers are on a level playing field. You could then calculate how many ml/hr you would need based on your bioload and needs. (no I don't know what that calculation would be, but it wouldn't take much other than experimenting with a baseline skimmer, and varying bio-loads to come up with an approximation)
I wouldn't want to be that sales guy trying to sell those skimmers
Simpler is usually better and specifying specifics like that will cause huge issues as results will always vary. It's one thing to say this skimmer will typically handle 200 gallons of tank volume but to say this skimmer will produce X amount of skim mate is another story. There are certainly skimmers out there that have bad ratings, seaclones are one that come to mind, but good quality skimmers are rated fairly decent in my books, and on occasion some manufacturers do actually give a few rated volumes based on high and low bio-loads.
I think too much thought is going into this, consider all the variables involved in actually determining the right skimmer. Amount of fish and other livestock, size of fish and other livestock, type of fish and other livestock, amount of food feed, allowable nutrient level (sps-low, lps-med, fowlr-high), tank volume, and so on. I mean these ratings are just general guidelines, just like fuel ecomony ratings on cars, they aren't that accurate either but there are too many variables involved for it to be accurate for each person.

Last edited by sphelps; 10-09-2009 at 04:54 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 10-09-2009, 05:05 PM
banditpowdercoat's Avatar
banditpowdercoat banditpowdercoat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: 100 mile hse BC
Posts: 2,568
banditpowdercoat is on a distinguished road
Default

One thing I know, BOTH my skimmers suck, and Im to broke to get BK's LMAO
__________________
Dan Pesonen


Umm, a tank or 5
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 10-09-2009, 05:26 PM
fkshiu's Avatar
fkshiu fkshiu is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 1,499
fkshiu is on a distinguished road
Default

Tunze gives you a little more help by listing a "maximum" tank size for their skimmers which you subtract down from depending on what you are keeping in the tank (e.g. SPS, LPS, softies, FO).
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 10-09-2009, 07:46 PM
mark's Avatar
mark mark is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Edmonton AB
Posts: 4,212
mark is on a distinguished road
Default

little dated and yes could be problems but here:

http://www.aquariumcontrollers.com/a...p#skimmerchart
__________________
my tank
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 10-09-2009, 07:56 PM
lastlight's Avatar
lastlight lastlight is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Calgary
Posts: 6,997
lastlight has a spectacular aura aboutlastlight has a spectacular aura aboutlastlight has a spectacular aura about
Default

Best they can do is give you ballpark ideas and then you ask people who have experience with them I think.
__________________
Brett
My 67 392 225 101 94 34 97 404 28 93 209 gallon reef.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 10-09-2009, 08:03 PM
untamed's Avatar
untamed untamed is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Coquitlam
Posts: 2,248
untamed is on a distinguished road
Default

I'm recalling that study that recently tried to measure WHAT was being removed by skimmers and how quickly various models removed it.

I believe that their conclusions were that the "larger" skimmer (the one the processed a larger volume of water per hour) removed the measured stuff more quickly, but that all the skimmers tested reduced the measured stuff to about the same level given time.

It struck me that a big difference between the test environment and an actual aquarium is that the aquarium continually generates new waste so a truly undersized skimmer won't ever get the chance to catch up and waste could accumulate.

Yes, I agree...it is more about bioload than actual water volume.

IMHO, size matters. In order to increase the amount of water it can process per hour, the chamber needs to get bigger. Increasing the flow rate with a smaller chamber just reduces the amount of time the water is in contact with the air bubbles (dwell time). In my case, I wanted to get to 1.5x tank volume per hour (600gph) with 2 minute dwell time inside the skimmer. That means that I need to have a 20 gallon chamber....yikes!

After that, I didn't really pay attention to what the skimmer says it is rated for.
__________________
400 gal reef. Established April, 2007. 3 Sequence Dart, RM12-4 skimmer, 2 x OM4Ways, Yellow Tang, Maroon Clown (pair), Blonde Naso Tang, Vlamingi Tang, Foxface Rabbit, Unicorn Tang, 2 Pakistani Butterflies and a few coral gobies

My Tank: http://www.canreef.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=28436

Last edited by untamed; 10-09-2009 at 08:14 PM.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 02:21 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.