Canreef Aquatics Bulletin Board  

Go Back   Canreef Aquatics Bulletin Board > General > DIY

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old 04-07-2004, 01:21 AM
Quinn Quinn is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Posts: 2,305
Quinn is on a distinguished road
Default

I guess that question would be equally applicable to just about anyone here. Does anyone worry about overskimming?
__________________
-Quinn

Man, n. ...His chief occupation is extermination of other animals and his own species, which, however, multiplies with such insistent rapidity as to infest the whole habitable earth, and Canada. - A. Bierce, Devil's Dictionary, 1906
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 04-07-2004, 01:27 AM
Aquattro's Avatar
Aquattro Aquattro is offline
Just a guy..
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Victoria, BC
Posts: 18,053
Aquattro is a jewel in the roughAquattro is a jewel in the roughAquattro is a jewel in the roughAquattro is a jewel in the rough
Default

Quinn, personally I think more is better. What are your concerns with this "overskimming" concept? What would I remove with too much skimming and why is it an issue?
__________________
Brad
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 04-07-2004, 01:38 AM
Quinn Quinn is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Posts: 2,305
Quinn is on a distinguished road
Default

Well, I haven't looked into it really, but I've read a few concerns regarding removing more organic material that is necessary, organic material that would serve as a food source for reef fauna, notably corals. I think a few people have written on the subject, possibly in AAOM or RK. I guess the idea is to avoid sterilizing your tank.
__________________
-Quinn

Man, n. ...His chief occupation is extermination of other animals and his own species, which, however, multiplies with such insistent rapidity as to infest the whole habitable earth, and Canada. - A. Bierce, Devil's Dictionary, 1906
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 04-07-2004, 02:42 AM
BCOrchidGuy BCOrchidGuy is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Coquitlam, BC
Posts: 2,172
BCOrchidGuy is on a distinguished road
Default

Quinn I also beleive you can overskim but, I don't know enough about it to put up a good arguement, if you can't overskim why not have a skimmer on a nano, so far my 155 has been running skimmer free for 2 months and I'm thinking I may stay skimmer free.. have to see...

Doug
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 04-07-2004, 03:12 AM
whaase's Avatar
whaase whaase is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Calgary, Ab
Posts: 708
whaase is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by asmodeus
BECAUSE SIZE MATTERS
I think it's more in how you use it!

Walter
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 04-07-2004, 03:13 AM
StirCrazy's Avatar
StirCrazy StirCrazy is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Kamloops, BC
Posts: 7,872
StirCrazy is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by teevee
Well, I haven't looked into it really, but I've read a few concerns regarding removing more organic material that is necessary, organic material that would serve as a food source for reef fauna, notably corals. I think a few people have written on the subject, possibly in AAOM or RK. I guess the idea is to avoid sterilizing your tank.
Teevee, if are worried about over skimming I don't think I need to be. I skim my sump basically @ a rate of 1200 gal per hour. now my sump has about 20 gal of water in it. now the sump is feed by the main tank 94gal volume at a rate of 1200 gph and also by the secondary tank (23gal) at a rate of 600 gph.

now you will never get 100% efficiency in a skimmer something is always going to get through and this is compounded by the fact that the water flowing in is at a greater rate than the skimmer is processing, there for it is only skimming 66% of the water that flow through it. this is further compounded that not all the water that come from the tank is only un-skimmed water, as the new water returns to the tank it mixes and you get a blend so there are further inefficiency's there. so while you can come close to achieving a 0 nutrient level you will never actually be able to obtain it.

Another reason for max skimming is it allows you to feed more as the excess will be removed be for it can break down and cause problems. this is an advantage because you can feed your tank more.

another and probably the last reason I am not worried about it is that it is my opinion that most SPS obtain up to (and maybe more than) 98% of there food from there symbiotic algae or in simpler terms the light. and the remainder from ingesting (or how ever the do it) bacteria and food particles from the water. this also seams to support the "less nutrients the better" general consensus for SPS.

Steve
__________________
*everything said above is just my opinion, and may or may not reflect the views of this BBS, its Operators, and its Members. If cornered on any “opinion” I post I will totally deny having ever said this in a Court of Law…Unless I am the right one*

Some strive to be perfect.... I just strive.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 04-07-2004, 04:02 AM
Quinn Quinn is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Posts: 2,305
Quinn is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by StirCrazy
Teevee, if are worried about over skimming I don't think I need to be. I skim my sump basically @ a rate of 1200 gal per hour. now my sump has about 20 gal of water in it. now the sump is feed by the main tank 94gal volume at a rate of 1200 gph and also by the secondary tank (23gal) at a rate of 600 gph.
What pump will you have on this skimmer?

Quote:
Originally Posted by StirCrazy
Another reason for max skimming is it allows you to feed more as the excess will be removed be for it can break down and cause problems. this is an advantage because you can feed your tank more.
Yes, that is true.

Quote:
Originally Posted by StirCrazy
another and probably the last reason I am not worried about it is that it is my opinion that most SPS obtain up to (and maybe more than) 98% of there food from there symbiotic algae or in simpler terms the light. and the remainder from ingesting (or how ever the do it) bacteria and food particles from the water. this also seams to support the "less nutrients the better" general consensus for SPS.
What makes you think it's 98% and not say 99% or 96%?
__________________
-Quinn

Man, n. ...His chief occupation is extermination of other animals and his own species, which, however, multiplies with such insistent rapidity as to infest the whole habitable earth, and Canada. - A. Bierce, Devil's Dictionary, 1906
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 04-07-2004, 04:09 AM
StirCrazy's Avatar
StirCrazy StirCrazy is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Kamloops, BC
Posts: 7,872
StirCrazy is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by teevee
What pump will you have on this skimmer?
I am starting with a MAK4 running two becketts, if it does a good job say lavee, if not I will either get a bigger pump or a second MAK4


Quote:
Originally Posted by teevee
What makes you think it's 98% and not say 99% or 96%?
um.. "up to (and maybe more than) 98%" so that would cover 96 and 99 in other words they obtain "MOST" of there food......

Steve
__________________
*everything said above is just my opinion, and may or may not reflect the views of this BBS, its Operators, and its Members. If cornered on any “opinion” I post I will totally deny having ever said this in a Court of Law…Unless I am the right one*

Some strive to be perfect.... I just strive.
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 07:08 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.