PRC
Stop Quoting Me!
The brown algae is pretty normal at first, but you could probably adjust it a bit by getting the lights closer to the screen. You want them 4" or closer. If you still can't get green, you'll need to adjust the water flow.
Mega Powerful Nitrate and Phosphate Remover - DIY!
- Thread starter SantaMonica
- Start date
Wes888
Reef enthusiast
My lights are actually closer than 3". The water flow is more than enough. It's a QuietOne 4000. After the head pressure and turns, i think i still have 50% more than recommended flow. I may have to try to use a slower pump.
vonjankmon
Reefing newb
Just finished setting up a 90G upgrade from my 55G. 90G DT, 30 gallon sump that stays about half full, and a 20G Refug. I built the algae scrubber into the return from the DT into the sump. The return is around 600GPH but some of it is draining past the screen, I need to adjust it a bit to put more flow over the screen but it has a good flow right now.
The screen is 12 inches across by about 18 into the water. The bottom of the screen isn't getting much light right now so I need to get more lights for it but I've got two 23W CFL's with reflectors about 3-4 inches away from each side of the screen. The screen is two of the plastic mesh screens together. The two pictures are from day 5 of the 90G being setup. Getting some growth already, which is good since I'm getting diatom and algae growth in the DT right now too. Hoping/estimating that the DT will be clean of algae in about 2 months, maybe a bit more as I will probably be feeding heavily. Opinions/suggestions welcome.
The screen is 12 inches across by about 18 into the water. The bottom of the screen isn't getting much light right now so I need to get more lights for it but I've got two 23W CFL's with reflectors about 3-4 inches away from each side of the screen. The screen is two of the plastic mesh screens together. The two pictures are from day 5 of the 90G being setup. Getting some growth already, which is good since I'm getting diatom and algae growth in the DT right now too. Hoping/estimating that the DT will be clean of algae in about 2 months, maybe a bit more as I will probably be feeding heavily. Opinions/suggestions welcome.
Well, I managed to sock my way through all 67 pages of this post, and I'm impressed by your dedication to the "cause", SM.
I'm going to be setting up a new tank...likely about a 90gal with a 30gal sump. The plan was to have a skimmer section and a refug., but I think I'm going to leave the skimmer out and build myself a scrubber similar to your design with the T5 strapped to either side. Couple of questions, though:
1) I know there's a "too small", but is there a "too big"? I will have enough room under my stand that I could probably double or triple the size of your design. Will that make it less efficient, or mean that I maybe won't have to clean it as often to keep the good algae "visible"?
2) LEDs. Looks like nobody has really tried this yet. I'm not really keen on having to replace a bunch of fairly pricey T5 tubes every couple of months...which brings me to my next question
3) T8 tubes. They do use more watts per lumen of output than a T5 (and far more than a T5HO), but they are dirt cheap. They also make far less heat (about 25% less) than a T5. Is there some other reason why I shouldn't be considering using T8s instead of T5s?
Thanks, everyone!
I'm going to be setting up a new tank...likely about a 90gal with a 30gal sump. The plan was to have a skimmer section and a refug., but I think I'm going to leave the skimmer out and build myself a scrubber similar to your design with the T5 strapped to either side. Couple of questions, though:
1) I know there's a "too small", but is there a "too big"? I will have enough room under my stand that I could probably double or triple the size of your design. Will that make it less efficient, or mean that I maybe won't have to clean it as often to keep the good algae "visible"?
2) LEDs. Looks like nobody has really tried this yet. I'm not really keen on having to replace a bunch of fairly pricey T5 tubes every couple of months...which brings me to my next question
3) T8 tubes. They do use more watts per lumen of output than a T5 (and far more than a T5HO), but they are dirt cheap. They also make far less heat (about 25% less) than a T5. Is there some other reason why I shouldn't be considering using T8s instead of T5s?
Thanks, everyone!
PRC
Stop Quoting Me!
Why don't you just use the CFL bulbs? They're only about $7.00 and they're readily available at HD or Lowes. They work great and inexpensive.
Wes888
Reef enthusiast
My guess is that Kliman01 is trying to make it into a "too big" size, say, 4-6 feet long. That would require many CFL bulbs.
PRC
Stop Quoting Me!
oh. that makes sense.
Bifferwine
I am a girl
True. Plus you hardly ever have to change them. The two CFLs I use over my fuge are on 24/7, and they've been on for over a year now. The bulbs haven't burned out yet, after a year of continuous use.
I like the efficiency of the "clamshell" design that santamonica has come up with. Enclosed tubes on both sides with no "wasted" light.
I'm not thinking 4' long. Still 2-3', but possibly more like 12" tall with more lighting. The t8 tube question is mostly because I have a big box of them already as well as several appropriate fixtures.
I'm not thinking 4' long. Still 2-3', but possibly more like 12" tall with more lighting. The t8 tube question is mostly because I have a big box of them already as well as several appropriate fixtures.
Wes888
Reef enthusiast
Yea, i really like that design as well. No wasted light and no water splashing everywhere.
Before I built my latest one, i almost tried to make a similar "clamshell" design one. After getting all the mats and I found it costed a bit too much for my liking, so I returned them all and used a cheap 10g tank instead.
Before I built my latest one, i almost tried to make a similar "clamshell" design one. After getting all the mats and I found it costed a bit too much for my liking, so I returned them all and used a cheap 10g tank instead.
SantaMonica
Reefing newb
There is not too big. The bigger the export (scrubber), the large the input can be (feeding). You will always need to clean, however.
No successful LED setups yet. Too hard to build; too many unknowns.
I don't know. T5's are just easier to work with because of the small size, and they are less that $5 each.
Must be changed every 3 months. The output power drops dramatically after this point. You can't see it, but the lumens/par/photons go way down, and so does scrubber growth. Each molecule of ammonia or nitrite etc that is removed from the water by the algae require one photon of light. Refugiums don't grow or filter much anyway, so you would not notice the difference when the bulb got weak. When scrubber bulbs get weak, tank go from no-algae to algae everywhere.
Bifferwine
I am a girl
The chaeto in my fuge grows fast enough that I'm able to sell 20 to 30 bags of it each month, and still never run out of it.
I guess we will find out how T8 tubes do then...I know in the USA a lot of this stuff is a lot cheaper than it is here in Canada (I always hate hearing how your PVC pipe is like $0.20/foot and the fitting are under $1...grrr). I can't find T5 tubes for less than $12/ea, and the same size T8 are like $3.
I'm going to be building the sump myself (acrylic) and plan to integrate the scrubber right in. Lots of pics to come, of course.
I'm going to be building the sump myself (acrylic) and plan to integrate the scrubber right in. Lots of pics to come, of course.
SantaMonica
Reefing newb
Great Barrier Reef Aquarium
Many people who have not built a scrubber properly (after August 1988) often say how the Great Barrier Reef aquarium was a scrubber "failure" because the corals did poorly. Apparently these people have not done much reading. In the early days of that aquarium, the scrubber was doing it's job great:
1988:
Nutrient Cycling In The Great Barrier Reef Aquarium
ReefBase :: Log In
"The Reef Tank represents the first application of algal scrubber technology to large volume aquarium systems. Aquaria using conventional water purification methods (e.g. bacterial filters) generally have nutrient levels in parts per million, while algal scrubbers have maintained parts per billion concentrations [much lower], despite heavy biological loading in the Reef Tank. The success of the algal scrubbers in maintaining suitable water quality for a coral reef was demonstrated in the observed spawning of scleractinian corals and many other tank inhabitants."
But did you know that they did not add calcium? That's right, in 1988 they did not know that calcium needed to be added to a reef tank. Even five years after that, the Pittsburgh Zoo was just starting to test a "mesocosm" scrubber reef tank to see if calcium levels would drop:
1993:
An Introduction to the Biogeochemical Cycling of Calcium and Substitutive Strontium in Living Coral Reef Mesocosms
An introduction to the biogeochemical cycling of calcium and substitutive strontium in living coral reef mesocosms - Lang - 2005 - Zoo Biology - Wiley Online Library
"It was hypothesized that Ca2+ and the substitutive elements Sr2+ and Mg2+ might [!] have reduced concentrations in a coral reef microcosm due to continuous reuse of the same seawater as a consequence of the recycling process inherent in the coral reef mesocosm."
"The scleractinians (Montastrea, Madracis, Porites, Diploria, and Acropora) and calcareous alga (Halimeda and others) present in the coral reef mesocosm are the most likely organisms responsible for the significant reduction in concentration of the Ca2+ and Sr2+ cations."
"Ca is not normally a biolimiting element, and strontium is never a biolimiting element; HCO3 [alk] can be. It appears that, because of a minor [!] limitation in the design parameters of the mesocosm, these elements and compounds may have become limiting factors. [...] It is surprising that the organisms could deplete the thousands of gallons of seawater (three to six thousand) of these elements even within two or more years [!!].
"The calcification processes are little understood."
So then in the late 90's, the Barrier Reef aquarium start using up it's supply of calcium, and the folks there said "the corals grew poorly". Really. No calcium, and the corals grew poorly. So they "removed the scrubbers" and "experimented with the addition of calcium" sometime after 1998. Then in 2004 it "definitely improved a lot". Really.
Many people who have not built a scrubber properly (after August 1988) often say how the Great Barrier Reef aquarium was a scrubber "failure" because the corals did poorly. Apparently these people have not done much reading. In the early days of that aquarium, the scrubber was doing it's job great:
1988:
Nutrient Cycling In The Great Barrier Reef Aquarium
ReefBase :: Log In
"The Reef Tank represents the first application of algal scrubber technology to large volume aquarium systems. Aquaria using conventional water purification methods (e.g. bacterial filters) generally have nutrient levels in parts per million, while algal scrubbers have maintained parts per billion concentrations [much lower], despite heavy biological loading in the Reef Tank. The success of the algal scrubbers in maintaining suitable water quality for a coral reef was demonstrated in the observed spawning of scleractinian corals and many other tank inhabitants."
But did you know that they did not add calcium? That's right, in 1988 they did not know that calcium needed to be added to a reef tank. Even five years after that, the Pittsburgh Zoo was just starting to test a "mesocosm" scrubber reef tank to see if calcium levels would drop:
1993:
An Introduction to the Biogeochemical Cycling of Calcium and Substitutive Strontium in Living Coral Reef Mesocosms
An introduction to the biogeochemical cycling of calcium and substitutive strontium in living coral reef mesocosms - Lang - 2005 - Zoo Biology - Wiley Online Library
"It was hypothesized that Ca2+ and the substitutive elements Sr2+ and Mg2+ might [!] have reduced concentrations in a coral reef microcosm due to continuous reuse of the same seawater as a consequence of the recycling process inherent in the coral reef mesocosm."
"The scleractinians (Montastrea, Madracis, Porites, Diploria, and Acropora) and calcareous alga (Halimeda and others) present in the coral reef mesocosm are the most likely organisms responsible for the significant reduction in concentration of the Ca2+ and Sr2+ cations."
"Ca is not normally a biolimiting element, and strontium is never a biolimiting element; HCO3 [alk] can be. It appears that, because of a minor [!] limitation in the design parameters of the mesocosm, these elements and compounds may have become limiting factors. [...] It is surprising that the organisms could deplete the thousands of gallons of seawater (three to six thousand) of these elements even within two or more years [!!].
"The calcification processes are little understood."
So then in the late 90's, the Barrier Reef aquarium start using up it's supply of calcium, and the folks there said "the corals grew poorly". Really. No calcium, and the corals grew poorly. So they "removed the scrubbers" and "experimented with the addition of calcium" sometime after 1998. Then in 2004 it "definitely improved a lot". Really.
SantaMonica
Reefing newb
Low-light Scrubbers
Here is something new, different, and untested. I have not built one yet, but it should work for either SW or FW if the size and flow are correct. It is a vertical scrubber that you hang on the wall, and it requires NO electricity. It is a "low-light" scrubber:
I got the idea when reading a study about algae growth in freshwater streams:
"Algal Response to Nutrient Enrichment In Forested Oligotrophic Streams". Journal of Phycology, June 2008. ALGAL RESPONSE TO NUTRIENT ENRICHMENT IN FORESTED OLIGOTROPHIC STREAM1 - Veraart - 2008 - Journal of Phycology - Wiley Online Library
"Algae inhabiting forested streams have the capacity to acclimate to low light intensity. These light conditions affect their photosynthetic efficiency, but do not impair growth rates, in particular, in the case of thin diatom-dominated communities."
In other words, they don't filter as much per square inch (or per square cm) of area, but they do operate on very low light. Apparently it is mostly diatoms that grow in these low-light conditions.
The advantage of a scrubber like this should be obvious: It requires no electricity to power the screen. It still requires a pump, however, since the top of the scrubber would (probably) be high above the top of the tank. The scrubber is designed to operate on the light already available in the room, which would vary greatly depending on how strong the light bulbs are in the room, and how much sunlight comes in through the windows. The more average light the room has, the smaller the scrubber can be. The less light, the bigger it needs to be. Basically, the scrubber uses more area to make up for less light. And since the light is so low, the type of algae that is able to survive is (apparently) mostly diatoms.
Just as with regular scrubbers, the wider the unit it, the more flow is required. So in the spirit of keeping it from consuming too much electricty, a smaller pump could be used if the unit were narrow and tall. But the bottom of the unit will need to drain into either the tank or the sump, so there will be a limit to how low the bottom can be. And the limit to the top will be the ceiling. A tradeoff will need to be made, maybe so that it looks like a vertical picture on the wall. Fortunately the flow does not need to be as much as a regular scrubber, since it is one-sided only.
It will have to be experimented with to see if a clear cover is needed to stop any water dropletts from splashing out. Many people have decorative waterfalls of the same size as these, and they have no cover on them, so maybe water dropletts getting on the floor will not happen. Evaporation would be high though, and this might be reason enough to consider a clear cover.
Cleaning could (apparently) be done by having a removeable screen or porous sheet, just like a regular scrubber has. It would be big though, and would drip as you took it out. Also it probably would not fit into a sink, and so would need a bathtub or shower (or outside) for cleaning. A possible fix for this might be a very flexibe woven plastic mesh, which you could fold up like a towell and easily clean in a sink. A material like this might not lay down flat when it's in the scrubber, however.
This type of scrubber would be easiest to try for somebody with a cement floor, lots of wall space, open widows or skylights, a low sump, high ceilings, and a big sink or patio for cleaning. I have no idea of the size required for the unit.
Here is something new, different, and untested. I have not built one yet, but it should work for either SW or FW if the size and flow are correct. It is a vertical scrubber that you hang on the wall, and it requires NO electricity. It is a "low-light" scrubber:
I got the idea when reading a study about algae growth in freshwater streams:
"Algal Response to Nutrient Enrichment In Forested Oligotrophic Streams". Journal of Phycology, June 2008. ALGAL RESPONSE TO NUTRIENT ENRICHMENT IN FORESTED OLIGOTROPHIC STREAM1 - Veraart - 2008 - Journal of Phycology - Wiley Online Library
"Algae inhabiting forested streams have the capacity to acclimate to low light intensity. These light conditions affect their photosynthetic efficiency, but do not impair growth rates, in particular, in the case of thin diatom-dominated communities."
In other words, they don't filter as much per square inch (or per square cm) of area, but they do operate on very low light. Apparently it is mostly diatoms that grow in these low-light conditions.
The advantage of a scrubber like this should be obvious: It requires no electricity to power the screen. It still requires a pump, however, since the top of the scrubber would (probably) be high above the top of the tank. The scrubber is designed to operate on the light already available in the room, which would vary greatly depending on how strong the light bulbs are in the room, and how much sunlight comes in through the windows. The more average light the room has, the smaller the scrubber can be. The less light, the bigger it needs to be. Basically, the scrubber uses more area to make up for less light. And since the light is so low, the type of algae that is able to survive is (apparently) mostly diatoms.
Just as with regular scrubbers, the wider the unit it, the more flow is required. So in the spirit of keeping it from consuming too much electricty, a smaller pump could be used if the unit were narrow and tall. But the bottom of the unit will need to drain into either the tank or the sump, so there will be a limit to how low the bottom can be. And the limit to the top will be the ceiling. A tradeoff will need to be made, maybe so that it looks like a vertical picture on the wall. Fortunately the flow does not need to be as much as a regular scrubber, since it is one-sided only.
It will have to be experimented with to see if a clear cover is needed to stop any water dropletts from splashing out. Many people have decorative waterfalls of the same size as these, and they have no cover on them, so maybe water dropletts getting on the floor will not happen. Evaporation would be high though, and this might be reason enough to consider a clear cover.
Cleaning could (apparently) be done by having a removeable screen or porous sheet, just like a regular scrubber has. It would be big though, and would drip as you took it out. Also it probably would not fit into a sink, and so would need a bathtub or shower (or outside) for cleaning. A possible fix for this might be a very flexibe woven plastic mesh, which you could fold up like a towell and easily clean in a sink. A material like this might not lay down flat when it's in the scrubber, however.
This type of scrubber would be easiest to try for somebody with a cement floor, lots of wall space, open widows or skylights, a low sump, high ceilings, and a big sink or patio for cleaning. I have no idea of the size required for the unit.
SantaMonica
Reefing newb
New Feeding Guideline:
Each cube of frozen food you feed per day needs 12 square inches of screen, with a light on both sides totalling 12 watts. Thus a nano that is fed one cube a day would need a screen 3 X 4 inches with a 6 watt bulb on each side. A larger tank that is fed 10 cubes a day would need a screen 10 X 12 inches with 60 watts of light on each side.
Each cube of frozen food you feed per day needs 12 square inches of screen, with a light on both sides totalling 12 watts. Thus a nano that is fed one cube a day would need a screen 3 X 4 inches with a 6 watt bulb on each side. A larger tank that is fed 10 cubes a day would need a screen 10 X 12 inches with 60 watts of light on each side.
imdaring
love my reef
santamonica is it ok to use tinfoil to stop the spray off the spray bar
Piratefish
SPS Freak
You can buy metal tape from Home Depot its used for HVAC ducts. I don't know if tinfoil will leach anything into the water, that would be my only concern.
I just want to plug using a scrubber. Ive had mine running now for just over 2 months. My water is in great shape just some minor adjustments on ALK and Ca that im working out. My tank was started July 1st of this year. I have lots of pods and the fish love them. The corals are happy too.
I just want to plug using a scrubber. Ive had mine running now for just over 2 months. My water is in great shape just some minor adjustments on ALK and Ca that im working out. My tank was started July 1st of this year. I have lots of pods and the fish love them. The corals are happy too.
SantaMonica
Reefing newb
As long as the water is not spraying on the foil all the time, it should not be too bad.
imdaring
love my reef
mine sprays all the time I think I need to make the slit wider
