Jump to content
Top Shelf Aquatics

Micro-Small Algae Remover System for Nano's: Free!


SantaMonica

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 612
  • Created
  • Last Reply
...

Q: Where can I buy a scrubber?

A: Nobody currently manufactures or sells scrubbers. After 1.5 years of waiting, however, one will be available shortly.

...

 

 

yeah! :)

Link to comment
That's a lot of people to post anti-scrubber comments online. And they are paid to do it.

 

I would love to get in on this because i need some extra money to buy a skimmer :lol:

Link to comment
NightAtTheOpera
I stand corrected. :) I just knew there'd be at least one...and I was familiar with this particular one!

 

Any info on the life support? I know there's a deep sand bed...do they run skimmers as well? Activated carbon? Water change regimen?

 

I think part of the issue with SM's threads is that so many of them seem to tout why ATSs are better than other filtration methods. This:

 

"It will replace (or keep you from needing) a skimmer, refugium, phosphate removers, nitrate removers, carbon, filtersocks, and possibly even waterchanges."

 

Is dangerous type of info to be spreading around to the newbs IMHO.

 

 

 

 

Would "costs and weighs nothing" be another example of weasel words?

 

Someone is going to murdalize me for reviving this thread but I can't help myself. Please don't ban me!

 

The Smithsonian Marine Station uses ATS's (designed by, you guessed it, Dr. Adey) as their primary method of nutrient export and uses activated carbon primarily to remove the yellow plant pigments which can build up and block light, particularly in the Coral Reef model. They use protein skimmers in all but the Mangrove model because skimmers are best at removing organic compounds produced by animals such as mucus and specialized compounds produced for defense. Mechanical filters are only used when neccessary to clear up cloudy water caused by a serious stir up of the sand bed by inhabitants or staff. As for water changes, they change 10% to 20% of the water once a year; the ATS's make routine water changes unneccesary. The water exchange is done only to replenish rare nutrients and other compounds, as well as remove accumulatad detritus and/or loose algae.

 

This shows that an ATS can be the best form of filtration for an aquarium. However, this doesn't mean that I believe that the average reefer can setup an effective scrubber, or that a tiny 5" X 5" piece is enough to do squat for even a nano. I don't know what size the scrubbers at the Smithsonian Marine station are but I'll bet they are substantial. I DO know that they were designed by pros to be safe, setup by pros to provide the best nutrient export possible and are maintained by pros, probably on a daily basis. Since most of us are anything but pros (double that for us newbies) I think that the chaeto in the refuge is our best and safest bet at using algae for nutrient export. For all I know the only reason the Smithsonian doesn't do the same is because it's easier to maintain racks of algae instead of balls the size of Volkswagon Jettas.

Link to comment

I have been to the Smithsonian aquarium, you can check it out here:

http://www.sms.si.edu/SMEE/virtual_tour.htm

 

they sort of have a nuisance algae problem, (mostly cyano and hair algae) but the aquarium is very natural looking, the animals are healthy, and that is what their goal is. The systems are biotopes, and they look pretty natural to me, the IRL doesn't really look like a TOTM, it looks more like those Smithsonian tanks. But I wouldn't use that particular setup as an example of an ATS that doesn't work well to reduce nuisance algae either though. I think its relevance to the ATS vs. Skimmer argument is minimal. The tanks have skimmers on them at times, carbon and ATS as well as fair amount of nuisance algae outside of the ATS to do their filtering so there is isn't even a real control. Besides, if they wanted to have a TOTM type of tank, they would probably want to bump up the water changes to something more than 10-20% each year that was quoted. That is probably "the problem" they are running into, not enough water changes. Maybe get some turkey baster work on the rocks, stir up some more of that detritus and break out the mechanical filtration more often. Perhaps get some filter floss in there or something. Switch out that carbon for some chemi pure, dose some vodka or zeovit....etc...million and one ways to keep a tank. The Smithsonian's method though is to let it develop naturally, nuisance algae included so it looks like the actual IRL, which is not something you will find often as a hobbyist tank. Their decision to use an ATS I don't think supports the claim that "This shows that an ATS can be the best form of filtration for an aquarium.", I think it supports the claim that "This shows that an ATS can be a form of filtration for an aquarium." It comes down to that point you were alluding to, that each tank is different and it depends on the use.

Link to comment
HecticDialectics
Someone is going to murdalize me for reviving this thread but I can't help myself. Please don't ban me!

 

The Smithsonian Marine Station uses ATS's (designed by, you guessed it, Dr. Adey) as their primary method of nutrient export and uses activated carbon primarily to remove the yellow plant pigments which can build up and block light, particularly in the Coral Reef model. They use protein skimmers in all but the Mangrove model because skimmers are best at removing organic compounds produced by animals such as mucus and specialized compounds produced for defense. Mechanical filters are only used when neccessary to clear up cloudy water caused by a serious stir up of the sand bed by inhabitants or staff. As for water changes, they change 10% to 20% of the water once a year; the ATS's make routine water changes unneccesary. The water exchange is done only to replenish rare nutrients and other compounds, as well as remove accumulatad detritus and/or loose algae.

 

This shows that an ATS can be the best form of filtration for an aquarium. However, this doesn't mean that I believe that the average reefer can setup an effective scrubber, or that a tiny 5" X 5" piece is enough to do squat for even a nano. I don't know what size the scrubbers at the Smithsonian Marine station are but I'll bet they are substantial. I DO know that they were designed by pros to be safe, setup by pros to provide the best nutrient export possible and are maintained by pros, probably on a daily basis. Since most of us are anything but pros (double that for us newbies) I think that the chaeto in the refuge is our best and safest bet at using algae for nutrient export. For all I know the only reason the Smithsonian doesn't do the same is because it's easier to maintain racks of algae instead of balls the size of Volkswagon Jettas.

 

No, that shows that ATS can be used in combination with other chemical and mechanical means of filtration to produce a healthy environment for marine ecosystems.

 

 

Also, I think the protein skimmer line is funny, so I bolded it. Because, for some reason, these ATS guys love to rag on protein skimmers to try and make an ATS look like the only way to go... I think that's the biggest problem everyone has with this ludicrous thread. It's not so much that ATS can't theoretically work to help remove excess nutrients, its all the additional crazy claims the wing-nuts are making at the expense of all other forms of filtration. Just be honest.

 

Oh, and of course, Santa Monica is bastardizing science and research to extents not seen since the Galileo Affair

Link to comment

I read this on their site concerning coral reefs:

 

"The high diversity of plants and animals on coral reefs is a valuable natural resource and future source of new medicines and industrial chemicals. Many compounds have been discovered that have potential pharmaceutical value, including some used to treat AIDS and cancer."

 

I don't doubt this, but would like to read more... anyone have links on this?

 

edit: just did a google search and found this:

 

Curacin A, is a commonly used drug to treat several types of cancer including colon, lung and breast cancer, was discovered from research done in coral reef eco system. Another is AZT, which is the most widely used treatment for people suffering from HIV and AIDS. Chemicals harvested from reef-associated species may offer new treatments for leukemia, skin cancer, and tumors. According to one estimate, one-half of all new cancer drug research now focuses on marine organisms...

 

OT, but at least interesting!

Link to comment
Oh, and of course, Santa Monica is bastardizing science and research to extents not seen since the Galileo Affair

 

haha

 

also, anyone trying to pitch a method claiming it will eliminate the need for water changes needs to gfy. that may work for some, but just having an ATS isn't going to make that a reality for everyone. not to mention an ATS of any descent size to do a descent amount of work isn't really practical for nano tanks, which is the primary audience of this forum.

 

people used to try to sell euro-reef skimmers, when they first came to the market, telling people it would eliminate the need to do water changes :lol: trust me, I've heard every lame sales pitch in the book and the way the ATS is being presented in this thread is one of them.

Link to comment

Update: Cleaning algae off of the rocks.

 

If you are running a scrubber to help remove algae from the display, try first running the scrubber without manually removing algae off of the rocks. This is because when you scrub algae off of the rocks (or if you put a lawnmower or similar in) while the rocks are still in the tank, the algae will float around and die, causing a nutrient spike. It's better to let the scrubber slowly remove the algae for you. This will prevent spikes, and is less work too.

 

However, if there are LOTS of algae in the display (so much so that the phosphate and nitrate tests are zero), then your scrubber may not easily compete, even after many weeks. So if after four weeks you don't notice a reduction in algae in the display, then slowly start removing algae manually from the display (or, add a small algae eater). Don't remove TOO much algae at once (or don't get TOO big of an algae eater) because that will generate a spike too. Once the algae in the display has been reduced some, your scrubber should be able to take over from there, and all the rest of the nuisance algae should slowly go away.

 

Note: This does not apply if you remove the rocks from the system before cleaning. Removing rocks can be done at any time, but is much more work.

Link to comment

New Year Update: Screen Roughness

 

It's becoming more and more clear how important a rough screen is. A year ago it was thought that lighting was most important, but only because you could see new growth easily from stronger light. The effects of a smooth screen are not nearly as obvious, because you start losing small pieces of algae off the screen bit-by-bit, but they are covered up by the other algae. So here is an example of how fast a brand-new screen can grow; it is just 4 days old, but it is two layers of cactus-rough plastic canvas:

 

FourDaysRoughScreen.jpg

 

 

 

Which gives us a new goal:

 

Sticker.jpg

Link to comment

it's easier to maintain racks of algae instead of balls the size of Volkswagon Jettas.

 

 

i don't know about that.....i maintain mine pretty easily!

 

 

 

 

:naughtydance:

 

 

 

 

 

:slap:

i couldn't resist! ok i'm done for the night........

Link to comment

what the hell is the point of this thread? why are you posting this on so many forums?

 

are you trying to revolutionize the reefing hobby with your outdated 1970's-1990's methodology?

 

trust me, i'm an old school dude...I love n.o. fluorescent bulbs and plenums, but why are you so damn obsessed?

 

and of all places why post on a forum dedicated to nano reefs? algae scrubbers just simply aren't very practical for tanks this small.

Link to comment

why not greens. free critical criticism and r and d for a product you have a huge claim to. if you lose, the sn santa monica is the fail. if you succeed, you're a reef celebrity. win win imo

Link to comment

yeah, i'm sure this product will be a hot seller...especially since people haven't been diy'ing these (which are incredibly simple to make) for years.

 

:rolleyes:

Link to comment

i never said it'd be successful, only that he's getting a lot more useful input by forcing the subject than he would have by having an open dialogue.

 

also I think his forum might be more active than you'd expect

Link to comment

I feel it's a valid thread in the very least because it can get one to thinking about natural filtration methods and because it employs testing from several public people who can be contacted other than santamonica. I challenge you to find another as-heated topic where as many people bought into trying it, probably deep sand beds is the most recent and many still use that method even though it's out for others. Sand bedding has varied effects on the captive ecosystem, so does natural turf scrubbing, skimming, etc its all different means to an end.

 

How many forums it's posted on has no bearing to me, in my opinion trolls don't stay around to discuss methodologies...and the fact it's on different boards catches people who don't travel around much.

 

personally there have been some interesting scientific responses from people who were prodded by reading the thread wherever it was. I personally would not use one because I fear algae in a pico but that doesn't mean Im right or that the concept is not applicable, bet someone will eventually build a pico screener and id agree to read that thread too lol

 

I'd have a lot more trouble finding credibility in this thread were it not for the hosts of posters I've known before santamonica came on board who are using simple test kits to determine lack of nitrate and phosphate. In the very least I can't really call those guys total liars, and they got this idea from santamonica, not from reading 1970's material, so you really can't call the thread close worthy other than for the fire peeps posted on it, not for the subject original. Threads that suck don't get much traffic

combined views of 200K across forums means it's likely the number one single most popular internet aquarium thread of 2009, dang

B

Link to comment
  • 2 weeks later...

Several updates:

 

1. The algae that does the filtering in the oceans (algae is 90 percent of all life, except for bacteria) is planktonic, meaning they are small particles floating in the water. This is why the ocean is greenish in color. The tiny bit of algae on the beaches is not enough to do any filtering for an entire ocean.

 

2. Brown-to-Green. Algae on your screen will start off brown, then go to green, after several cleanings. But brown aglae STILL filters; it's just that it's the type of algae that grows when nutrients are high. If your screen never turns green, you are still getting filtering from the brown; it's just that your scrubber is not strong enough to get nutrients low enough to grow green (based on how much you are currently feeding).

 

3. Real turf algae (the kinds that is tough like carpet) is not needed. Last year I posted that real turf was best, but now it's been shown that in DIY aquarium scrubbers, green hair and even brown slime filters just as well. And that's a good thing because real turf almost never grows because it gets covered up by green and brown (unless you use a surge, which kills the green and brown with lack of flow.)

 

4. Fish-only tanks don't need tiny particles of food in the water, and thus don't benefit as much from scrubbers. However if you are going to run a skimmerless fish-only tank, and if you are not going to have any mechanical filter at all (like a filter sock), one thing you can do is use very little flow in the display, so that all fish waste will fall to the bottom. Then, make sure you have enough cleanup's on the bottom to break the waste up into tiny particles. The quicker the particles are broken up, the quicker bacteria can convert them into ammonia, nitrate and phosphate, and the quicker the scrubber can absorb these things. However if you are going to have any mechanical filters at all (including a skimmer), then you want high flow along the bottom of the tank so that the particles will get taken away to the filters for removal.

 

5. T5 bulbs are better, for the same wattage, because all the power is distributed evenly across the screen. CFL bulbs have to be moved further away, because the center spot gets too much power, but the farther spots don't get enough. T5 scrubbers are MUCH harder to build, however.

 

6. I keep hearing "Yes, skimmers DO remove nitrate and phosphate! They just do it by removing organics BEFORE they break down into nitrates and phosphates". That's just great. Organics, before they "break down", are called FOOD. Yes, FOOD. So yes, skimmers DO remove FOOD (i.e, "protein"). But saying that removing FOOD is the same as removing nitrates and phosphates is like saying removing BEER, before you drink it, is the same as removing the pee after you drink it. Wouldn't you rather have the beer, and then remove the pee? Skimmers remove the food that you put in the tank. Scrubbers remove the "pee" after the tank eats the food.

 

7. Horizontal (one-sided) screens are only recommended for nano tanks, and only if the screen is narrow (no more than 4 inches wide) so that the water flows like a river. If you try to do horizontal screens on bigger tanks, the screen will have to be wider, and what will happen is that when algae tries to grow thick, it will block the flow from getting past it (it will even block flow to itself). If the screen is 4 inches wide or less, and if the flow is very high, the water will pile up and get over the algae. But on wider screens it won't, and any algae downstream of the thick algae will have it's flow cut off. And for any horizontal screen, make sure you put a solid sheet under it, to keep the water from falling through.

 

8. Cloudiness is caused by underlying algae layers dying (from not cleaning); if you look at these layers, they look like wheat, and they fall right off of the screen. Green or yellow water, however, is caused by cleaning the screen in the water, without removing it first and taking it to the sink; the strands of algae break and put colored stuff into the water.

 

9. Algae video:

Link to comment
  • 3 weeks later...

Finally here is a presentable acrylic scrubber box:

 

 

 

100-box-1.jpg

 

 

100-box-2.jpg

 

 

100-box-3.jpg

 

 

100-box-4.jpg

 

 

100-box-5.jpg

 

 

100-box-6.jpg

 

 

100-box-7.jpg

 

 

100-box-8.jpg

 

 

100-box-9.jpg

 

 

 

 

Video of box:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G_FEncUGDY

 

 

 

Here is the diagram if you want to build it:

 

Full size: http://www.radio-media.com/fish/100.jpg

100small.jpg

 

 

 

 

Specs:

 

o 25 inches long (63.5 cm)

 

o 7.25 inches wide (18.4 cm)

 

o 6.5 inches tall (16.5 cm) with cover, or 6.25 inches tall (15.9 cm) without cover.

 

o Much stronger filtering compared to CFL-powered screens of same area and wattage.

 

o Very strong stand-alone filtering for a 50 gallon high-load reef tank.

 

o Good stand-alone filtering for a 100 gallon medium-load reef tank.

 

o Supplementary filtering for a 180 gallon medium-load reef tank.

 

o 100 square inches (645 square cm) of growable two-sided screen area, not counting the part that goes into the pipe.

 

o This is a high-performance scrubber, packed into a small space (which is what I wanted for the limited space under my tank). There is no wasted light; 100 percent of the light hits the screen, and is only 1.5 inches from the screen.

 

o The light is the same distance from the screen, from one end of the screen to the other.

 

o It works equally well in Fresh or Salt (but not for planted-only tanks).

 

o The all-black acrylic blocks out almost all light from escaping.

 

o The lid stops any evaporation or cooling. If you do want evaporation and cooling, just leave the lid off. If you wants LOTS of evaporation and cooling, put a fan on it. It will light up the whole room, however.

 

o The recommended four bulbs (Current Nova Extreme model 1127) deliver about 100 watts (8000 lumens) of flourescent light. If less filtering (and less power consumption) is needed, bulbs can be removed to give you about 75, 50 or 25 watts of lighting. (You cannot reduce the flow, however)

 

o The unit is only 6.5 inches (16.5 cm) tall. Only a few more inches are needed above this to be able to lift out the pipe/screen.

 

o Has a water-tight drain which allows the unit to be placed on top of the tank, or even on a shelf, where it can drain back to the display.

 

o Requires 800 GPH (after head loss). Do not skimp on GPH, because the long pipe will not fill with enough water if you do. An Eheim 1260 pump works good if the scrubber is down in the sump area, but if you put the scrubber up high on a shelf above the tank, something bigger like an Eheim 1262 would be needed. I have and use both of these pumps. At the sump level, there is not much difference in flow between these two pumps, but when you have to pump up to a shelf above the display, the extra power of the 1262 (or similar) would be needed.

 

o The 22 inch (55.9 cm) wide screen allows much more water flow to be filtered for the same screen area; this gives more filtering per hour than a narrow screen of the same area.

 

o The long T5HO bulbs distribute the light evenly from one side of the screen to the other, and are only 1.5 inches (3.8 cm) from the screen. So there are no "burned" spots in the middle of the screen as there can be with CFL bulbs (because they put all the light into one spot).

 

o The box allows water to "pool" at the bottom when the algae gets thick. This creates algae that is floating in this turbulent pool, and lets the algae get more three dimensional, which lets water flow throughout the algae strands. This creates more filtering than just a flat sheet of algae.

 

o The top shelf keeps water from dripping on the lights when you take the screen out, and it also holds the lights in place.

 

o The bottom shelf keeps water from splashing up from the sump onto the lights, and also makes a wide base to keep the scrubber stable. The lights sit on this shelf.

 

o Replace the bulbs every 3 months. Most any K bulb below 6500 should work (including plant-grow bulbs), but F24T5HO/830 are suggested and are $7.99 from here:

http://www.bulbs.com/eSpec.aspx?ID=14267

 

o Clean your pump (run in pure vinager for a hour) every 3 months to make sure the flow stays high. If there is no longer a swirling "pool" on the bottom of the scrubber, then your pump needs cleaning.

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recommended Discussions


×
×
  • Create New...