Lowest cost way to eliminate green hair, bubble, turf and slime algae

[supernip]

who the #### reads the entirety of any of these retarded novellas?

[Doompie]

Always good to have a nice welcome on a forum.

For anyone who IS willing and able to read and proces more then four words:

 

http://www.chucksaddiction.com/The%20Natur...20Aquarium.html

 

And for Microsm info:

http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2003-02/rs/feature/index.php

*That was 2003..

 

I was not refering to the mini-reef method, That incorperates as much methods as nature provides, in some balance. which goes much further than what you've written down. And I think is also a very nice method of reef keeping. But it's a bit overdone when you're tank is under 5.000 gallons.

which reminds me, I believe it also has been branched into the dymico system..

Instead I was refering to the weeds in a lightened slow moving "river".. but anyway.

 

Luckely there is a method for everybody.

So if you like fiddling with bottles of aditives and do a lot of chemistry.. don't go algae..

 

For those looking for "proof" (for what ever that is worth from others then your self of course)

just hit "Algae scrubber" on youtube.. you'll be supprised..

 

And if there are "unanswred questions", can you please sum them in stead of forcing overybody to read trough 120 posts of which most are a lot of air..

[patback]

I'm so tired of this popping up non stop. The general concensus is that this idea is pointless and unnecessary in a nano tank. Can somebody please lock it so that people who need help on this forum don't have their question bumped off of the front page just so that people can argue?

[Floyd R Turbo]

Then unsubscribe if you don't like it. This method does work, someone might want to try it, and I'm here to help THEM. Why should a thread be locked because it annoys you? What are you, 12?

[patback]

Then unsubscribe if you don't like it. This method does work, someone might want to try it, and I'm here to help THEM. Why should a thread be locked because it annoys you? What are you, 12?

No, 11. How old are you to join a forum Just because your buddy needed help with a sale pitch? What Annoys me is that people on these forums have questions that pertain to water quality and such to fix nuisance algae and aren't just looking for a bandaid, and their questions get bumped because of this thread. Whether or not I unsubscribe, other helpful people still can't see these questions.

[TeflonTomDosh]

Then unsubscribe if you don't like it. This method does work, someone might want to try it, and I'm here to help THEM. Why should a thread be locked because it annoys you? What are you, 12?

I doubt very seriously that he's subscribed to it. It just gets a bit annoying when you go to the homepage to look for some new, exciting, INFORMATIVE, NON-REPETITIVE, posts that you can actually LEARN FROM and see this crap continually at the top.

 

Yes, that's a turd sandwich.

[JamieSheffield]

Controlling nutrient input, regular WC, CUC, H2O2...

 

Jamie

[Floyd R Turbo]

So what, there are over 60,000 members and almost 4 million posts on this site. Let's say (picking numbers out or air here) this site is 10 years old. That works out to an average of over 1000 posts/day and 45/hour.

 

I imagine that if you post a question, there are probably several dozen responses that bump yours down also. Do you hop on those threads and tell mods to lock it so you can keep your thread on top?

 

This is the ONLY forum that I have ever posted on where I got treated like this. Unbelievable! Almost every single one of them is welcoming and interested. They do consider it informative, this is a new way of doing it that can apply to nano tanks, and there are people out there I guarantee you that want to learn about this, and all you're doing is making a complete ### of yourself by constantly posting on this thread. Just leave it alone.

 

Again, I'm not here to "help my buddy with a sales pitch" I'm here to help anyone who wants help. I don't agree 100% with the way he approached things in the past and to some extent now as well. But that doesn't negate the effectiveness of the concept and that doesn't mean there's not someone out there that could benefit. I believe in this method enough to just be there to help others. So to answer your question I'm 39, I'm a licensed engineer and part owner of a company, and have 4 kids from 4 to 16. I am definitely not in this to 'help a buddy out' and I definitely make more money at my day job than I ever could promoting scrubbers. I sincerely am just here to help and I don't expect any benefit from it.

 

And yet, I get treated like dirt. Like I said before, this is the only site on which I have seen such treatment. It is truly appalling.

 

Do you see anything in his OP that says "Want one? Send me money and I'll send you one!". Nope. Same with the previous version, anyone could build one. Yeah he made one, so what? He sold like 40 in 2 years I'd say he was in it for the money he must be rich now wow! He made it available for those who wanted it.

 

I concentrate on helping people build them and troubleshoot them because 1) I don't have time to research and answer all the scientific questions (I wish I did, actually, because it appeals to my nature) 2) there are others who can do that / have done that and 3) I don't personally feel the need to prove to someone else that it works, because I have personal experience and that of thousands of others with very similar experience (more consistent experiences across the board than any other filtration product I have read about).

[herranton]

This is the ONLY forum that I have ever posted on where I got treated like this. Unbelievable!

 

I know right? Maybe we just want are noobs to be successful.

 

Again, I will repeat.

 

 

No one is saying it wont work

 

We are saying it's a dum.

 

 

[patback]

Alright, I will try constructive criticism.

 

Pros:

This would be amazing in a large fowlr with tangs, I'm sure tanks would love the localized algae.

 

The thought is there, this product does work as stated

 

Cons:

In a reef tank, parameters should be kept in a way that there should never be nuisance algae. Not always possible, but that is why we have cuc

 

A 100% water change for us in this community still costs less than a 10 or 20 percent change in a large tank. That is how we control our algae

 

 

Obviously skimmers work amazing, but have you actually looked through our threads? More than half of us don't even own a skimmer. You wonder why people are so against this concept, know your audience. This is called NANO REEF. Two words that should never be in the same sentence as turf scrubber.

[HecticDialectics]

So if you like fiddling with bottles of aditives and do a lot of chemistry.. don't go algae..

 

Please, enlighten us, how does an algae scrubber enable you to stop dosing calcium, alkalinity, etc.?

 

Scientist run so called microsm systems which are also algae scrubber a-like based...think about the reason why they choose that over bacteria driven methods for research purposes..

 

Algae is not a replacement for bacteria, lmao.

[JamesHL88]

Im tempted to make a shadow account and start arguing random points that dont matter.

 

Wtf $650 for an ATS ?

i think i just s#!t my pants

[AFRobert568]

I think some people are simply arguing for the sake of going with the crowd. I’ve looked into these and if you make it yourself the cost are not more than setting up a fuge. Some people are making the argument that you simply need to do water changes to keep your parameters in check, but they don’t put down people that either use a fuge or phosban reactor on a nano. I don’t see the traditional ATS being very different from a fuge other than it needs to be exposed to air and out of water.

[KerryL.]

My scrubber enabled me to eliminate all my other filtration on my Nano's and other full size. I just have made a small HOB for my my nano and I dont run anything else, no reactors, skimmers, nothing but a circulation pump. I still dose of coarse. The tanks are reef mix set-ups.

[Soopa1]

During all of this bickering about the ATS, the remarks about the "Mexican" turbos somehow went unnoticed.

 

Countdown to lockdown.....

[herranton]

I think some people are simply arguing for the sake of going with the crowd.

Not really.

 

There is sort of an unspoken "best" way for a noob to set up a nanoreef.

 

1. Box of water

2. Live rock

3. Light, heater, water pump

Options:

1. Hob refugium

2. Skimmer

 

This is not the only way to run a successful tank, however this is the most common and most familiar. If someone chooses to set up a tank this way, it will be easy for the helpful, patient and kind people on this forum to help troubleshoot the tank and answer any questions that the person may have. If you are new, or newish to the hobby, you should probably be sticking to tried and true systems. You don't need to buck the trend or push the limits your first time out. And certainly you don't need to use something that isn't necessarily a good fit for nanoreefs.

 

If anyone bothered to click the link from a few pages ago, link its a very well done ATS in a 29gallon. Granted the op thinks its okay for him to have 10 fish in the tank, but it probably works at least as well as a refugium back there. Personally, I would rather just get inTanks media basket because it will work better and give me more options if I need them in the future, but that's just me.

 

Lastly, the name of this thread is "Lowest cost way to eliminate green hair, bubble, turf and slime algae". An ATS is essentially just a weird refugium and doesn't have any magical properties that make it the end all in filtration. It will probably work about the same as chaeto but take up 2-3 times the space. I don't really see how the OP can state that it is a way to eliminate all the things mentioned in the title of the thread ant better than a refugium. The OP is making misleading claims and trying to hawk their product on NR without getting a sponsorship. Definitely flame worthy and probably ban worthy, imo.

[supernip]

Those are also the most efficient and bullet proof ways. Ats lol

[SantaMonica]

trying to hawk their product

 

What product?

[Floyd R Turbo]

Please, enlighten us, how does an algae scrubber enable you to stop dosing calcium, alkalinity, etc.?

 

it's not, I think what he was referring to is using something else related to nutrient reduction using chemicals (which most would agree is not a proper course of action anyways...)

 

Algae is not a replacement for bacteria, lmao.

 

Of course not. Algae is another method of reducing the end product of the biological process, which is the buildup of N and P.

 

$650 for an ATS ?

 

Yep that was his that he made for himself then a few people asked him to make one for them etc. It was good for 10 cubes of food per day, made from acrylic, etc. It was (is) actually a very effective device and if you have a large tank and feed a lot, it more than paid back for itself quickly if you figured in the cost of salt (for water changes necessary for nutrient reduction, and that is not saying that you wouldn't do PWCs for other reasons, but you would just need to do less % since you wouldn't have an N and P problem), reliance on reactors ad media, etc, to control your nutrients.

 

I don’t see the traditional ATS being very different from a fuge other than it needs to be exposed to air and out of water.

 

I have often made that point comparing a fuge and scrubber, the difference being that the high laminar flow is what makes the nutrient exchange better/faster on a scrubber, also the less water that the light has to penetrate, and the proximity of the light being closer means higher intensity. So it is very similar in concept to a refugium, just more "concentrated".

 

The waterfall-style scrubber of course was out of the water and exposed to air, and originally was sized according to the volume of the tank (1 sq in per gallon) but more recently the sizing guideline has been reduced to be proportional to feeding, which is 12 sq in per cube of food per day. So now let's say you feed 1/4 cube a day, then you only need a screen that is about 3 or 4 square inches (2x2) which is much more manageable for a smaller tank.

 

This new concept is made to run underwater, and the air exposure is provided by pump and airstone. This makes it very friendly to the sumpless tank, kind of ugly in the visible part of the tank, but in a cube with a hidden area in the back, it would be a lot more functional.

 

Several comments about how it was determined to not be good for nanos - seems like it was more about the method in which to do it (like in the hood, sized for tank volume, etc) and I would definitely agree, hard to make it work. This version is more adaptable in this regard.

 

As far as it functionally not being a good idea, I have a hard time seeing how it would filter any less effectively in a nano vs a large tank or how it would be somehow a bad idea to use in a nano. But then again, I've never owned a nano, but I know many that have and have used them.

[Captain Hook]

I have started mean patches of hair algae, so off I went to purchase phosphate bag and nitrate bag, dropped them in and have seen a decline in my trates and phates!

 

Went to purchase a seahare from LFS, came back $21 dollars short and this guy refused to eat the algae, he said yuck I saw his face!

 

Called LFS and they said give him a week, it's been 4 days and nothing!

 

Not all species look like they eat the hair algae, but I have seen some that love this ugly stuff, literally mow it clean!

 

LFS said they will give me another when they get him in stock!

 

Any suggestions on the right species?

 

Thanks,

 

MG

 

Mike, try a pincusion urchin, they chow down on that stuff like its their last meal. You can always sell or trade it later when your done with it, or keep it but they tend to pick small things up and carry them. Mine currently has a cerith snail shell on its back lol

[nibor]

And for Microsm info:

http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2003-02/rs/feature/index.php

*That was 2003..

That's an article proposing an alternative feeding regime. How does it relate to your initial statement "Scientist run so called microsm systems which are also algae scrubber a-like based...think about the reason why they choose that over bacteria driven methods for research purposes.. "?

 

I was not refering to the mini-reef method, That incorperates as much methods as nature provides, in some balance. which goes much further than what you've written down. And I think is also a very nice method of reef keeping. But it's a bit overdone when you're tank is under 5.000 gallons.

which reminds me, I believe it also has been branched into the dymico system..

The mini-reef Smit proposed after visiting Dutch reef keepers was basically an aquarium with a good stock of macro algae combined with a trickle filter. The dymico system is at its core computerised denitrification. The only connection I can see is is that they were both developed by Dutch people.

 

Instead I was refering to the weeds in a lightened slow moving "river".. but anyway.

Are you talking about Dutch style planted freshwater tanks?

 

luckily there is a method for everybody.

So if you like fiddling with bottles of aditives and do a lot of chemistry.. don't go algae..

The two are not mutually exclusive.

 

For those looking for "proof" (for what ever that is worth from others then your self of course)

just hit "Algae scrubber" on youtube.. you'll be supprised..

I'll just take that as "No, there is nothing to back up the outlandish claims".

 

And if there are "unanswred questions", can you please sum them in stead of forcing overybody to read trough 120 posts of which most are a lot of air..

That's pretty weak, how can you claim most of it is a lot of air if you have not read it? The huge bulk of it is Santa Monica posting anyway. Maybe this is all the air you were talking about?

[brandon429]

even if you hate the procedure you guys n gals are about to turn this into a thousand page thread, covering all of 2012 and beyond, introducing people who have never heard of the idea to the concept. just saying.

 

SM compiles the highest view counts of any poster Ive ever seen in the history of online reefing, thats a fact independent of ats pro/con.

 

I detest algae and want to burn it on site, would never keep it plumbed into my tank just out of preference even though I agree it works if you want to

but I think what he accomplishes cant be replicated by anyone posting on this thread.

[HecticDialectics]

even if you hate the procedure you guys n gals are about to turn this into a thousand page thread, covering all of 2012 and beyond, introducing people who have never heard of the idea to the concept. just saying.

 

SM compiles the highest view counts of any poster Ive ever seen in the history of online reefing, thats a fact independent of ats pro/con.

 

lmao you should open your eyes more, kid. There's a frogfish thread on page two with less posts and a thousand more views.

[Tyron]

I for one am glad about the use of UAS with Nanos. And if this thread gets locked because a bunch of people got together and flamed the OP I will be highly pissed. Who cares if you all repeatedly see this thread on the homepage, skip on to the next like you been doing. Let the people continue on with our thread. There's more than one way to reefin. Keep all of yalls personal issues to yourself. Making this thread sound like when LEDs first hit RC.

[Floyd R Turbo]

lmao you should open your eyes more, kid. There's a frogfish thread on page two with less posts and a thousand more views.

 

I believe he's talking web-wide, total view count history of all threads stared by SM.

 

Brandon, did I understand that correctly? I have to ask though, did you go and surf around and add all these up, or is that just something you think it probably true? I would think that there are probably a few people that would have pretty high view counts as well, one that comes to mind is Randy Holmes-Farley. Just wondering how you came up with that statement.