Waterfall Turf Algea Filter: CHEAP and EASY to build

[SantaMonica]

http://reefcentral.com/gallery/data/578/148489All.JPG

I want to build a cheap and easy turf algea filter, primarily to knock down N and P. After reading about the superior nutrient uptake of turf algea compared to other macros, and after seeing that there are really no units for sale anywhere, I thought I'd see what I could (easily) build myself in about a day. After all, we are just trying to get water to splash across a screen that is lit up. It's shouldn't be this hard to do.

So I came to realize the hardest thing to build would be the device that sloshes the water across the screen; the two prevailing methods were a dump bucket, and a rotating wheel. Both seemed difficult to build. So I thought, those methods are going through a lot of work to get water from point A to point B; why not just let the water fall on it's own (like a waterfall)? Think vertical, instead of horizontal.

So the idea came to just tilt the screen up vertically, and let the water slosh down the screen. Here are the advantages to building a waterfall version of a turf algea filter instead of one of the other versions:


o The turf algea screen can be lit from BOTH SIDES.

o Extremely simple design, about as complex as a HOB overflow (and may even be able to use the same HOB box.)

o There are NO MOVING PARTS at all.

o You get to choose any (low cost) water pump size you wish, and keep it wherever you wish (sump or otherwise).

o You get choose to have the pump on continuously (very easy to do), or pulsed with a timer to simulate waves.

o You don't have to move or turn off the lights to get to and scrape the screen; just slide the screen up out of the box.

o The unit can fit right over (and drain into) a sump if desired.

o There is NO dumping-bucket to build or deal with or wear out.

o There is NO rotating wheel or drum to build or deal with or wear out.

o There is NOTHING to break or clog.

o VERY cheap and EASY to build (main item required: a square acrylic box.)

o Theoretically, would have no no dumping sound to listen to.

o Theoretically, would have no microbubbles.

o Theoretically, would be half the size of a one-sided filter (since it is lit from both sides).



Drawbacks:

Not designed to provide a surge to display tank.
Not designed to douse the screen with high-velocity water (like a dumping bucket would).
May give tint to water; may need carbon to clear it.



"Open" Option:

For an even easier setup that is almost free to build (all that is needed is a pvc tube with holes or a slit in it), you can just not use a box at all, by just placing the screen vertically over your sump, and use your existing sump/fuge lighting (or else add small light on both sides of the screen. This version might not be as effective since the lights may not be as bright (or as near). And you'll need to figure out how to attach the spraybar to the top of the screen. But talk about simple! You don't have to open anything at all in order to scrape the screen!


Anyway, remember that I have not built this yet, since I wanted to get input first. My current tank is about 100 gal, and I seem to remember a recomemdation of once square inch of screen per gal, so that would be 100 square inches for me (10 X 10). Pretty small. But the two big unknowns are: Can it be smaller since it's lit on both sides, and, will it perform less since the water will not be "surging" as much.

Here's the basic cutout of an acrylic box, is open on the top, and closed on the bottom. Note the drain hole on the bottom too:
http://reefcentral.com/gallery/data/578/148489Box.JPG

Add the algea screen; could be held in place with a slot or rail or pegs:
http://reefcentral.com/gallery/data/578/148489Box_with_Screen.JPG

Add the spraybar over the top; a piece of pvc drilled on the bottom, or slit from one side to the other. It fits in the the circular cutouts in the box:
http://reefcentral.com/gallery/data/578/148489Box_with_Screen_and_Spraybar.JPG

A standard light, placed vertically; this one is facing towards you:
http://reefcentral.com/gallery/data/578/148489Light_1.JPG

A standard light, placed vertically; this one is facing away from you:
http://reefcentral.com/gallery/data/578/148489Light_2.JPG

Both lights:
http://reefcentral.com/gallery/data/578/148489Light_Both.JPG

This is how the lights would be attached to the box:
http://reefcentral.com/gallery/data/578/148489Box_with_Lights.JPG

[moo0o]

just be careful....when that turf algea gets into that main tank..man what a pain that would be, other than that, sounds like a great idea.

[moo0o]

also, it sounds kinda bulky. especially with the lights on BOTH sides.

[SantaMonica]

Well from my understanding of turf filters, the reason the algea grows in the filter and not in the tank is that you use algea-friendly lighting in the filter (5000K or so, i.e., more red, just like in a fuge), but mostly it's because of the large amount of air that is available. That's why in the ocean you see turf algea grow at the air-water interface (on pylings, rocks) only where the waves crash. I believe the huge amount of air is what makes turf so much better of a nutrient uptake than other macros; the CO2 must be limiting in other macros (they're all underwater in a fuge), but in a turf filter of any kind you have continuous air-water-air-water alteranations. So CO2 no longer is limiting, and thus the turf is free to take up more N and P. Not to mention, of all the accounts I read about people previously using turf filters, almost none got turf in their disply. Some even replaced their skimmer entirely.

As to the bulkiness, yes there are two lights instead of one, but the concept is that since there is light on both sides, you can make the entire unit half of what would normally be required. Most of the units I read about were 3 to 4 feet long horizontal bucket-type units that were a foot thick, or 3 feet tall wheel units that were 1.5 feet thick, both of which were too bulky (and impossible to get) for my 100 gal. At the recommended one-square-inch-screen-per-gal, my screen only needs to be 10 inches square, maybe less if you account for lights on both sides. So the acrylic box only needs to be about a foot high and 2 inches thick. If you just use a standard pc light from a nano (about 2 inches thick), the entire unit becomes just a foot high and 6 inches thick. This can sit right on a sump, instead of having to have it's own room :)

[UrbanSage]

Are you writing people asking them to comment in your thread?
If so I will suggest you stop that practice.

[jman77]

"Are you writing people asking them to comment in your thread?
If so I will suggest you stop that practice."

That's what " threads" are , you post something, and someone else comments.
Who cares if he asks people to comment.

[bergzy]

hello and thanks for the pm to take a look at your turf scrubber...

when i first started reefing in the early 90's, there was no such thing as a refugium (to my knowledge anyway). there was a constant struggle with nitrate build up and the only solution was water changes (which, imo, should still be done on a regular basis to this day).

along comes loveland and adey and show that a system could be kept in balance with growing turf algae with an alternating wet and dry current.all the maintenance that was required was the harvest of the turf algae.

sounds great and yes, it does work...but as you have already noted, that you would expect a tint to the water where you would need to use carbon. i am trying to recall this from almost 20 years without the luxury of having loveland and adey's literature in front of me...so if i am wrong in certain areas...please forgive me.

if you are truly gung ho on wanting to use a turf scrubber, if you will allow me to...i will point out the things that could be changed for it to function more effectively and efficiently.

the vertical screen: try...really try and get 'some' angle to it. i know what you are wanting to do (turf algae on both sides) but the large issue you may have is inconsistent water flow down the screen. this 'may' cause dead spots, bald spots etc on the screen as flow patterns change with turf algae growth.

if you really want to grow turf algae on both sides of the vertical screen, then:

you may have a hard time with one spray bar spraying on two sides of the screen. the angles of the holes need to pointing directly to the screen. perhaps i can suggest two spray bars as opposed to one. each spray bar spraying on the side of the screen it is suppose to. you can still use one pump but make sure that when you split the water flow for the two spraybars that you are able to regulate the flow of each spraybar (each with a ball valve or something) to achieve optimal even flow.

make sure that your container is wide enough so that you can easily and regularly clean the acrylic for optimal light transmission.

overall, i dont see why the design shouldnt work as a turf scrubber. you can get turf algae seed from:
http://www.inlandaquatics.com/prod/tr_algae.html

NOW!!!

let's fast forward to 2008...

i will say that i have never used a turf scrubber. i love the concept and i love that mother nature does so much of the nutrient removal...

BUT!!!

there are presently, again imo and experience, better alternatives that are less maintenance intensive now.

while i have no idea how fast turf algae grows, from what i have read, it grows pretty quick for rapid nutrient reduction. this is great because i 'think' loveland and adey didnt use a protein skimmer and said that with the turf scrubber a skimmer would not be needed anymore. now, back to the early 90's...skimmers of that day were horrible in what they could remove. most of us were still using finicky counter current air driven skimmers. the wealthier reefers were able to purchase 'venturi skimmers' (i wasnt one of them). most of us did not have the space nor a properly designed air driven skimmers of today for them to be effective. thus, loveland and adey's use of a turf scrubber was considered a revolutionary thought.

i am not saying that i am a genius by far...but at the time, there was no such word as a refugium. a remote container to grow algae? what? so, i introduced intentionally, caulerpa (not banned at the time) into my display tank for it to grow and soak up nutrients. results were great (water clarity, etc). i did not know of anyone doing this but again, never thought anything of it as special.

i would never ever do that to this day. most species of caulerpa are banned here in southern california (but i didnt live in SoCal the time anyway) and most caulerpa is aggressive, invasive and can choke a display with rampant growth in no time.

thus, to my next point. turf algae grows ON a screen. it is kind of a slimy goo when exposed in the air. what i wouldnt want to do is to remove that icky screen and scrape that algae off as maintenance. call me sissy'ish but i think i deal with enough icky goo from skimmers already.

thus, there have been much easier to handle macro algaes since the notion of turf scrubbers have erupted onto the reef scene.

my favorite is chaetomorpha. the benefits are decent rapid growth for nutrient reduction, easily harvested due to non hold fast development into rocks etc, non invasive to the display and i havent heard of it going sexual and releasing gametes into the water...thus possibly nuking your entire system.

as you have mentioned that the compact size of your scrubber is a bonus...refugiums for macro growth can be very small (imo and experience) also. my 180g with a 100g sump and 65 cryptic zone utilizes a 5g refugium in the form of a white hdpe bucket...that's it. that's all i need for a 250g NET volume sps system.

what is different about my 5g bucket refugium is that it receives a 120x per hour turnover. rapid flow, lots of light directed into the bucket (over the chaeto) for incredible growth and nutrient reduction. couple a rapid growth mechanism with an effective skimmer....and you have the makings of a great nutrient export system.

i have stopped my skimmer on my 110g mixed reef. in it i have 5 clams to rapidly use ammonia in which the nitrite is quickly broken down to nitrate via my live rock. in the sump, i have a 2g bucket fuge receiving 150x turnover per hour with incredible chaeto growth. there is no sps in the 110g. just some softies, clams, anemones and lps (acans, scolys and frogspawn). tank heath is amazing and growth is fantastic. i just add cacl and buffer...that's about it.

turf algae scrubbers never took off (maybe) for a couple of reasons...one was loveland and adey patented the concept or design...thus whatever turf scrubber was out there...was very expensive. second, even as you have found out how inventive and diy reefers are...turf scrubbers never really became popular. reasons? i dont know...but i never used one for the reasons i listed above. the eco-wheel has been around for some time. it uses the turf scrubber concept and i know of only one reefer on rc that has used it.

http://www.aquaticengineers.com/index.htm

http://www.aquaticengineers.com/images/dans_tank1.jpg

personally, i think the appearance of the health of the display tank...looks terrible...and this is what they put on their website to show off the results of what their eco-wheel does.

i am by no means saying that you should not set up your turf algae. on the contrary, i would actually be interested in seeing how it would work.

hth's a little. :)

[SantaMonica]

Good points. And I'm like you... have not tried one yet. Nevertheless...

Two spraybars: I also just thought about a spraybar for both sides; this would make the screen removal super easy... just lift it up between them. Although even with a single spraybar, if the flow were enough, I would think it would hit all parts of the screen. You could even make the drain hole small so that the box would almost fill up every time.

Icky cleaning: Well, compared to a skimmer (dead waste stuff), I figured the turf algea would at least be alive. So even though if it smells like algea, I did not think it would be as bad as a skimmer. Also, you only harvest once every 7-10 days, so at least the frequency is less.

Chaeto bucket: It's neat that you got all your macro filtering into a 5 gal bucket. I tried chaeto last year and it disolved away, but then I did not turn my skimmer off.

Tint: I do believe that turf and other macros (chaeto, etc) use the same photosynthesis process, and it's this process that puts the chlorophyll into the water. Maybe the reason turfs have been associated with tinting is because their processing is so much faster (because of the large amount of CO2 from the air) that for the same amount of algea, the turfs are processing much more N and P, and thus releasing more chlorophyll. I would think chaeto and the others also tint the water, but at a much lower rate because of their slower process (less CO2 available in the water). So, maybe, all macros tint the water the same amount for a given amount of N and P processing, but turfs can do it in a much smaller space, or in a much quicker time.

[UrbanSage]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=12884112#post12884112 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by jman77
That's what " threads" are , you post something, and someone else comments.
Who cares if he asks people to comment.

He PM'd me to post my comments in a thread I had never seen.
Obviously I care. And I care for the same reasons I dislike spam in my inbox.

If PM'ing people to get them to your thread becomes standard practice then it soon be tough to find legitimate PM's you care about.

[boxfishpooalot]

Turf scrubbers would work well imo.

But you need a turf raceway on your roof, with the sun lighting it for a 10 gallon tank. Algae have one goal, to survive. They will spread to the main tank eventually. Alage are not natures filter, bacteria are.

Stick to gfo if you want to keep phosphate low to prevent algae.

[MarkS]

There are several problems with your design.

1.) The turf screen needs to be exposed to air and water. I've been out of the hobby for a couple of years, so I no longer remember why, but this is important and is the reason behind dump buckets, wheels and such.
2.) You will have to constantly clean the sides of the container. You're going to see all sorts of algae grow over most surfaces exposed to light, killing your turf algae in the process. That is one of the biggest reasons for turf filters to be open on the top.
3.) Turf filters need massive amounts of surface area to function properly. Several square feet of screen is needed for an average size moderately stocked aquarium.

It is better to let us stumble across your thread and offer our help than to solicit it. That is generally regarded as rude and even SPAM. I have no authority here, but I'd suggest you not do that again. We are all here to help, but no one should feel pressured to do so.

I think that this post summed it up nicely:
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=12885063#post12885063 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by UrbanSage
He PM'd me to post my comments in a thread I had never seen.
Obviously I care. And I care for the same reasons I dislike spam in my inbox.

If PM'ing people to get them to your thread becomes standard practice then it soon be tough to find legitimate PM's you care about.

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=12884112#post12884112 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by jman77

That's what " threads" are , you post something, and someone else comments.
Who cares if he asks people to comment.

Exactly. That is what threads are for. People have been banned for doing what he did. Unsolicited e-mail and PM's are generally considered SPAM. I have no idea who this person is and when I open the thread I get a new product development style thread. The original post reeks of a thinly veiled commercial post.

[Terraserver66]

I would have just thought that he respected and wanted your opinions?? Thus he requested you to assist with his idea... LOL RC always seems so aggressive :(

[SantaMonica]

Natural filters: Aren't all macros just different species of algea? And all fuges with macros are just algea filters?

Lighting and screen size: Several people who have run turf said they read Dynamic Aquaria (I have not) and it said to have about 1 square inch of screen for every gallon. Matter of fact, the eco wheel has about 1.5 (800 square inches rated for 500 gal). That's the reason for planning for a small 10 inch square one for me (100 gal). Also, the commercial ones use (as well as is recommended in the book) regular lighting in the lower spectrum; the same as is used on a macro fuge. I don't remember many cases at all of turf spreading to the main tank; the main tank has the wrong lighting, no air, and (hopefully) grazers. It's just like a fuge: chaeto does not start migrating to the tank there, either.

GFO: I current use it as needed, but besides cost and complexity, it lowers PH (turf increases PH), and it can trap detritus (a waterfall turf filter should not trap anything).

Air and water: It might not have been clear in my drawing, but the waterfall design does indeed alternate between air and water if you opt for the a timer on the water pump. Simply select how long you want it on and off. And the nice part is if the timer gets stuck in either position, nothing bad happens. I believe that turf is a high user of CO2 (and other nutrients), which is why it's found at the air/water interface of waves.'

Cleaning the sides: Good point about algea buildup on the sides of the box; I've seen pics of that occuring in the commerical models. However I would imagine it would take the same effort to lift out the spraybar and screen, and clean the box out, as it would with the big commercial ones to lift out the bucket/wheel and clean it. My box would be small, too, about the size of a cereal box. Also, if you opted for the no-box version, you would just have to wipe off the lights.

DIY: It's supposed to be relatively easy to build yourself ($30-$50), with the acrylic box being the one item that might take some searching to find. I could even see somebody using his already-owned items to build: an acrylic HOB overflow box, a pump, some pvc, two nano lights, and some fiberglass window screen. The design does make consessions, however, mostly the surge, which if needed would have to come from a commercial device because it's too difficult to build. I would hardly call this cereal-box size thing commercial, however.

[seaskraP]

cool idea.
the pull-out tray seems like an easy way to clean it.
for better air mix, a cross hatch of screen or gutterguard might work better than a straight vertical piece.
for a cheap temporary test unit you could even do a plastic bread box or something similar.
you gonna set one up santamonica? i'll bet it works.

[SantaMonica]

I'm going to try some version of it. The screen might just be the pre-seeded one from Inland Aquatics. Some people have also used knitting fabric. True, a bread box, if clear, could work. Or even no box... I like the open design that would just flow into the sump; all you would need to do is pin-up the screen in the sump and position the spraybar over it. If next to the fuge light, maybe that would be enough by itself.

[seaskraP]

the simpler the better.
watch out for a lot of salt creep in the open design.

[jglackin]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=12885192#post12885192 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by boxfishpooalot
Turf scrubbers would work well imo.

But you need a turf raceway on your roof, with the sun lighting it for a 10 gallon tank. Algae have one goal, to survive. They will spread to the main tank eventually. Alage are not natures filter, bacteria are.

Stick to gfo if you want to keep phosphate low to prevent algae.

Scheeze, with all due respect, you really are just taking a wild guess with this, right? I am not sure where to begin with how completely off base you are with this post of yours.

First off, turf scrubbers are very effective at removing phosphates and nitrates from aquaria. Hardly the size of a "turf raceway on the roof". As anyone knows, a ball of chaeto does a good job of removing phosphates and nitrates from the aquarium and it has just a tiny fraction of the power of a TS. I realize that they should have called you first, but *many* municipal water treatment facilities use TS's. Of course, on the scale you recommend, they need to make turf algae raceways the size of Lake Ontario. http://www.algalturfscrubber.com/point.htm

As far as turf algae growing in the tank...well, there you go again. Turf algae will not grow in the tank. I know people that have been running turf scrubbers for years and they have had no algae problems. I have been using a turf scrubber for over a year and have never had turf algae in my tank. As a matter of fact, I have had absolutely no algae problems in my tank. I shake my scrubber a couple of times a week to break loose the pods and bits of algae in order to treat my tangs and other fish to the pods and algae bits. Lot's of opportunity for algae to take hold in my tank and not one instance of it ever growing.

As far as algae not being nature's filter..., again, with all due respect, this is a rather stunning statement. Did you go to the link above and read it? Do you still want to stand by that statement?

I know I am being a little abrupt with you, but you are making definitive, matter-of-fact statements and it is clear you have no idea what you are talking about.

[bergzy]

algae indeed is an interesting topic. could it be the a viable fuel source?

from the moment i learned about corn etc being grown for ethanol to supplement gas...i thought to myself 'is that the craziest thing i have ever heard of? we are using a virgin food product to be converted to fuel for our vehicles?'

at first, i thought this was tragically funny...but now that it has been implemented and is a part of our gas program now...watch how food prices will and have soared due to the midwest flooding and ruining crops (for food and fuel). dont forget to couple that with record oil prices along with the incredibly high demand from india and china...and we have the makings of a perfect storm!

plus, how stupid is it to use corn for fuel? it takes 1 gallon of fuel to produce 1.3 g (or so) of fuel. 30%? great yes IF it didnt involve a lot of watering, pesticides, fertilizer, harvesting, land use for a FOOD product.

http://www.ethanol-gec.org/corn_eth.htm
http://feinstein.senate.gov/05speeches/ethanol-oped.htm

plus, ethanol doesnt have the same punch as gas. it takes more ethanol to get the same power of a lesser amount of gasoline...so, it becomes pretty much a break even point...insane!

solution?

there are so many and i feel we are in the infancy of discovering viable alternative energy solutions (corn, soybean, sugarcane are not, imo).

here is an interesting and innovative solution. vertical growing of algae. it uses profoundly less land than having a spread out flat land mass. it does not use soil, pesticides etc.

Mr. Glenn Kertz, with his High Density Vertical Bioreactors.

http://sustainabledesignupdate.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/high-density-vertical-bioreactor.jpg

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_pwwi/is_200803/ai_n24931701

still experimental but interesting...and profitable!

[Agu]

Build it and tell us if it works, conjecture only goes so far.

Friend of mine had one of the original algae turf scrubbers that provided a surge to his tank, show tank looked great and was algae free. He swore by it but I always wondered if it was the turf scrubber, the surge, or the macro algae lagoon tank plumbed into the system that was as big as his reef tank.

[Putawaywet]

Ok, being a former ATS guy here are my suggestions...

Scrap the spray bar idea and seriously consider incorporating a surge device so the box will alternately fill and empty. This should solve your problem with slime algae dead zones on the screen (which I fully expect you to get) but still provide the algae with it's air requirement. I might even go so far as to add some mesh or rubble to create a pod friendly habitat in the bottom of the box so every time the surge fired the fish would benefit from some free food.

Depending on your nutrient load I could see you having to clean the inside of the box as often as every other day. Even the smallest buildup could reduce your light penetration considerably. Also, you can spend the money on a seed screen from the likes of Inland Aquatics or just let it grow in on it's own. I've done it both ways and after a while I can't really tell the difference. The real secret is good light penetration and a frequent and even screen harvesting.

In my experience I've not seen any more algae in the display than you would expect to see sans an ATS. Properly maintained tanks running a good scrubber are generally too Phosphate limited for the algae to take hold anywhere but in the ATS.

Brett

[Joe Kelley]

SM, I ran an ATS 250 on a seagrass tank for almost 3 years. It worked. Not sure about your design. Get Adey's book and read it if you have not. We could talk if you'd like.

Joe

[SantaMonica]

Power of turf: This is the main reason I wanted to get some turf going. It appears to be not a little, but a GIGANTIC leap in N and P processing, for a given size. The graphs that someone posted in older posts (I think taken from Dynamic Aquaria) seemed to show turf being 20 or 30 times higher in processing power per unit size. Nobody mentioned it, but I surmized the reason was the high CO2 content of the air.

Raceways: I thought about a raceway (as in the linked pics, or one like Paul B. has), but it seemed to me to lack the air-portion of a surge. I'm sure raceways work, but maybe you need a larger size for a give amount of processing. Also, since they are horizontal by design (and although they fit perfectly with a 4-foot pc bulb), they kinda eliminate any chance of placement below the tank.

Growing in tank: Good to hear of another case of turf keeping to it's own area, and not getting into the tank.

"Vertical Bioreactor": Now that is a cool name! From the pic it looks like he has water running down those sheets of algea.

Growing on box: This just occured to me... How would the turf grow on the inside of the box, when the inside of the box is dry? Remember it's vertical. The horizontal ones, of course, were basically tanks themselves filled with water. But with this waterfall version, the water should stay on the screen and flow down. This is assuming that you don't fill the box with water, of course; it would need to drain as fast as it comes in. In this case the box is not a tank at all, but just a platform to hold the lights a few inches from the screen. You could even cut out the sides of the box to get more air in.

No-spraybar: This is the idea of just filling and emptying the box, which would indeed give a wet a dry phase to the screen, but also gives us the just-mentioned algea on the walls of the box. I see a further possible drawback too. I read a few times of a possible boundary layer around the algea, where a strong surge helped break through (thus getting more CO2 to the algea.) If true, then the weaker the surge, the less processing you get. With the spraybar, while it's not nearly a "surge", it's still stronger than a "slow fill" of the box. I do realize that raceways work with no surge at all, so somewhere among these tradeoffs, I'll have to decide what give the best processing, the smallest size (really important), the lowest maintenance, and the easiest build. I must say that a simple "fill the box" method is about as easy to build as it gets; it could be tested with a 5 gal bucket with the screen in it, and a light shining down on it. As for a spraybar causing deadzones on the screen, that seems to be just a design problem. With enough flow, or possibly two spraybars (one on each side), and properly drilled holes or slits in the tube, wouldn't it be possible to saturate the screen every time?

Joe: I do like reading but I have a bit too many projects going now to add another. Since this is a hobby I like to be able to just test stuff, as long as it won't kill anything. But why don't you stop over when you are over here... the tank is in my office. By the way I'm considering a seagrass tank with seahorses to be the fuge for the reef.

[dendro982]

Interesting idea to make a small vertical algae scrubber, that possibly can be used for nano tanks - I looked for this some time ago, and this is next in compactness after Tetratec PF150 Power Filter-based.

Alas, I have no possibility to work with acrylic and no ready made inexpensive suitable containers are available here. And the lights have to be protected from accidental splashes and during the screen removal for a cleaning.

Another thing, I started to develop allergic reaction on touching LR and removing macroalgae from the tank and now am replacing flooring in the room, that suffered from splashes and leaks. And because of this frequently removed for a manual cleaning dripping screen with smelly algae (and it is, I have the hair algae rock in the tank) is not a thing I would like to employ in my practice, as long as I have any other options, not much of them left, though.

As for PM, I really glad to have a possibility to read this thread, especially bergzy's posts, it was very educative for me. Thanks for the input, everybody!

Would you add a couple of comments on dripless cleaning of the screens?

[Flatlander]

I cant really say if that style of turf scrubbing would work or not. I would guess any turf screen/ water & air mixture and proper light would grow turf algae.

I only have experience with the dump tray and it worked well for me. I think its a good filtration aid, in many situations. As mine was destroyed in transport, and we rebuilt the unit from glass, its never been the beautiful turf scrubber it was designed to be and to sit on ones aquariums as a showpiece, instead of being behind the scenes as mine was in my fish room.

Running it, I would never worry about ammonia, phosphates, nitrates, etc. The algae only grew on the screen and some in the acrylic dump tray, which was mostly a red slime type.

I always ran a large skimmer with it, so again, used it as supplemental filtration, much like one would use a sump full of algae.

[pjf]

Here are a few suggestions for screens:

http://www.aquaticeco.com/subcategories/2/Tank-Dividers/divider/0
http://www.petsmart.com/product/index.jsp?productId=2753067
http://www.aquaticeco.com/subcategories/1/DIY-Tank-Dividers/divider/0

The screens by Lee's are more pliable and have more holes. The screens by Penn-Plax are stiffer. Give the idea a try and let us know how it turns out.

Good luck!

[atsmann]

i ahve been running a ats for a while now, no algae grows in my 180 display tank at all, i use a flat bed ats with a dump bucket.
wate yellow not realy, its a must to harvest weekly and you wont have any problems.

[atsmann]

a ats is a much easyer way to matain a reef tank than skimmers and the rest of the stuff, i run a calcum reactor and a chiller with my ats, the most important thing is to grow and harvest the algae, its that simple. people run into problems when they dont follow those two simple things, i harvest a cup of algae a week, and I recommend using 5100k compact fluorescent light bulbs, they use very low watt consumption and have high watt output.

[piercho]

I think you are on the right track, and I think running a thin film of water over a vertical growing zone will be effective. On my last algae turf filter I also avoided the effort to "flash" the turf by making the screen move/rotate. IMO it's easy to focus just on that mechanical aspect and loose sight of the more fundamental parameters of Adey's turf filter: exclusion of microherbivores, optimal gas exchange, etc. I was able to flash that filter by surging the main tank, which caused the water flow to the filter tank to surge as well.

I also have sketches for a vertical algae filter but have not prototyped one. As far as an algae growth surface I've considered the porous side (backside) of plain fired tile, or fiber-reinforce concrete board (backer board) for applications like the one you show. You could also just use thick acrylic and run coarse sandpaper over the surface to rough it up so that the algae can attach well and not be completely scrapped off when harvesting. I was using a PFO mini-pendant with a 6500K Venture 150W DE (M81) on my last algae filter and liked the small size, intensity, and tight light footprint of that setup.

My concern with your design would be salt spray rapidly clouding the surfaces that the light must penetrate. In my own efforts to make turf algae filters work, the spray (even from bursting microbubbles 6" away) that can rapidly degrade the light source has been the biggest obstacle I've have to overcome.

If you can bring this thing to execution I think a lot of people would be interested in the results. In well-executed applications I think that algae turf filters have a lot to offer for reef tank husbandry.

[johnny]

I have to agree with all the previous posts, your design with the spraybar just won't work. I experiments a lot with ATS and unless it's just right, it will grow every other type of algae and just be a mess.

I have kinda slacked off in this hobby over the years, but I always wanted to try an ATS with a small magnet... the water fills up a box/tray and the magnet holds the flap closed. Once the water gets high enough, the magnet wouldn't be strong enough to hold the flap and it would open, the water would rush out and the flap would close and the magnet would grab. Never tried it, but don't see why it wouldn't work. Good luck.

Nick

[SantaMonica]

Nano sized: I bet a tiny version could be made for a nano. If the one-square-inch-per-gal rule works, you would only need a few inches square; could fit it into a plastic box that some retail products come in, and would be even smaller than the Tetratec. I looked up the Tetratec PF150 Power Filter: "Tetratec Power Filters have the Living Filter Chamber which alternately fills and drains completely, submerging the three-dimensional Bio Foam media and then exposing it to oxygen-rich air. This allows increased contact time between the beneficial bacteria and the toxins in the water, ultimately resulting in healthy, biologically balanced water." Maybe the fill-drain mechanism from it could be used, although the reviews I saw said it was very noisy.

Boxes: I did a quick search and found several cheap $5 nano-sized boxes here on the web, but I found every size imaginable (although more expensive) here: www.ClearAcrylicBox.com

Odor: This has been mentioned a few times, so I'll have to predict since I have not done it yet. Obviously the objective of the unit is for it to process as much water as possible, but this also means it's "processing" as much air as possible. If what it does to the air is expel odor, the the "closed box" option seems to be the only choice. I personally want mine under the tank in the cabinet; the cabinet currently has no problem containing the skimmer odor, which you clearly find once you open the cabinet door. But you can't seal the turf box closed, because you need the air in there. And adding complex carbon attachments/filters/mufflers seems overkill. So this area will probably just have to be tried case-by-case.

Cleaning: The super small screen size (that seems will be adequate for my 100 gal) should be no problem to remove; it's smaller that a piece of paper. And for a nano, it could be as little as a cell phone. Thus it does not seem too difficult to just lift it out and clean it (maybe hold a cup underneath it while you walk to the sink, like I do with filter socks.) On further thought though, you could just lift out the whole box... just detach the lights somehow. Maybe the lights don't even need to be attached, they could just be leaning against the box. Indeed, if you put the box in a 5 gal bucket, and set the lights down in the bucket on both sides of the box, they would all be contained close to each other. To lift the box out you just move the spraybar(s) and put your finger over the drainhole.

Use with skimmer: This is one of the big and long-term questions. I read posts going back to 2000, and some users removed their skimmers, and some did not. My understanding is that skimmers remove organics and small particles (which includes phyto, pods, and other food unfortunately), and turf removes inorganics (N,P, and metals too I think). Unless you are running a big fish-only tank where you want to get the waste swept up and skimmed as quick as possible (and where excess N and P are not a problem), I would think that a filter that removed N and P, while leaving all food in the water, would be prefered. That way food stays in the water until it is eaten, or untill it decays (which gives it more time to be eaten.) But my current goal is just to get one running (with skimmer), and deal with this issue later.

Screens: Those screens you linked are a good idea; I was not aware of tank dividers like that. They even have the "frame" around them to hold them in place.

ATSmann: With a name like that, you must be the one to talk to about these things. By the way, why does it say "moved on" for you, when you are here posting? Anyways, great to see your account of using turf with no water-tinting problems. You say the most important thing is to harvest the turf; are you saying that not harvesting often enough will cause tinting? Obviously you have to harvest to remove nutrients, and I read that growth slows down as the turf thickens. Maybe as the newer turf grows, the older turf underneath starts to die or detach, causing tinting. And it sounds like you are running yours without skimmer, correct? If so do you ever use carbon?

Exclusion of microherbivores: I read this a few times too; pods and such eating the turf. However maybe the vertical screen would reduce their numbers with each wetting, since they'd be flowing down with gravity. If not, a standard freshwater flush during scraping seems to work.

Salt spray: Wow, this one proved to be difficult, especially since piercho says it's the biggest obstacle he had. Got a possible solution from the way some goggles work for off-road racers: peel-away strips. But in our case, I think plastic food wrap is better:

http://reefcentral.com/gallery/data/578/148489Plastic_Wrap.jpg

You remove the cutter from the wrap box, and glue it onto the bottom of the filter box. Also in this case, the bottom of the box is open, or at least slots are cut to allow the wrap to exit the bottom (so obviously this is for above-sump only). Either way, you don't need the drain hole anymore:

http://reefcentral.com/gallery/data/578/148489Plastic_Wrap_with_Box.jpg

Now, since the wrap is on the INSIDE of the box, and the light on the outside, the roll of wrap can just sit on the light. To clean salt spray, just pull down the plastic wrap and cut off with the serrated edge:

http://reefcentral.com/gallery/data/578/148489Plastic_Wrap_with_Box_and_Light.jpg


However, since you were truly surging, you obviously had lots of bubbles and thus more salt spray. I'm hoping that by having the water just flow down, the spray would be reduced enough to be able to just manually clean it once in a while. But if implemented, the plastic wrap would indeed keep it clean.

Magnet flap method: That's an interesting way of filling/draining. Would still need a pump though, unless taken from the overflow. However it gets into the same question of: is it enough surge to be effective, compared to a waterfall. It's just filling up and draining slowly.

Spraybar design: Maybe "spraybar" is not the right word; I'm envisioning a lot of water coming through the tube, like a powerhead. Not really a spray. Maybe like 200 gph. Would be a tradeoff between enough water, and blowing off the plastic wrap (if used).

Speaking of flow and pumps, does anyone have recommendations of a pump of this size that can be switched on and off?

[rickb]

For the screen could'nt you use the same kind of screen that you find on a screen door?

From your design I think getting it to work from both side might complicate it, you might be better off adding some angle to it and lighting it from one side. The reason I say this is that you might be able to work out initial kinks in the overall design this way, it would be easier to set up the plumbing as well.

Look forward to seeing your results and whatever pictures anyone can put forward.

Thanks

[Putawaywet]

.

[SantaMonica]

Yes I believe you can use fiberglass window screen, but you then need a frame for it. Might be easier to use a rigid screen like those linked earlier, or the pre-seeded ones from IA.

Not sure how an angle would be easier... you still need good controlled flow coming from the spraybar, and that seems the tricky part. I was just thinking about those tabletop ornamental waterfalls that flow down a sheet of glass; maybe I can use the spraybar from one of those.

[jglackin]

There are two types of ATS units that I have considered, other than the type I have now.

One is the Inland Aquatics version, which mounts on top of the tank and has the turf growing on screens that are on a hinge. The water fills up until a certain point that the weight of the water causes the screen to tilt forward and dump. I like this because it not only gives you an effective way to grow your turf algae, but it also gives you a good surge device that dumps pods and bits of edible algae into the tank.

The other is a basic surge device, using a glass or Plexiglass tank (40 breeder?) that uses a float mechanism like a toilet does. The turf screen lays diagonal from the bottom corner to the top corner of the tank and the water fills the tank from a pump in the sump. When the level gets to a certain point, the water dumps from the holding tank into the tank below. This also creates a surge like the IA version above. It is simple and quiet.

The type I have now (pictured below) was made by a company that no longer makes them. It lays flat over my sump and fuge and water flows in one side, goes over some turbulence causing baffles and then empties out the other side. Two lights sit on top of the unit. It works off of the gravity of my drain and requires no mechanical parts. Simple, quiet, and effective.

http://photos-076.ll.facebook.com/photos-ll-sf2p/v238/174/112/700813076/n700813076_420757_9222.jpg

[hottuna]

I have the same one as jglackin: works good but i have made many mods to it...I wish that company would start making them again...

[SantaMonica]

I wish they were available too. Other than the eco wheel, I could not find any units to buy anywhere, much less something about the size of a book.

I'm going to start working on a spraybar (maybe "water outlet" is a better term).

[hottuna]

santa monica : play around with the design...I know where you can order the perfect screen material from...

[Flatlander]

There are pics of mine in my gallery. But I assume you have read most of the ATS threads and already seen them but if not, they are still there.

[hottuna]

flatlander: I had one of those also....had problems balancing the weight in the rear of the tray...was a real pita...

[SantaMonica]

Well the screen material seems to not be a problem (yet). I actually am trying to order the pre-seeded one from IA but can't figure out how to place the order with them.

After thinking about the spraybar today, I got the idea of making it like the kind of perforated tube used underground in gardens and septic tanks. Also, if a slit is placed along the bottom of the tube, the screen can fit right up into it, and thus it would also hold the screen in place along the top, eliminating the need to additional supports.

I'm going to do a test in a 5 gal bucket, using perforated tube (probably just drilled pvc), and two 5100k cfl lights clipped on to both sides of the bucket. I just need to get a timer that can be set down to 1 second intervals.

[hottuna]

santa monica...please post results in this thread...thanks

[Kent E]

I have surges on my tank and I'd have to agree with putawaywet.

[dendro982]

Very informative, thanks!

Who has ATS on the top of the tank, can you post links to the pictures?
How is it done and is it interfering with lights and access for maintenance?

[Flatlander]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=12898710#post12898710 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by hottuna
flatlander: I had one of those also....had problems balancing the weight in the rear of the tray...was a real pita...

Yes, same for me, although not really a pain, just adding more weight. Mine ran well and never failed to dump.

[Flatlander]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=12901722#post12901722 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by dendro982
Very informative, thanks!

Who has ATS on the top of the tank, can you post links to the pictures?
How is it done and is it interfering with lights and access for maintenance?

Did you check out the picture of my unit. It was designed to sit on the back 1ft. portion of a standard 4ft. by 2ft. type tank of something similar, I would guess. Then, {at least from the pic I seen when they were being sold}, a standard PFO or Hamilton double halide light hood would sit on the front 1ft. portion, which I,m guess was raised to work in the tank.

As mine was behind a wall, it sat on a shelf type set up, with just the dump chute in the tank itself. It could also sit over or just the chute portion, in a sump. Problem is when just running the chute in a tank or sump another 3ft. is needed length wise for the scrubber.

[SantaMonica]

I will indeed post results/efforts. Just ordered the pump and timer, and still trying to figure out how to order the seeded screen from IA. If not a seeded one, I'll use some of the examples from above.

Surge: I do like and understand the surge idea, even if it's just "filling the box up with a pump", but it just seems to introduce too many negatives for the small easily built unit that this is supposed to be. A real surge is just too difficult, but even a pumped fill-the-box technique means that algea will for sure cover the box as well as the screen (and cleaning the box will not be as easy, since it is small). So my first attempt is going to try to keep the box dry, while getting as much flow over the whole screen (no dead spots) as possible. Remember that tabletop waterfalls use the spraybar concept, and they are totally covered using very little flow. A side-benefit to the smallness of the unit is that it can easily be set on top the tank. You might not get lots of surge, but you'll get all the food from it.

By the way, in some further reading I just found out that not having alternating wet/dry/wet/dry cycles (in other words, an algae trough with no air) cuts processing by 50%. Thus, having the timer on the pump should allow the unit to be one-half of the size if it were continuous flow (i.e., no timer on the pump).

[biomekanic]

Thought on the "Spraybar" and surge:

Have you looked at using a SCWD and 2 'spraybars'?

Unfortunately I am file posting lame ( as well as CAD lame ) so getting a drawing up isn't an option.

Hook your pump up to 2 spraybars, each angled to faced one side of the screen, as the SCWD alternates feed, one side will be dry and the other submerged. With only 200gphs there would be a fairly decent dry period.

HTH

[SantaMonica]

Well the scwd is an option for timing, but, I've had two for the tank already and they both locked up in a few months. Also, I'm not sure how much "spray" from one side would leak through to the other. Also again, you can't adjust their timing. Oh, and the noise. :)

So, I've got some spraybar ideas I'm going to try. Super simple, just got to find the pieces and get them. Mean time, I got the pump and timer already, and I've setup the test bucket (pics below) with clip-on lights. And I'm still trying to get that seeded screen from IA.


Hydor L20 adjustable flow pump (ultra quiet), and JBJ Ocean Pulse Duo timer:
http://reefcentral.com/gallery/data/578/148489Pump_and_Timer.jpg

Test bucket with 5100K 23 Watt CFL Lights (120 watt light output equivalent):
http://reefcentral.com/gallery/data/578/148489Bucket_and_Lights.JPG

[Sk8r]

Interesting. Another piece of the ocean into the tank. ;) Our skimmers do the surf; the fuge does the shallows, etc. I'm not inclined to do this much tinkering, and am quite happy with my fuge, but I'm all for experimentation in "new" tech. I didn't use the Berlin method in my last reef (before this one) because it was still too new for my lfs.
I've seen a lot of these things come and go---some work---the live rock thing---some don't work that well (the fluidized superfine sand column: boy, was that a mess!) but I'm all for somebody trying it out and seeing if it's ready for prime time.

[paulsilver]

I too don't mind being PM'd for a thread whose topic I had previously shown interest in, but I can understand how some may... and even if the poster intends to market the scrubber as a product at some point, why does that mean it is any less interesting to me?

So, I really like the compact size of this, assuming it will work.

That said, I have the Dynamic Aquaria book here on my lap. Adey states that their research showed that: "algae, in a well developed turf, can absorb typically 0.3 to 1.2 grams of N a day per square meter of screen." He goes on to say that too much scrubbing can result in reduction of N levels to where blue Green algae dominate, which absorb less nutrients than the turf algae does. His examples indicate a scrubber size of about 3.3 sq cm per liter (120 gallon coral reef aquarium) This is well more than 1 sq. inch per gallon... more like 3 sq in per gallon. So the size might need to go up to gain the action Adey reports. And this assumes high lighting levels using MH intensity bulbs. Lesser light intensity will result in lesser algae production, and so less nutrient extraction. Important point...

He stresses the need for intense lighting on the turf scrubber... he uses metal halides in most instances... just FYI, so his analysis of nutrient removal rates depends on the high levels of light, which he also says is a goal of the surge, which creates shimmer, and intensifies the light reaching the algae.

As far as I can tell, the surge issue pertains to creating a natural surge environment in the scrubber which maximizes metabolism in the turf algae, according to the book: "Assuming adequate light, algal production is limited only by inadequate exchange of metabolites -- oxygen, carbon dioxide, and nutrients -- between the water and the cells of the attached algae. We have demonstrated a strong correlation between wave surge and improved metabolic interchange: when we occasionally stop the wave generators in our main reef tanks -- while maintaining a constant rate of circulation and level of light -- immediately there is a 50% reduction of oxygen production. The surge generated by the wave maker produces a back and forth motion within the tank, preventing the development of semi stagnant boundary layers that occur when a constant flow of liquid passes a fixed object. A steady current would tend to pin the filaments in an immobile position, and a surface layer of very slow moving water would develop." So say Adey and Loveland.

So for their model, the surge action is deemed an important aspect of the scrubber, keeping the algae moving and enabling higher rates of metabolism, which means faster growth, and better nutrient export. Refugia just don't do this as well, but they seem to work for me.

As for comparisons with refugia, I would have to say that Eric Borneman has said that he felt a refugium would have to be about the same size as the display to have a real impact on water quality, but that it is fine to be smaller if using it as a refugium for pod growth rather than as a scrubber. So I can say I agree with small being effective, so Borneman supports the size ratios described in Adey to some extent, when he talks about refugia and size. Yes, in this instance, size does matter... ;-)

Never the less, I use a Chaeto based scrubber/refugium on my 210 + 90 = 29 that is only 75 gallons in size, has a deep sand bed (6") and a few pieces of LR... it acts to reduce nitrate somewhat, and also Phosphate to a greater degree... My feeling is that the Nitrates are removed more through the deep sand bed action than by the algae scrubbing, and that a good portion of the phosphates are as well. But still I use the Chaeto. And the 75 is nearly full of it, tumbling around in there.

As for the cleaning I would be very careful with the electrical aspects, as pointed out by Dendro982 above, both in terms of splash, creep and seepage, but especially when removing and replacing the screen... perhaps there should be some accommodation for sliding the box away from the lights for the screen removal.

Regarding Spray bars: these tend to clog, almost without exception, so the holes for this, and for the drain must be large enough to make this a non-issue, and must be cleaned regularly. So I would look to this issue as well.

So, where to now?

Perhaps a larger size is needed, but since lighting can be done from both sides, the box/screen combo might need be only half as large as a more traditional scrubber. But still much larger than discussed so far, as per both Adey & Loveland, and Borneman. At least according to these experts. Technical issues such as the cleaning and spillage/creep are in need of addressing, especially for a "commercial" version.

Hope this helped, and hope to see more comments here.

[Aquarist007]

thanks for bringing this idea to may attention. I can't add anymore then the guys already have. But I will link this thread to the Refugiums and Macro thread--you might get some more responce from them

http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1349443

Personally I welcome all emails---I here to learn as well as to help others.
For those that want there privacy you can select to refuse email of any kind

[Aquarist007]

thanks for bringing this idea to may attention. I can't add anymore then the guys already have. But I will link this thread to the Refugiums and Macro thread--you might get some more responce from them

http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1349443

Personally I welcome all emails---I here to learn as well as to help others.
For those that want there privacy you can select to refuse email of any kind

[SantaMonica]

sk8r: Glad you like the experiment. The nice thing is that the basic concept is known to work; it's just a question of how easy I can build and use it, before I've changed the design too much. Who knows... if it works in the bucket, maybe I'll leave it that way because it's SO simple and cheap (would then become a cousin of the bucket DSB.)

Paul: Very good points. I thought somebody might have that book somewhere. As for size, fortunately this is just a test that can't do any damage. Thus the first goal is to just see if I can get/keep turf on the screen using a waterfall and cfl lights (bare minimum setup.) I just ordered the seeded screen from IA today, should have it tomorrow; you have to call them to order it, was $10 per 4 inch square section, and is shipped wet in a bag.

Since this is a 5 gal bucket test... that will be the screen size. I can enlarge it later when I do the actual box, but even if 3 square feet is the recommended amount for 100 gal, I'm hoping that the double-sided approach does indeed cut that in half. Plus I think Aday was giving that recommendation with the thought of removing the skimmer, which I won't be doing for a while. If, in the end, I can max out the screen size that I have with turf, then I'll know I'm ready for a larger size, and/or halides. Halides may be harsher on the box material... would have to make sure acrylic would not melt.

As for the surge, maybe there is a way to cause a back-and-forth swaying motion (that does not use a bucket); have not attempted to figure that out yet. As it stands now, at least the water will be going from nothing to a flow and back again; it just won't be reversing.

This is very interesting: "I would have to say that Eric Borneman has said that he felt a refugium would have to be about the same size as the display to have a real impact on water quality, but that it is fine to be smaller if using it as a refugium for pod growth rather than as a scrubber." I always thought he and others recommended 30% to 70& of the main volume for scrubbing; I did not know about 100%. That bodes even more for the turf.

"My feeling is that the Nitrates are removed more through the deep sand bed action than by the algae scrubbing, and that a good portion of the phosphates are as well." I agree, but I think this is where you get to the core usefulness of turf: Both turf and a fuge reduce nutrients to an "extent" on a said feeding schedule, but turf seems to be able to absorb very large feedings and nutrient spikes that a fuge (unless huge) can't. Couple this with the theoretical possibility of skimmer (and even sump) elimination, and a small footprint (even at 3 square feet, as long as it's vertical), and I think that's where the power of turf shows itself. A vertical turf should not collect detritus, yet still grow lots of food. I currently don't do any filtering in my sump; I just see it a box of water taking up space.

Electrically, I see what you mean... when you pull the screen up and out, it could drip on the lights. Maybe a little lip on the box could go over the lights to cover them. But the unit will be small, so it certainly could be lifted out too. Even a 3 foot by 1 foot screen, if vertical, could be lifted out and taken to the sink.

The spraybar: I should call it a nozzle instead. There really is no spray; just today I cut some pvc tube to see what the flow would be. I made a slit 6 inches long by 1/8 inch wide, and the 190 gph could not even fill the whole slot (needs more flow). It's more of an "outflow" than a spray. It would be impossible to clog.

Capn: Thanks for the link to the "good bad ugly"... was actually on my list to read next.

[paulsilver]

There is one guy on this thread who showed a photo of his unit that had some baffles to create turbulence... from the Adey book, there is no indication that they thought the algae benefited from a dry spell... the point with the surge was more to loosen up the clumps and allow water to flow and disrupt the boundary layers that lead to dead spots within the clumps... Baffles might be enough to do the job, as with that unit in the photo...

Algae growing on the sides of the box is another story... one might have to use, lo and behold, an algae scrapper to clean it out...

[Paul B]

I have a few problems with the design but it would still work with a lot of maintenance.
In the first picture with the enclosed box, algae would grow on the inside of the box weather it was underwater or not. It will always be damp enough for algae. The water splashing on the sides will cause the light to diminish greatly very quickly. You can't use the plastic wrap method wery well because it would melt.
You can modify the box to be a little wider and put the screen in on an angle from top to bottom, put the light over the top and solve those problems but the unit would have to be larger and you would only be able to light one side of the screen.
I am not crazy about any method where there is plastic between the lights and the screen.
Whatever method you finally come up with I use plastic window screen but I first sandpaper it very well then rub wet cement over the screen. That will cause a thin layer of cement to stick into the sand paper scratches greatly increasing the growth of the algae.
Algae love cement. Thats the method I use in my trough which by the way uses no seperate pump or light.
Keep designing, You will get all the bugs out after many models and modifications.

[bergzy]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=12921441#post12921441 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by SantaMonica
[B]if it works in the bucket, maybe I'll leave it that way because it's SO simple and cheap (would then become a cousin of the bucket DSB.)/B]

well, i have been using my 5g bucket fuge for the past 5 years now with great success.

hard to beat a fuge that costs about $5 to build (or free if you just have spare parts lying around...like an old salt bucket). i have found in my 5 years of using the 5g (and even smaller) bucket fuge of various sized tanks with varying reef inhabitants (softies to sps') that a fuge (if properly designed and utilized) doesnt have to be remotely any percentage of the display tank. i am talking about most residential non extreme systems. if and when i get to setting up my 400g display with a 200g sump and 'maybe' 150g or so cryptic zone...i would still use the 5g bucket refugium for macro growth. that is how well it works.

it has grown macro faster than any method i have used and is so easy to construct. literally 2 minutes to make and install...no, really TWO minutes!

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y38/bergzy/KIF_0402edit.jpg

why does it grow chaeto so fast? i think it is because i am able to replicate the rotational motion that chaeto likes in nature. this exposes the colony maximally to nutrients and allows every bit of the ball to be exposed to light. there is no bottom where colony growth my be little to none due to light restrictions. plus, the high flow (120x turnover) lets the chaeto get the most chance to nutrient absorption.

here it is spinning. the colony is much larger than i normally keep it to show it rotating. i normally try and keep it trimmed to a softball size or a very non dense volleyball size colony.

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y38/bergzy/th_MVI_5067.jpg (http://s2.photobucket.com/albums/y38/bergzy/?action=view&current=MVI_5067.flv)


and...

i thought that some might be interested to see my $20 (or less) external zeovit reactor made from 2g and 5g buckets. currently, there are no zeovit reactors this large and the largest one one the market goes for over $400. i have been using this reactor for just over two years.

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y38/bergzy/IMG_0039edit.jpg

sooooo...one could say that my experience is just a drop in the bucket!!!:lol: :lol: :lol:

[paulsilver]

Not to hijack a thread, but has anyone built a Ca+ Reactor out of buckets?

I was not quoting Borneman, just speaking from my memory of his book or an article somewhere... might have been 80% or some such... I got the impression that bigger is best...

[o.c.d.]

I didn't read the whole thread but looks cool. I would test the angle of the crate before you fasten and pegs to hold in place. an increased angle instead of true vertical may get better dispersal, esp with growth that may occur more at the top then cause channeling. I have to periodically clean my waterfalls (in fuge) to prevent that problem.please post results LOL

[herring_fish]

I think you have a great idea that is worth trying. It looks like you have things worked out pretty well since you incorporated a suggestion or two, from the thread, into your design. I was glad to be invited to this discussion. It’s good to have a little fun experimenting. If I knew everything about this hobby, I wouldn’t post. I can only tell you what I think and what my experience has led me to believe.

I did read Dr. Adey’s book and loved it. I also got to go to the Smithsonian and talk at length to the curator as well as getting a full tour of the facility behind the glass. By the way that exhibit is now closed.

I used home made Algae Turf Scrubbers for more than 10 years without a skimmer. You can see my old tank and read a few articles about it at my web site My non-commercial web site (http://asaherring.com) Also, I have started a thread asking for help with the designing of my new tank. There is a fare amount of discussion about other scrubber designs including mine. It is long and flat with the fulcrum under it so that it can be moved to turn it after installation. See the postings at: New Design for a Non-Photosynthetic System (http://reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1366053&perpage=25&pagenumber=1)

Some things to think about:
Without any surge however, you should see a 50 percent drop in effectiveness. There are several reasons why this happens that are mentioned above. The one that I did not see in this thread is the fact that when there is no surge, the algae strands tend to lay down parallel to each other and then get matted or packed down.

The water runs over the mat rather than flowing through the algae. Light has a harder time penetrating down into a mat. Agitating the strands allows light to get to virtually every cell in the colony. You would use a rotisserie for a roast in a barbeque oven wouldn’t you? Matted algae respiration is impaired for the same reasons. Additionally, I do think that you will get those dead spots that were mentioned in the thread. You could get some cheap rotating sprayers nozzles or hook up a motor to simply wiggle the screen. That being said, you can compensate for the 50 percent loss by making the screen bigger.

Light is another issue that you may have calculated already. I think that for a one hundred gallon tank, you will need about 430 watts. Splitting that light into two opposing directions might work well. You can use the cheapest K ratings but you do need the lumens. I bought some compact fluorescents that are long and narrow. If you have this type of lamps, you could point them straight down and use plastic to cover only the part that connects to the sockets. That way, if there is a little splash, the water will not hurt anything. I prefer not to have anything in between the lamp and the algae and I want the cool lamps as close as possible and safe.

I read about a few negative issues that are, I think wrongly, attributed to Algal Turf Scrubbers (ATS). Real issues all seemed to be avoidable if you think about these two points.

1. Size the scrubber correctly and have enough light on it. It stands to reason that an ATS or any other equipment, that is under sized or under performing, will not do a good enough job. It is better to build the scrubber too big and reduce the lighting time if it gets too efficient. Adey suggests, “When in doubt in a particular case, add 20-30 percent to (the) scrubber area.”
2. Use the scrubber by itself. Once it is going and growing well, wean off of the other equipment while testing the water. If you have competing devices, the scrubber will not work to its potential and then you will be adding equipment to compensate for issues that the ATS is known to be great at taking care of. Of course when you add more equipment, the scrubber will be even more deprived of the nutrient that it needs and will operate even less efficiently. Sand beds, refugiums etc. are great if they complement and not compete.

I never saw a green tent in the water, although I looked for it ever since I started the scrubber. I have heard that you are supposed to look down the length of the tank to see it. Who does that?

I never had any slime, anywhere in my tank or equipment, once I started the scrubber.

Hair algae declined slowly but went away completely, despite the fact that I chronically over fed my tanks. As a matter of fact, I had a hard time keeping plants of any type in my main tank so I added fish based plant fertilizer on a regular schedule. This, with the skimmer disassembled in the garage.

The scrubber is an ideal home for algae with tons of intermittent direct light. In the main tank, light is absorbed exponentially with depth so filaments in the show tank, under several inches of water, can not compete with the algae in the scrubber, under 0 inches of water.

The scrubber should be lit a night when the main tank lights are off to help regulate pH fluctuations and raise oxygen level to near saturation levels.

Well, that's it. Most of all, have fun!

[SantaMonica]

paulsiver: Yes I saw the baffles on that slanted screen. Very easy to do. But I'm going to go ahead and simulate waves by having the dry spell (already have the timer). He could easily add a timer too, and compare it (if it's powered by a pump).

Paul B: I see what you mean about it being damp enough for algae, even if it's not underwater, but I wonder why then no algae grows in my main tank just above the waterline; it had plenty of dampness and light. I agree that plastic between the lights and screen is not the best, that's why I mentioned the "open" option. And good point about coating a new screen with cement first; If I start with a new one I'll do it, but I first need to give the pre-seeded one from IA, so I don't have to wait three months for some thick turf.

bergzy: Well with all that success you've had in a bucket, I was motivated to get this thing working today (plus, I have to get light and water on the screen quickly, or else).

o.c.d.: Very good point. Even though the screen may get good water coverage to start, I can see how thicker algae at the top might divert the water. Will have to watch out for this.

herring_fish: Amazing run without a skimmer. And yesterday I believe I read the whole thread of your non-photo plans. Hopefully if my turf test works, I'll be able to feed enough to keep some dendro's. And I agree that the surge is important, but what amount of the 50% I lose, I hope to gain by having both sides going. And I see you give another vote for no acrylic in front of the light.

As for size, obviously the test bucket is the controlling factor, but a final build can certainly use your pointers in combination with what is learned from the test. If the test screen is full of algae, but there is still N and P problems, then it needs to be bigger.

Use it by itself? You mean unplug the skimmer from the start?

You never had tinting! That is great. I run carbon every so so, but I'd rather not. Slime?... I used to dose vodka and I'd get some slime in the sump; especially in the foam where the skimmer outputs. But it's the green film algae, in my case, that was the impetus to looking into turf. Glad you got rid of your hair aglae using turf (and no skimmer); I'm hoping that this green film will go away too.

And like you, I'm planning of night operations of the turf.



http://reefcentral.com/gallery/data/578/148489TurfFilterBucket.JPG



OK, so I got the seeded screen from IA today, about $100 including priority overnight to Los Angeles. Was in great shape, and more than enough to fill the bucket (had to trim it). It was stiff material that could stand up straight by itself, but still would be wavy and try to bend, so I put edge straighteners on the sides that I got from one of the tank dividers that were linked above. Then I trimmed the top to be narrow enough to fit into the slot that I cut in to the pvc pipe. I put it in and tried it with the Hydor 320 gph I just got (as an upgrade from the 190 gph), and it still just was not enough water to fill the whole slot.

I had to get something going soon since the algea needed light and flow, so the nearest lfs had a 690 gph that I got. The chart that came with it said at 4ft head (the bucket will be on the sink) it would have 375 gph. Was perfect! So slid the screen into the slot in the pvc, taped a hose from the pump to the pvc (amazing... does not leak at all), and it's done. So there it is in the pic above... a working bucket-turf-filter, held together with tape.




Here is a closeup of the "seeded" side of the screen from IA (they only seed one side) when no water is flowing:
http://reefcentral.com/gallery/data/578/148489ScreenRightDrySmall.JPG
Hi-Res: www.radio-media.com/fish/ScreenRightDry.JPG


Here is a closeup of the same seeded side when water is flowing. Note that water coverage is 100%...
http://reefcentral.com/gallery/data/578/148489ScreenRightFlowSmall.JPG
Hi-Res: www.radio-media.com/fish/ScreenRightFlow.JPG


Here is a closeup of the "unseeded" side of the screen from IA, with no flow. Some of the turf made it's way to this side, but it's definately thinner, and there are many places on the screen that are bare plastic:
http://reefcentral.com/gallery/data/578/148489ScreenLeftDrySmall.JPG
Hi-Res: www.radio-media.com/fish/ScreenLeftDry.JPG


And here is the closeup of the same unseeded side with flow (100% water coverage)...
http://reefcentral.com/gallery/data/578/148489ScreenLeftFlowSmall.JPG
Hi-Res: www.radio-media.com/fish/ScreenLeftFlow.JPG


Here's how I attached the screen to the spraybar... just slid it up into the slot in the pvc pipe:
http://reefcentral.com/gallery/data/578/148489ScreenSpraybar.JPG




Here are some video's of the flow starting; the noises you hear are the gurgling of the water in the tubes:


Seeded side:
www.radio-media.com/fish/ScreenFlowRight.mpg
Youtube: http://youtube.com/watch?v=wm65mMM1gDs


Unseeded side:
www.radio-media.com/fish/ScreenFlowLeft.mpg
Youtube: http://youtube.com/watch?v=tlDw2iWIZmo


So, all in all, it's nice to have gotten the screen on Friday morning, and get the turf running by friday night. Here are my first observations:

I'm sitting here listening to the gurgling of the fill/drain process, which (unlike the bucket system, I believe) can be eliminated with the proper angles of the tubes going into and out of the bucket. The tubing I used for this test was 3/4 inch ID. Now, imagining that the tubing has been adjusted to eliminate gurgling, all you would year is the water going down the screen; similar to one of those tabeltop waterfalls, or a bubbling brook.

After examing the screen, and as can be seen in the pics/vid, there is (thank goodness) a 100% water coverage of the screen. Now of course this is now; we'll have to wait and see about then, when the algae is thicker. The flow is strong, maybe even a "mini surge", albeit uni-directional. But nonetheless, the water is covering every single part of the screen... even the top outside parts at the rim of the bucket.

I've currently got the timer set at 30 seconds (30 seconds flow, 30 seconds stop). This seems to give the turf time to really dry out, and puts less on/off strain on the pump. Also, a longer time gives the bucket a chance to completely drain, thus exposing even the bottom part of the screen to air (otherwise there is some water in the bottom of the bucket, covering the screen.)

I will probably be adding a clip-on fan to the top of the bucket to give it more CO2. Should also help with more evaporation (which I need so I can drip more kalk) and lower temps.

Well I have to admit, I did not want to say it this soon, but the skimmer has seemed to stop working. At first I though something was clogged in the skimmer pump... you know the familiar site when the foam drops way down. That's what happened after connecting the turf. I checked everything on the skimmer and all checked out. I even tested it by putting a new filter sock in the water, and it almost exploded with foam. So it was working ok. But as of now, five hours after hooking up the turf, the skimmer foam as dropped so low that I can't get any output no matter how I adjust it.

One of the advantages of the pre-seeded screen from IA is that it should be ready to filter from hour one. I'm hoping that's what happened to the skimmer. There is a possibility that the extra flow from the bucket's drain (which goes into the sump) altered the skimming, so I'll have to wait to see. But nevertheless, the turf on the seeded side of the screen was a good quarter inch; given light and flow, it's got to do something right away.

One disadvantage of this setup occured to me: If the timer or the pump ever failed, the turf would quickly die from drying out. The only way around this would be to not use a timer, and just use a constant flow from an overflow or such.

Anyway, we'll see what happens.

[bergzy]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=12931276#post12931276 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by SantaMonica
One disadvantage of this setup occured to me: If the timer or the pump ever failed, the turf would quickly die from drying out. The only way around this would be to not use a timer, and just use a constant flow from an overflow or such.

Anyway, we'll see what happens.

i didnt read what kind of timer you are using for your pumps and i never used this wavemaker timer...but it is adjustable to suit your needs and is made for the aquarium hobby.

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=12931276#post12931276 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by SantaMonica ]JBJ wavemaker ([QUOTE)

yeah, costs are adding up, esp when i read about the cost of your turf algae shipped! :eek1:

i 'heard' that the hydor is a decent pump but not too familiar with it when used in 'pulse' situations. that is why i linked a timer for 'two' pumps. a second one running just in case one fails...and if both fail at the same time...when then that just sucks big time. maxi jet 1200's have worked for me on wavemakers for years.

are you thinking about putting a carlson surge on your scrubber for true filling and emptying?

http://www.athiel.com/lib9/surger.gif

looks really good so far!

:thumbsup:

[paulsilver]

Where is "The OC" Mr Ben?

I have seen these Carlson Surge devices in action, and they work wonderfully.

[SantaMonica]

Well, I don't know what to do. The skimmer (ER CSS 8) has stopped working entirely; looks like it's trying to skim freshwater... there are just no bubbles no matter how I adjust it (and it even has a new pump, and the mesh mod that allows me to lower the pipe six inches from what was required before.) I let it run all night, and absolutely nothing made it into the cup (and I fed a hefty dose of phyto and plankton last night too.) So, I unplugged it. I now have no filtration of any kind except the turf.

As for the timer, I'm using a JBJ Ocean Pulse Duo ($50). It does have one known quirk: If the power fails, it comes back on full-time (no intervals). At least this will save the turf, but you have to turn the dial on it to get it to start switching again. The timer was the only thing I "really" needed to buy; everything else was laying around or super cheap, and the pre-seeded screen is optional for a quick startup. And it does seem to have started up quickly (instantly). I suppose you could build one without the timer (and have full time flow) and see what happens. I might look into a Maxijet pump... I don't trust the Rio I got (is already chattering on startup). No I'm not doing any surging, but I'm doing about 60X right now with my return and 5 tunze nanostreams.

Here are a few more things I've thought of:

There is no smell while it is operating; only if you take the screen out and scrape it (as I was doing while trimming it) do you get a "at the beach" smell. But it's nothing like a skimmer cup. And it doesn't drip bad or gooey stuff... just water.

I've noticed about a .1 PH (maybe .2) increase. It's a bit hard to tell yet since the PH is highly dependent on the kalk drip rate. But I'm usually at about 8.1 and now it's 8.3.

Since the turf is (currently) in a bucket, how about hanging the bucket up higher than the tank, and draining into it? You'd get all the pods, but not take up space on top the tank.

One nice thing is that a turf provides a good overall system backup in case somthing goes wrong with the main pump. The turf (using it's own smaller pump) provides circulation, cooling, filtering, and even feeding, all by itself.

Speaking of backup, possibly two turf filters could be run, each one (as bergzy said) with it's own pump.

When it's time for harvesting, I got an idea of using a shaver. The kind they use at the hair salon that has ajustable or clip-on length attachments. This way I can mow it down to about 1/8 inch and not harm the roots. Also, being two-sided, you can harvest (trim) just one side at a time for better filtration balancing.

I was doing more reading of old posts (2004) and I found user Scot, who said: "The ATS unit is kind of small, I originally built it for my daughters 29 gal tank. I started testing it on this 100 gal tank when it was first set up with some raw rock. Still haven't taken it off. The screen is 5 1/2 x 12 inches, thats 66 square inches. It's scraped once a week. The light is a LOA 65w pc." His screen was half the size of mine, and only one-sides. He says he had no skimmer, but ran carbon, and was giving more sps frags to the lfs than they could sell. If his situation is as seems, then maybe my 12 X 12 screen will indeed work for me.

I'll starting taking measurements soon; last few weeks I've been about 2 nitrate and 0 phos.

[bergzy]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=12933372#post12933372 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by paulsilver
Where is "The OC" Mr Ben?

I have seen these Carlson Surge devices in action, and they work wonderfully.

the OC is orange county california. i put it on there when the tv show was around and more popular...though i never saw even one episode.

i am also a pretty big fan of the carlson surge. 'when' i do redo my 180g upgrade to a 400g...i will incorporate a carlson surge.

i am really not wanting to take apart in any way my 180g as it is sooooo stable right now. plus, i have no idea if the edge of my foundation (where the tank will be) is strong enough to support a 400g glass tank full of water, rock and steel stand.

where did you see the carlson in action. i first saw one on the display tanks in the waikiki aquarium. even got a personal behind the scene tour by delbeek himself. super nice guy btw!!!:)

[biomekanic]

Looking good!

great thread btw, glad I came here from the marine plants forum.

[sjm817]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=12933846#post12933846 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by SantaMonica
Well, I don't know what to do. The skimmer (ER CSS 8) has stopped working entirely; looks like it's trying to skim freshwater... there are just no bubbles no matter how I adjust it (and it even has a new pump, and the mesh mod that allows me to lower the pipe six inches from what was required before.) I let it run all night, and absolutely nothing made it into the cup (and I fed a hefty dose of phyto and plankton last night too.) So, I unplugged it. I now have no filtration of any kind except the turf.


Skimmers are very picky about water. Something you added is hindering foam production. Most of the time, when you add anything to the tank it either kills the foam or causes the skimmer to overflow. It always works itself out after it is in the tank for awhile. I would turn the skimmer back on and be patient. It will come back.

[herring_fish]

Why don’t you test the water a see if you need to turn the skimmer back on? You might not.

[SantaMonica]

biomekanic: Glad you like the concept. Your interest in plants could really help out here.

sjm817: Well it might be the plastic bucket, or the screen material. Probably not the clear pvc tubes; probably not the pump. I've used this skimmer for two years and it never went "flat" like this. It might drop for a bit if the overflow is splashing near the pump intake, but there would still be foam. It's going on 24 hours now of no foam.

herring: I did test it today: 0 phos, and about 3 nitrate (been like this for several weeks), no change.

So I tested the skimmer again, starting with the tube down low where it has worked well for the last year: Nothing, zero foam. I upped the tube to the highest point it would go without disconnecting, and still nothing (the water is just short of going into the cup, but there is zero foam.) So I put the tube back down to its normal spot, and dipped a new filter sock in the sump for about five seconds, and immediately the foam began and the column started rising quickly. It shot to the top and pushed the lid up about a half inch. After a half hour or so, all the sock residues had been removed and the foam was back down to zero. So I unplugged it again.

There have been some changes in the pre-seeded screen in the last 24 hours since it arrived, I think because IA probably dumped their water down onto the screen, whereas I'm sliding the water across the screen. Thus over the past day there are a few spots where the turf has slid off the screen; mostly up near the spraybar where the flow was coming out the fastest. Also my lights are surely different than theirs. And the shipping... even with priority overnight, and a few hours in my sink (with chlorinated tap water running over it)... i'm sure there is some die off.

So to end the night, I fed two pumps of plankton (normally I do just one), and a full pump of phyto (normally just two drops, if any at all). Normally this much food would have algae on my glass the next day. We'll see.

[jjr1964]

thats normal if your running your ats properly (sizing of ats and harvesting), i sold my skimmer on ebay. dam nice not having to matain a skimmer, ats is much easer.

[tmz]

Thankyou for your pm inviting me to the thread. I occasionaly receive invitations to participate in threads and I am always interested .
I like the idea of an ats and have for some time.Cost ,surge, lighting etc. have led me in favor of refugia with caluerpa and gracilaria , a couple of live rock based cryptic and twilight zones,dsb and a good but slighly undersized skimmer. I am looking forward to learning a bit more about this technique and your design and may try it.

[SantaMonica]

Well I've now gone through 48 hours with the turf, and about the same time with no skimmer. I originally had some carbon and polyfilters in, but took them out along with turning the skimmer off. Tonight the phos tested 0, and the nitrate about 3, same as the last several weeks. However, I QUADRUPLED the feeding: Twice as much plankton and phyto along with the fish, and, doing it twice a day instead of one, which I've never done before. No additional algae has formed on the glass; I'm just started to get it today (was last cleaned three days ago), about what I'd expect pre-turf.

PH seems to have settled in at .2 above normal. I shut off kalk for a full day and it settled in at 8.15, whereas it would normally be 7.95 without kalk.

The turf screen seems to have cleared a few more spots, at least that's what I'm perceiving. However when I went back and looked at the pics above, it looks the same. I'll wait a week and take another series of pics.

One of my four clams jumped off the rock he'd been sitting on for months; they normally jump off when they aren't happy. Maybe the turf has taken the clam's N and P, and made him mad.


jjr1964: If it's normal for a skimmer to stop working when turf is used properly, why have a lot of folks in the past been able to keep using their skimmers. I'm keeping my skimmer in the sump (unplugged) for now, but usage of it is not an option.

tmz: You say that cost, surge and lighting kept you away from turf in the past. Cost of course, starting at $3,000 for a commercial unit (if you can find one). But did the surge or the lighting pose a problem for your tank? Or were you saying that building one with surge and lighting would be a problem. I'm happy that, besides the timer and pre-seeded screen, this turf in a bucket system is (kinda like a DSB in a bucket) basically free. I think most people have the materials. I wish I knew if not having a timer would be a problem; I'd be scared to turn my timer off and chance the turf dying.

Why doesn't someone show me that I'm not going skimmer crazy, and build a "freebie" turf in a bucket with no timer and no seeded screen, hook it up and see what happens over the next four weeks? If it will help, here's what I used:

o 5 gal bucket

o 700 gph pump (might be okay to use down to 400)

o 1.25 inch pvc for spraybar; mine was a narrow-walled one meant for a sink drain. A 1/8 inch slit longways for the screen to go into.

o Tank divider rails, to hold the screen straight, from the Penn Plax 29-55 gal size. Could
also use 1/2 inch stiff tubing split down the length. If you use stiff screen (stiffer
than the Penn Plax), it will stand up by itself without rails.

o 3/4 inch clear vinyl tubing, from pump to bucket, and from bucket drain back to tank.

o Bulkhead for the 3/4 inch drain in bottom of bucket.

o Packaging tape to seal one end of the spraybar closed, and to attach the other end of the
spraybar to the 3/4 tubing, and to position the spraybar on top of the bucket in the
middle so it won't slide off.

o Two clip-on lamp holders; bulbs are CFL 23W (125W equivalent light output; 5100K)


And for those willing to buy a timer and seeded screen ($150 total)...

o Call Mike at Inland Aquatics 812-232-9000, and get turf "sized to a 5 gal bucket" overnighted to you. Already have your bucket operating, though.

o The JBJ Ocean Pulse Duo timer. Any wavemaker timer will do, though.


Maybe I should change the name of this thread to "turf in a bucket" :)

[tmz]

Thanks for the breakdown. I may add one at some point. I'll keep tagging along.

[sjm817]

Why is the skimmer off? When you add a bunch of new plastic and other things, it can easily kill a skimmer. It may take several days or longer to start working again. IME, polyfilters will cause a skimmer to overfoam unless rinsed real well. You took that out, and also the carbon. You are changing a lot of things at the same time, so be careful. If you intend to use the skimmer in this setup, you need to let it run for awhile. You have changed the water chemistry and it may take some time for things to settle down.

[herring_fish]

What you already have is better but I thought that someone else might want to use is if they can do what you are doing.
http://reefcentral.com/gallery/data/586/184539spray-bar.jpg
http://reefcentral.com/gallery/data/586/184539HydorFloRotatingDeflector.jpg

[SantaMonica]

sjm817: Ah I forgot about that... skimmers do that. So I plugged it back in this afternoon , and sure enough it had some foam; got about a inch of medium skimmate in seven hours, at a tube setting a bit higher than normal. So it's not skimming as strong as normal but it is way better than what it was. However, a point made by someone a few post ago had some merit: Turn off all filtering so the turf can do what it was (already) grown to do. After all, IA uses only turf on their commercial tanks, so I'm sure the turf is used to heavy nutrients. I'd hate to starve it. I have mostly corals, and few fish, so the skimmer takes out what I need to keep in.

herring: Not sure how that wet/dry would work with my setup. If the screen were vertical inside it, it looks like most of the water would be sprayed straight to the bottom, missing the screen. But maybe you had a different setup in mind.

Anyways, the glass finally needs cleaning, right on pre-turf schedule. But then again I'm feeding at least twice as much, and twice as often now. I just cleaned the skimmer, so I'm going to leave it off again, in the spirit of not starving the turf. I know the turf and the skimmer go after different nutrients, but I think there is indeed some crossover. For example on the Aday site he talks about how turf absorbs organics and ammonia. Now that's news to me. I thought organics were for the skimmer, and ammonia was for the rocks. Nevertheless, most of the reading I did found that turf users were harvesting about once a week. I have not seen any growth yet, yet the N and P seemed fine while the skimmer was off. So I'm going to try to give the turf what it wants.

[sjm817]

Skimmer, algae, carbon will all pull out organics. Keeping the skimmer off will help kick start the algae growth.

[paulsilver]

I personally have seen skimmers stop foaming for several days when new hardware is added... I agree that this is a generally temporary thing, and that the skimmer will begin again in a few days...

[FishNFun]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=12951229#post12951229 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by paulsilver
I personally have seen skimmers stop foaming for several days when new hardware is added... I agree that this is a generally temporary thing, and that the skimmer will begin again in a few days...

I agree. I just added a couple TLF reactors and my skimmer stopped for a couple days. Back to normal now though.

[herring_fish]

Like I said, what you have is better than a spray bar but not everyone will be able to have the same sized or shaped envelope for their equipment to fit into. I am very happy with my dump bucket but it does have a weird shape.

My original thought was to have sprays bar that perhaps turned more slowly than what I have pictured. I have never used either of those products so I really don’t know anything about how well they operate. I only posted the pictures above to spark ideas.

I just thought that if you didn’t have access to a surge, then “Plan B” could be as follows: If something like one of those units were install on either side of the screen, oriented sideways, the water streams would not be going to the same spots and therefore it would be less likely to allow matting or deal spots.

Water could be directed at the screen and applied in a moving circular pattern to offer at least a little variation to the water flow. This variation would hopefully cause the strands of algae to be blown in one direction and then in another direction, separating them from one another as the stream moves along.

Of course there would be down sides to this idea including a requirement to clean the unit about once a month to keep it turning smoothly, knocking algae off of the screen if it were too strong and others problems but it might be better than nothing if you can’t have surge.

[paulsilver]

Just be aware that many of those rotating spray bars will not work in anything but a perfect horizontal position... they stop turning. In fact I have not seen any that would work in a vertical position, as would be required to have them spray on the vertical screen...

The other item looks more like a fitting that goes on the outflow end of a powerhead, and if it does, then I have used them. They turn from the water pressure as it exists the pump... they do jam sometimes, especially if coated up in algae. But they work well, when they work...

Just wanted to point some of that out.

[SantaMonica]

sjm817: Well it's good then if turf pulls organics too; seems it pulls out everything that needs to come out, except large pieces of detritus. But any detritus in my tank goes through the powerheads, so maybe it's in a particulate form that's will disolve quick enough to be used by the turf before it get out of hand.

paulsilver, fishnfun: Yes that's apparently what happened. I test started the skimmer up again today and had foam, then shut it down again.

herring: I see what you meant now; the rotating idea is a way to "fluf up" the turf so it gets moved in different directions, thus allowing light to hit all sides of the turf strands. Well, now that I've had my hands on the turf, I'm not sure they would flex all that much. This turf that I got from IA really feel like artificial turf on a football field (although it may grow more). You may not see it in the video I posted, but when the water flows over it, it does not move at all. So, water flowing in the opposite direction probably would not move it that way as much easier.

Anyways, another day of turf-only filtering. P and N same today. Heavy plankton and phyto. I think my green bubble is growing for the first time (might just be me). The one clam continues to be unhappy.

I got another pump to replace the Rio... an Eheim 1260. Even though it was rated less than the Rio 2100, it was putting out much more flow at 4 feet. This time, there really was water splattering as it came out of the spraybar, and it sounded that way too, and it was splashing the side of the bucket (compared to the lesser flow which sounded like a small tabletop waterfall and did not spash at all and where the sides of the buck were totally dry). So I put the Rio back on and ordered the next size smaller Eheim. The short time the higher flow was going, it pushed some of the turf down the screen a bit, into small clumps. The water now has to travel over the clumps, but it still in no way leaves any dead spots. Another thing with the larger flow... it filled faster than it drained. So if the pump ever would stick on "fill", then it would overflow.

The tape is starting to leak a few drops; I put a bowl under to catch it for now, but this weekend I might look for more solid connectors. Green algae is just starting at bottom one inch of the bucket; this is the area always covered with water because the drain hole does not go all the way to the bottom. But, there is nothing growing on the sides, which is good since the white bucket reflects more of the light back to the turf.

Question: Is it possible that the turf is not really doing anything, and it's really the rocks that are doing the work?

[sjm817]

The Eheim 1260 is a much stronger pump in practice than other pumps with the same "rating". The 1250 has a lot less flow. I'm not sure you will be happy with it. I would put a valve on the output of the 1260 and dial it back to the flow level you need.

[paulsilver]

I would say that the turf algae is definitely doing something, but that it is not instantaneous in result... it takes a bunch of algae to remove measurable amounts of phosphate and nitrate, so I doubt you would be able to tell much after just a week... let the algae grow, and harvest it, then grow again... in a month I think you would see measurable results in nutrient decline.

Of course, with the algae doing what it does, the rock will also do its job, and probably better. as with the sand bed.

But I really think that it would be nearly impossible to see results in a week. More like a month, in my own experience.

[SantaMonica]

Another day another phosphate check... still zero. Paulsilver: I forgot to mention mine is BB (pic below), although I do have about 2 1/2 bags of sugar oolitic in the capped-off overflow (my version of an RDSB). Today I fed a full phyto pump, plus a cube of cyclops, a cube of daphnia, and a cube of sprirulina brine shrimp. No visible turf growth, other than some slight green algae in the few places where the turf slid due to the flow pressure. Also, I've added a fan on top the bucket to run 24/7 to provide more air contact.

So while I'm waiting a month (three more weeks) to get real results, I thought I'd add to the actual/possible advantages and disadvantages of a vertical two-sided turf filter for a reef tank (that I originally listed a few pages ago), compared to everything else including skimmers. And for simplicity let's just say this is for the bucket version (since most people can compare it to a DSB in a bucket). See if you agree with these, or would like to add some...

o Has highest nutrient uptake of any macro (because of high air and light levels).
o Very smallest size, for the amount of processing it does.
o High removal of N and P, low removal of foods (the opposite of a skimmer).
o Can entirely replace fuge, skimmer, DSB, carbon (?), phosban, polyfilters, etc.
o Harbours pods that can drain right down into display (if hung above display).
o Removes both N and P, unlike sand (only N), or phosban (only P).
o Extremely easy to build, similar to DSB in bucket.
o There are no moving parts at all.
o Provides cooling of water, especially with a fan.
o Does not form bacteria like vodka.
o Increases PH (unverified).
o Vertical turf algea screens can be lit from both sides, thus increasing processing.
o Removes DOC's (like carbon does) (unverified).
o Quick responding to high nutrients due to screen not reducing in size.
o Requires no skimming to work (like vodka does)
o Does not go sexual like caulerpa.
o Does not release strands into display like chaeto.
o Has strong light penetration into turf, since there is no standing water over it.
o Easy to clean; just lift the screen up out of bucket, and scrape or trim.
o No detritus trapping; most all waste flows right down the screen.
o No odor from the bucket (slight ocean smell when scraping).
o There is nothing to break or clog.
o Is very quiet when flowing, similar to a tabletop decorative waterfall.
o Introduces no microbubbles (that I've noticed).

Drawbacks:

o You must build it (none available to buy).
o Needs lights.
o Needs a pulsed flow (unknown if will work well without pulse).
o Cannot be used in same container as sump (although can be over sump).
o Does not provide a settling chamber for detritus (like sump does).
o Is still experimental (at least the bucket version)
o May tint the water a slight yellowish or greenish (carbon will fix this);
however I have not yet noticed any tinting yet.

[SantaMonica]

Pic before turf:

http://reefcentral.com/gallery/data/1/148489-_tank_new.JPG
Hi Res: http://radio-media.com/fish/TankNew.JPG

[SantaMonica]

Update at 1 week:

Turf is still the only filtration other than rock and sand. P still zero, N about 3 (steady). You can see P starting to come out of rocks because there are patches of brown algae forming on some rocks (those with P) and none on the rocks right next to them (those without P). Algae growth on glass is slow... three or four days between cleanings. No algae growth on back panel, and previous green patches are getting smaller. Feeding is enormous compared to what I used to feed. Below are the 1 week pics of the screen:

Seeded side at 1 week:
http://reefcentral.com/gallery/data/578/148489Seeded_Side_at_1_week_small.JPG
Hi-Res: www.radio-media.com/fish/SeededSideAt1week.jpg



Unseeded side at 1 week:
http://reefcentral.com/gallery/data/578/148489Unseeded_Side_at_1_week_small.JPG
Hi-Res: www.radio-media.com/fish/UnseededSideAt1week.jpg

[biomekanic]

Looks good.

Have you considered a small ozone unit instead of carbon? Or to supplement carbon?

[SantaMonica]

Have not studied ozone yet, so will not be pursuing that anytime soon. As for carbon, I've been using it on and off to combat various things (algae being one). For this turf test, of course, the carbon is removed, but if I start seeing any tinting of the water, that will be the time for the carbon.

[syrinx]

My take on this (since you asked), is that its a good hobby project for a tinkerer. I think that the TS idea has valid points as has been proven by Adey and IA, but it is obvious that the system has fallen out of favor after never really becoming popular. I think the reason cheato has become the algae export standard, is the fact its easy to use and no work is involved. I guess the main thing I am saying is that there are far easier ways to have the same or better water quality than a TS, with far less work. There is no benifit to a TS over a refugium- esp once the surge aspect is removed.

[paulsilver]

I think the TS has some advantages, like more comprehensive nutrient removal due to more intense lighting on the algae, which is in a thin layer... but the trade offs are obvious, a bit more scrubbing for a lot more work, in some cases, more investment.

But hey, for me this is a somewhat theoretical issue... I use a refugium, but I have used scrubbers before in the distant past...

[bergzy]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=12979303#post12979303 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by syrinx
My take on this (since you asked), is that its a good hobby project for a tinkerer.

yes, a great thing about this hobby is the ability to tinker and have a lot of fun with diy.

i think it looks like a fun project with the scrubber that was made and looks to be functioning quite well. it is a great innovative leap to design and make such a compact scrubber when in the past, they have been more horizontal thus taking up real estate that is so vital to us reefers.

here is a link about turf scrubber long term use:
http://stason.org/TULARC/animals/aquaria/reefkeeper/2-9-Algae-Scrubbers-long.html

it is an really well written article that is both informative and easy to read.

it looked at a few public aquariums that utilized adey's turf scrubber concept. the reporter comments that:

"Many attempts by public aquaria at implementing reef tanks using
only algal scrubbing have been failures. In particular, it seems
difficult to find successful long term success with Scleractinia
(stony corals) in such tanks..."

thus, if you intend to use the scrubber. i would definitely recommend the continued use of a protein skimmer and carbon to remove the residual doc's that turf algae does not remove (it's explained in the article...i definitely recommend it).

as time goes by with increased understanding...there is a dance of the Oxygen produced and carbon dioxide removed via algaes and the oxygen consumed and carbon dioxide produced via bacteria.

i am not just talking about the denitrifying bacteria...i am emphasizing the oligotrophic bacterioplankton that has been brought to attention in the past couple of years.

since encouraging the proliferation of this bacteria population, water clarity has become more clear than i have ever had with ozone (yes, i have used it). couple this with strong skimming, macro nutrient export, small water changes, carbon use and carbon (limiting factor) supplementation (vodka & vinegar...please read A LOT if you want to use it)...noticeable increased coral growth and greatly improved coral coloration. sounds like a lot of work...but in reality, i cant recall having had such a hands off time with my reef.

[herring_fish]

I ran an algae scrubber by it’s self for 10 years before I Relocated. Once my algal turf scrubber got going, I never had any hair algae in my main tank. There just weren’t enough nutrients left in the water to let any hair algae, of any kind, grow anywhere in the show tank. As I said before, I grossly over fed my tank to grow filter feeders but never had an outbreak. All I had on the rock was the color purple, polyps and sponges. I actually added fish fertilizer to the tank on a regular bases. Any, way…. have a look at my tank.

http://asaherring.com/Reef/Spongearticle.pdf

[bergzy]

interesting article herring!

when was it written?

the pictures of the tank inhabitants look happy and healthy with that 'thriving' look that reefers love.

have you ever tried sps' with the scrubber? the article i linked states that stony corals did not survive long with ats based filtration. do you have have a pic of your old scrubber? one of the things that discouraged me from using a scrubber was the whole dump bucket mechanism.

i found an article about scrubbers in advanced aquarist:
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/issues/july2004/editorial.htm

http://www.advancedaquarist.com/images/july2004/IMG_1337.jpg

from a personal opinion, the display tank doesnt look too great...from an aesthetically pleasing reef appearance perspective. the only thing appearing to be doing ok is the big ol' mangrove. your tank appears to have thrived with the ats in growing softies and gorgonians.

i love your clam in the pic! gigas clams grow like a weed and are absolutely a thrill to have. i havent seen gigas clams on the market in a while. i am wanting to replace the one that my pygmy angel irritated to death.

on the topic of sponges. i have been getting an explosive growth of sponges with the installation of my 65g cryptic zone as closely replicated to tyree's description of it:
Tyree's Cryptic Zone (http://www.practicalfishkeeping.co.uk/pfk/pages/show_article.php?article_id=544)

[SantaMonica]

syrinx: Good points. As far as turf never becoming popular, this must have had something to do with the fact that you can't buy a turf unit because the dumping-device is patented, and he decided to not manufacture units for sale (he went the industrial/enviromental route instead). So it appeared to everyone that a dumping design was a needed component (after all, that's what was patented), but nobody wanted to build their own because it's so complex. I however was not in the reef scene when the book and hoopla came out, so I did not know it could not be done another way. Chaeto: You could say it is no work, but that's assuming you already have a fuge/place for it, and that it will grow. I tried chaeto last year, and my work involved was: Had to find a place for it; had to get flow to it; had to add a light to it; had to figure out that it was trapping waste causing a nutrient spike that it was supposed to fix; had to clean out my sump and display and powerheads of the floating strands. Was not fun.

As for benefit of turf over a fuge, I think some of my bullet points above covered some, but basically: You wouldn't need a fuge at all, if you don't already have one; turf does not need to be cleaned of waste; turf exports much more N and P than chaeto per unit size; turf in a bucket can be hung over or drained down into the display (pods); turf cools; turf does not release strands; harvesting, however, appears to be about the same effort. As for the surge, I never wanted that anyway, and never considered it an advantage.

paulsiver: You certainly would know, since you've had both. I seem to recall yours was a dump design, which of course would be work and huge cost compared to my current bucket. As for size, my anectodal accounts that I've read about, and my current turf, allude to the possibility of a micro-sized turf filter that will easily handle lots of filtering. My current screen is only 12 X 12 inches (that's what would fit in a bucket), and only one side of it came seeded, and only about 3/4 of the seeded side actually had turf. So I started with about 100 square inches of turf. This corresponds to the fellow earlier who said he had even less than this for his 100 gal. Plus I'm feeding very heavy now, on purpose. Idea being, a small 6 X 6 inch screen (double sided) in a 2 gal pail might be all that's really needed for a 100 gal to remove all P, and most of N. I'm not sure how much fuge or chaeto space would be needed to remove all P, but I can imagine it would be more than 2 gal.

bergzy: Yes it is exciting that it could possibly be even smaller too. But a 5 gal bucket seemed a good start. And I just read that whole article. Fortunatly, very fortunately, I have no desire for stonies. I can see how (until proven wrong) that this information will deter stony people from trying turf. But I do think those public aquarium examples (from the 90's ?) were using turf exclusively; for a stony tank today, somebody would have to add turf to their other filters, and then slowly turn the other filters off while monitoring closely. Here are some other things I read in there:

"algae filters have been regarded in the past as too bulky and inefficient to be the sole filter for a aquarium." -- Yes, absolutely bulky; I'd probably never want to try a bulky dump or spinning wheel design, even if only a few hundred dollars. But I think the jury is still out on turf being "inefficient".

"The [recent] surge of interest in algal scrubbers seems to have been generated by Adey and Loveland's book Dynamic Aquaria (1991). They discuss both techniques which allow an algal scrubber to be compact and efficient and also a number of arguments as to why they are preferable to other filtration methods. They claim that perhaps 70-90% of the DIN in reef communities is consumed by algae, rather than by bacteria. The two methods produce rather different water chemistry; for example, algae are net producers of oxygen and remove carbon dioxide, while a bacterial filter consumes oxygen and produces carbon dioxide."

--I really like that last part, but then I also like not having to turn a skimmer off before I feed the corals.

"Adey and Loveland claim that their methods can bring levels of DIN down to a few hundredths of a ppm" -- This I have not seen; but then I'm not using halides as they recommended, and, mine is only a week in operation.

"Most or all reefs with algal scrubbers seem to have heavy algal growth in the tank as well" -- Here they are refering to the public aquariums in the 90's. Mine sure does not seem to be going this direction; there is no algae forming on the back panel, little algae forming on the glass, P is coming out of the rocks, old algae patches are getting smaller, coralline patches are getting bigger, all the while feeding at least 4X more than I was before. And of course P is testing zero (Salifert).

"Algaes seem to release much of the inorganic nitrogen which they take up, in the form of dissolved organic compounds (DON), which can also be later utilized by algaes. The very low levels of DIN measured in scrubbed tanks may mask the very high levels of DON which persist, providing nutrients for strong algal growth. This is borne out by many reports that the water in scrubbed tanks often has a pronounced yellow cast, characteristic of dissolved organic compounds. Since the water over natural reefs is very low in DON, high levels may be directly harmful to many corals, in addition to promoting uncontrolled algal growth."

--Something here does not make sense: "The very low levels of DIN measured in scrubbed tanks may mask the very high levels of DON which persist, providing nutrients for strong algal growth." --This seems to be saying that every algae EXCEPT turf uses organic N to grow, whereas turf RELEASES organic N as it grows. How can this be? Algae either uses or releases organic N as it grows. We know it uses inorganic N. So how can one type of algae "release" organic, while another type "uses" it, when they are both algae's?

My quick hypothesis: The yellowing stuff being released are not N related, but are chlorophyll related. Or, the DON are not being put there BY the turf, but instead are just not taken OUT by the turf, thereby making DOC look large in comparison to DIN. Anyways...

Oligotrophic bacterioplankton: Could you explain the connection of these to turf use?

herring: Nice pdf; never seen so many fan worms. I love filter feeders, and want to try them again now that they might hopefully have a real chance.

bergzy: I had already seen that AA article; was some of the info I used. And I had indeed already bought the Cryptic DVD from Tyree, but it would not play in my player. I nevertheless read about it. One of my future attempts will be sponges (again).

Lastly, I'm going to try scraping the screen for the first time soon (it actually has grown, now that I compare the new pics to the old); does anyone want the scrapings?

[bergzy]

oligotrophic bacterioplankton is not turf related. it is a separate concept and execution that has been made popular with the zeovit method. i use macro growth (at night esp) to create O2 as the bacteria respire quite a bit.

bacterial strains are introduced intentionally via a purchased supplement...zeobac in zeovits case. zeobac got a bad rap in the very beginning when someone tested it and found no bacteria. this has stuck around with zeovit ever since despite retractions and discoveries of bacteria in its additives. for some reason, zeovit sparks the most heated arguments here on rc (right after skimmers:))...that a lot of the threads have not only been locked but deleted.

the oligotrophic bacteria (in theory) consume the n and p that are in the water column (if i recall correctly as it has been some time since i cracked open the zeovit manual). there is also bacteria on the proprietary zeolites...but that is a different story.

thus, feeding the bacteria with zeofood encourages and exponentially grows the bacteria on the rocks. you 'shake' the rocks to dislodge the bacteria. they go into the water column to feed the corals etc and the remainder gets skimmed out. the bacteria in the water column create a very nutrient poor environment as well. this was noticed at about the third day of zeovit use. before zeo, i used a healthy dose of ozone to keep my water 'clear'...and it did keep it 'clear'. but with zeovit, my water became 'transparent'. it is soooo clear, it cant be described unless seen in real person. even my wife looking at the tank said 'ummm, the water is really clear. is that ok?' i didnt even know, i had to ask the zeo guys about that. they said 'welcome to the beauty of zeo!' :)

i have been using zeo for 2 1/4 years now with excellent results. i have pulled back on it though because it creates such a nutrient free environment that the tank is like on a knife edge. amazing colors, amazing growth BUT you really have to have incredible experience and skill at parameter adjustment if anything goes outside the zeovit specified parameters.

i stopped dosing zeofood and just use vodva and a little vinegar for carbon sources. these are very potent carbon sources that i dont recommend people to just dive into. i say i spent over a year to slowly create a nutrient poor environment to not shock the corals etc.

hth's a little in clarification of bacteria.

[bsagecko]

i think that the turf scrubber make work but i would check out the book dyanimic aquarium it is a whole book based on turf scrubbers and refuges.................IMO you turf will help but i dont think it can replace a solid fuge and sump..................

i just dont think it is big enough....................IMO and in my experience with my friends the turf in order to be the only filteration needs to be very large............also watch out for the algae going in your tank...........

However i do agree that the turf algae scrubber if it is big enough is like 1000x better than macro algae at removing nutrients.......

i would turn off you PS unless you run an sps tank...................

[jglackin]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=12983517#post12983517 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by bergzy
interesting article herring!

when was it written?

the pictures of the tank inhabitants look happy and healthy with that 'thriving' look that reefers love.

have you ever tried sps' with the scrubber? the article i linked states that stony corals did not survive long with ats based filtration. do you have have a pic of your old scrubber? one of the things that discouraged me from using a scrubber was the whole dump bucket mechanism.

i found an article about scrubbers in advanced aquarist:
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/issues/july2004/editorial.htm

http://www.advancedaquarist.com/images/july2004/IMG_1337.jpg

from a personal opinion, the display tank doesnt look too great...from an aesthetically pleasing reef appearance perspective. the only thing appearing to be doing ok is the big ol' mangrove. your tank appears to have thrived with the ats in growing softies and gorgonians.

i love your clam in the pic! gigas clams grow like a weed and are absolutely a thrill to have. i havent seen gigas clams on the market in a while. i am wanting to replace the one that my pygmy angel irritated to death.

on the topic of sponges. i have been getting an explosive growth of sponges with the installation of my 65g cryptic zone as closely replicated to tyree's description of it:
Tyree's Cryptic Zone (http://www.practicalfishkeeping.co.uk/pfk/pages/show_article.php?article_id=544)

I have seen this tank in person. I know Morgan. The tank pictured is really nothing more than a mangrove lagoon, not something that I would use as an example for a reef hobbyist. The truth is, they run the entire facility on turf scrubbers. All 35,000 gallons. They have some of the most amazing SPS colonies I have ever seen grown in an artificial reef. Some of them are larger than a trash can lid.

[SantaMonica]

Sounds like oligotrophic bacterioplankton are the same thing that vodka develops. Vodka worked good for me in the past, but the red slime it also developed, as well as developing bacteria that bothered the fish, made me want something else. As for the whole Zeo thing, I have not studied it, and I don't yet have the desire to do so if there are other non-proprietary alternatives. I'm glad to see it working for you so well.

bsagecko: Thanks for your inputs. You may have missed a few pages ago, where indeed the book and some other items you mentioned were covered. But basically, the skimmer is indeed off, and there is no filtration of any kind (beside rock and sand) but the turf.

jglackin: That's good news that you've seen IA's sps abilities, using only turf. If Aday's claims are true that the N and P can be brought down so low, it would make sense that sps would thrive also. Which brings me to my topic for today...

In my last post I said my N was not coming down from the 3 or so it had been at for several week before the turf, and during the first week of having the turf. Well low and behold, my daily check today showed N to be zero (clear on the Salifert test). Could not believe it, especially since the last two days I've been really overfeeding the cyclopeez. You know those frozen pump bottles... when they run out you can add water and get them flowing again. Well it's not just a little bit that you get flowing again, it's about two week's worth (there is a lot of frozen stuff stuck in that bottle.) Forgetting that this is how it worked, I dumped the entire re-constituted bottle in the tank (along with some phyto, and daphnia). The swarm of little red dots was so thick you could not see some of the fish. Anyways, I was sure I'd screwed up my test by polluting the system, and that's why I was shocked today to see zero N (and zero P).

[SantaMonica]

Update for the last couple days... another N and P test to make my disbelief go away. Yep still zero. Got some new fish so was feeding even heavier. Also trying my first dendro, with no target feeding.

Well the turf has really started growing all of a sudden; seemed to coincide with N hitting zero. The seeded side is almost completely covered, and the non-seeded side is probably 50% now. Of course since I changed more than one thing at a time, I'm not sure what caused the growth increase, but what I did was reduce the pump timing down to 30 seconds (from 90), and I started dosing iron (Kent). Or maybe it's just my increased feeding. All I know is I put food in the tank, and it ends up as turf on the screen. If I were feeding this much with the previous setup of skimmer/carbon/gfo/sock/poly's, I'd have to clean the glass twice a day, and everything in the tank would be covered in green by now. Plus the corals would starve.

The turf has changed to a dark brown/green color from its original dull red color. What I notice is that parts of the screen that are bare first get a thin coating of green which fills in the holes, then the dark brown covers this and gets up to 1/4 inch thick. At this point it seems to stop growing. I'll have more pics this friday.

[paulsilver]

sounds like it is kicking in...

[biomekanic]

Looking forward to the pics

so here's a question.

I have a roughly 15g sump that was a wet/dry filter with bioballs originally.

It came with a media tray drilled with numerous small holes, could a turf screen be placed in there at an angle, would the drip from the tray provide the neccessary amount of air/water contact?

[herring_fish]

That would work but it will not work at its best. I don’t think that the air interchange is as important as Area, Light and Surge.

Adey’s designs do not concentrate on the interchange factor. His most popular design for large operations uses a bump bucket but it is placed only inches off of the screen. The water flows from the bucket, out over the screen without much of a splash. It’s more like the wall of water at the front of a flash flood not a cresting wave. One of his designs starts with water flowing evenly over a screen that is moving forward and back with an electric motor to simulate surge. It has no added air interchange.

I believe that you should stick to SantaMonica’s rule of thumb of “one-square-inch-per-gal” for surface Area. Your screen may need to be bigger than a 15g tank foot print. Don’t skimp on the amount of light. Light is the primary driver of the algal turf scrubbers. Lights can be cheap but they should be powerful or plentiful.

Finally, as I have said before, surge adds about 50% to the efficiency. You can live without it if you have to but try to incorporate surge into your design.

[paulsilver]

As I posted previously... the Adey book describes the scrubbers for use with home aquariums with more 3 sq. inches per gallon of tank... that is large, but for this unit, with both sides of the scrubber getting lit up, hopefully get at least 2 sq. " per gallon...

That would have much more impact.

And I agree that surge, light, and area are the key issues, and air water interchange is not as big a factor...

[SantaMonica]

biommekanic: Now that's an interesting idea: Put the turf into the sump (since the sump is already there). Similar to my original box design that was open above the sump. Worth a try; can't be much easier to try out than this.

paulsilver: I seem to really remember reading one square inch instead of three. Maybe we can go dig up that info to be sure.

herring: Correct, it would not work it's best, without more modifications. But if it can be tested with virtually no work, then why not. As for Aday's designs, when you say his "large operations", are you referring to the lakes and estuaries? Here are some pics I found on Aday's www.AlgalTurfScrubber.com site, which are just water flowing over a screen (I don't believe there is any wave action, or "dry time"...

http://reefcentral.com/gallery/data/578/148489AdayTrough.jpg

Here is a machine doing the harvesting:
http://reefcentral.com/gallery/data/578/148489AdayTroughHarvest.jpg

http://reefcentral.com/gallery/data/578/148489AdayRiver.jpg

How about this: Floating screens. Maybe they could just float in the sump, with a light on top:
http://reefcentral.com/gallery/data/578/148489AdayFloatingScreens.jpg

http://reefcentral.com/gallery/data/578/148489AdaySign.jpg



Anyways, here's what popped into my head for putting turf into the sump. This version 1 just needs some air holes cut into the top panel, then place the screen over the media tray, and add the light and fan. You could argue that this will be a lot of "surge"; not sure how much air would be mixed in with the water, since it would depend on how many bubbles are in the overflow:
http://reefcentral.com/gallery/data/578/148489In_Sump_V1.jpg


Version 2 moves the screen down at an angle (more similar to my bucket), and would certainly have an air/water mix since this is how the media tray in a wet/dry works. You'd still need to cut open the top panel so the fan could blow in, and if enough air does not make it through the media tray (to get to the screen), you'd need to enlarge those holes too:
http://reefcentral.com/gallery/data/578/148489In_Sump_V2.jpg

Lastly, version 3 is basically the same as my bucket, just using the sump box instead. The spraybar is the same, just connected directly to the overflow. With this (more elaborate) setup, you could totally remove the top panel (since the overflow pipe is now held in place by the spraybar) as well as the media tray, providing an unobstructed pathway for air and light to get to the screen. Version 3 is also the only one to allow double sided operation:
http://reefcentral.com/gallery/data/578/148489In_Sump_V3.jpg

Overall, what a nice way to make use of that space formerly known as the "bio balls blues".

[biomekanic]

Just some thoughts:

Could you "venturi" the overflow pipe to increase the amount of air?

LED grow lights: That online auction place has a 1' square unit with about 200 red and blue LEDs for $48, with shipping.


My own sump/former refugium had the return plumbed to the top of the media tray, so it dripped over a wide area. Air interface was never really an issue.

On Ver2, face the screen the other direction, and have a light source above and behind. The aforementioned LEDs could be put into a light box behind the sump. basically something to prevent splashing and salt creep on the unit. That would light both sides.

[paulsilver]

according to the math that me and herring-fish have done off line... and that being mostly the fish not me, it works out to about 2.2 sq inches per gallon based on Adey's model in the book... (Adey's units are cm2 per liter)

[herring_fish]

http://www.athiel.com/fran/netclub/ats1.gif

Sorry,
I guess I meant, popular indoor Algal Turf Scrubber. This is roughly how they are constructed except that the screen is flat and there is a small trough at the end of the screen to catch the water.

[herring_fish]

SantaMonica In looking at those pictures, I noticed that there weren’t any spray fountains to add aeration. Of course there may be some think there to insure a minimum level but they don’t make a point of it. Oh, those floating algae squares do get wave action going over it. As for the general lack of surge in the rest of the farm ….your right, there isn’t any. Sun shine is free and they make up for the lake of surge with Area and lots of it.

Biomekanic You can make a drip system and it should work just fine but just be careful to try to make up for the lack of surge with the other two, Area and Light. I am interested in your experiment and hope that you can figure how much work it is able to do. I built my scrubber to the point of for over kill but where is the other end of the spectrum? Yours might be big enough.

[herring_fish]

http://asaherring.com/Reef/Hardware/ScrubberTable.JPG

Ok, I decided go ahead and re-type part of the table that reports on the home aquarium in Dynamic Aquaria. This should allow you to calculate Screen Area and Light for your tank volume. I added my tank just for added reference. I hope this helps

[biomekanic]

I was thinking this morning about having the wet/dry action on a sump based unit, and I was wondering if this would work:

http://riopump.net/Accessories_folder/rioMotion_desc.htm

Instead of pump powered, it would be gravity fed by the drain. With the style of sump/wet-dry I have, mounting it wouldn't be much of an issue.

Any thoughts on this?

[SantaMonica]

biomekanic: Here is a working link for the one that you posted:
http://riopump.net/Accessories_folder/rioMotion_desc.html
... which is this:

http://reefcentral.com/gallery/data/578/148489rio_motion.jpg

I think that this thing is designed to work underwater, which would not be the situation in any sump version. If you tried to use it out-of-water it might spin very fast or wear out or something; plus you'd have to adapt it to the overflow pipe. And I guess you could do a venturi on the overflow, as it enters the sump. Would be an experiment in trying different sizes and air holes though.

I think you were describing Version 2, but my thought on Version 1 is that just having the overflow crashing down on the media tray (where the screen sits horizontal) would cause enough turbulence to mix in the air. I know you say you have enough air in there for a Version 2, but it may not be "fresh circulated" enough. That's why I show cutting holes in the top and adding a fan, and making sure the air can also get through the media tray to the screen. But you could try it as-is (without cutting the top) and see if it works well enough. For Version 1, the very center of the screen where the water actually hits might not grow turf, but all the surrounding area should.

As for LED lights, sounds promising since they are so small, but I have no experience with them and wanted to make sure to use a proven light that had a wide coverage. And I'm trying to visualize your remake of Version 2 (with the slanted screen)... Not sure how/why you would face the screen the other direction, since that would make it face down. I can't see how you would get a light on the bottom side since that's the wet side.

paulsilver: Ok, 2.2 square inches for a one-sided sounds right, which brought me to one square inch for two-sided. Seems like a good starting point.

herring: You were correct that Versions 1 and 2 do not use a spray bar: It's a trade off for simplicity, since the bet is that the overflow crashing down will mix air in with it. And thanks for the data from the book and your tank.

[herring_fish]

http://reefcentral.com/gallery/data/500/1845393-D_Splash.JPG

Of course this is a minor point but you do not need to add CO2 to the water to get the algae to grow better. If you want to lower the water temperature in the tank, then maximizing evaporation is a very good thing but adding air to the water will not help or hurt the algae.

I only make this point because I am an ardent supporter of Algae Turf Scrubbers of any design that works. It looks like the vertical scrubber described here works very well. The only thing is that other people that are looking for ideas might get the impression that supplementing CO2 is important or even necessary. This is not the case.

I did some surfing on the net and found a study done on an out door fresh water operation that was designed to treat affluent from cow farms. One line stood out. “There were no significant differences in algal productivity, algal N and P content, or N and P recovery values from raceways with carbon dioxide supplementation compared to values from raceways without added carbon dioxide.”

None of the designs in Dr. Adey’s book allude to CO2 injection. If it helped, you would see people that have CO2 reactors shunting off some of the gas to turbocharger the scrubber.

I ran scrubbers for 10 years and for about 8 of those years, I using the long flat dump bucket that I have talked about before. The water was pumped via a power head, from the tank to the bucket with no splash or aeration.

[SantaMonica]

I must have used the wrong terms in describing the air component of the turf; when I said co2 I just meant the co2 in the air that the turf uses. I did not mean adding co2 directly. When I first hooked up the bucket (without a fan), it seemed very humid in the bucket, kinda stale. So since it was so easy to clip on a fan, I thought it would be a great thing to be supplying co2-rich air to the turf, especially when the pump is off and the air hits the turf directly. And now, looking at sump designs, I can see that the plastic lids and such will block fresh air, thus needing those lids to be opened up a bit. I reference the availability of co2 in the air to the water evaporating rate: The more evaporation that can be had from the screen, the more supply of co2 (air) it's getting.

Question about the turf's diet: Does anyone know if turf consumes ammonia directly? If someone considers turf for a FO tank (no rock, no sand, no wet/dry), I'm trying to figure out if the turf will help at all with ammonia conversion.

Week 2 Pics: Ok here they are:

Seeded Side at 2 weeks:
http://reefcentral.com/gallery/data/578/148489ScreenSeeded2weeksSmall.JPG
Hi-Res: www.radio-media.com/fish/ScreenSeeded2weeks.jpg


Unseeded Side at 2 weeks:
http://reefcentral.com/gallery/data/578/148489ScreenUnseeded2weeksSmall.jpg
Hi-Res: www.radio-media.com/fish/ScreenUnseeded2weeks.jpg


...the seeded side is completely full, except for a one-inch spot that was originally a big bare spot. It has green, but not turf yet. The un-seeded side is getting thick all over too, just less. I'm going to scrape the seeded side this weekend, and I'll take some front-on shots of it before and after.

Here is the tank after the two weeks:
http://reefcentral.com/gallery/data/578/148489Whole_Tank_-_2_weeks_small.JPG
Hi-Res: www.radio-media.com/fish/WholeTank-2weeks.jpg


(Note the open cabinet door; that's where the turf tubing currently enters/exits). Almost all of the original green algae patches are gone (most of the ones remaining are in the shade of the powerheads. It's amazing to watch fish waste go through the powerheads and get blended all over; my BB training instinctively wants to siphon or skim that stuff out before it get blended, but it just does not affect N and P anymore. It just becomes more coral food, and when it finally does decompose into N and P, the turf zaps it.

Today I got my first N reading in a while... a very slight tinge of pink (Salifert) visible only if looking from the side (would be about a .2). It was taken immediately after a large food/phyto feeding. This, after dumping whole frozen cubes in several times a day (unwashed), along with one or two pumps of frozen phyto (plus some refrigerated phyto), cyclops, daphia, and a weekly silverside for the eel. And I've not turkey-basted the rocks in a month, nor cleaned out the powerheads or sump. Makes sense and seems to coincide with the screen getting full and growing less (supposed to be scrapped every week, but it's been two weeks already.)

Here is a growth sequence, starting with the screen as received from IA, then 1 week, then 2 weeks:

Seeded side:
http://reefcentral.com/gallery/data/578/148489ScreenRightDrySmall.JPG
http://reefcentral.com/gallery/data/578/148489Seeded_Side_at_1_week_small.JPG
http://reefcentral.com/gallery/data/578/148489ScreenSeeded2weeksSmall.JPG


Unseeded side:
http://reefcentral.com/gallery/data/578/148489ScreenLeftDrySmall.JPG
http://reefcentral.com/gallery/data/578/148489Unseeded_Side_at_1_week_small.JPG
http://reefcentral.com/gallery/data/578/148489ScreenUnseeded2weeksSmall.jpg

[paulsilver]

I also think we are focusing too much on the air water interface, and getting enough "air" to the algae... if the water is saturated with )2, as it should be, then it is also supplying enough CO2 to the algae, and more or less wont make much difference, and certainly light is more important in accelerating the growth (and thereby the filtration) -- the surge is not intended to provide more "air" but rather to stir up the algae so that it does not matt down and not get as much light and water flow as it should... it is not so much about air or CO2... that focus I think is missing the point...

[SantaMonica]

Could very well be, and is easy enough to try... just don't use a fan on the bucket (or don't drill the lid on the sump.) However it was so easy to use a fan on the bucket, that I wanted to eliminate that variable. Remember there were no previous instances of turf in a bucket before, so, many things were in question. Also, being without a skimmer, I was also thinking about oxygen.

Still, try to picture turf on pylings in the ocean. Why is it only at the water level? There is plenty of motion below, too. If air (i.e., co2) is not as important as light, why does the turf not grow all the way down the pyling to the point where there is no more light? I seem to recall that turf on pylings starts right at the water level of low tide, and goes up from there to the point of the highest waves. Also, as for the water being saturated with O2 and CO2, I thought one of the benefits of turf is that it does the O2 saturating itself.

I found the following on one of Aday's online patent decriptions, so you might be right: "Assuming adequate light is provided, algal turf production is limited only by inadequate exchange of metabolites -- oxygen, carbon dioxide and nutrients -- between the WATER and the cells of the attached algae." http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/5778823/description.html So maybe all the co2 really does come from the water. That might be why turf uses some of the alk in the water (bicarbonate).

It goes on to say "Essential growth requirements for the algal turf, in addition to an adequate lighting source, include aeration and agitation of the water in order to distribute nutrients and to remove any waste products generated." ... "Wave surge action further enhances the exchange of metabolites between algal cells and the water media. The surge generated by the wave action produces a back and forth motion within the growth reservoir, preventing the development of semistagnant boundary layers that occur when a constant flow of liquid passes by a fixed object. (Steady currents tend to pin the filaments in an immobile position and a surface layer of very slow-moving water develops.) By optimizing such metabolite cellular-ambient water exchange, continuous shading of one cell by an adjacent cell is prevented. Thus, in a preferred embodiment, the algae is subjected to an oscillatory water surge."

As for matting down, the turf that has grown for me so far is like hard carpet or astro turf. It does not move at all with flow in any direction. You can even run your hand across it and it won't move. If this is the same turf that the dumping designs grew, then there is no matting... it's already matted. Anyway, it's certainly easy enough to try the media tray sump version without worrying about air. Just lay the screen down in the media tray, and clip on a light. Should take one minute.

And I answered my own question about the ammonia. The same Aday page said: "ATS produce oxygen during periods when the turf is exposed to light and remove ammonia whether lit or not." and "Ammonia, the primary excretory product of fish, is a good nitrogen source for algal turf growth." and "ATS may act as the sole oxygen supply for fish." I was thinking about the removing-ammonia part, because for a FO tank (I'm planning an all-eel tank with no rock and no sand) would need something to remove ammonia, and I wanted to stay away from the balls.

I don't think there is anything that turf does not do.

[herring_fish]

I can’t say for sure but when I looked at your high resolution photo of the new green algae, I see the same type that grew in my scrubber when it got mature. If it is, then it will grow much longer. Perhaps, it will take over like mine did. I don’t know. What I got was an algae that looked like the plastic cellophane of Easter basket grass.

It started out a little slimy looking but soon got more body, curl and length. (It sounds like a shampoo commercial) Water will flow through that very well and the way that it lays will change with each surge of water.

When you get to it, I would like to see you scrap all but a little area to see how that ends up working as opposed to the rest. In any case, the scrubber should get stronger and more resilient so that it will thrive no matter what you do.

[SantaMonica]

Yes the green stuff is more recent, and was hanging down below the screen in a few places. It was very soft and feathery, brushed right off. As for scraping, I did my first one today, with full pics. I only scraped the seeded side.

First, here's the whole screen (seeded side) before scraping; notice the top corners are cut to fit into the pipe, and that there's a bit of that green feathery algae hanging below:
http://reefcentral.com/gallery/data/578/148489SeededSideBeforeHarvestSmall.JPG
Hi-Res: www.radio-media.com/fish/SeededSideBeforeHarvest.JPG


Here's the screen halfway scraped:
http://reefcentral.com/gallery/data/578/148489ScreenHalfwayScrapedSmall.JPG
Hi-Res: www.radio-media.com/fish/ScreenHalfwayScraped.JPG


And here it is finished:
http://reefcentral.com/gallery/data/578/148489SeededSideAfterHarvestSmall.JPG
Hi-Res: www.radio-media.com/fish/SeededSideAfterHarvest.JPG


Here the turf that was scraped off; was about half a cup:
http://reefcentral.com/gallery/data/578/148489Harvest2weeks.JPG


Here are the parts of the new spraybar I just finished:
http://reefcentral.com/gallery/data/578/148489SpraybarPartsSmall.JPG


Here is it complete:
http://reefcentral.com/gallery/data/578/148489SpraybarComplete.JPG


Hardest thing is cutting the 1/8" slot:
http://reefcentral.com/gallery/data/578/148489SpraybarDremelSmall.JPG


Insert the screen into the new spraybar:
http://reefcentral.com/gallery/data/578/148489ScreenInsertedIntoNewSpraybar.JPG


Use my new paperclip technique of holding the pipe to the bucket; removes easily:
http://reefcentral.com/gallery/data/578/148489PaperclipHolder.JPG


Bucket cleaned, bulbs cleaned, screen scraped (one side), freshwater rinsed, and ready for action:
http://reefcentral.com/gallery/data/578/148489CleanedAndReady.JPG

[paulsilver]

just be careful with the metal clips near the salt water... those things are spring steel, and will rust fairly quickly...

[SantaMonica]

Yes I'll watch for rust; sure is better than the tape I was using.

Here's an update/observation: My green bubble that I said earlier I thought was growing, is indeed (with no target feeding). It's been there for a while next to a micro mussa and a ricorda, but now especially in the last week, the feeders are out in full extension at all times. They used to only be out at night, but I'm looking at it right now under halides, and it's super-feeding. There's enough extension that they've taken out half my micro, and caused the ricorda to re-position itself further down and away.

[hottuna]

I will be posting a pic later today that shows my old mmfi scrubber slightly modded and ready to go back into service on my new 125...

[hottuna]

http://i283.photobucket.com/albums/kk300/kunoto_king/picture22002.jpg

[hottuna]

http://i283.photobucket.com/albums/kk300/kunoto_king/picture22003.jpg

[hottuna]

[IMG]http://i283.photobucket.com/albums/kk300/kunoto

[hottuna]

IMG]http://i283.photobucket.com/albums/kk300/kunoto_king/picture22006.jpg[/IMG]

[hottuna]

IMG]http://i283.photobucket.com/albums/kk300/kunoto_king/picture22004.jpg[/IMG]

[hottuna]

http://i283.photobucket.com/albums/kk300/kunoto_king/picture22004.jpg

[hottuna]

IMG]http://i283.photobucket.com/albums/kk300/kunoto_king/picture22006.jpg[/IMG]

[hottuna]

http://i283.photobucket.com/albums/kk300/kunoto_king/picture22006.jpg

[inachu]

One day they will have those paper thin LCD based lights that bend for fish tanks.

Give the techies about 5 more years and it will come out as a UV Algae destroy and when the light burns out then just wrinkle it up and throw it away.


They have something like this already but its low intensity.

[SantaMonica]

Tuna that is one big unit... looks to be about 10 square feet = 1440 square inches. Since it is only one-sided, my rule of thumb says it's good for 720 gallons. Am I right? And what mods did you make to it?

I removed my skimmer physically from the sump today and put it on a shelf. I figure in an emergency I could get it going again in about two minutes.

[hottuna]

its 53" long...only rated for 200 gals...santa monica.
I removed the deflectors.made new base frames for the screens.and found a better screen material also...

[paulsilver]

now that is a scrubber tray if I ever saw one... what are the dimensions of this scrubber? Not quite as compact as the bucket in this thread, but then, size really does matter... eh?

[paulsilver]

Sorry... 53" by what? What sort of light is on it? Flow, surge, etc.???

[hottuna]

53x12 wide..I use 2 t5 fixtures by coralife to light it 48 " eachx2 t5 bulbs...flow is one ocean runner 2500 pump...no surge...

[hottuna]

bump

[SantaMonica]

440 square inches: 420 gallons if two sided; 210 gallons if one sided. Pretty accurate. Are you going to get seeded screen?

[hottuna]

yes.. I just emailed inland aquatics about it....
the seeded screen is a good idea..because it takes about 90 days for real "turf" type algae to develop on its own...and you never know if you'll really get good turf...

[SantaMonica]

I'm finalizing my build-thread that I'm going to be posting in the beginner forum for those who would like to try turf. I't written in a hyped tone, emphasizing "cheap" and DIY, and it makes some assumptions, but just remember this is for begginers who may not want a bunch of chemistry details... they just want simple benefits and directions so they can build it and try it for cheap, and see if it works for them. I've not posted it yet, so let me know if anything here is completely off base before I do:



---------------Start beginner's thread--------------------------------------------

If anybody has not yet hooked up their refugium or skimmer, or was just looking go get rid of these things, then you might want to try one of these mega-powerful filters first that I built. You build it with stuff laying around, and it can take as little as a few minutes, or up to a day. It will replace (or keep you from needing) a skimmer, refugium, phosphate removers, nitrate removers, carbon, filtersocks, and possibly even waterchanges.

It's called a Turf Algae Filter, and it works in salt or freshwater. It's smaller than most pieces of reef equipment (yet it's more powerful), and it can be put into a bucket or your sump. It's most powerful feature is that it leaves food particles in the tank so the corals can feed, yet it removes nitrates and phosphates down to zero. This is the OPPOSITE of what a skimmer does; a skimmer removes food particles (so corals starve) and then leaves the nitrate and phosphate in the water so you have to use other methods to get the nitrate and phosphate out. And how about all that gunk that your skimmer pulls out? Well, half of it is food that you just fed, and your corals wanted to eat it. What about the other half, the waste? Well, that's food too!

Here is my Turf Algae Filter in a 5-gallon; it's the only filter I have of any kind on my 100 gallon reef:
[pic of my bucket]
[pic of tank]

My nitrate and phosphate are zero, and the only thing in my sump is: Water. I removed the skimmer, carbon, phosban, polyfilter(s), and filtersock; I don't use ozone, vodka, zeo or anything else. I'm feeding massive amounts too; enough that if I had my previous filtering setup, I'd have to clean the glass twice a day, and everything in the tank would be covered in green or brown algae. Amazing.

The process of using turf algae to filter aquariums has been around for decades, but the contraptions were huge and expensive, and for some reason nobody thought to make a simple
one in a bucket or sump. So here is one you can make in a few minutes, or a day, depending on which one you choose. It's simple enough (and basically free) that you should try one on your system even if you have no intention of eliminating your skimmer/refugium, etc.

The principal is very simple: You have a screen; light is aimed at the screen, and tank water is streamed over the screen. What happens is that a type of algae called "turf" starts growing on the screen (it feels very similar to artificial turf on football fields), and this turf eats ALL the nitrate and phosphate in the water flowing over it. However, the turf does NOT eat the food/pods/plankton in the water, so this food will stay in the water for the corals to eat. This is the OPPOSITE of a skimmer, which takes out the food/pods/plankton (so corals starve), but leaves in the nitrate and phosphate that you have to then get out using other means. What about fish waste that skimmers normally pull out? Well that's food too, for somebody. Only after waste decomposes completely into nitrate and phosphate is it no longer "food", and at that point the turf algae zaps it! After all, what do you think the green algae on your rocks and glass are eating? Food? No. Nitrate and phosphate!

The only thing you need to decide is how big your screen needs to be, and if you want it to be in a bucket or your sump. The basic rule is one square inch of screen for each gallon of tank water. A 5 gallon bucket (like a salt bucket) can hold a screen about 12 X 12 inches = 144 square inches = 144 gal tank; a 2 gallon bucket can hold about 7 X 7 inches = 49 gal tank; a one gallon bucket about 6 X 6 = 36 gal tank. Turf filters get really small as you can see. A 12 gal nano tank needs just 3 X 4 inches in a tupperware container! This small thing replaces the skimmer, refugium, phosphate removers, nitrate removers, carbon, filtersocks, and possibly even waterchanges (if the purpose of the waterchanges is to reduce nitrate and phosphate.)

You might ask why you have not heard of turf algae filters before. Well turf algae is actually used quite a bit in commercial/industrial areas to clean lakes and rivers, but the units that were built for aquariums were just too big (as big as the tank itself) and expensive ($3,000+). So they never caught on. But all they do is move water across a screen, and have a light. So putting the turf in a bucket or your sump will work just fine.

My example bucket version takes about a day to build. Water goes in the pvc pipe at the top, flows down over the screen, then drains out the bottom. That's it! Oh, and it has clip-on lights. I can feed the tank as much food as I want, and anything not eaten by the corals or fish eventually ends up as turf algae on the screen.

Here are the sump versions (putting turf in the sump was thought of by RC user "biomekanic")...

Good: Takes a few minutes to build:
[pic of V1]

Better: Takes about three hours to build:
[pic of V2]

Best: Takes about a day to build:
[pic of V3]


The advantages of the sump version are:

o No extra space needed.
o Version 1 can be set up in a few minutes.
o Can make use of the wasted space once used by bio balls.
o Is fed directly from the overflow, thus eliminating the pump entirely.

Disadvantages:

o Pods produced by the turf have to flow through your return pump to get you your tank.
o If the top of your sump is closed, it may need to be drilled or cut open for air/light.


Further down, I'll show how to build the bucket version since I made it myself (and have pics of it), then I'll show you drawings of how you'd do the in-sump versions (since I don't have real pics of that). The bucket version is overall the most powerful, flexible, and even portable. The in-sump version (especially version 1) is easiest to build, but about half as powerful, and a little harder to access once installed. But for now, here's how a turf algae filter (bucket version) compares to other filtering options:


o Will wipe out all algae growth in the tank, since nitrate and phosphate will be zero.

o Allows you to feed very high amounts without causing nuisance algae growth in the tank.

o Will finally allow coralline to grow, since the phosphate will be too low stop it.

o Does not skim out coralline spores like a skimmer does.

o Can replace waterchanges, if the purpose of the waterchange is to reduce nitrate or
phosphate or algae growth in tank.

o Has the highest nitrate and phosphate removing power of any macro algae (because of
the high air and light levels it gets).

o Is very quick to respond to excess nitrate and phosphate spikes (the turf "screen" always
stays the same size after it is trimmed); much quicker than refugiums/macros which have
smaller surface area after they are trimmed.

o Is the very smallest size, for the amount of nitrate and phosphate removing it does.

o High removal of nitrate and phosphate, low removal of foods (the OPPOSITE of a skimmer).

o Can entirely replace refugium, skimmer, DSB, carbon, phosban, polyfilters, etc. (although
you can certainly keep these items around for backup.)

o Grows copepods and amphipods that will drain right down into your display (if bucket is
hung above the display).

o Removes both nitrate and phosphate, unlike rock/sand (which removes only nitrate), or
phosban (which removes only phosphate).

o Bucket version is extremely easy to build, using just a bucket and pvc pipe.

o Version 1 of the in-sump version is so simple, it's just a few minutes to build.

o There are no moving parts at all.

o Provides cooling of water, using increased evaporation, especially with fan.

o Does not form bacteria or slime like vodka dosing does.

o Increases pH.

o Increases oxygen.

o Does not release strands into display like chaeto algae does.

o Will not go "sexual" and spread into the display, like caulerpa can.

o Gets strong light penetration into the turf, since there is no water standing over it.

o Easy to clean; just lift the screen up and "scrape" (i.e., "harvest") it.

o Traps no waste like a refugium or DSB does; waste flows right past the screen.

o There is no odor from the turf (only a slight ocean smell when scraping it).

o There is nothing to break or clog.

o Bucket version is very quiet when flowing, similar to a tabletop decorative waterfall.

o Introduces no microbubbles when adjusted properly.

o Will not start growing turf in display tank.

o No filter socks (or any mechanical filter) needed, since you want all the food in the
water to continue circulating until eaten by the corals.

o You do not have to turn a skimmer off when feeding, because a skimmer is not running in
the first place.

o Helps remove ammonia, so your rock and sand function better.

o You can even make the bucket portable! Just unplug the lights and fan, lift up the pump
out of the tank water, and go put it in your next tank (or your friend's tank). Don't let
the screen dry out though.)

o Works in saltwater or freshwater.


[details of building it are omitted]


The only maintenance is to "harvest" the algae from ONE side of the screen once a week. You do this by taking something like a ruler and scraping most of the algae off of ONE side, then the OTHER side the following week. Don't scrape it super clean, though; leave some roughness behind. Throw this scraped material away; this is the nitrate and phosphate that was taken out of your tank! After scraping, run the screen under some tap water to remove any loose turf, then put it back for more filtering. To make the turf grow even faster, you can try adding Kent's Iron liquid to the tank water, per instructions.

If you already have a skimmer or refugium or other devices, just add your new turf algae filter to your system, and give it four weeks to grow. Then you can start reducing or turning off your other filters one by one. Just be sure to test for nitrate and phosphate daily as you do this. And do post your pics and stories!


Here are some $ options to make your turf work better:


o Put a timer on the lights: 18 hours on, 6 hours off. This will give the algae time to
"rest". Make sure it's on during the overnight when your tank lights are off.

o Use metal halide or sodium plant-grow lights; the more light the better, and the lower
their K rating (more "red") the better. Don't melt the plastic parts though.

o Put a wavemaker (on-off-on) timer on the pump to simulate waves; gives the algae more
air between the flows. I used the JBJ Ocean Pulse Duo timer ($50 new), and set it to 30
seconds. (note: this timer has a quirk: if you cut the power to it, then restore it, it
keeps the pump "on"; to get the on-off-on function working again, you have to turn the
dial to the left and back again.)

o Hang the bucket up high, so it can drain right into your display; all the live pods that
grow in the screen will flow down right to your corals. Remember this height will reduce
your pump flow, so choose your pump accordingly.

o Get a screen with turf algae already growing on it; will save you a month of waiting (it
will start working instantly; this is what I did). Call Mike at Inland Aquatics
812-232-9000, and get a turf screen overnighted to you. They charge $10 for 16 square
inches (4 X 4), so just tell him how many square inches you need. Then you'll need to
pay for overnight delivery to your location. Already have your bucket operating, though,
so you can throw the screen right in; it will need lights and flow immediately upon
arrival.


How to build the in-sump versions:

There are three sump versions to choose from. Version 1 is the easiest to build, but less powerful because the screen is only one-sided, and also because the water is not flowing evenly across the screen. But it's the only one where you can keep your bio balls (maybe for a heavy fish waste load) if you want to. And it's so easy to build that you may as well start with it if you already have a sump with a "media tray" in it:
[pic of vers 1]


First, size the screen to fit in the media tray in your sump. Now, based on what kind of lid you have on the media tray (where the overflow pipe connects), you will need to drill out that lid so air and light can get through. If that lid is clear, then you need just enough holes to get air in. But if the lid is not clear and it blocks light, you'll need to make many large holes or cutouts in it (or replace it with a clear one). And that's it for version 1! Just clip on the light and fan, and you are done. Use the same light as the bucket version above.


In-Sump Version 2:
[pic of ver 2]

This version allows a more even flow of air/water over the screen, since the overflow is not pouring directly on the screen like version 1. Version 2 needs the same openings on the lid as version 1, however, and of course the bio balls must be removed. The media tray will spread out the water from the overflow into an even-drip across the screen. The screen must still get air, however, so if the media tray does not allow enough air from the fan to pass through, you'll need to enlarge the holes in it.


In-Sump Version 3:
[pic of ver 3]

This version is basically the same as the bucket version described above, but it is contained in the sump. You need to cut away most or all of the lid and the media tray, and connect the overflow directly to a waterflow pipe (shown in the pic as a green "spraybar"). This version is also the only one that allows lighting from both sides of the screen, thus doubling the filtering power of it, as well as being more open for light and air.

The advantages of a sump version are:

o No extra space needed outside of tank.
o Can be set up in a limited fashion in a few minutes, as a test.
o Can make use of the wasted space once used by bio balls.
o No pump required!

Disadvantages:

o Since it is fed from overflow, you get no option to use a timer on the pump for on-off-on
wave action.
o Pods have to flow through your return pump to get to your tank.
o If the top of your sump is opaque (blocks light), it will need to be drilled or cut open
for air.
o It is not portable.


That's it! I hope some folks give it a try!



---------------end of beginner's post--------------------

[hottuna]

excellent ! santa monica...just be sure -lots of pics ...so even "a caveman" can figure it out .....LOL !!!

[paulsilver]

I would be careful about the use of absolutes in this description (will wipe out all...; entirely replace... etc.)

People will get exceptional expectations...

Also, I believe a more appropriate rule of thumb would be 2 sq in per gallon... that is about what Adey recommended.

Otherwise sounds good...

[sjm817]

Honestly, I would have issue with several of the statements

o Will wipe out all algae growth in the tank, since nitrate and phosphate will be zero.

o Allows you to feed very high amounts without causing nuisance algae growth in the tank.

o Will finally allow coralline to grow, since the phosphate will be too low stop it.

o Does not skim out coralline spores like a skimmer does.

o Can replace waterchanges, if the purpose of the waterchange is to reduce nitrate or
phosphate or algae growth in tank.

[bergzy]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13059926#post13059926 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by sjm817
Honestly, I would have issue with several of the statements

o Will wipe out all algae growth in the tank, since nitrate and phosphate will be zero.

o Allows you to feed very high amounts without causing nuisance algae growth in the tank.

o Will finally allow coralline to grow, since the phosphate will be too low stop it.

o Does not skim out coralline spores like a skimmer does.

o Can replace waterchanges, if the purpose of the waterchange is to reduce nitrate or
phosphate or algae growth in tank.


YEP!!!

[SantaMonica]

Yes there will be lots of pics; I ordered the very parts that I'll be listing, and I'll be building it per the directions myself. As for the expectations and absolutes, these were just extrapolated from those who have used turf before, and were pretty much true. Most current users (and myself) report N and P to be basically zero, and this is the basis of the entire project: Turf reduces N and P. Now if you are saying that turf does not reduce N and P, then we have to look at things differently. But assuming it's agreed that turf reduces N and P...

From a decide-to-build-it-or-not standpoint, things like "removes" makes it easier for a beginner to take the plunge (kinda like a TV infomercial ad) than if it says "reduces", which a beginner would then have to question ("would it reduce enough?"). And the main factor here is that if some facet of it actually doesn't work, it's not going to harm anything, and they haven't really spent any money.

The bucket screen is two-sided, so that's why one-inch instead of two; it's also extremely easy to remember for a beginner, and easy for them to recommend/explain to their friends. If they do a one-sided sump version, we'll have to see if it's enough based on light, flow, etc. This will apply a lot to the nano people (matter of fact I'm testing now a 6 inch screen in a 5 gal nano; took one minute to cut the screen and place in the filter section, and clip on a light). As for the other points, again assuming it's agreed that turf reduces N and P...

o Will indeed remove algae in display, eventually, due to low N and P.
o Can indeed feed much more, again due to low N and P. (turf will just grow more)
o Will indeed allow coralline to grow, due to low P.
o Does not indeed skim out coralline spores, assuming there is no skimmer.
o Can indeed replace N-and-P-reducing waterchanges, since N and P will already be low.

[paulsilver]

indeed...

;-)

[miwoodar]

Why are you so bent on pushing people towards algal turf systems?

Many easier methods exist from both a hardware and a maintenance standpoint. This is especially the case for beginners that have so many other obstacles to overcome. If anything, I would call an ATS system *overly complicated* and *unnecessary*. I've had one before and I don't think I'll ever go through the hassle of setting up and maintaining one ever again. I became a better reefer the day it broke and started investigating other methods.

[miwoodar]

BTW - I'm not here to bash ATS systems. I used to be a huge proponent of them until I came to the realization that I didn't need to go through all of that work to maintain a successful reef.

[SantaMonica]

I want people to try them because the more that do, the more we'll understand how we can all use these thing better and properly. As for an ATS, first I'd have to say that we might not want to use that word, since it is trademarked to mean the dumping device that Aday patented. So yes I'd agree that an ATS proper, is too overly complex and unnecessary. Which is why I came up with a bucket design. I did at first try to find a real "ATS" (with dumping mechanism) that I could buy, new or used, but they basically don't exist because Aday did not go the route of aquariums (he instead went industrial/commercial). You say you had one and it was not worth the hassle; I'd agree, because it looks like a huge and complex and noisy device with lots of salt spray. But my bucket version is not.

As for "hardware" and "maintainence" and "work", I can't see how (for example) a 5 gal bucket with a pvc pipe and clip-on lights that only has to be "attended to" once a week is more work than: Buying a fuge; making space for a fuge; plumbing a fuge; cleaning a fuge; buying a skimmer; making space for a skimmer; adjusting and cleaning a skimmer; cleaning sponge filters; buying filtersocks; cleaning/replacing filtersocks; dealing with or worrying about macro getting into display; etc. All of this, and you still end up skimming food out that the corals wanted, and leaving in N and P that you now need to remove using other methods.

In other news, the 5 gal nano test has been a few days, and has just started to show turf growth (was not pre-seeded). Concurrently it's showing that P has begun to start coming out of the rocks (patches of algae on some rocks but not on rocks right next to it.) I'll have pics and measurements in a few days.

I had my first "scare" with the turf... I turned off the wrong switch and ended up turning off the flow the turf for six hours, even while the fan stayed on (lights were off at the time though.) I thought much of it may be dead, but when I touched it it was still moist because of the puddle that stays in the bottom of the bucket. It's back to normal now.

[seaskraP]

you convinced me, im gonna try one.

miwoodar: curious as to what you ended up replacing your ats with. seems like the ats is as easy as most of the other regular filtration equipment.

[biomekanic]

When I have the money for it, I'll be using this to filter a new tank.

I'll be getting rock from TBSaltwater, and hopefully this will ensure that more of the hitchhikers survive.

Also, thanks for the credit. :)

[miwoodar]

I didn't use a dump bucket. Mine was built into a Carlson surge device that I made. I went back to the very basics after it broke - skimmer and lights. The system progressed to the Berlin method over time and improved as I went.

[biomekanic]

I'm going to see about modding one of these:
http://www.fish.com/itemdy00.asp?T1=701001&srccode=FSHSHPNG

I have one sitting around, I was thinking of putting in a divider and doing one of your spraybar designs on the back of the tank.

Or would it be better to have a seperate turf filter?

Okay... now I'm thinking of having a "box" on top where the filter feeds back into the tank.

Light with something like this... http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=110137489588&_trksid=p2759.l1259

Hmmm...

Any thoughts?

[bergzy]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13067147#post13067147 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by miwoodar
The system progressed to the Berlin method over time and improved as I went.

yeah, this is the same expensive journey that i took.

i went and 'tried' all these different methods etc only to gravitate naturally back to the berlin method.

looking at your sig...my method is very similar to yours except that i dont utilize a po4 reactor. really, the only deviation from berlin is the vodka and i occasionally dose amino's.

as for ats', i think the bucket version is a great design. it has taken an historically complicated cumbersome piece of equipment and streamlined it down with no moving parts (except of course the pump). is an ats for a noobie? i think most have a hard enough time grasping to balance everything that comes with reefing. i can see the benefits of the ats for a fowlr tank and even maybe a softie/hardy lps tank.

there have been excellent discussions and articles about skimmers. i would not disconnect a skimmer unless one has a good water change regime to dilute and remove all the nasties that a skimmer removes and an algae based filter cant.

http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2006-08/rhf/index.php

[SantaMonica]

seaskraP: Maybe you can take pics of what you would be starting out with, and then pics of your building and installing process. N and P measurements would be cool too.

mekanic: I guess you mean the money for the tank, not the turf :) Maybe you could try a 10 square inch screen on your current nano? As for that 2 gal thing, do you mean use it as the entire bucket, or actually make a 2 gal nano tank with "a spraybar on the back"? If just for a bucket, I'd use a white one because it really seems to reflect a lot of extra light into the turf. And your "box on the top"... I think what you mean is what I'm testing now on a 5 gal nano... it came stock with a little horizontal sponge filter compartment on the top. I will post pics soon. The LED lights I think would not have enough output to energize the turf; I think those lights are just for decoration (and they are very cool... would like to try some blue ones behind the rocks.)

miwoodar: Have not ever used a surge device, but the drawings do look cumbersome; I guess I can see one breaking like yours did. But I guess a better question would be was your turf doing its job while it was working, or not. Because at least with my bucket version, a new pump or timer might be the only thing I would need to replace to keep it going. So it breaking is really not the issue; it's the performance. As for turf for newbies, that's why I'm trying to simplify their understading of using it; if they can just think "ok, to reduce N and P, I need a screen with flow and light", then they can install it wherever they can fit it, and provide us results as to how it works for them. And since most of them will not be starting with sps, it's a nice match.

bergzy: You say you had some turf not doing it's job, and you eventually dropped it? I like the "historically complicated cumbersome piece of equipment" description of the 30-year-old dumping design. Who knows, maybe it was patented just because you can patent "devices", and he thought a simple "flow" design would work but couldn't be patented. That skimmer article you linked (I think I read it last year) reminds me of the very thing that got me thinking about turf: "In general, nitrite, nitrate and phosphate will not be directly skimmed out of seawater because they do not adsorb onto air water interfaces." Turf, of course, uses these things directly. As for removing the "nasties", my current reading is of skimmerless setups, and I still have not found a chemical/substance of major importance that is not dealt with by turf. My last two suspicions were ammonia and metals, but even Aday's patents clearly describe turf's advantage of taking up both. My main interest still lies in N and P however.

Side note: Could everyone take a moment to go to the end of this thread (bottom right hand side) and rate it?

[paulsilver]

Ammonia, Nitrite and Nitrate are all Nitrogenous Nutrients... algae by preference will use Ammonia first, but then that is usually not present in sufficient quantities in the aquarium (used up fast by the bacteria dealing with the nitrogen cycle) so it is a limiting factor... Most algae will switch to Nitrate when Ammonia is limiting... But all three are nitrogen based substances...

As for metals... some are taken up by plants or algae... Iron and copper for two... others as well. But some are not.

Skimmers remove most Ions, and most polar molecules... this is because water itself if highly polar... meaning it has oposite charged ends of the molecule, attracting negatively charged ions or molecules to the hydrogen side of the V and positively charged ions or molecules to the Oxygen side... So if the molecule is has this sort of polarity, the skimmer will generally pull them out... so the skimmer is not so much pulling out Phosphate directly, or nitrate directly, although it will pull some of these out as well, but it si pulling out the proteins and amino acids that will eventually break down into these things (ammonia, nitrite, nitrate, phosphate, etc.)

So while it may not pull as much of these nutrients out directly, it definitely keeps the levels down dramatically.

Just FYI

[biomekanic]

Clarification:
It would be a 2 gallon hex tank with an overflow in the back.
I was considering a little ATS in the back, but on second thought, decided that an "over the tank" unit would be better. ( Or maybe under. Still kicking it around in my head). Or, just go with the ATS in the back... decisions, decisions... I have a quad 27w/9w unit I'd use to light it. I could put mylar on the back part of the tank to increase the light levels. As I said, still kicking it around in my head. I just wish the local plastics place had better hours. They're the only game in town, and only open 8 to 4 M-F, since I work 7:30 to 5:00 most days, this presents problems.

The 2g would be for keeping a G. viridis (sp) mantis - they only get to be about an 1" long, and are pretty much homebodies. A 2 gallon tank is probably more space than they actually use in the wild. I know someone who has one for sale... I just need to talk them into a reasonable price. (I'm not paying $1 a mm for a mantis that's 3cm long. ;) )

Given the 2g size, trying to fit a skimmer on this would be a hassle and a half, but a small ATS would help with uptake of nutrients, plus I'd do weekly water changes. The pod production from the ATS would be good too, help feed the mantis a more natural diet. At that size, they're pretty much only a threat to stomatella snails,or bristle worms.

As for the LEDs, they do look cool. I'm considering a 20" bar for my 10g. Having a blue one in the tank right under the rim pointed down at 45deg angle towards the rockwork would hopefully act like supplemental actinic light.

I'll probably eventually do an ATS on this 10g, but I'd most likely keep the skimmer, mostly for ozone supplementation. In my case, the ozone will be used primarily to break down the allelopathic chemicals the coral produce.


One concern I do have is with the notorious yellowing of the water. Have you observed any of that in your system SantaMonica?

[Flatlander]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13063414#post13063414 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by SantaMonica
[B]I want people to try them because the more that do, the more we'll understand how we can all use these thing better and properly. As for an ATS, first I'd have to say that we might not want to use that word, since it is trademarked to mean the dumping device that Aday patented. So yes I'd agree that an ATS proper, is too overly complex and unnecessary. Which is why I came up with a bucket design. I did at first try to find a real "ATS" (with dumping mechanism) that I could buy, new or used, but they basically don't exist because Aday did not go the route of aquariums (he instead went industrial/commercial). You say you had one and it was not worth the hassle; I'd agree, because it looks like a huge and complex and noisy device with lots of salt spray. But my bucket version is not.

My ATS is anything but complex and noisy. Its larger but designed to be a nice fixture on a tank. The most noise is the cooling fan, which your running also. Large, allowed for the 240sq. in. of turf screen and a directional dump chute which added surge flow to an aquarium

As for "hardware" and "maintainence" and "work", I can't see how (for example) a 5 gal bucket with a pvc pipe and clip-on lights that only has to be "attended to" once a week is more work than: Buying a fuge; making space for a fuge; plumbing a fuge; cleaning a fuge; buying a skimmer; making space for a skimmer; adjusting and cleaning a skimmer; cleaning sponge filters; buying filtersocks; cleaning/replacing filtersocks; dealing with or worrying about macro getting into display; etc. All of this, and you still end up skimming food out that the corals wanted, and leaving in N and P that you now need to remove using other methods.


Filter socks remove detritus, nothing to do with an ATS. I always found a skimmer and carbon was needed to run my style of reef tank with my scrubber. If you have read any of the threads I participated in, one could see my several attemps at running my tanks on the scrubbers alone. I also asked to see some aquarists doing so and they long term success and pics of their aquariums.

Basically none without additional filtration but also close to nil running turf scrubbers. Many tried but always seemed to end up like mine, in the corner collecting dust.

Anyways as we are expressing our views on them and other filter methods, thats mine. I may add it saddens me how the scrubbers ended up, as I agree they could be a great filtration device, perhaps with some assistance for some types of reef tanks and perhaps alone for others.

If you could find my thread back when we were discussing it with Morgan, there was great interest, perhaps even in the long ATS thread with Eric and the many other participants.

Good luck with yours. I do follow your thread to see how its going and read many of the other posts.

[SantaMonica]

3 week update:

Right (Originally Seeded), 3 weeks old, 1 week after scrape:
http://reefcentral.com/gallery/data/578/148489ScreenRight3weeks-1weekSmall.jpg
Hi-Res: www.radio-media.com/fish/ScreenRight3weeks-1week.jpg


Left (Originally Unseeded), 3 weeks old, never scraped:
http://reefcentral.com/gallery/data/578/148489ScreenLeft3weeksSmall.jpg
Hi-Res: www.radio-media.com/fish/ScreenLeft3weeks.jpg


Seems pretty clear that I'm growing a different type of algae than was seeded. The original turf felt stuf was stiff and a dark brown/red; the new stuff is green and slimey. Can't tell yet if it's green hair algae that's matted down, or a different type of slime algae. When I pick at it, I don't find hair strands laying down or anything. I did find a long hair algae strand about ten inches long that was growing on the bottom the screen (reached all the way into the drain tube).

I'm not going to scrape either side this week, since neither side is as thick as the seeded version that was mailed to me. But this new type of algae may never get that thick though, so I'll be guestimating when to scrape it. Will probably do the left (originally unseeded) side next week.

paulsilver: That is great that algae prefer ammonia. I was thinking that turf may not work for a FO tank with no rock and no sand (such as I want to build an all-eel tank with just pvc pipes). It would be a neat experiment to slowly add eels one-by-one and see if the turf can keep up with the ammonia. Good to hear algae takes up copper, too. Sounds like another advantage of turf over a skimmer. Now I do see how skimming can get the precursors of N and P, but I seem to understand that these precursors are the same thing as "food", i.e., if you left them in the water, something would eat it.

mekanic: Just remember that laying the screen down in the lid of the nano only gives you one side; putting the screen in a unit above the nano gives two sides. 2 to 4 square inches is all you need (!). As for yellowing, I did not notice anything the first two weeks of use, but at that point I needed to use blow some dust arount in the tank as I was cleaning, so I used a filtersock with carbon for a day. But I still did not notice any "clearing up" of the water color. Anyways, I figure that carbon has to be used once a month anyways to clean out the coral chemicals, so if there really is some yellowing, it will be cleared up then.

flatlander: I mention filter socks because, when using turf w/o skimmer, you now have a live planton/pod/food population floating around that you probably don't want to trap in a sock or foam filter, just like you would not want a filter sock between your fuge and your display. I did read some of your past turf discussions; matter of fact I thought I read them all, including the big one. But I never did find one with Morgan participating; maybe he will now since I told him about this thread. What indicator from your setups made you want to keep the skimmer going? Anyways I'm going to go search for "morgan and ats" in the archives now...

[SantaMonica]

(By the way, I deleted a whole inbox full of pm's by accident about two weeks ago, so if you pm'd and did not get a reply, please retry.)

Wow it's great finding more old threads. Here's the most precise answer to the core question of how turf works, compared to skimmers; was from one of the original turf threads: "Algae can't use organic sources of nitrogen, and for the most part, can't use organic sources of phosphorus. They can only use inorganic nutrient sources." Taken from this long post from that long thread:
http://archive.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=6006070#post6006070

This is why I wanted to get turf to work, because it only uses inorganics (NH4, NO3, NO2, PO4) which are the exact things we want out of our water. These inorganics are not "food" to anything else of interest (clams?). Also from that same post: "Algae can't use detritus as a nutrient source, at least not directly." Yes, another word for detritus is: FOOD. This point is exactly where I see the yes-skimmer crowd separate from the no-skimmer crowd. It's the thinking that detritus is BAD because is LOOKS bad, SMELLS bad, and much of it comes out of the rear of fishes. But look at manure for gardens: It LOOKS bad, SMELLS bad, and comes out of the rear of cows. But it's what makes gardens grow. Same could be said of compost, which is just rotting leftovers of dead things. If in a garden, you added manure or compost, and at the same time "skimmed" it out with some type of machine, it would seem counterproductive. That's what struck me as odd about skimming once I understood it. But at first, I too was telling onlookers "look out much crap my skimmer pulled out in one day!". This, at the same time that I could never grow any filter-feeders, and barely could grow non-filter-feeders. Grew lots of P and N however.

That post goes on to say: "Productivity is highest with turf algae, followed distantly (if I recall correctly) by seagrasses, followed very distantly by everything else (zooxanthellae, macroalgae, phytoplankton, etc.)" And he then shows this comparison from Perspectives On Coral Reefs (1983)...


Turf algae:
1.0 to 6.0 Productivity (g C/m2/day)
10.0 to 50.0 Area coverage (%)

Seagrasses:
1.0 to 7.0 Productivity
0.0 to 40.0 Area coverage

Zooxanthellae:
0.6 Productivity
10 to 50 Area coverage

Benthic algae:
0.1 to 4.0 Productivity
0.1 to 5.0 Area coverage

Sand algae:
0.1 to 0.5 Productivity
10 to 50 Area coverage

Phytoplankton:
0.1 to 0.5 Productivity
10 to 50 Area coverage


As for yellowing, someone in that thread said: "We added ETS skimmers to take care of some of the organics (generally added by the turf algae when the ATS pads were scrpaed of excessive algal growth)." So maybe yellowing is only during scraping, although as I said before I have not seen any yellowing yet.

Getting back to Morgan's input, I found this further down in another post: "Morgan was pretty adament that you need to use a specific type of turf algae for it to work." Well, I wonder if my new algae that is growing on my screen is going to be the right type, and how I might make sure to grow the right type. In another thread: "When scraping your screens, scrape off all other forms of algae growing on it but leave any turf algae until it out competes everything and is the dominant algae." Interesting. I did not do this my first scrape; I took off everything. I might try "selective scraping" when I do the other side, since it now has both turf and green slime. Another post/thread said: "It is very important that the screens are frequently exposed to air so that turf algaes are favored. There are poor examples of turf scrubbers at the Science Center. Their screens are constantly submerged under several inches of water, allowing valonia, aiptasia and macroalgae to grow and not effectively growing turf algae."

Well this got me concerned, so I took the screen out and "scrubbed" it in tapwater, using my fingernails, kinda like washing your hair. Tons of the green stuff came right off, and it seems to have left just the much-stiffer reddish brown turf:

Left side at 3 weeks, never scraped; first pic is before "scrubbing", second pic after:
http://reefcentral.com/gallery/data/578/148489ScreenLeft3weeksSmall.jpg
http://reefcentral.com/gallery/data/578/148489ScreenLeftAfterScrubSmall.jpg
Hi-Res: www.radio-media.com/fish/ScreenLeft3weeks.jpg
Hi-Res: www.radio-media.com/fish/ScreenLeftAfterScrub.jpg


Right side at 3 weeks, scraped 1 week ago; first pic is before "scrubbing", second pic after:
http://reefcentral.com/gallery/data/578/148489ScreenRight3weeks-1weekSmall.jpg
http://reefcentral.com/gallery/data/578/148489ScreenRightAfterScrubSmall.jpg
Hi-Res: www.radio-media.com/fish/ScreenRight3weeks-1week.jpg
Hi-Res: www.radio-media.com/fish/ScreenRightAfterScrub.jpg


Especially on the left (never scraped) side, you can see how the green slime was hiding the reddish-brown turf. So the question that remains is: Does non-turf algae help or hurt? As for "needing air", it makes sense for two reasons: (1) Real turf is found only where it is exposed to air; and (2) When you turn off your return pump and the water level in the display goes lower, the green algae that grows on the glass does not go past the water line, i.e., it is held back by the air. So I can see how more "air" over the turf can keep green slime out, and favor turf which is used to the air. Therefore I'm going to consider (as a future test) increasing the timer so the off-time is longer, allowing the turf to dry out more.

[paulsilver]

SantaMonica wrote: "Now I do see how skimming can get the precursors of N and P, but I seem to understand that these precursors are the same thing as "food", i.e., if you left them in the water, something would eat it."

Ah, but not all Food is Food... nitrogenous wastes come from all sorts of chemical processes... and certain of the components in the reactions, such as Nitrite, are reduced chemically... in this case to Nitrate... but many forms are just proteins or amino acids (all contain some amount of phosphorous, nitrogen, etc.) that are floating around, and others are the allelopathic compounds mentioned above... but certainly removing these BEFORE they convert to Nitrate and Phosphate is the goal of the skimmer... the turf scrubber works by removing them AFTER they have been reduced...

Not sure if this is a positive or a negative, for either skimming or ATS, but it seems to be the sequence that distinguishes the two...

Anyway... if it works, dont fix it...

[Frankysreef]

truthfully I would still run a skimmer, if just for a backup.

It looks like a great idea... but I do think the volume needs to be very high for it to pull the amount of nutrients out that you want

F

[SantaMonica]

Well it sounds like having proteins and amino acids are a good thing to have floating around (I think I've seen an amino acid additive). So maybe the allelopathic compounds are the only organic that we really do want removed. I know carbon takes care of these, so a once-a-month carbon treatment should do the trick, as well as remove any (phantom or not) yellowing that's occuring.

Franky: Running the skimmer (even if just for backup) creates the very problem that turf is trying to solve: How to leave food in the water for the corals to eat. Matter of fact, if a skimmer is going to actually be used, then I'm not seeing any need at all for turf. A skimmer takes out food, and reduces N and P because there will be less food to decompose. Turf leaves the food in, but still reduces N and P. Both will reduce N and P, but the skimmer wipes out the food too.

By the way I'm having good results with the 5 gal nano test... will post shortly.

[matt & pam]

I've been running an eco-wheel on my 180 for about 2 years now. I never found nitrates or phosphates in my tank, but I have had troubles growing corals (both SPS and LPS). In addition, I had all sorts of troubles with various algae in my tank, first dinoflagellates, then green hair, then cyano. I ultimately was able to get rid of each type and maintain an algae free display for the last 4 months or so. I finally added a protein skimmer to my tank and I'm pleased with both filters operating. I have a combination of both red turf (similar to what came with the starter from IA) and a green stringlike type on the scrubber. The green algae grows very fast, I usually pull about 2 packed cups of algae every 2 weeks from my wheel.

I believe many of my coral growth issues had to do with algae in the display. I would use caution with the iron supplement. I added iron at one point with the thought of helping the turf. Within a couple weeks I started having hair algae grow in the tank. Coincidence or not, I do not plan to intentially add an iron supplement to my tank.

I will be interested to see your tank after 6-8 months and more equillibrium using the scrubber in a bucket.

Matt

[BradR]

I've been running skimmerless for a few weeks now and the corals are more brown. The sump has a bit of chaeto and LOTS of xenia. :)

[SantaMonica]

matt/pam: You are one of the rare finds, with that Eco Wheel. There's a fellow also in Long Beach with one too. That design is what proved to me that turf does not have to be done with a dumping mechanism. Great to hear about your zero N and P... that's my primary interest in turf. As for you getting both red turf and green hair on your screen, maybe that has something to do with you still getting algae in your display. As I posted above (and am gathering more info on still), the green hair algae is not the preferred algae to have on the screens... it is not nearly as efficient in taking up N and P. It may indeed grow faster than (and on top of) the red turf, but some experimentation needs to be done on whether or not it should be allowed to do so. I myself just scrubbed the hair off the screen, leaving just red turf behind. And if you added iron and got more algae in the display instead of your screen, this is looking like growing conditions on your screen are not good enough. Maybe the lighting has dropped? The idea is for algae to grow on the screen first, before the display. Screens need very bright light.

bradr: From some of your other threads, I saw that you are not running any turf, and that you are trying a lot of sps. You might be a good candidate for trying a bucket! Afterall, if your xenia is growing, you have N and P. My xenia shrunk to stubs after my turf was installed; they originally were doubling in size every week. I'll be posting a build thread on a turf filter in-a-bucket, but it's so easy you should just throw one together this weekend and try it.

[matt & pam]

santamonica,
I have both red and green algae growth on the wheel. Unfortunately mother nature has more control than I do on where algae grows in my tank. The design of the eco-wheel uses about 200 watts PC, lighted 24/7.

[SantaMonica]

I had the same problem for the first 2.5 years with my tank. At best, a green film algae covered the entire back wall. At worst, one-inch long hair algae grew from some rocks, and glass needed cleaning once a day (and this was while I was paying a fish guy to take care of the tank). After firing the fish guy, and then studying filters for a full year, if I used every technique simultaneously (skimmer mesh mod, multiple carbons, multiple polyfilters, multiple rowaphos ($$), vodka, siphoning, sump cleaning, RDSB, clams, xenia, chaeto, new live rock, and almost NO feeding) then the algae would start reducing. But I lost several corals and fish from lack of food. And I still had the algae.

That's why I wanted turf (and I'm sure you had a story too.) Keep the corals and fish fed, and pull out the N and P. But your Eco Wheel seems to not be competing enough with the tank for algae placement, and I have a few ideas why. A few posts back I mentioned that I left the pump off by accident, and the turf dried out for six hours. I thought it was fine, but a few days later I started seeing slight pink on the N test and slight blue on the P test (Salifert). So I reasoned that some of the turf did indeed die, and was sloughing off back into the tank and rotting. Then I read about certain types of algae (besides turf) that grow on the screen and smother the real turf. Well since I was getting green hair on top of the turf, and since I thought I had some dead turf anyway, I "scrubbed" the loose stuff off. Those were the pics from a few posts ago. Well that did it, N and P dropped to crystal clear by the next day. And turf is the only filter running of any type (sump looks kinda empty with just water in it.)

So Matt what might work for you is to get that green stuff off the turf before it covers it. Waiting 2 weeks might be too long. The real turf is supposed to be FAR more effective at pulling N and P, but it can't do its job if it's being shaded by the green. Also, maybe switch to halides. My reading showed that turf can take as much light as you can give it, and the more you give it the more it pulls.

[Adam]

Hi all,

A lot has already been said in this thread, but SantaMonica asked me to comment and I do have a few things to add/clarify. BTW... while I personally don't mind, I can see where others may be irritated by a PM'ed request to comment on a thread.

My qualifications to comment: I have run turf scrubbers for quite a while. I have also used conventional refugia. While I haven't read the Addey book, I have observed dozens of turf scrubbers and discussed them ad nauseam with their owners. I have been giving a talk to local aquarium clubs about refugia and turf scrubbers. I will try to point out when my comments are based on my experience, are purely hunches or are what I consider to be fact.

First, to address the original point of this thread, which was the mechanical design of this particular scrubber... I like the idea of using both sides of the screen to get double the algae growth in the same or small footprint. however, lighting through the walls of the vessel will be a maintenance nightmare.

I would be concerned about the vertical arrangement of the screen. It has been well covered in this thread that the turf benefits from surge type water movement that allows the individual "fronds" to move to and fro, increasing light and water penetration. The vertical arrangement will inhibit this even with surge like water movement because gravity and the downward flow of water will mat the algae down. All that said, I did use a flat screen scrubber with trickle flow (no surge) that performed quite well.

IMO and IME, intermittent exposure to air is NOT necessary. The idea that air exposure delivers more CO2 to the turf doesn't Jive, especially if the scrubber is lit opposite of the lighting in the tank (a practice I strongly recommend). That way when the lights are off in the tank and the corals are respiring (producing CO2), the scrubber is scavenging it. The opposite is also true. IME, turfs grow slower with 24 hour illumination.

What I have found to be necessary is that the turf is always grown in a thin film of water and not submerged in more than a few millimeters. I have observed in my own DIY systems and in large commercial systems that when the screens are submerged, caulerpa, valonia, aiptaisia and other undesirable organisms quickly proliferate. I have also found that different systems favor different varieties of turfs. Morgan recommends seeding because he feels that his variety is more desirable, but I have found that even with seeding, a different variety may dominate. I don't think that's a bad thing, I just don't see a lot of benefit to seeding. My screens have always gone from sterile to their first harvest in about a month.

I have always run a skimmer with my turf scrubbers. It is a fact that turf remove few dissolved organics, and may in fact be contributing to the dissolved organics in a closed system (hence the often observed yellowing), so I still like to run a skimmer, even at the risk of skimming out some of the plankton from the scrubber. I also believe in regular partial water changes under all circumstances.

I have never had very good experiences with refugia and consider them to be maintenance headaches. I have always found turf scrubbers quite simple to maintain and quite bulletproof. That said, I know others who have had quite to opposite experience and hold the opposite opinion.

Last, but not least, I took exception to the same group of statements that others pointed out from the proposed beginner's post. In my refugium/scrubber talk, I point out that inflated expectations are one of the biggest problems with scrubbers and several of your statements were perfect set-ups for disappointment. Your pitch for scrubbers sounded more like Jim Jones passing out kool-aid than the nice lady at Costco offering someone a cheddar-wurst sample. ;)

Hope this all helps.

Adam

[matt & pam]

I don't think harvesting every week versus every 2 weeks will change much in my system. When I harvest every other week, my harvest is much greater than from weekly harvests, i.e., I feel like there I'm harvesting comparable amounts on a per week basis.

I think one concept that needs to clear up is whether you have green turf algae or not. I've received feedback from others much smarter than I that green turf is a more effective consumer of nitrogen than the red turf. I don't know why the green grows or the red grows, but needless to say I'm just happy I'm able to harvest something.

[SantaMonica]

matt: I'll posting soon what I dug up, but it seems to be opposite of what you were being told. I read that you want to have red turf, not green hair, because the green is "mostly water" and does not absorb nearly as much N and P. However the green DOES grow much faster in size than the red (because it's mostly water) and therefore grows over and shades the red. So what might be happening with you is that you seem to be harvesting a lot, but it's mostly green water-filled no-nutrient algae that was covering and shading the stiff high-nutrient red turf. I'll post the info soon, but it makes sense. I just went through this myself on my first scraping: I confused a lot of "green" with a lot of "nutrients". Anyways it's easy enough for you to remove just the green, just massage it (don't scrape it) like you were washing your hair. The green washes away, and the red stays. I did mine in a sink of course; not sure if you can easily do that with the Eco.

adam: Thanks for replying. The original acrylic box was indeed the first version (and is currently being constructed by a LFS for a 200g retail display), but has since been replaced with the ease-of-everything of the bucket design. The big advantage of the acrylic, of course, is the very close proximity of the lights to the screen. Nobody has completed an acrylic one yet, but as for salt spray collecting on the insides of the walls: I just reached into the bucket that I'm using now, and there is almost no spray at all on the sides of the bucket (been 3 days since cleaning). If an acrylic box had the closed-bottom design, it could just be filled with water and swished around to clean any spray off, and if the open-bottom design, you could just reach up from underneath with a wet towel. The trick is to set the flow through the spraybar to be enough to cover the screen, but not enough to actually spray sideways.

I agree about surge being an improvement; the on-off-on of the pump was designed to be the poor-man's solution to this. One of the big questions that remains, is how much improvement is surging anyways? Aday said 50%, but someone will have to test to know for sure. A side benefit(?) of the on-off-on pump, is indeed the exposure to air. I'm getting split feedback on this one; folks experiencing what you did (all the CO2 is "delivered" by water), and folks saying the opposite, saying that breaking the boundary layer is critical. Since putting a timer on was so easy, I thought to just mimic both Aday's dumping, and natural waves, by including it. I'll test it without the timer one day, and I'm sure many folks trying this out will too. Maybe your thin-film-of-water recommendation causes a similar effect as my on-off-on. I know I have no caulerpa, valonia or aiptaisia. Just turf and green hair.

As for seeding, I guess it's a time-saving option; many folks want instant results, and with a seeded screen you can pretty much have it. Now, I thought that my screen too was converting from red turf to green hair, but after giving the screen a little scrub (not scrape), low and behold there was new red turf underneath that was not there before.

Skimmer/yellowing: I'll have to diverge on this one, since this is what got me wanting turf in the first place. Job number one was keeping plankton/pods/food in the water. I really want to keep gorgs, dendro's, sponges, etc., and also be able to feed my other corals sufficiently. Everything else is a side benefit. And the yellowing seems to follow a pattern... folks who saw scrubbers several years ago says "yes" there is yellowing, but folks who are seeing them in the last few years are saying "no" there is not. With mine there is not, but nevertheless I believe we all have to run carbon once a month to remove allolepathics, and this will remove any yellowing too, and so hopefully the concern of yellowing, in general, becomes a moot point.

I agree about refugiums. They are huge, and they trap waste (even mine now, with nothing in it; it's still a settling chamber), two things that I really favor turf for.

Lastly, the intro for beginners... I went and reworded a few of the statements from "it will do it" to "it will help". But overall, it's kinda like buying a vacuum cleaner; One model says "cleans carpet AND tile", while another model says "clean 97% of carpets and 62% of tiles, when square footage does not exceed double the motor horsepower minus 10% for each degree operating temperature over 90 degrees, and successful cleaning should be also be downgraded based on heavy foot traffic, and age". They really both say the same thing: Cleans carpet AND tile. But nobody would buy the second one. Thus my reasoning for simply saying, "reduces N and P."

[matt & pam]

Is the green algae on your screen a slime like algae or turf like?

[paulsilver]

breaking the boundary layer is to prevent the algae from matting, and from somewhat stagnant water being in proximity to the algae, thus inhibiting the scrubbing action... no? I dont think it has to do with the CO2 levels...

[SantaMonica]

The green is slime, definitely not turf; it does cover up the turf, however (see the pics from several posts ago.)

I thought the boundary layer was just that, an inhibition of gas exchange (nothing to do with matting.) I'll post the things I found about it in a bit.

[SantaMonica]

Ok, my search in the archives found many useful things:


Power of Turf:

User "galilean" said in 2006: "Slime algae will grow everywhere [in the display tank] very quickly unless large numbers of tiny crustaceans are present to eat it, or the nutrient levels are extremely low (parts per billion). This extremely low level is only achievable with an ATS [turf algae scrubber] in my experience.

User mark said in 2005: "The thing that makes the turf communities so unique is that they are the turbocharged algae. [...] Understand this: A properly sized turf community will outcompete Caulerpa, other macros, and also seagrass. Think of the way Beckett skimmers are to protein skimmers, the ATS is the supercharged motherload of algal export. But the neat thing about ATS is that they require less space. You would need a very large sump full of Caulerpa to get the same level of productivity that you get from a small turf screen.

putawaywet 2003: "This is taken directly from The Environmental Gradient by Steve Tyree but credit is given to Adey & Loveland 1991 for the research... 'The turf algae is a group of fast growing short and moss-like mats of algal filaments. They grow incredibly fast and are constantly grazed upon by herbivore animals. These algae turf's are not very visible but do occur on surfaces that do not contain living anaimals. Turf algae can produce 5 to 20 grams of dry weight plant tissue per square meter per day. A square meter of algal turf growing on a screen can absorb 0.3 to 1.2g Nitrogen a day. A typical square meter of algal turf will contain 30 to 40 species of plants.' "

mark 2001: "From what I've learned by discussing ATS systems with Adey's proponents, it seems the ATS has a lot less of a lag time to catch up to nutrient increases. Accounts of accidentally dumping a whole can of food into an ATS system without ill effects are pretty interesting."

dendroneptha 2000: "Turf algae which grows quickly on a surge screen supposedly is thousands of times more efficient than caulerpa at removing excess nutrients and heavy metals from the tank. I am not sure you can get the same results by having a sump filled with macro algae."


Types of Turf Growth:

borneman 2005: "The algae go through a succession, and without the nice started seeding Morgan had, my succession is still based largely on the rapid growing Derbesia-type greens, and I want the red astro-turf stuff that is so efficient and rarely needs scraping, but haven't gotten there yet. I found a good patch of it on some frag bases in one tank, but have not yet scraped it off and stuck it on the screen."

mark 2005: "At first, long string algae will grow which is very water-logged. [...] So scrapings may be weekly or biweekly. As the tougher turf communities develop, scrapings can typically be reduced to every other week or so. I think it also depends on the nutrient load. ATS units have the ability to reduce nutrient levels to insanely low levels. I suspect when this occurs growth may slow. If growth slows, then it's time to increase food input into the system! Get that algae to grow, so that scrapings occur more frequently again. I think E. Borneman was feeding his 40 gallon ATS system 5 times a day at one point, and the turf communities took care of it. Not scraping the screen is bad for the colony; Smaller turfs may become choked out by longer/stringier species.

borneman 2004: "the labor [required to scrape the screen] goes down the longer and more mature is the turf screen is, as it is successional. the long filamentous hair algae prone to amphipod infestation and frequent scraping eventually gives way to short tufty stiff species that rarely require scraping and are much more resitant to amphipod damage. Furthermore, the nutrients eventually become so low that the turfs are even N limited. the turfs don't spread to the tank because they are eaten unless there is a total lack of herbviory and no amphipods in the tank at all....unlikely."

joe kelley 2004: "IA says that by the fifth or sixth day, you should notice new growth on your screen. Entermorpha flexuosa, a long, stringy macroalgae, resembling strips of green celophane,is almost always the first alga to grow on a bare screen. It takes 4-6 weeks for healthy turf algae to begin to takeover; closer to 4 if a seed screen is used. Because Entermorpha grows very long and retains a lot of water, the screen will have to be scraped much more often during this period."

staceon 2000: "IA told me to shoot for the purple color on the screen (or that type of algae). Anyway, I too had pods in mine when I scrape."


Basics:

piercho 2005: "The basic parameters of the Adey scrubber system are (1) Intense light. The desired algae community needs and uses high energy levels of light. (2) A screen that is easily removable to frequently scrape (harvest), and immersed in FW to control micrograzers. The desired community of algae is not resistant to grazing. (3) A screen that can be alternately immersed and exposed to air. Adey's screens were surged with dump cycles that broke up water boundary layer at the turf and allowed a period of air exposure. Achieving high rates of gas exchange at the scrubber were a primary design parameter."

scot 2005: "I remember reading on [the former site] AlgaeScrubber.com to run the lights 24/7 for a length of time to get things going."

endymion 2001: "I read that to be effective the screen needs to be exposed to air every 15-45 secs."

Dendronepthya 2000: "I have noticed that I have to take the screens out and de-amphipod them more than anything else. If amphipods get onto your screens, they will drastically reduce the effectiveness of your ATS. Maks sure you don't have any obvious bald spots on your screens. I too notice amphipods all over the main tank. I have a mandarin and a sixline, and neither have made a dent in the [pod] populations over the last four months."

mark 2005: "[Turf] have evolved to endure constant grazing by tangs, snails, and other herbivorous creatures. To adapt to this, they have evolved enormous rates of growth and photosynthesis. If the grazing discontinues and the algae grows to longer lengths, the productivity slows down. This is why it is important to scrape the ATS screen frequently. The reefkeeper is simulating this high rate of grazing to stimulate fast growth, and the stuff that gets scraped is the nutrient export."


Yellowing:

mark 2001: "What about algae yellowing water and releasing compounds that inhibit the growth of corals like SPS? That's a bit of a myth. It does happen in poorly maintained ATS systems. The ATS systems with yellow water that Julian referred to in his early 90's article were examples of what happens when you don't scrape the screen. I think at one point, the caretakers of the smithsonian did not scrape the screen for over a year. The algae will leach in those cases. I think Morgan's response to that was along the lines of, "How would a berlin tank look if it was neglected for over a year." By scraping the turfs regularly, you avoid this yellowing of the water. ATS systems do have more particles in the water, which makes them a little less clear than a berlin system, but that's a good thing. It's essentially these particles that help feed the various filter feeding organisms."


Previous Nano Idea:

liquidshaneo 2001: "how feasible is an ATS for a 5 or 10 gal nanoreef for the only filtration? I've wanted to setup a small nanoreef in my cube for a year now and the only thing was that I didn't want to get a skimmer for the setup. I've got a prop tank full of soft corals that would work great in a 5 or 10 gal tank. I'm thinking of putting the ATS in the hood above the lights or maybe off to the side and use that as the sole circulation for the tank."


Previous Non-Dumping Idea:

horge 2000: "Try the concept out with a non-mechanical model. A small tray with a standpipe drain to allow (say) 1.5" of water; a clear cover; a lightsource over it (.5 to 2w per sq.in.); and rigid plastic screening cut to fit the tray (w/ a hole to allow for the standpipe); a means to get water to it and from the standpipe back to the main tank (tray vol/minute up to 4 vols/minute). No wave action. Bare bones."


Even a Previous Bucket Idea:

eddie 2002: "see how cheap and easy it can be done with only 2x4s, 5 gallon buckets, and a tarp from walmart lined with window screen"

[SantaMonica]

For those concerned about yellowing, here is a pic looking lengthwise through the tank with a window in the background, which can be compared to the other window:

http://reefcentral.com/gallery/data/578/148489YellowCheckSmall.jpg
Hi-Res: www.radio-media.com/fish/YellowCheck.jpg

[paulsilver]

I believe that generally there is some yellowing, not only when the scrubber is not scraped for long periods... but as is said above, that is not necessarily a bad thing... it is not related to the yellowing that constitutes old tank syndrome... I think...

[SantaMonica]

Been busy working on the build-thread. Built a second bucket as part of the thread, and have it running now next to the original bucket. Is anyone else building / designing / wanting one?

[herring_fish]

I am re-starting my old dump bucket in a new configuration. Unfortunately, I have a lot on my plate so I am going very very slowly. Since it is a standard dump bucket design, I think that I will start a new thread for it. If so, I will post a link to it. I also believe that I will add a set of plans so that others can build it if they want to.

The down side of this true Algae Turf Scrubber/dump bucket is that you would need to get the Plexiglas and the correct glue from a plastics company. Then you would probably need to go to some place like Ace Hardware to get it cut up.

For this particular AST design, you would need to go to a steel supplier to get the counter weight. The last time I went, they cut it to size for me for very little money. I believe that it was only a few dollars total.

It’s all a bit of a pain in the neck to get the stuff to build it but it’s cheaper than a skimmer.

[herring_fish]

.

[SantaMonica]

That's a lot of work. Why not just throw together a bucket for now and get it going, and work on your large one long term? Then when the large one is done, if it ever breaks you'll have your bucket for a backup.

[herring_fish]

I am going to use the old dump bucket. It worked great for year so why not? I need to get a new counter weight again and an enclosure to catch the water spills. I will design that on CAD first so I know that it works for my setup and fits in the cabinet.

Right now, I am dosing my tank with sodium silicate to get a diatom bloom per Charles Matthews which is supposed to suppress feature hair algae. I accidentally did something like that in my oldest tank and it work great. Next, I will cut back on the silicate and seed my (mined) dead reef rock from Carib Sea with reef Grung from GARF. I will use the additives that they recommend to hopefully get the calcareous algae to turn the rock purple and to bring the rock to life.

At the same time, I am setting up the lighting, shopping for a Red Bull Mini Refrigerator to keep my dendro food fresh in and working on the tank cabinet. I was promised a rebuild four station peristaltic dosing pump from a distributor but that has not come yet but that has to be incorporated as well.

I put the old ATS outside in the sun filled with water and some Metrical Grow in it but that did not work. I just build my light fixture with 4 T5 4100K Compact fluorescents and am about to set it up right on top of the ATS with a small pump to add circulation and aeration. I will use the MGrow again but I will not have it hooked up to the tank. I don’t want the two chemical soaps to get mixed up before they both come to fruition. Hopefully, I will get algae to grow right on the plastic like it used to do.

In the past, after messing with the screen for quite a while, I noticed that the algae had taken hold right on the plastic so I threw the screen way and never looked back. About every one or two a week the bucket would stop in the down position, letting me know that it was time to harvest. I simply grabbed a hand full of the Easter basket grass algae and through it away with no scrapping. Then the bucket went right back to dumping regularly.

I have a lot of stuff to package in my unfinished cabinet. I also have a lot of other projects that demand my attention. It’s very slow but I hope to get there.

[SantaMonica]

Forgot to post Friday's screen pics. Now that I'm getting a feeling for how this all works, I'm seeing that the key is to grow the real turf (reddish/brown and stiff like astro turf) and remove the green hair/slime. I did not do this to start with. I (along with others, I believe) thought that the green stuff was part of the "turf" too. But it's not. It's nuisance algae covering the real turf. But it grows much faster and longer than the turf. This explains why it's the first algae to grow on the new un-seeded screen, and why if you do buy a pre-grown screen, it seems to morph from brownish/red into green.

But it's not morphing; it being smothered by the green. So my weekly process has changed from scraping all the algae off the screen, to scrubbing the green algae off of the turf algae. Unfortunately I already completely scraped the right (originally seeded) side, but the real turf is slowing coming back. This all explains why after the first two weeks the N and P started showing again: The green hair/slime had completely covered the turf. While the green is good in and of itself (it does do some filtering, and it will be the first to grow on a new screen), it does not compare to real red/green turf. So in effect when I completely scraped the seeded side I removed almost all my filtering.

Fortunatly, the unseeded left side is about 1/3 covered by real turf, and is probably doing most of the filtering. The right side is now two weeks past the scraping and is starting to show real turf again. But the trick is to keep the green hair/slime off of the turf so the turf does not get shaded. It's really easy to scrub the green off, like washing your hair. Green comes right off, and turf stays right on (you'll need more than your fingernails to remove real turf.) From now on i'm going to just scrub the screen clean, and I'm going to hold off scraping the turf until it is completely full of it. This whole process reminds me of adjusting a skimmer to get that sweet spot of just the right amount of foam.

Anyways, here are the pics; this one is the left side, unseeded and never scraped, but now scrubbed every few days. In the center you can see the real turf starting to rise up:
http://reefcentral.com/gallery/data/578/148489ScreenLeft4weeksSmall.jpg
Hi-Res: www.radio-media.com/fish/ScreenLeft4weeks.jpg


This is the right side, scraped once two weeks ago, but since then only scrubbed every few days. Since the real turf was scraped down to the screen, it's about even now with the green and has not risen up yet:
http://reefcentral.com/gallery/data/578/148489ScreenRight4weeksSmall.jpg
Hi-Res: www.radio-media.com/fish/ScreenRight4weeks.jpg


This news about how the green algae works is good. It means that since green will be the first algae to grow on a new un-seeded screen, you can "seed" your own new screen by just rubbing in some green algae that you get from your display overflow. This doesn't "grow" it on your screen, it just gets the spores onto it. This is what I did with the 5 gal nano that I'm testing, and the screen was completely covered in green in a week. I'll be posting those nano pics soon.

This places more value on the pre-grown turf from IA; those screens save not just one, but many months of growing real turf. While a new unseeded screen will start growing green and lowering your N and P the first week (like in my nano test), the intense pull of real turf either has to be grown slowly over many months (keeping it free of green), or it has to be bought from IA.

herring, the plastic that the algae is growing on, is it eggcrate? Interesting idea... culturing some algae in a separate container.

[herring_fish]

herring, the plastic that the algae is growing on, is it eggcrate?

No the algae grew right on the smooth plastic bottom of the bucket. It didn’t happen for quite a while but once it did, the resulting growth was very rapid, just like on the screen, only it was much more convenient to harvest. Perhaps there was some pitting going on in the plastic. I don’t know but it did take hold.

Over time, my algae changed from one kind to another and back again. Your scrubber will probably go through lots of changes before it settles into a grove. The Easter basket grass grew the fastest for me but it didn’t matter what was growing. It all absorbed nutrients.

At first, I lamented about what was growing in the scrubber but after a while I realized that splitting hairs just gave me gray ones on my head.

The scrubber just has to be big enough, have agitation and lots of light. Once my scrubber got mature, I never was able to measure any nurturance it the tank so I didn’t worry. Of course, it was fun watching the changes and trying to figure out what was causing the changes.

The quick start that you used, does seem to save time. I have the left over dried algae in the bucket. We’ll see if I have to go through the entire cycle from scratch. If I do, I will wish that I copied you.

[SantaMonica]

Ahh. Well it's doing the same thing on my 5 gal nano test... growing right on the plastic in addition to the screen; but then again this screen is just plastic too. It's not doing this in my regular turf bucket; the sides of the bucket don't even get wet.

Types of turf over time: I think this is the big "discovery" of doing turf the correct way. Nobody spelled it out in an absolute manner, but every time it turned up in my reading that one algae type did better than another, real red/brown stiff astro turf type algae was the one. So who knows... maybe you were getting good results with green hair, but you can't get less than zero nutrients, like you had.

[SantaMonica]

Here's a video of the tank today; tried to get as close as possible to the corals/rocks as I could with this old 2meg Sony, and thus scared all the fishes away :)

http://www.radio-media.com/fish/WholeTank08-11-08.mpg

[SantaMonica]

The 5 gal nano test is almost done, and I'll be posting the numbers soon. If anyone has something in particular that they'd like to find out from this test, let me know and I'll try to incorporate it in.

[SantaMonica]

Here's an interesting one that someone just built... said it took him just a few minutes:


http://www.radio-media.com/fish/UserMinzukOnUR.jpg

[SantaMonica]

Part 1 of 2


Ok here are the results of the 5 gal nano test. First, here is the tank, which has 3 pounds LR, a SSB, along with a purple lobster, a starfish, and a clown:

http://www.radio-media.com/fish/5galNano.jpg


The tank has been on an office worker's desk (his first tank), with no water changes for about four months. The last change was done only to get nitrate down (a result of overfeeding of course), in order to keep the animals happy. Phosphate was not a concern since there were no corals, and thus there was no phosphate removal system in place.

As you can see, the light and most of the hood were removed, as was the little sponge filter. The remaining part of the hood has a compartment for the sponge filter, which is 2 X 3 inches, and it has a little built in pump to move water across this compartment. I started out by taking some tank-divider material and cutting it to a tight fit into the compartment:

http://www.radio-media.com/fish/5galNanoDay00screen.jpg


Then I sanded it very rough on the top, and I "seeded" it by taking some green hair algea and rubbing the algae HARD into the sanded side. Then I pushed the screen into the sponge filter compartment:

http://www.radio-media.com/fish/5galNanoCompartment.jpg


The screen is only 6 square inches, single sided, and thus not enough for this tank according to the rule of thumb of one square inch per gallon (double sided), or two square inches per gallon (single sided). Thus for this 5 gal tank single-sided I should have 10 square inches instead of 6, but of course for simplicity I just used the compartment size.

Since we had already removed the original tank light, we were going to just use the light for the screen as the new tank light too. So I just took one of the same bulbs that I used in the bucket, a 23 Watt, 5100K compact fluorescents "full-spectrum" (125W output equivalent):

http://www.radio-media.com/fish/Light.jpg
http://www.buylighting.com/23-Watt-R40-Compact-Fluorescent-Flood-5100K-p/tcp1r4023-51k.htm


...and set it directly on the plastic hood, which put it only a half inch from the flowing water:

http://www.radio-media.com/fish/5galNanoLight.jpg


Thankfully these CFL's run very cool, and you can put your hand right on them without burning. Of course if you try this light placement yourself, you'd want to test it carefully so that you don't melt anything, and won't knock the bulb over. I thought that the light might heat up the water, but it does not seem to. The light is on an 18-hour-on timer, and provides the tank itself with much more light than the original hood light did.



Results: Here are the measurements (Salifert) and pics taken over a period of days:


....................N...........P
.
day 0..........*............*...............not measured
day 1........(50)........( .5 )
day 2..........*............*...............not measured
day 3..........*............*...............not measured
day 4..........*............*...............not measured
day 5........(50)........( .5 )
day 6........(25)........( .25 )
day 7........(15)........( .13 ).........screen full
day 8........(15)........(1.0)...........screen full
day 9........(10)........(1.0)...........whole screen cleaned (mistake)
day 10......(10)........(1.0)...........growing back
day 11......(8)..........(1.0)...........growing back more
day 12......(8)..........(1.0)...........half cleaned
day 13......(8)..........( .5 )
day 14......(5)..........( .25 ).........other half cleaned
day 15......(8)..........( .13 )
day 16......(3)..........( .13 ).........other half cleaned; housing cleaned
day 17......( 2.5 ).....( .05 )
day 18......( .5 ).......( .05 )
day 19......( .2 ).......( .05 ).........other half cleaned (not much there)
day 20......(0)..........( .015 ).......green growing back over brown



Day 2:
http://www.radio-media.com/fish/5galNanoDay02screenSmall.jpg
Hi Res: http://www.radio-media.com/fish/5galNanoDay02screen.jpg

Day 3:
http://www.radio-media.com/fish/5galNanoDay03screenSmall.jpg
Hi Res: http://www.radio-media.com/fish/5galNanoDay03screen.jpg

Day 7:
http://www.radio-media.com/fish/5galNanoDay07screenSmall.jpg
Hi Res: http://www.radio-media.com/fish/5galNanoDay07screen.jpg

Continued....

[SantaMonica]

Part 2 of 2


Day 9, before complete cleaning:
http://www.radio-media.com/fish/5galNanoDay09screenBeforeScrapeSmall.jpg
Hi Res: http://www.radio-media.com/fish/5galNanoDay09screenBeforeScrapeDay.jpg

Day 9, After complete cleaning (mistake)
http://www.radio-media.com/fish/5galNanoDay09screenAfterScrapeSmall.jpg
Hi Res: http://www.radio-media.com/fish/5galNanoDay09screenAfterScrape.jpg

Day 12, half cleaned:
http://www.radio-media.com/fish/5galNanoDay12halfScrapeSmall.jpg
Hi Res: http://www.radio-media.com/fish/5galNanoDay12halfScrape.jpg

Day 16:
http://www.radio-media.com/fish/5galNanoDay16screenSmall.jpg
Hi Res: http://www.radio-media.com/fish/5galNanoDay16screen.jpg

Day 17:
http://www.radio-media.com/fish/5galNanoDay17screenSmall.jpg
Hi Res: http://www.radio-media.com/fish/5galNanoDay17screen.jpg

Day 18:
http://www.radio-media.com/fish/5galNanoDay18screenSmall.jpg
Hi Res: http://www.radio-media.com/fish/5galNanoDay18screen.jpg

Day 19, in tank:
http://www.radio-media.com/fish/5galNanoDay19screenInSmall.jpg
Hi Res: http://www.radio-media.com/fish/5galNanoDay19screenIn.jpg

Day 19, removed:
http://www.radio-media.com/fish/5galNanoDay19screenOutBeforeSmall.jpg
Hi Res: http://www.radio-media.com/fish/5galNanoDay19screenOutBefore.jpg

Day 19, after cleaning top half:
http://www.radio-media.com/fish/5galNanoDay19screenOutAfterSmall.jpg
Hi Res: http://www.radio-media.com/fish/5galNanoDay19screenOutAfter.jpg


You'll see on day 7 that the screen filled up. However I had never seen it full before, so I did not know what "full" looked like. So I left it to see how full it would get. Day 8 the screen looked the same, but there was a big increase in P, and I surmised that the screen had filled up and some strands of algae were shadowing others, causing the others to detach and flow into the tank and die (not enough light in the tank to survive). So I waited one more day to be sure (day 9), and sure enough the P was still very high.

So on Day 9 I cleaned (mistakenly) the whole screen, whereas I should have only cleaned half. Thus, I had no filtering, and it took a few day to fill in again. By day 14, nitrate and phosphate were at reasonable levels, and I was doing half-screen cleanings properly. By day 18 the nitrate and phosphate were bottoming out and staying constant, and nitrate eventually got to zero at day 20.


So the things learned:

1) A small screen size, even one sided, can do a tremendous job of filtering. (Phosphate from .5 to .015, and Nitrate from 50 to 0, in three weeks).

2) It can do this filtering with a constant flow of water (no pulsing), although a timer on the little pump would be easy to add and try out.

3) It can do this filtering with regular green algae; it has not had time to form true red/brown turf, although it was starting to feel like some was growing.

4) It all can be done in the nano's hood, with a standard light, for free.


Ok, now it's seriously time for you nano folks to try this!

[SCIFI_3D_zoo]

I'm really interested in what you're doing here but I have to admit... there doesn't seem to be much traction in the community. You'd think saying something like "you don't need a skimmer anymore" would be a huge deal. It would be revolutionary. Nothing new actually. There are plenty of people who do that now. They just don't have mixed reefs or heavily dominated SPS tanks. It really depends on what you have in your tank what you can get away with. And by looking at your tank pics it doesn't seem like you have much in the way of SPS if any at all. Most who don't have a skimmer bypass this with a large fuge. So even then this could be a really big idea b/c a turf scrubber has a much smaller footprint than a big fuge.

I just wonder where is the interest. There was a lot of interest in VODKA and RC just put out an article about it. I'm curious about this as well but there doesn't seem to be much interest from the higher-ups here, the ones I respect. I didn't see one post here yet. I also noticed there was a single TOTM that I have read using this method. Pwhitby used a "spraybar" in 2007 TOTM but it was just to tumble cheato.

[bergzy]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13173205#post13173205 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by SCIFI_3D_zoo
Most who don't have a skimmer bypass this with a large fuge. So even then this could be a really big idea b/c a turf scrubber has a much smaller footprint than a big fuge.

I just wonder where is the interest. There was a lot of interest in VODKA and RC just put out an article about it. I'm curious about this as well but there doesn't seem to be much interest from the higher-ups here, the ones I respect. I didn't see one post here yet. I also noticed there was a single TOTM that I have read using this method. Pwhitby used a "spraybar" in 2007 TOTM but it was just to tumble cheato.

from my experimentation...

i have a 2g fuge on my 110g mixed reef that has been skimmerless for the past 8 months with the only source of nutrient export is chaeto growth and bi-monthly water changes from my 180g sps tank. from my experiences, i didnt need a large fuge. i just needed an effective fuge to grow chaeto asap! i found that large amounts of chaeto actually didnt remove nutrients as fast as smaller faster growing chaeto colonies.

but...macro growth has slowed down considerably since using zeo and vodka.

i have been dosing vodka for about year(?) now on my 180g spswith excellent results. before dosing vodka, i did (and still do) zeovit for nutrient reduction very slowly. i transitioned vodka in only as a carbon source for the zeovit bacteria. excellent results with zeo and vodka btw!!!

i dont use a scrubber simply because i dont have a whole lot of nutrients for algae to grow and already have a great functioning fuge growing algae (when it ever decides to show up).

the fuge on the 180g sps is still running with the light on and everything. it is pretty much empty but i do get the occasional bit of fuzzy algae growing that i quickly harvest away...

on my 110g mixed reef. i only run it skimmerless because the pump i got for my bermuda hang on skimmer is too big and it kept backflowing and spilling all over my garage floor. i disconnected it and from that day on....havent noticed detrimental effects. i do run about a 1/2 liter of carbon passively in a mesh bag that sits on the sump bottom. this gets changed out once a month.

i wouldnt event running the sps tank without a skimmer. i am not going to try it on my system...but perhaps if someone is brave enough to do so on theirs...i would love to read about their experience.

turf filters never really caught on. one guess is that adey's smithsonian display got very negative comments about yellowing water and constant creature die off.

ats' were expensive large cumbersome devices with components that could break...all attributes which turn people off when there are equally easier methods of nutrient reduction.

perhaps the bucket ats might spark two friends to do it who each told two friends and so on and so on and so on!!!:D:D:D

[matt & pam]

I would also add that turf scrubbers started out when in tank flow wasn't near where it is today. My eco-wheel is reported to have flow of about 1600 gph, which doesn't compare to the flows now days. In addition, there must have been considerable amounts of greed in the beginning considering the legal mess surrounding some of the early ATS systems (Just like Sony and betamax).

[SCIFI_3D_zoo]

You have any pics Bergzy of your tanks with info about your equipment and methods for each?

[bergzy]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13174174#post13174174 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by SCIFI_3D_zoo
You have any pics Bergzy of your tanks with info about your equipment and methods for each?

i am officially the worst photographer in the world...so here is a pic that marc leveson took:
http://melevsreef.com/pics/max08/bergzy_fts.jpg

since upping my ca reactor output without detrimentally affecting the tank...growth has exploded. most of my sps' are grown from very small frags. some sps' are: tenuis, yongei, undata, pocci's, granulosa's, never growing miyagi tort, bonsai, blue stags, various encrusting monti's...

the lighting in the picture was on my old giesemann pendant eco 230 using phoenix 14k bulbs with no actinic supplementation. yes, they are a very blue bulb indeed.

my current light fixture is a giesemann moonlight that has t5 supplementation, cloud simulation and moonlight intensity features. it does a bunch of other stuff that i havent read yet...but it is definitely an incredibly cool light. current bulbs are giesemann megachromes along with giesemann actinic t5's.

the tank is predominantly sps despite the three large euphyllia colonies you see in the pic. i grew each from two head frags and are the fastest growing things in my tank.

fish load is light:

- 2 female 'box' anthias. one was a male but decided to become a female! ;)
- purple tang
- powder blue tang
- mandarin
- flasher wrasse
- multicolor angel (some angel guys are saying it 'might' be a nahacki or a hybrid.
- in the sump - a juvenile grown to adult imperator, lemonpeel, sixline and two ocellaris'.
- inverts: one tuxedo urchin. just put in 4 turbos and 4 margarita's yesterday. not a whole lot of algae issues. i hope the snails dont starve to death.

water changes: bimonthly 30g of tropic marin pro

- ca reactor: korallin 4002
- kalkwasser: none
- pH controller: reef fanatic but i havent connected it to the co2 solenoid...too lazy and i have the reactor pretty much dialed in.
- vodka: 1 ml once or twice a week
- vinegar: 1 ml whenever i feel like it but never more than vodka
- zeovit start2: 1 ml per day (autodosed)
- zeovit b balance: 1 ml per day (autodosed)
- zeovit bacteria: 5 drops every one or two weeks

testing: ca and mg once a week. alk twice a week.

phosphate removers: none used

skimmer: bermuda aquatics 5c powered by a panworld 150ps. this pump is T'ed off and powers my 5g refugium (or whatever is left to grow in there). skimmer is on 24/7

refugium: 5g hdpe bucket receiving a 15 watt pc light 18 hours a day and about 600 gph in a rotational flowpattern.

cryptic zone: 65g pvc opaque barrel filled with hundreds of pounds of live rock. this no light slow flow concept creates a tyree 'cryptic zone' where sponges and tunicates are grown for further natural filtration. it receives water from the 5g bucket. the bucket drains to the bottom of the barrel and the water flows from bottom to top (fluidized flow). additional 4 airstones are placed in the barrel for further water circulation. thus, all water in the cryptic zone is circulated with no mechanical pumps! one of the best pieces of 'equipment' i have ever installed. it is very space hungry and thus, do not hear a lot of people being able to properly set one up.

top off: i manually top off rodi freshwater. i have read too many auto top off stories!!! i check salinity at least once a day.

cooling: one vornado fan on a medusa temp controller maintains excellent evap coolong. i have a aqualogic 1/2hp chiller on a separate temp controller if the temps creep up to 81 degrees.

heating: 900 watts of ejo jagers on the dual medusa controller. i need 900 watts as all my equipment is located in the garage and it does get cold enough in the winter here in socal to require this much heating.

return pump: tunze master return pump. bullet proof!!! i T it off to constantly flow water through the chiller.

in tank flow: 5 modded tunze nano 6025's (about 1200 gph each) and two modded koralia 4's (about 2000gph each). i have three old school mj 1200's on a reef fanatic wavemaker for nostalgia!

in sump circulation is provided by another modded 6025.

i also have a modded 6025 in my mixed 110g. sooooo...

i have a 600 watt ups for power failures. one in tank tunze, the 110g tunze and the insump tunze are all connected sto the ups. this would give me an estimated 28.5 hours of run time.

in tank rock: predominantly tonga branch (extra large pieces) and marshall island (large pieces).

fish food: finely chopped shrimp dropped with selcon once a day. some unknown brand of flake food my wife gets (and feeds to them) that the fish goes nuts for and nori. i hand feed the imperator nori. he loves it!!!

i clean the glass with a light scraping once a week.

let me know if there is anything you want to inquire further about!

[SCIFI_3D_zoo]

Interesting. So you only have a 2g fuge on a 110. I was worried my 6g wasn't good on my 90. I get pretty good/normal cheato growth.

What'd you say.. your 110 gets water changes from your 180? You take the change from your 180 and use it on the 110?

So the pics are of the 110 or 180? And the 110 is mixed and has a few SPS or something? That's what I'm trying to do myself. Not with much luck. SPS are a pain in the ***.

I want to try Vodka since reading the article. ZEO... that's the european stuff where you have to add 5 drops of this, 3 of that everyday? I'm skeptical on messing with a bunch of additives. Maybe this is how you get by without a skimmer on the 110? Sounds like you don't do zeo everyday but do the weekly maint. routine? I thought it wasn't as good.

So your 180 has a skimmer, but not the 110 (which has mixed hard and soft.. and SPS)?

Everytime I read posts about ATO I try to warn people about hooking up large holding tanks to their tanks. I keep reading about all the stories all the time. I have a 14 gallon ATO on my 90 and it has dual float switches... and my sump will hold it all just in case so no floods. But if it did happen... which is remote... my salinity would drop a little. I don't think it would be that bad to my tank and I could rectify quickly. I'm still trying to figure out why my sump level is over my gate valve/baffles a couple inches sometimes. I have the JBJ ATO controller and maybe it's still pumping for another minute after and not shutting off? I have to watch it in action and see what is going on.

So you just have mult. small balls of cheato and you say that's better than one big one? In your little 2 gallon fuge.

Bi-monthly h20 chg. It's probably that vodka/zeovit that is allowing that eh? I would like to go longer than 1 month. 30g... doesn't sound like you are even doing 30% every other month either?

Hmm.. I'm wrestling with my next batch here now trying to get the pH, Temp, Ca+, Alk to match my tank. Then I'll have to figure it all out again all over b/c I'm switching to the new Coralife formula. I spent a lot of time dialing in my Ca and Alk so I want my salt to match it.

Your 110 has a hang-on skimmer... yea, it probably didn't make much diff. taking it off b/c it wasn't doing much anyway. :rolleyes:

It kinda doesn't make sense. Even all the great things that Vodka does they don't recommend it replacing a skimmer b/c it's so great. Have to see some other people experimenting on a new tank with turf algae. I would love to save money on a skimmer if possible. But I want a nice mixed reef.

What do you mean uppping Ca reactor.. you keep it at 500 or higher?

I thought I read that Giesmann are so bright that their 14K is like somebody elses 10K. But you're saying it's really blue.

You're not that big on fuges and stuff so how do you keep a Mandarin?

First I've ever head of a cryptic zone.

So Giesmann makes a big light fixture... not just bulbs?

How are people modding Koralia's?

You have a powerhead in your sump?... just to keep detrius from settling?

[bergzy]

yowsers!

i'll try and answer everything...

contrary to popular belief...and santamonica has proven this as welll...a fuge does not need to be even remotely large to be effective. BUT, if you have room for a large fuge and/or love fuges...i dont see a reason for not having a large one!

yes, the 110g mixed (no sps) gets my old 180g water for water changes. the 180g gets fresh tropic marin pro.

pic is of the 180g.

with zeo and dosing...i have been using it for about 2 1/2 years now...my system is to the point where very little hands on zeo dosing is required. it does take a lot of experience with parameter control if you want to do zeo. i wouldnt recommend it for a newbie!

with vodka...note the very very low doses i use. my amounts are in contrast to people who just DOVE into vodka. some were dosing 1 ml or more per gallon. i have had awesome results with vodka dosing...my amount and schedule anyway on my tank. to each their own.

i found that a small bundle of chaeto with fast rotating water flow outgrows a big bundle on 'my' systems and design). a large bundle of chaeto looks cool but the center (i theorize) doesnt get as much exposure to nutrients and light...thus grows slower...thus, less nutrients removed.

i dont match any parameters with my fresh saltwater when doing a water change. since even 30g on my system of total adjusted water volume is 250g...it is barely 10% and the differences in temp alk ca etc are negligible TO ME. the only i match on the fresh saltwater is salinity/sg.

the bermuda hang on skimmer is amazingly effective. it did an awesome job of skimming. i was emptying the cup everyday with wet skimmate (which i prefer). i just took it off line because the original pump broke and when i put on a larger one...it kept overflowing. i stopped for the sheer sake of laziness. it actually is too good of a skimmer...and when i put on the larger pump, it kicked it into turbo mode and skimmed like there was no tomorrow. i am just too lazy to get the proper sized smaller pump for it.

vodka is not a replacement for a skimmer. there seems to be two extreme group of people. one will get a skimmer rated for 1500g on their 150g tank (yes, i have read it) and others who totally die hard refuse to skim but some will do things (like zero water changes on a reef tank with some lps and sps) that may hinder coral survivability. again, to each their own.

upping my ca reactor: i have increased the ca media dissolution rate. at first, i just had co2 on when the main lights came on and the reactor couldnt keep up so i just leave it on 24/7 at the same rate and it is doing great now. ca is 430 and alk is 8 on the dot!!!

the phoenix 14's are really blue. giesemann megachromes 13.5k are very white...and bright!!! :smokin:

i can keep a mandarin because my system probably has about 650 to 700 pounds of live rock. when the lights go out and i go pod watching...there are a gazillion of them!!! not to mention the oligotrophic bacterioplankton to feed the corals that develops when using zeo (and vodka).

giesemann makes both light fixtures and bulbs:
http://www.giesemann.de/11,2,,.html

there is a thread or two on how to mod a koralia 4. it's pretty simple.

the modded 6025 in the sump is for the fish in there. my sump is just an old 100g acrylic tank. no baffles. i just have a pile of large live rock for the fish to hide in and to act as a bubble killer. thus, in the even of a power failure, the 6025 keeps moving water around and the fish happy!!! keeping detritus from settling? wow, didnt think of that purpose...i mean, yeah, it keeps detritus from settling!!!!!!!;)

do a google on tyree's cryptic zone...it's a good read!
http://www.practicalfishkeeping.co.uk/pfk/pages/show_article.php?article_id=544

[SantaMonica]

scifi: As for turf not being currently popular, think about this: What if someone patented bubbles going through a vertical tube of water. Then he decided to sue anyone who tried to sell any such device, and, he decided to not make and sell them himself. You would not have your current skimmer today. What then would you use to skim? Would you build one? How many people actually have DIY skimmers, much less good ones? What would a newbie do, who's putting together their first or second tank? This is exactly what happened to turf. Now, if this did happen to skimmers, someone eventually would come along and say, "Why do you have to pump air through a water column? Why can't you just..." And boom, you'd have some other version that makes an air-water interface occur, but does not violate the patent by using a pump to push air through a water column. Luckily, however, nobody has a patent on the pumping of air through a water column, like they do with turf:

Algal Turf Scrubber, United States Patent 4333263:
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/4333263.html

Sooooo, you could actually ask, if skimmers are so good, why is there not a patent on the design? After all, the manufacturers want to make money right? :)

As an aside, yesterday the nano hit zero P for the first time.

[bergzy]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13175768#post13175768 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by SantaMonica
Luckily, however, nobody has a patent on the pumping of air through a water column, like they do with turf:

Algal Turf Scrubber, United States Patent 4333263:
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/4333263.html

Sooooo, you could actually ask, if skimmers are so good, why is there not a patent on the design? After all, the manufacturers want to make money right? :)

As an aside, yesterday the nano hit zero P for the first time.

here is a quick search of 'aquarium protein skimming' came up with:

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/7264714.html?query=aquarium+protein+skimming&stemming=on
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2007/0193956.html?query=aquarium+protein+skimming&stemming=on
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2006/0273037.html?query=aquarium+protein+skimming&stemming=on
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2005/0183998.html?query=aquarium+protein+skimming&stemming=on

i didnt bother to read them over...seems profoundly long winded to me...

'if' i can recall an interview with the guy who designed bubble kings...

he laments about not patenting the idea of the dispersion plate...a 'mistake' on his part...

as you have discovered...getting around a patent is pretty easy nowadays! you did it! ;)

[SantaMonica]

Ahh well there you go, patents! But of course their purpose is to market them, not keep them off the market. :)

Onward... here is another screen just built by someone:

http://radio-media.com/fish/UserVargaOnRS.jpg

[Paul B]

Sooooo, you could actually ask, if skimmers are so good, why is there not a patent on the design? After all, the manufacturers want to make money right?

Actually I have been using skimmers for about 40 years. A Sanders, counter current skimmer was common in those days. If they were patented then, the patent would have not be in force anymore and anyone can manufacture them now.
Have a great debate

[SCIFI_3D_zoo]

The typical rumor out there is a 10% fuge is the minimum. Then you see that last TOTM with NO fuge with a full reef tank. I killed myself with a fuge and I still have a poor pod population, and I noticed my pH still goes from 8.0 to 7.8 at night even with my fuge light on in a reverse cycle that overlaps a bit for about 14 hours total. I don't know if it's making any diff., or it would be even worse without what I got?

YEa,, what's the deal with that. 1ml/day vodka? You just did it super super slow and never increased the amounts. I guess it works over a longer period of time.

Cheato is an interesting idea. I could break up my ball into 2 or 3 balls. I have no idea what my PHOS are... but I'm more worried about nitrates. I use RO/DI water and all so phos. aren't a huge concern right now. I'll start testing when I try vodka. Nitrates are a consistant 10-15 ppm. What do you think about that and a mixed SPS reef??

Oh, the PHoenix are blue. I think I have 14K Coralife? on now and was thinking of trying 16K next. I was told to try Phoenix too. I am using DE HQI bulbs and I'm thinking my 8-9 hours is too much and maybe burning stuff. Maybe cut to 7 hours. And if I used Giesmann they might get even brighter... maybe too much. I'm still trying to figure out why SPS don't do well in my tank. I have a lot of shrooms around too... so I've entertained the idea of chemical warfare with those? Seems there's always a new theory to explain things.

Well... my pod-quest will continue I guess. I just seeded my fuge again, and once a week I add some phytoplankton. I fished out a small 6-line from my sump too recently. I guess he jumped into my ovb.


SantaMonica: Well...a lot of this is pointless debate to me. I'm more interested in who is using the method, and show the results. No matter what the #'s are we just need to see that a full reef is surviving and what equipment/methods one uses. It would just be nice if people did all of this and had before and after #'s on water parameters, etc. The VODKA article even has before and after pics to show coral coloration boosts. Right now... I gotta research some disaster info. b/c I got hurricans heading my way again here in Florida. :confused:

[vitz]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13175768#post13175768 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by SantaMonica
scifi: As for turf not being currently popular, think about this: What if someone patented bubbles going through a vertical tube of water. Then he decided to sue anyone who tried to sell any such device, and, he decided to not make and sell them himself. You would not have your current skimmer today. What then would you use to skim? Would you build one? How many people actually have DIY skimmers, much less good ones? What would a newbie do, who's putting together their first or second tank? This is exactly what happened to turf. Now, if this did happen to skimmers, someone eventually would come along and say, "Why do you have to pump air through a water column? Why can't you just..." And boom, you'd have some other version that makes an air-water interface occur, but does not violate the patent by using a pump to push air through a water column. Luckily, however, nobody has a patent on the pumping of air through a water column, like they do with turf:

Algal Turf Scrubber, United States Patent 4333263:
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/4333263.html

Sooooo, you could actually ask, if skimmers are so good, why is there not a patent on the design? After all, the manufacturers want to make money right? :)

As an aside, yesterday the nano hit zero P for the first time.

interesting-the patent you reference is Adey's :lol:

he did NOT patent turf scrubbing:

"Studies in algal turf production are well known and reported in the literature" (from his very own patent application/abstract)

there are plenty of skimmer design patents out there-some are even listed on teh boxes of the repective companies that market their respective designs

FYI BOTH turf scrubbing AND skimming were being used for commercial wastewater treatments long before people were keeping marine ornamentals in any appreciable numbers

huh? where on earth do you get your information from ? there have been dozens of alga scrubbers marketed for the hobby over the past 50 years, with their respective design patents, too.

i think you're just as confused about what different types of patents there are, what patenting actually means, what one can or cannot do with/due to a patent, as you are about NO2 and PO4 being the only things needed to measure to make a claim of 'perfect water quality' ;)

[SantaMonica]

interesting-the patent you reference is Adey's

Of course it is

he did NOT patent turf scrubbing: "Studies in algal turf production are well known and reported in the literature" (from his very own patent application/abstract)

Read what you just copied and posted:

Algal Turf Scrubber, United States Patent 4333263:
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/4333263.html

there are plenty of skimmer design patents out there-some are even listed on teh boxes of the repective companies that market their respective designs

Yes but they are trying to sell them. Aday is stopping them from selling.

huh? where on earth do you get your information from ? there have been dozens of alga scrubbers marketed for the hobby over the past 50 years, with their respective design patents, too.

Good. Maybe you can post some parts/pieces of them that will make turf easier for us to use.

i think you're just as confused about what different types of patents there are

I don't care what types there are.

as you are about NO2 and PO4 being the only things needed to measure to make a claim of 'perfect water quality'.

(1) Copy and paste any mention of me saying "perfect water quality".
(2) My original post/intent was indeed directed at just N and P. Here is the first sentence of this thread: "I want to build a cheap and easy turf algea filter, primarily to knock down N and P", and here is the title my other thread: "Mega-Powerful Nitrate and Phosphate Remover Replaces Skimmer, Refugium"

[jenglish]

I don't think Adey was specifically trying to stop ATS scrubbers from being sold I believe it was just a dispute over royalties with various manufacturers that made dump bucket style ATS no longer available. I could be wrong about this but I belive this is what I was told at a place that used to manufacture them.

[SantaMonica]

Fortunately we don't have to know the specifics; matter of fact I don't even know if the patent is still valid/enforceable. But it did, at the time, even up until last year, stop people from selling them (I know; I tried to buy one). One guy on RC last year had some really nice acrylic ones, but within a few weeks he shut down. Pics are still on here though.

[GRREEF]

4,333,263 is expired. However, there are a number of other patents in the area, some of which Adey is the inventor of.

[SantaMonica]

Here's a neat screen that someone just built. Since there was no vertical room in his sump area, he asked about horizontal options and I showed him the commercial floating turf screens. He made one out of floating material:

http://radio-media.com/fish/UserMorgadethOnACedited.jpg

[herring_fish]

That’s about as simple as you can get. Is there a surge flowing into that sump? He could use your surge device.


Of course, if anyone wants another horizontal design then they could try this, if they are handy. The dark blue is how the water settles when the cycle starts and the light blue is how it is just before and as the bucket bumps. Then it re-sets because of the weight.

You don't need the tub unless it will be up high.

http://asaherring.com/Reef/Hardware/DumpBucket.JPG

[vitz]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13188834#post13188834 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by SantaMonica
Fortunately we don't have to know the specifics; matter of fact I don't even know if the patent is still valid/enforceable. But it did, at the time, even up until last year, stop people from selling them (I know; I tried to buy one). One guy on RC last year had some really nice acrylic ones, but within a few weeks he shut down. Pics are still on here though.

from another one of your threads:

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

so you base all this on just what's going on with 'n' and 'p' ? are you even remotely aware at how stupid and foolish you look ?

you denied ever mentioning adey on that thread when YOU were the one citing HIS patent as a reference

then when challenged on anything you either misquote or MISREPRESENT, the best you can come up with is 'we don't have to know the specifics' (your 'brushoffs' merely point to your ignorance-which i'd suggest you stop flaunting as something to be proud of)

as a relative old timer speaking to an absolute noob, again-you're doing many dangerous things here, and have yet to learn one of THE most important things about this hobby...

the devil is in the details

Adey CANNOT, and COULD NOT stop anyone from building or selling anything that isn't a direct copy of his DESIGN patent, btw-and i'm not too sure that given his deplorable results, that anyone would want to ;)

[One Dumm Hikk]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13201644#post13201644 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by vitz
from another one of your threads:

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

so you base all this on just what's going on with 'n' and 'p' ? are you even remotely aware at how stupid and foolish you look ?


I questioned that very claim on another forum and he backed off of it and finally quantified it by saying "with regards to N and P" but claims the device is for the newbe to the hobby. I am a newbe to the hobby (less than a year) and the last thing I want is something is so hotly debated as to its merits.

[erics3000]

Interesting thread still reading.. Bergy love your zeovit reactor and bucket of algae...sweet

[SantaMonica]

vitz:

so you base all this on just what's going on with 'n' and 'p'?

That's my original post. If you are referring to the overall purpose of my original post, then yes.

are you even remotely aware at how stupid and foolish you look?

No.

you denied ever mentioning adey on that [thread on another site] when YOU were the one citing HIS patent as a reference

I did not ever mention his name on that thread.

then when challenged on anything you either misquote or MISREPRESENT

Please cut and paste any such occurance(s).

the best you can come up with is 'we don't have to know the specifics'

Correct, when pertaining to patents. However, maybe you do.

your 'brushoffs'

Please state a single question/comment you made that I did not respond to, and I will respond to it here.

i'd suggest you stop flaunting

You mean when I say I'm not an organic chemist, or I'm not a long-term aquarist, or that I have never kept sps? Or when I say I've never studied ozone or orp?

as a relative old timer

Thank you for providing your experienced input.

speaking to an absolute noob

At what point do I graduate to the next level?

again-you're doing many dangerous things here

List one.

Adey CANNOT, and COULD NOT stop anyone from building or selling anything that isn't a direct copy of his DESIGN patent

When did I say he could?

given his deplorable results

Depends what you mean by deplorable.

[bergzy]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13202078#post13202078 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by erics3000
Interesting thread still reading.. Bergy love your zeovit reactor and bucket of algae...sweet

thank you eric!:rollface: :rollface: :rollface:

[GRREEF]

Adey CANNOT, and COULD NOT stop anyone from building or selling anything that isn't a direct copy of his DESIGN patent

Actually both his expired patent and his current patents are Utility Patents. They don't protect the pure design, but rather how the item functions.

--sorry to split hairs with you on that. :rolleyes:

[GRREEF]

There seems to be a lot of posts on this board criticizing SM for overselling his waterfall. While I agree there appears to be some exaggeration, I applaud SM's enthusiasm. For the most part hobbyists push innovation in Reef Keeping, not industry. If people weren't excited about their successes, there would be little progress.

Unless I missed something on this thread, the criticisms I've seen about the waterfall is that an Algal filter is not pleasant to clean.

I would really like to know what other criticisms exist. I am rebuilding a tank system myself, and might incorporate a non-surge algal filter into the design.

As a father of multiple children, I'm not too concerned about my abilities to clean something slimy and smelly.

Now, I'm not likely to stop mechanical filtration, but if it grows algae like SM shows in his photos, it seems like a good nutrient export system.

For those who have been in this hobby for a long time, are there any result based reasons why algal filters appear to have been in large part abandoned by the hobby?

[matt & pam]

GRREEF....Cost for one. My eco-wheel system alone was about 3K. Getting one was another problem, one of the persons selling the eco-wheel bought the rights and moved to KC. He is almost impossible to reach, as he runs a tank maintenance business and really isn't much of a salesman.

In addition, even though N and P might be maintained at unmeasurable levels, I've yet to see a spectacular SPS dominant tank run solely on a turf scrubber. I also think that the designs in the 80's-90's dramatically underestimated the amount of flow required in a coral dominated reef tank.

I believe the way to convince some is to show a mature tank dominated in SPS utilizing a turf scrubber. I would value that more than the 1-2 months experience being expressed on this thread.

I have 790 sq inches of scrubber surface area for my 180 gallon tank, and in my situation I was not able to maintain an algae free tank.

I also wonder about the maintenance on the pendulum dumping designs? I don't know how reliable they were, but I have seen some threads where the acylic housings were cracked.

Despite all the above, I am interested to see SantaMonica's tank progress after using this system for 12-24 months.

[Moreta]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13204353#post13204353 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by matt & pam

I believe the way to convince some is to show a mature tank dominated in SPS utilizing a turf scrubber. I would value that more than the 1-2 months experience being expressed on this thread.


That sums things up nicely.

[herring_fish]

Wow,

I just talked with Dr. Adey. He’s a very regular guy and very nice. I didn’t realize that I was going to get to talk to him so I didn’t ask all of the questions that I would like to but I will put down a few thought that immediately come to mind.

His 12 year old Turf screen over time became primarily populated by red and brown rug like algae just like the stuff that SantaMonica bought. I described what my alga was like and asked if I should try to get the red/brown type to grow instead. He didn’t care too much about which type of algae that grows in the scrubber. He just went by the amount of harvest, by height, that you get, not by the species.

I didn’t ask him about the patents. I didn’t think of it when there was a pause in the conversation. I have a couple of patents and I know that you can fabricate your own unit for personal use and that is not prosecutable. Only when you want to make something for profit do you have to start to think about negotiating a cut for a currently valid patent holder if there is one. I did tell him that I designed and built a dump bucket that I copies from a specific unit that in his book. He didn’t seem to care and the conversation didn’t skip a beat.

His biggest point, as it relates to hobbyists, was that you must harvest regularly. He felt that about 7 days was a good cycle. He said that if you go on vacation and need to go to 10 days, that would be OK but an Algal Turf Scrubber is not like a bacterial filter that you might be able to set and forget. He gave his screen a good cleaning regularly, using salt water to wash the left over particles away. He felt that they can pass into the system and lower the effectiveness of the scrubber.

On another subject, I asked him about dosing vodka. He didn’t have an opinion and he didn’t have a dogmatic response. He simply laughed and said that he didn’t know much about it. He was aware of it but he said that he is primarily interested in duplicating the chemical make up of specific water conditions in the wild for very large systems. I said something about not wanting vodka to compete with the AST but that I did like the bacteria for filter feeders. He started talking about some high bacteria pockets on the reef but he said that there aren’t any of those areas at the front of the reef where the corals are.

He just didn’t seem to be too interested in the controversies that swirled around the hobby. He’s just a scientist who’s concepts have been used in small tanks as well as the big systems that he is interested in.

[SantaMonica]

Congrats to Herring for having a conversation with Aday...

[Aday] didn’t care too much about which type of algae that grows in the scrubber. He just went by the amount of harvest, by height, that you get, not by the species.

That's good to hear; gives hope to those who are just getting green hair (and tons of it).

His biggest point, as it relates to hobbyists, was that you must harvest regularly. He felt that about 7 days was a good cycle.

I found that out quickly. Especially right after initial installation. All that N and P getting pulled out for the first time, makes for a feast for the algae. My nano test screen was undersized, and could overflow in two days when it was new. Now that N and P are zero, we are back to a once-a-week cycle.

He just didn’t seem to be too interested in the controversies that swirled around the hobby. He’s just a scientist who’s concepts have been used in small tanks as well as the big systems that he is interested in.

Yes, that is echoed in the fact that he never tried to make his own units for aquariums; he instead went right into large scale commericial applications.

Anyways, here's the first pre-grown installation I've seen (except for mine)... jski711 on another board said: "I can't believe how well this DIY thing worked. It literally took all of 45 minutes once I had the materials. And I have noticed my pH raise up about .15 in a few hours since installing it."

http://www.radio-media.com/fish/UserJski711onRS-all.jpg

[vitz]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13203296#post13203296 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by GRREEF
There seems to be a lot of posts on this board criticizing SM for overselling his waterfall. While I agree there appears to be some exaggeration, I applaud SM's enthusiasm. For the most part hobbyists push innovation in Reef Keeping, not industry. If people weren't excited about their successes, there would be little progress.

Unless I missed something on this thread, the criticisms I've seen about the waterfall is that an Algal filter is not pleasant to clean.

I would really like to know what other criticisms exist. I am rebuilding a tank system myself, and might incorporate a non-surge algal filter into the design.

As a father of multiple children, I'm not too concerned about my abilities to clean something slimy and smelly.

Now, I'm not likely to stop mechanical filtration, but if it grows algae like SM shows in his photos, it seems like a good nutrient export system.

For those who have been in this hobby for a long time, are there any result based reasons why algal filters appear to have been in large part abandoned by the hobby?

because they aren't nearly the cure-all panacea the 'used car salesman' types crack them up to be ;)

ALL algal processors produce whole classes of wastes that WILL impact on invert/coral/fish health (don't let santa monica's absolute and total ignorance of such things lead you to think they do not exist, or aren't produced) that not ONE of the proponents of said system has ever explained how to get rid of-nor do they address the wastes/metabolites that the animals produce that algae simply doesn't absorb or use

how anyone can even hint at such a device/system precluding the well and long established value of either wc's or a more comprehensive processing system is beyond me and most others with at least a smattering of experience ;)

why are skimmers so widely used by so many ? ;) (and even THEY don't do 'everything' ;) )

[vitz]

"And I have noticed my pH raise up about .15 in a few hours since installing it."

did they also check to see by how much more the pH drops at night ? :lol: ;)

[InlandAqua]

nothing will filter like the ocean....
but a skimmer and turf scrubber or refugium used together should produce almost perfect water parameters.....
...vitz....your right water changes\siphoning detritis almost always has to be done at some point but having a variety of pods and worms will help break down some of the waste and maybe let the bacterial colonies help process. Do you agree?

[Michael]

as mentioned elsewhere santa i may change my mind with this idea, great information

[vitz]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13214089#post13214089 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by InlandAqua
nothing will filter like the ocean....
but a skimmer and turf scrubber or refugium used together should produce almost perfect water parameters.....
...vitz....your right water changes\siphoning detritis almost always has to be done at some point but having a variety of pods and worms will help break down some of the waste and maybe let the bacterial colonies help process. Do you agree?

do i agree that having a good biodiversity level in a system helps the system to function better overall ? of course-let's spare each other the rhetorical questions :P

an algal scrubber is not necessary to achieve pods and worms, however-and ultimately, it's not the scrubber that determines how many 'extra' pods the system will grow/support-it's the amount of FOOD in the system that determines such, and the relative amounts of growth/health inhibiting componds that the system builds up over time-my bet is that ultimately and in the long term-NO extra pod production will occur due to the installment of any scrubber-add some extra food, however, and they'll most definitely expand in number, without the least bit of algae added ;)

if anything-the logic should be that there would be a REDUCTION in pod population levels, as the scrubber (supposedly) got the water so clean so as to preclude any need to change water ever again! (per the original used car/insurance salesman type poster who started all of his thread on this and other bbs ;) )

i will put forth the proposition that on a 'home scale' size system, compared to a good regimen of water changes and skimming-that ANY 'turf scrubber' will not give an efficient benefit return for the work involved in its setup or maintenance demands when added to those systems, and may even detract from water quality for certain parameters-like the various organic wastes that algaes produce, that the original poster is completely ignorant about ;)

[SantaMonica]

Thanks Michael, this post is then for you :)

Here is the first screen builder ("varga" from another thread) to reach the cleaning stage:

http://www.radio-media.com/fish/UserVargaOnRS-Days0-9.jpg


Some comments from him along the way:

"Mine has very little growth on it, its been 4 days......more light?" (Which he then did)

"The light now is right on the screen, almost touching it"

"I'll have to reach in my tank to take out HA [for seeding] which is not easy! (Which he then did)

"We've now had a burst of growth in the last 24 hours; Here it is on day 6."

"We had another major burst of growth in the last 24 hours! its a redish/brownish stuff, Im guessing this is turf?" (No, it was brown diatoms)

"This thing is a great chiller!! forgot to turn the fan off last night, woke up to a 73 degree tank!"

[piercho]

http://reefcentral.com/gallery/data/561/4100AS_fill_1.jpg
This was my stationary ATS. It was in my sump and recieved all the water from the tank. I had a 7 gallon reverse carlson surge (RCSD) on my 65G tank that fired about every 45 seconds. Right after the RCSD fired, the tank level dropped and water stopped flowing to the sump. As the RCSD charged back up the ATS would start to fill as water began flowing over the tank overflow. This is the fill stage.

http://reefcentral.com/gallery/data/561/4100AS_crop.jpg
Here is the ATS removed for harvest. You can see the drain hole and the notch for the overflow return at the back. The fill/drain was pretty basic, the hole was sized to drain slower than the ATS filled when the overflow was flowing. When the overflow stopped after the RCSD fired, the ATS drained completely. I would harvest the ATS every 1 to 2 weeks.

Http://reefcentral.com/gallery/data/561/4100AS_scrapings.jpg
Here is a cup of ATS squeezings. Over the six years the tank was in operation, it ran best when I was running the ATS and a 4" X 4' CC air skimmer. I could just feed and feed and stubborn display algae like Ventricaria and Caulerpa peltata would not appear. After I stopped using the ATS. after I moved the tank, Ventricaria and C. peltata came back in the display. I've run other algae filters but IMO the ATS performs the best.

I like that you are just jumping in an trying stuff. Too often people go on and on about trying ATS, surge devices, etc, but never execute.

[matt & pam]

piercho,

When you harvested were you getting pretty close to completely bare PVC, or did you just pinch some of the algae off leaving algae growth ffairly visable?

Matt

[piercho]

I took a thick piece of scrap acrylic and scrapped off everything I could. The dominant alga was longer and stringier than typical Derbesia, really no idea what it was, but it was tough to get off of the plastic and there were always remnants. The same alga was not evident in the display tank. I also rinsed off the tray under the tap to wash away as many herbivores as possible. I think reducing grazing pressure is a fundamental parameter of a productive ATS.

[SantaMonica]

Piercho that's a lot of N and P you are pullin' !

[SantaMonica]

In a classic case of "not doing research", some anti-turf folks on another site have ended up helping out the turf scene. They are constantly accusing pro-turf or pro-algae folks, and especially anti-skimmer folks, of not having research. So they post a research video from the College of Marine Science (U of S. FL, St. Petersburg) on that site, which is supposed to prove with research that algae, especially turf, kills corals. Yes. Then they
follow it up with "So I guess you didn't watch the video, right?"

Well. I took the time to watch it (one hour). But, I guess they did NOT. The video starts out appearing to make the point of "algae kills corals", and if you stopped watching after fifteen minutes, that's what you'd think. But the first part of that presentation is just a setup for the presenter's further explanations, and is not the point itself.

It's a similar situation to a presentation for beginners about how rock, sand, and the nitrogen cycle works: You would start by saying "If I have a fish in a bucket of water, and I pour in ammonia, the fish will die." This is true, but it's only used to set up later explanations of how rock and sand come into the picture to stop the death of the fish.

So it turns out that if you watch the whole research video, the presenter/researcher not only makes the point of pro-algae folks, and counters the point of the people who posted it (as their evidence), but it also counters the entire group of people who say no-skimmers and high-DOC's are bad. I've been saying that my focus never was skimmer or no-skimmer; instead my focus was reducing N and P cheaply, quickly, and with no risk. But since these people made this video/research available, I'll use it:

The presenter is trying to show how "algae that kills coral" would SEEM to occur, so later he can show you what they really found in their research. The crux of his presentation is basically: "We thought higher DOC's were the cause of coral death; We were wrong. Lower DOC's are" (these are my words).

So here is the video, with rough quotes of what the video says, along with the minutes and seconds into the video where you can see it for yourself:

http://www.marine.usf.edu/videos/2007-01-26.wmv

23:30 "Bulk DOC does not correlate with coral decline; higher DOC areas have healthier corals; lower DOC areas have weaker corals. The opposite of what we predicted".

24:40 "The DOC to DIN ratio's are higher on healthy reefs, and lower on less-healthy reefs".

25:45 "Microbial numbers are elevated with a lower DOC to DIN ratio" (!) (even I got that one wrong).

34:00 "Christmas Island, with the really low DOC, has the highest pathogens, while Kingman Island, with the highest DOC, has the lowest pathogens."

37:00 "On Kingman Island you have high hard-coral coverage and the lowest disease [and highest DOC]. That's weird! What you SHOULD find is that as hard-coral coverage reduces, it should be harder for the pathogens to find hosts, so you should see a pathogen decrease. But we're not seeing that, which means there is SOMETHING ELSE going on."

49:20 "The DOC definitely always goes down, in the really bad coral areas".

52:39 "You can actually put the corals where the nutrients are really high, and the corals are not dying; in some cases they tend to grow better, which is also true in our [???].

So I submit to them, using their own evidence, that not using a skimmer, with the resultant increase in DOC's (and now apparent decrease in microbes), is not in-itself a coral killer. Something else is. And this explains why some people using algal-only filtration can grow great sps.

[matt & pam]

Please post a picture of a mature tank run with ATS without skimmer growing great sps.

[piercho]

I don't think you can make general statement that increasing DOC is good. Feldman & Maers just put article in Advanced Aquarist this month showing that they could induce coral mortality by increasing DOC: Total Organic Carbon (TOC) and the Reef Aquarium: an Initial Survey, Part 1 (http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2008/8/aafeature3)
They also show increased DOC near coral may be attributed to the corals, themselves. Most interesting part was that skimming did not have much effect on tank DOC levels in test study.

Matt, no claims of tank like Joe Burger or Steve Weast here! I kept lagoonal tank with mostly LPS and clams. I did have Stylos, Acros, Pocs and Birdsnest but did not achieve impressive growth rates or coloration compared to others.

[bergzy]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13241959#post13241959 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by matt & pam
Please post a picture of a mature tank run with ATS without skimmer growing great sps.

i too have been waiting for a sps dominated tank solely running on an ats without skimming and little to no water changes.

[SantaMonica]

No the point of the video research was that they were using it as their closing argument that "algae kills corals". But they didn't even watch the video.

Also, I've started compiling a list of mixed and sps keepers. Will take a while but I'll get it done. Most are not on RC.

[SantaMonica]

Wow. There's so much to post that I don't know which should be first. Today I'll cover max inputs that's I've been able to achieve.

I've been experimenting with how much I can feed my 90g, with only my 144 square inch turf screen doing the filtering. I'd add more food for a few days, then the Salifert N test would start showing a tiny bit of pink (about a .2 reading). Then I'd cut the food in half, until the reading went clear (zero N measured). Interestingly, P never increased. Ever. Only N. So after a few tries, here's the max I've been able feed the tank while just barely getting an N increase:


Max Feeding:

Liquid Life Marine Plankton with Cyclopeeze: 3 pumps a day
Liquid Life Bio Plankton (live phyto): 2 pumps a day
Frozone mysis: 2 cubes a day, unwashed, thawed in 4 oz tap water.
Silversides: 1 per week (for the eel)


Tank:

90 Display, BB
20 Sump
150 pounds LR
60 inches fish
40 corals, all softie and lps
6000 gph circulation
Carbon now used once a month for allelpathics


I'm now settling in on a lesser amount:

1 pump phyto
1-2 pumps plankton
2 cubes mysis, unwashed, thawed in 4 oz tap water.
Silversides: 1 per week (for the eel)

[vitz]

some anti-turf folks on another site have ended up helping out the turf scene. They are constantly accusing pro-turf or pro-algae folks, and especially anti-skimmer folks, of not having research. So they post a research video from the College of Marine Science (U of S. FL, St. Petersburg) on that site, which is supposed to prove with research that algae, especially turf, kills corals. Yes. Then they follow it up with "So I guess you didn't watch the video, right?"

you refer to this thread ?

http://www.reefs.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=123420

the only accusation made was that YOU didn't do research-not only do you misrepresent personal non in depth anecdote as actual research-now you're misrepresenting the people who tried to initially have a cogent, coherent, logical argument with you while trying to explain to you the difference between the two ;)

i'm not aware of any of the posters on that thread CONSTANTLY accusing anyone of anything regarding turf scrubbing, as it's a subject that's hardly ever brought up there, btw ;)

[vitz]

i just know i'm about to see 'ad hominem' again :lol:

[SantaMonica]

For those that don't already know, you can do two things when Vitz posts:

1) Click "Report this post to a moderator" at the end of the post, on the right.

2) Click on the "My RC" button at the top of your screen, then click "Edit Ignore List", type Vitz in the empty box, and click Update List.

[One Dumm Hikk]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13257137#post13257137 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by SantaMonica
For those that don't already know, you can do two things when Vitz posts:

1) Click "Report this post to a moderator" at the end of the post, on the right.

2) Click on the "My RC" button at the top of your screen, then click "Edit Ignore List", type Vitz in the empty box, and click Update List.

You forgot Options 3 and 4:

3) Read the thread he linked to. Make up your own mind as to who knows what about an ATF.

4) Research ATF'es (Google is your friend) and find out the alternatives to an ATF for the removal of N and P from a system and see which ways are the MOST EFFICIENT at doing it.

[SantaMonica]

I've seen it; it's mine.

I've done it. Turf wins.

[salty joe]

Well, I've been lurking since this this thread started. Waterfall turf is an innovative idea. Especially when you consider how fast the intensity of light drops off due to the inverse square law. It looks like the light can be positioned very close to the waterfall. Energy efficiancy and all. Evaporative cooling was mentioned, but then there's all that humidity.
Anyway, Ive seen too many, way too many, threads get shut down because of disagreements over how best this HOBBY should be managed. I've seen people throw little barbs until someone finally loses their temper and flames. I call it flame baiting. Take the bait and the thread gets closed. A clever form of censorship. I'm not accusing anyone of flame baiting, but I feel a thread closing fight brewing between SantaMonica and Vitz. IMO, algae filters are very useful, but a counterpoint is a lot better than just a cheering section. Let's not let this thread get closed.

[aqua180]

a flatbed ats works the best, takes up more room and makes a little more noise when the surge bucket fills and dumps, but with my years of using ats's these grow the turf quickly and are easy to harvest every week ,which is a must.

[SantaMonica]

Another difference is that some of the flatbeds had tight lids, which stopped evaporation. That could be useful or not. I like the evaporation; along with the fans I added on top of the tank and sump, they have caused my chiller to stop turnning on at all.

I'm currently designing a high $ acrylic low-profile unit for my 90 that will sit on my sump. It will be enclosed so there will be no evaporation, unless I cut a hole and use a fan. It also with have very powerful T5HO strips just 1.5" from the screen, providing over three times the power compared to the bulb used in my sample bucket.

[SantaMonica]

Here is the screen from the person who bought pre-grown turf from Inland Aquatics, after growing on the tank for one week, and then after cleaning:


http://www.radio-media.com/fish/UserJski711onRS-1wk.jpg

[salty joe]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13257845#post13257845 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by SantaMonica
I'm currently designing a high $ acrylic low-profile unit for my 90 that will sit on my sump. It will be enclosed so there will be no evaporation, unless I cut a hole and use a fan. It also with have very powerful T5HO strips just 1.5" from the screen, providing over three times the power compared to the bulb used in my sample bucket.

But if there is a barrier between the algae and the light, a lot of the light will be blocked by algae and calcium carbonate buildup on the plastic or glass.

[SantaMonica]

No, amazingly the water does not cause much salt spray when the flow is set correctly. In my bucket now, when I reach down and feel the walls (even right near the screen), there is almost nothing there. In the new acrylic one, yes there will be some since it will be very close, but the lights are much much closer to make up for it, plus, they are three times the power. Besides, any salt spray that does build can be washed off by just plugging the drain of the box so the water fills to the top. I'll have pics to show just how much it happens.

[Tang Salad]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13257137#post13257137 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by SantaMonica
For those that don't already know, you can do two things when Vitz posts:

1) Click "Report this post to a moderator" at the end of the post, on the right.

2) Click on the "My RC" button at the top of your screen, then click "Edit Ignore List", type Vitz in the empty box, and click Update List.
That's extremely uncalled for. Vitz is simply offering very good, accurate, and backed-up criticsm of this method which has been around for decades.

If you make very bold claims, you should be ready for some bold criticism. ;)

[vitz]

the ONLY initial criticism i had was with santa claiming that a scrubber replaces a skimmer+fuge+everything else, when it was plainly obvious that he has VERY little practical experience, and absolutely NO hard data to back up his statements.

i even offered a complement on the diy part of his post, and explained the root of my critique as simply and plainly as possible, as others did

all we got back in return was a complete refusal to engage in the attempt to back up his outlandish claim with hard data, and cries of 'ad hominem!', which is pretty hypocritical given his post about what to do when i post to this bb, lol

he's also shown his ignorance on what the various filter/maintenance systems do, how they do it, and how the ecology of a tank works, along with all of the possibly thousands of variables involved regarding what actually is happening with all of the various biological and chemical processes going on in any closed or open system

having been in this hobby since '76-77, with experience in retail since '77, 3-4 years of commercial polyaquaculture, currently the main husbandry tech for one of the largest importer/wholesalers in the country,and being quite well read/experienced in all of the various tank keeping methods, i've seen too many noobs get sucked into this type of 'hype' advice, only to see them fail horribly when something happens that the original poster wasn't even aware was capable of occuring, that the noob then has NO knowledge about how to fix

NO filtration method replaces any other-they are ALL DIFFERENT, and all do an incomplete job-so how could ONE method replace three ? seems to me that a skimmer/fuge/dsb has many more bases covered than an algae scrubber ;)

but then again, i have a very good idea what each one does and how, and what the shortcomings are for each

with only 2 yrs in the hobby (not all of it actually maintaining the tank himself, heh) it's IMPOSSIBLE for that initial statement to be made by santa, and be remotely backed up, let alone correct ;)

and i'm still waiting to see a pic of a mature healthy sps tank that uses only a turf scrubber-no wc's, skimmer, sand bed, fuge, or anything else, btw

some people just can't accept that in spite of their enthusiasm, they're simply wrong-which i don't have an issue with-i have a serious issue with the enthusiam when it's presented as recommended practice and fact for unsuspecting noobs to follow ;)

[Michael]

i know you have told me before, on another site that is, sorry to sound ignorant, perhaps its me santa, why wont the algae get into the dt and cause problems there, i did try to look for the link earlier, this was my main concern, please refresh my mind on this santa, many thanks again

[aqua180]

man ,you fokes are to uptight lol
its only a opinion. <"))))>{

[herring_fish]

I am a big fan of the T5s. I have four of them on my horizontal dump bucket. They’re cool and bright so I can go without anything between the lamps and the water line. I may go back to my evaporative unit with a halogen lamp if it is needed but for that last few years of operation, I didn’t need the cooling because the living room was cool and the air interaction with the splash was enough.

I will cut and bent some thin clear plastic to cover the socket areas only. This will cut down on the salt build up, at the connection, from air born partials. I know that salt is left behind after evaporation but there are still some super small droplets of salt water that float around. Of course there is the occasional accidental splash.

Anyway, I still expect to take the lights out and cleaning everything about every one or two years.

You know, some people will never be convinced that ATSs are “all that”. My scrubber has worked great for me, for many years. That’s all that is important to me.

I am setting up a fuge for my new tank now so I see it’s value but I didn’t have room for one in my very small tank cabinet in my living room. I had a scrubber, a plenum in the bottom of tank and a quarter sock of carbon that I dropped in the dump bucket. That’s it, that’s all. I hardly ever changed much water and my turbo grazers all starved to death.

On the other hand, skimmers work too. Mine is in the garage but it worked.