Octopus skimmer vs Expensive skimmer

[ryshark]

I have only used a Reef Octopus skimmer in my tank which has worked great, but I have nothing to compare it to. It pulls a bunch of stuff out of the water. However, now that I have a tank that is more than twice the size of my old tank, I would like to upgrade soon.
Taking into consideration my current Reef Octopus works great and it is only a mesh modded Needle Wheel and not even an "Extreme" should I still upgrade to a high end skimmer vs getting a Octopus Extreme? Does it really work THAT much better? For example how do these two compare, is it worth paying almost twice the amount for the Royal Exclusive? http://www.aquacave.com/royal-exclusiv-alpha-200-br-cone-protein-skimmer-2570.html
vs
http://www.aquacave.com/reef-octopus-extreme-250-br-protein-skimmer-br-by-coralvue-2201.html

[RGibson]

You say that the Octopus skimmer works for you ,get the Octopus extreme it is not worth paying twice the price ,Royal exclusive is not that good.

[blennymower]

I have only had experience with Octopus skimmers only also, but personally I don't think an extra $400 will make a difference. Brand names will add a good chunk to the price of a skimmer. Deltec could proably make a skimmer that would make a profit at $300 but since it's "Deltec" they can get away with selling it at Maybe $600.

[cccapt]

Here's a great article, but it does get a little technical.
The Development of a Method for the Quantitative Evaluation of Protein Skimmer Performance (http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2009/1/aafeature2)
Four skimmers having four different reaction chamber volumes and representing four distinct types of bubble generation (needlewheel, venturi, airstone, and downdraft) were tested under the manufacturers' specified conditions. These tests revealed that there was no demonstrable difference between the Euroreef CS80 needlewheel skimmer, the Precision Marine ES100 venturi skimmer, the Precision Marine AP624 airstone skimmer, and the ETSS evolution 500 downdraft skimmer with respect to the rate constant for either TOC or BSA removal. Thus it is fair to conclude that, at least for the skimmers tested under the specified conditions, the individual manufacturers' claims of superior performance are without merit. Whether this conclusion can be extended to other skimmers remains to be seen.

Two operational parameters were examined; airflow rate and water flow rate. For the one skimmer tested at different airflow rates (Precision Marine AP624), the rate constant k for BSA removal did increase significantly as air velocity increased. The performance response upon varying water flow rate was not unequivocal. Using the Precision Marine AP624 airstone skimmer as a test system, increasing the water flow rate at first increased, and then decreased, the rate constant k. The basis for these divergent results has not yet been elucidated.

All four skimmers were quite similar in the second performance figure-of-merit, the total amount of organics removed. The skimmers typically removed greater than 80% of the BSA. In contrast, perhaps one of the more interesting observations to emerge from these studies is the fact that all four skimmers tested removed only 20 - 30% of the total organics present in authentic reef tank water.

Several critical questions that cannot yet be answered concern the generality of the conclusions drawn above. Can any skimmer beat the 30% organic removal level, or is that an intrinsic property of the TOC (cf. Fig. 1)? What are the effects of either gas flow rates or water flow rates that are far outside of the examined range, on k? Are there other unrecognized factors buried in the "k" term involved in determining skimmer performance? These questions can only be answered by examining more skimmers under a wider range of conditions.

From a different perspective, the methodology introduced in this article, in particular the BSA model system, presents a real opportunity for skimmer designers/manufacturers actually to optimize skimmer design/operational parameters in a deliberate and rational manner. Through these types of product development studies, skimmer manufacturers finally might be able to include descriptors in their advertising such as "best", "fastest" etc. that really mean something.

[ryshark]

Wow, that does get technical..thanks for the article

[RGibson]

The more thay change the skimmers the more thay stay the same.

[ryshark]

Yeah, it seems that way. I just found the thread with lots of info that is titled "Cone skimmers really worth it" Thats not the exact title but its along those lines. There is lots of good info in there and that thread is active today.

[redfishsc]

In some ways, just the fact that you HAVE a skimmer is a big plus.


A lot will depend on how much you feed your fish/corals, how fast you want excess removed, and even how you have it plumbed.

For a while I had a 20g frag tank driven by an air-stone DIY skimmer that worked great, and now I have that same skimmer and 20g frag tank connected to a 25-tall, with a 5g fuge and a 4-g "sump"---- so total gallonage in the 45-50 range.

I'm pretty sure that even this much water for this skimmer is fine, it wet skims a lot and I have to turn the air power from the Luft pump to about half to 3/4 power to "dry" skim. I prefer a wet skim.