Waterfall Turf Algea Filter: CHEAP and EASY to build

[SantaMonica]

Wait. In the beginning of this thread you said that everything skimmers, etc. were pulling out was food for something in the tank and thats bad, and now you are intentionally killing/removing that food? And you don't find that contradictory?

That's because the screens produce TOO many pods. And as I've said from the beginning, as does Mike and Morgan at IA, that you have to kill the pods before they eat the algae. Once a week. Even at this, I still have pods swarming around the display.

I bet the chlorine and chloramine you are adding to the tank is good for your corals though.

Maybe. I'm also thawing my mysis cubes in tap, and adding that to the tank. But that's why I'm here... to test.

Only if they don't know better. And anybody that knows then they know they don't want zero readings and they know why

Difficult to follow.

And removing "food" in the process. You can't have your cake and eat it too

Come on. You are making my point for me. Yes, inorganic N and P are food: Food for algae. I hope you do know this. To the beginners reading this: This is why the algae grows as it eats up the inorganic N and P, which is what your test kits read. Algae do not eat organic N and P, which is thus left in the tank to be consumed as food.

N and P are part of the "food" you claim that is being removed from the tank

That's right. Organic (read: organic) N and P are in flake food, mysis, phyto, minced clams, pellets, live feeders, cyclopeeze, brine shrimp, daphnia, silversides, blood worms, plankton, krill, nori, prawns, worms, oyster eggs, squid, selcon, marine snow, and amino acids. That's why we want to leave organic N and P in the water. INORGANIC N and P (read: inorganic) is what we want to remove, and it's the main diet of algae (besides ammonia).

It hasn't even come close to answering my questions. I have asked them repeatedly on another site where you proclaimed this bucket the savior of the newbes and you still haven't answered them. NOT A ONE.

Than ask them here. Some of the "other sites" (which nobody here cares about) stray off-topic and don't hear what I'm saying, and demand proof, then post their own proof which they don't even review themselves, not realizing their own proof actually makes my case and dis-proves thiers. So I've limited my posting on those sites to just things I'm currently "proving", like the above LFS test which is now in it's 3rd week. If they don't want it they can delete it.

Is that your common defense? To accuse anyone who disagrees with you of working for a company that would want to quash ATS'es? You have accused me of the same thing and its getting quite old.

That's right, I forgot I asked you before and you said you are getting ready to start making skimmers as a home business. Thanks for reminding me. I've only asked two people, and the other guy never responded. Regardless, I don't care if it's old or not. It's very pertinent because the skimmer business has paid PR, marketing, and promotion people, as well as paid shill posters, and paid product users. Any by "payment" I also mean free product. Turf scrubbers have none of that.

So, let me ask YOU. What Turf manufacturer/distributor/retailer do YOU work for?

Myself. Except I'm not a manufacturer, and I'm not paid.

Salad:

why haven't you contributed to ANY other threads?

I try to only contribute with what I have first-hand experience with, and even then, only if it has enough impact to warrant my time on it. And I think most people would agree that you should only advise others if you can do it correctly yourself. Beside, running three simultaneous real-time experiments, as well as designing and installing an acrylic version, and replying to folks who are trying to build their own, takes time.

[miwoodar]

Originally posted by SantaMonica

Salad:

I try to only contribute with what I have first-hand experience with, and even then, only if it has enough impact to warrant my time on it. And I think most people would agree that you should only advise others if you can do it correctly yourself.

So what you're telling Salad and the other folks reading this thread is that you are less than qualified to discuss the merits of ATS systems versus other systems? And yet you continue to fanatically push ATS as if it's the next best thing since sliced bread? SM, you've put a ton of excellent work into this thread and the many other cloned threads that you started all over the web. For that I commend you! Many people are very excited. But is pushing the ATS approach really advancing the hobby? Yes, it is a successful method. Advancing? I would dare to say no. I might even call it a step back.

[aqua180]

ats or skimmer, or both, who cares, its what works best for you.

[Tang Salad]

Originally posted by aqua180
ats or skimmer, or both, who cares, its what works best for you.

A lot of us care very much. If we didn't we wouldn't be posting here.

[aqua180]

well your obviously against ats's, so why are you getting involved in this form? they both work fine, its just a mater if you go against the so called norm (skimmers)

[Rngrdave]

I'm starting to see some growth on my screen on day 2. There are some brown patches developing. I'll post some pics and update on any parameter changes as they happen...



For reference:

• 72 gallon reef
• 250mg/hr ozone w/orp controller
• RO/DI auto-topoff with water at 0ppm on tds meter
• flow controlled 18w UV sterilizer
• MSX 160 skimmer
• wet/dry filter
• 100 lbs. live rock
• fuge with chaeto, mangroves and DSB
• 324 watts t5 lighting

And now an algae turf scrubber... Phosphate is 0.8mg/l and nitrates are 20ppm. This tank has been set up for 8 years so I'm sure that any parameter changes will be directly due to the ATS being installed on the system.

[One Dumm Hikk]

Originally posted by aqua180
well your obviously against ats's, so why are you getting involved in this form? they both work fine, its just a mater if you go against the so called norm (skimmers)

It has nothing what so ever to do with whether you are for or against ATS. 99% of what SM has put forth in this thread and all his other threads all over the web is blatanly BAD INFORMATION to the very "newbes" that he says this thing is geared towards.
And when he gets challenged on it, he either accuses you of being anti-ATS, you must work for a skimmer manufacturer or some other argument and never answers the question.

If he would simply answer the questions, stop giving bad information about the effects of an ATS, then you wouldn't see near as many posts from people telling him that very thing.

[miwoodar]

I don't like seeing the discussion being so biased towards ATS. There is no silver bullet in be it ATS or any other method/approach. A person who believes in magic bullets of any kind need not be my mentor in this hobby.

When I set up my ATS in 97 I was *absolutely sure* that ATS was going to be the future of reefkeeping and no other method could possibly touch it. I had stars in my eyes as I read Adey's book. Well here I am 11 years later....no ATS and no intentions of going back.

[SantaMonica]

Rngrdave: Great to hear. If you are seeing brown by day 2, you know you have enough light, and you know (unfortunately) that you have lots of N and P.

miwoodar:

So what you're telling Salad and the other folks reading this thread is that you are less than qualified to discuss the merits of ATS systems versus other systems

That must be it.

Advancing? I would dare to say no. I might even call it a step back.

You certainly are entitled to your opinion, even on my thread.

I don't like seeing the discussion being so biased towards ATS

Wait, this is a thread about how effective scrubbers are. I searched and searched for a thread from you or Hikk or Salad (or anyone, really) about how ineffective scrubbers are, and I didn't find even a single one. I'll try again.

Well here I am 11 years later....no ATS and no intentions of going back.

I'm tempted to say the same about my skimmer, but I'm sure I'll use one in my next FO tank that will have no rock and no sand.

One Dumm Hikk:

If he would simply answer the questions

I'll say it again, post your question here. Or maybe you didn't read when I wrote the same a few hours ago. Of course, if I don't want to answer something, then I'm not going to.

blatanly BAD INFORMATION

If you mean bad as in incorrect, then state your corrections, or else we'll assume you have none. If you mean bad as in "not a good idea to teach beginners until they've learned more", then that's your opinion.

all his other threads all over the web

You often refer to the other sites. Are you saying that the folks reading those sites are not worthy of receiving the same information that those on RC get?

And when he gets challenged on it

Still waiting on the challenge. Maybe I'll need to post yet another request for you to state it.

you must work for a skimmer manufacturer or some other argument

Don't worry, we'll steer as many skimmer buyers to your new skimmer-making business as we can.

[miwoodar]

Wait, this is a thread about how effective scrubbers are. I searched and searched for a thread from you or Hikk or Salad (or anyone, really) about how ineffective scrubbers are, and I didn't find even a single one. I'll try again.


Hmmm...why would I/we waste my/our time starting and maintaining threads for the sole purpose lobbying against scrubbers? I've already told you on numerous occasions in threads and in PMs that I believe this approach can be a very successful. What I am trying to say to anyone deciding whether or not to use a scrubber is to research your options first. A scrubber will not likely be the easiest method or give you the highest chances of success.


I'm tempted to say the same about my skimmer, but I'm sure I'll use one in my next FO tank that will have no rock and no sand.



Yuppo. Looking at your tag line of '2 years of experience' and thinking back to when I myself was sooo hyped about having an ATS on my tank brings back memories. I had two years of experience in 1997. At that moment I was pretty darn sure of myself (much less so these days ) and I would have told you that the entire reefing world should convert to an ATS. By the end of 1998 I was singing a different tune. I was sick of my water looking like pee, none of my livestock looked particularly happy, and I was tired of making a mess of myself and my home scraping off the screen. To top that, I never achieved zero nutrients (whatever that really is ) and I never fully eliminated troublesome algaes from my display. My 75 gallon tank utilized more than 2 square feet of screen. Was my particular experience successful? Until recently I would have said yes. I'm beginning to question that though. I became a much better reefer the day that contraption sprung a leak and had to be retired.

BTW - I've had as many as 7 tanks at one point in time, maintained an additional 6 for various clients, and ran a fish room at an LFS so I had plenty of opportunity to experience a variety of approaches and evaluate 'silver bullets'. These days it's just me and my one tank and that's the way I'm going to keep it.

[tcgreaux]

so what kind of screens are you useing and were to get them from? i have a 2 gall hex tank from wallmart im thinging of using.

[aqua180]

Its funny for how long i have been using a ats on my reef tank i have never had any algae problems or so called yellowing in my display tank.
and tell you the truth the maintenance is much simpler than a skimmer.and much more cheaper to operate.

[miwoodar]

I thought your reef was converted into a fish only tank, no?
http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/sh...6#post13208046

[aqua180]

yes i was thinking about it ,but not sure yet miwoodar.

on the screen TCGREAUX, mcmastercarr.com has pvc perforated and pvc screen which you attach to the the perf with pvc ties, the perf keeps it ridget for scraping and the algae grows better on the screen than the perf. send me a private message with your email and ill send you some pics of my ats and tank.

[SantaMonica]

I was sick of my water looking like pee

And I'm sure you were scraping in-system, too, which we now know not to do.

I was tired of making a mess of myself and my home scraping off the screen.

Yet another reason to clean it in the sink, not in-system.

I never fully eliminated troublesome algaes from my display. My 75 gallon tank utilized more than 2 square feet of screen.

More important was how strong the light was. Two square feet = 288 sq in, and should have at least 288 watts on each side, within just a few inches of the screen. Second most important is how often it was cleaned. Once a week is minimum. If either one of these guidelines was not followed, I would have predicted that your ats would have failed.

[SantaMonica]

Another Reader Hits A New Low!

Jski711 on the RS site give us his report today, after a trip back from the LFS for testing. Here are the dates and activities that led up to today:

8/19: "i was going to order [a pre-grown screen] from inland but i've never seen these sheets before and don't know how rigid they are and how to "hang" one. any ideas would be great. I have a 75g, 36g sump and a 15g plumbed into that same system. I have a mag 12 return pump."

8/20: "it literally took all of 45 minutes [to build it] once i had the materials. i bought 65w equivelant pc bulbs but they are 2700k"

8/21: "i can't believe how well this diy thing worked out. i have notied my ph raise up about .15 in a few hours since this has been on. The piece [of pre-grown turf from IA] i got i cut in half and is 2 sided now, thanks to some tie wraps. i also bought 2 100w cf [equivalent] lights to replace the ones i had."

8/23: "i notice that some red algae seems to be growing pretty fast. it doesn't look like the turf but thats just an observation."

8/27: "first cleaning. i just used my fingernails"

9/3: "well i just finished my 2nd cleaning today. i have noticed that in my main display that i haven't had to use my scraper to scrape off the glass, i usually had to do this every few days because i'd get that green algae begining to grow. i've also notice that the turf that was on the screen in the first place seems to continue to spread over the screen."

9/7: "To my surprise i had my water tested at the lfs for phosphates and nitrates. they use the hanna photometer or whatever its called for phosphate. my phosphates were at .03!!!!!! my nitrates were barely detectable, a very slight pink came out on the test. so IMO this scrubber is working like CRAZY!!! I honestly didn't think that this was going to work as well as it does but to all the people that thought this was some sort of a gimmick i challenge you to give this a try, you won't be dissapointed!!!! thanks to santamonica for posting this up and thanks to inland for the "pregrown" screen!! i can say i've been feeding heavily and this is the lowest i've ever seen my phosphates!!!"

[Rngrdave]

Boys, boys! Can we stop fighting??

I think the issue here is whether or not the ATS is the end all to tank filtration. Maybe that point was made by the OP and maybe it wasn't....

I think the important thing is to realize that the newbies do need experience in the hobby and that if they just go to a "one size fits all" method of tank filtration, then they might miss out on some important experience that they need.

For the record I do NOT think this is a perfect filtration method... but I do see that it mimics a perfectly natural process that occurs in the Earth's oceans. Turf algae does grow naturally and it does consume nutrients from the water. Whether or not this is beneficial has yet to be seen. There are arguments that state that reducing nitrate and phosphate is bad and there are arguments that state that it's good... One one hand you are removing food from the system that coral may need to flourish. On the other hand you are removing waste from the system that feeds nuisance algae which leaves the system cleaner in the end. Which perspective the reefer chooses is entirely up to him. No two tanks are created the same.

As far as this hobby has come it is still in the theoretical stage. We are trying to take a vast ecosystem such as the ocean and are trying to duplicate it on a 1/10,000,000th scale. ALL of us are vastly overstocked... I mean, if you have even one fish in a tank you are way overstocked compared to the ocean... So it's all give and take.

I am glad that the OP mentioned this method of tank filtration. It is not one that I have considered. But I can see that an ATF can have its uses in some systems. For the newbies out there... If you got the idea that this will fix all your problems associated with poor tank maintenance, overstocking, overdosing improper chemicals, and inadequate filtration, you are wrong. IMO, it's best to study the Earth's oceans and learn for yourself how they work. The best we can hope for is a very poor representation of how things work in the wild... I don't think we can fully capture the complete ecosystem that makes up the oceans but we can at least capture parts of them...

[miwoodar]

And I'm sure you were scraping in-system, too, which we now know not to do. Yet another reason to clean it in the sink, not in-system.


In the tank?



More important was how strong the light was. Two square feet = 288 sq in, and should have at least 288 watts on each side, within just a few inches of the screen. Second most important is how often it was cleaned. Once a week is minimum. If either one of these guidelines was not followed, I would have predicted that your ats would have failed.

More than 560 watts of light? Are you kidding me? That's $48/month in electricity running 24/7 or $24/mo running 12/7 (choose your duration). That's not to mention the fire hazard that such a design entails. I can achieve better results and do so with much less effort by dosing $2 worth of vodka per month.

Yes I cleaned it properly and regularly. I wasn't a lazy reefer (then). Like I said, I was as excited as you are.

[2_zoa]

Rngrdave,

Your flushing system, You say is solid state. Does that mean that you got rid of your aqua lifter pump?

[bergzy]

560 watts of lighting for my system at 18 hours per day would translate to 10.08 kWh per day.

since i already teeter into the higher/highest electrical tier rate of socal edison...this alone would cost me $4.33 per day or $130.03 per month just for lighting the ats. this doesnt include the (probably small...but still adds up) wattage of the feed pump (and timer if used).

now...in 'my' case. i use a 150w (tested with a kill a watt) pressure pump to run my skimmer and bleed the excess (and a lot of it) flow to my refugium that grows macro. the fuge is lit by a 15 watt cf bulb lighted for 18 hours per day.

so...

the total power for my filtration system is: 3.87 kWh per day or 116.1 kWh per month which translates to $49.92 per month.

i light my tank with halide and t5 for 6 hours per day for a total max usage of 7.8 kWh per day...and that is if i turn on my t5's on full (which i never do as the t5's on the giesemann fixture are dimmable...so i dim them to about 1%). flip back to the earlier pages of this thread and you will see how my tank looks that is sps dominant with lps secondary. the 180g has been up for 3 years that was previously a 125g that was two years old...so, you are looking at a 5 year old system that has gone through a few transformations from a lps/softie to a sps dom with some lps.

done zeovit and still do it. awesome method but would not recommend it for beginners. i dose vodka (and to a much smaller extent: vinegar) as the tank needs it.

there are many ways to keep a reef tank...as a few have noted, there is no magic bullet. keeping a good maintenance schedule (water changes, carbon, cleaning skimmer, trimming macro, test and adjust parameters etc) to create a stable environment will do your tanks wonders!

[SantaMonica]

ALL of us are vastly overstocked.

And that's why the vast majority of folks who walk into LFS's have algae problems. This thread was created to help them solve that problem for cheap.

More than 560 watts of light? Are you kidding me?

No, you're kidding me if you thought you needed such a huge screen for such a small tank. This is for new readers: A 288 square inch screen, lit on each side with 288 watts (equivalent) CFL, is enough to filter a heavily stocked 300 gal reef. And, 288 watts equivalent is not 288 watts, it's about 53 real watts. But lumens are most important; the example bucket I started this thread with, and which is currently testing at the LFS, has 1250 lumens per side. The acrylic version I'm building will have 4000 lumens per side using T5HO's; this is very strong light (3 times the light of the example bucket), and only requires 96 real watts, total. And, it's only 1.5" away from the screen.

Yes I cleaned it properly and regularly

I'm assuming you mean once a week. But in a sink?

[Rngrdave]

Originally posted by 2_zoa
Rngrdave,

Your flushing system, You say is solid state. Does that mean that you got rid of your aqua lifter pump?

I'm still running it for now because I haven't cut the proper sized insert for the bottom piece (been busy with other things). When I turn the flow down on my pump I don't need the aqua lifter. It flushes itself... but when I turned the flow up to where I wanted it it would have a problem not breaking the siphon enough. This is because of the fact that the two siphon breaks are not far enough apart on the one I built. The more flow you use the more the siphon breaks need to be spaced apart.

Yes it does work without an aqua lifter pump... I just haven't gotten around to putting the spacer in the bottom of it to get it to work with the flow I want to use.

[miwoodar]

Lumens or PAR? If you're growing stuff PAR is what you should be looking at.

I've got to admit SM, my jaw hit the floor when I saw you recommend 560 watts! Watts and equivalent watts? Watts (ha-ha) that supposed to mean? It's PAR that you should be measuring my friend. Watts and/or lumens don't give you anything pertanent or useful.

I had 175 watts of 5.5K MH directly over my screen. The PAR would blow away anything that's been mentioned or posted in this thread so far.

[2_zoa]

Originally posted by Rngrdave
I'm still running it for now because I haven't cut the proper sized insert for the bottom piece (been busy with other things). When I turn the flow down on my pump I don't need the aqua lifter. It flushes itself... but when I turned the flow up to where I wanted it it would have a problem not breaking the siphon enough. This is because of the fact that the two siphon breaks are not far enough apart on the one I built. The more flow you use the more the siphon breaks need to be spaced apart.

Yes it does work without an aqua lifter pump... I just haven't gotten around to putting the spacer in the bottom of it to get it to work with the flow I want to use.

I know i said that it is one more piece but.. from what i have read it is the way to go i have a spare pump for my nano and i want to use it. Is there info i can do the math on that you know of ? So i can get close on the distance of the siphon breaks. I think I saw that your plumbing is as close as you could get it on all the fittings. What size bucket is that you used? 2 gallon?

[spleify]

SM, are who are you working for, or who do you want to try and work for. You clearly have some type of monetary motivation for pushing this thing so hard, and to spend so much time on so many forums, pushing this.

I thought it was pretty clear that you wern't able to push you're business on RC.