Mega-Powerful Nitrate and Phosphate Remover Replaces Skimmer

[blackcloudmedia]

lol! Did you just reply to your own thread with a different identity? :lol: :roll: that other person sure constructs words the same way as you. And "they" even brought up the sps point that you got hung up on 8O . Anyways lemme get this straight. Your promoting basically letting algae grow on a screen rather than on the walls of the tank, rocks, etc. And thats about it right? Let the algae grow where its easy to remove? Why not put your ehem..dedicated effort...into promoting proper reefkeeping such as ...oh I dunno...never letting your tank get high nitrates/phosphates (must be whats getting the algae off in the first place) nutrients and pretty much everything else we dont want in our systems.

The fact is this will really only work on systems where the algae would have grown anywhere on its own. I personally had a bad experience with hair algae in the past and found that by changing the sand bed it went away. This algae grew wherever it wanted whenever it wanted. Im sure having this screen bucket thing would have made the algae easier to collect...but in the end....the algae shouldnt have been growing in the first place. I just had an overstocked...overfed...not deep enough sandbed....tank.

 

[Anonymous]

Excellent idea SantaMonica.

What you have done is take an established idea and demonstrated a practical and simple way for people to implement the idea.

I'm going to try it in my 30 gallon cube. It is a higher-nutrient lower-light reef. So far it has two Ocellaris clowns, a BTA, and a Goniopora. All are thriving. However due to underskimming (Tunze Reefpak 200) and undermaintenance (demanding job, 3 other aquariums, and family/kids to juggle) there are various algae growing in the tank.

I don't think this would be the best method for an SPS tank. My mixed LPS/SPS 120 gallon reef is run using the standard skimmer/fuge with chaeto method and it is going well. For a higher-nutrient reef with less demand for absolutely perfect water quality I expect the turf scrubber to do better. I will set one up and see. If it doesn't work out, I have lost maybe $20.00 in parts. For an SPS tank I would see this turf scrubber augmenting the existing filtration rather than replacing it.

I am encouraged to see the pack of people attacking your thread like starving wolves ripping flesh off a newborn caribou. Nice to see that there are people like that it the hobby who will bash any new idea. I will try your idea, I expect it will be successful, if it is not I will chalk it up to experience.

Bash any new idea? New IDEA? Where have you both been? It's not new :lol:

 

[Anonymous]

Can you provide a genus, family or species for these "pods" you speak of

No, and I don't care what type they are. They are food for the tank. Your logic is that if I don't know the species, then they are not valid/useful. My small damsels chase them around all day and eat them. They don't care the species either. Do you know the right-hand rule that predicts the EMF which rotates the armature in your return pump? (EE's please reply). Probably not.

Nope, you know what ASSuming does. I said coral and I meant coral

Well that bodes even better for my reply, as I know of no anecdotal cases of non-sps not thriving in algal-only systems. Name one if you do.

you seem to ignore facts

State one fact that I ignored. And, since you call it a "fact" (I don't do that), you will of course need to provide research sources to keep me and vitz happy.

Keep up re-inventing the wheel, we'll keep laughing at you

And you spent how much more than zero on your filtration??

My goal in life is not to make you happy, sorry. I don't need to educate Vitz, I know his knowledge being he and I have traded emails for many years.

Actually yes, zero. The maker of my protein skimmer gave it to me :lol:

Trying to figure out if we're even talking about copepods, amphipods, isopods, etc is a VERY valid question when referring to the "holes" you say the made. It's very telling you call them pods and can't ID them beyond that yet you think they made the holes themselves. This happens to be an area I am very knowledgeable in guy, obviously you are not versed in it since you call them pods.

 

[Anonymous]

lol! Did you just reply to your own thread with a different identity? :lol: :roll: that other person sure constructs words the same way as you. And "they" even brought up the sps point that you got hung up on 8O . Anyways lemme get this straight. Your promoting basically letting algae grow on a screen rather than on the walls of the tank, rocks, etc. And thats about it right? Let the algae grow where its easy to remove? Why not put your ehem..dedicated effort...into promoting proper reefkeeping such as ...oh I dunno...never letting your tank get high nitrates/phosphates (must be whats getting the algae off in the first place) nutrients and pretty much everything else we dont want in our systems.

The fact is this will really only work on systems where the algae would have grown anywhere on its own. I personally had a bad experience with hair algae in the past and found that by changing the sand bed it went away. This algae grew wherever it wanted whenever it wanted. Im sure having this screen bucket thing would have made the algae easier to collect...but in the end....the algae shouldnt have been growing in the first place. I just had an overstocked...overfed...not deep enough sandbed....tank.

BANG! 8)

exactly- a scrubber is identical in concept to a fuge-it provides a specific location for a specific environment to be created WITHIN the system-anything that goes on-uptake, output-is going on WITHIN the system, where the hobbyist then has to expend extra effort to remove the 'sink' they think they've created (they forget that it's only a partial sink, and that it creates a whole set of other issues/problems on its own)

nature will not permit energy in a habitable environment to go unutilized-if the primary organic wastes are already present, and photons are added to the mix-you will get plant growth-those plants will then have to pass on their energy to whatever it is that eats them

the problem is that in every transfer of energy from one creature to the next-there is energy (read: waste) lost to the system-fact of nature, laws of physics, conservation of energy, etc etc...-just the addition of the LIGHT actually adds to the pollution of the system, so to speak-the energy of that light cannot now remain independent of the system, and it isn't ALL being used to make living tissue

it's far easier, and simpler, to simply stop the first domino in any chain from falling, than it is to keep on having to pick up all the other dominos the first keeps knocking down

 

[Anonymous]

You gotta admit Vitz, you do often come off like a pack of wolfs after a baby hoofed animal...

I think this version of a turf scrubber is actually pretty neat - simple and cheap. If I am still having nitrate issues in the ceph system, I may add one.

There are many ways to skin a saltwater tank, and may reasons to add extra filtration - whatever it is. People do overstock, and finding ways to cope with situations seems just fine to me, so I can't condemn this version of the turf scrubber at all as its just another version of a filter.

The only issue I had, like I said before, is that it is/was being presented as a broad brush panacea which IMO is almost a bad idea. And I still want to know what kinds of pods are eating algae.

What I hope is that this thread can continue in a respectful manner. What I fear is it won't.

 

[trilinearmipmap]

There is more than one way to run a reef tank.

The very nicest tank I have ever seen in person (full of SPS, clams, an anemone, gorgeous) was run on a miracle mud system only with no lights over the miracle mud and no macroalgae. No skimmer. No chemicals to remove phosphate or nitrate. No carbon. No sulfur denitrator. Just a large refugium full of miracle mud, in the dark 24/7. Even though the "miracle mud" system makes no logical sense to me, and I regard it largely as hype that has been disproven many times over, this system gave excellent results for one person's reef.

My points are that there is no one good way to do things, and attempting to apply logic and scientific principles to reefkeeping doesn't seem to always work as well as trial and error. Of course we can take the easy path and follow what everyone else is doing and we will probably be OK. I prefer to try new ideas and I think most people would agree that that is part of the fun of reefkeeping, changing things, seeing how it turns out, modifying what you are doing again depending on the outcome, etc.

One point that seems to be missed about these turf scrubbers is their big advantage is there is an endless supply of CO2 in the air which promotes algae growth, as compared to the limited amount of CO2 dissolved in a typical reef tank's water. It is not simply a question of harvesting algae in an easily accessible place, it is supplying what the algae needs to grow (CO2, light, macronutrients and micronutrients) preferentially on the turf scrubber compared to in the tank.

Lastly I'd like to point out that the proof is in the pudding. The OP showed pictures of his tank. Not to be rude, the tank looks OK, but nothing overly impressive. Instead of arguing back and forth with the wolves, put your energy into producing a tank that will blow people away. One picture is worth quite a few words, SHOW ME THE REEF TANK after you have built a system you can be proud of.

 

[Anonymous]

You gotta admit Vitz, you do often come off like a pack of wolfs after a baby hoofed animal...

er- you REALLY need to re-read the 1st page of this thread, peter

:roll:

 

[Anonymous]

You gotta admit Vitz, you do often come off like a pack of wolfs after a baby hoofed animal...

er- you REALLY need to re-read the 1st page of this thread, peter

:roll:

Um, yeah - your first post, the second in the thread... Pretty wolfy.

Who's Peter?

 

[blackcloudmedia]

OK how about we start all over again with your Title. Ehem. MEGA POWERFUL NITRATE AND PHOSPHATE FILTER REPLACES SKIMMER.
Two things, how is this MEGA POWERFUL. And where is the lab test proving this can replace a skimmer.
If you set up two tanks exactly the same using exactly the same equipment (except skimmer on one and bucket thing on the other) and all the same corals, all the same fish, same feeding schedule...same EVERYTHING. Monitor these two tanks for AT LEAST 6 months. I personally feel that this would be a fair demonstration of your MEGA powerful filter. Maybe even set up 4 tanks of each type. Then and only then could you use the words REPLACE SKIMMER and MEGA POWERFUL. You have honestly presented no test results or documentation to show that turf screens are effective enough (alone) to replace a piece of equipment that the city water management trusts to clean our poo and reuse the water from. We have all been arguing over symantics of who said what. YOu can quote the gay little dredlocked man who used the words "we used some sort of algae that began with a letter b I dont know Im not an expert" Yes he said that somewhere around 18 minutes. The fact is your promoting a refugium in a bucket...yes...yes you are. I dont have a problem with that. Just dont tell me that some unsightly bucket with a screen will do better than my nice refugium of calerpa racemosa (gasp I think this is the first mention of a species anywhere on this thread) :lol: Nor should you say it replaces a piece of equipment that oh I dont know 99.9 percent of reefers in the world use. Besides its stupid for you to have singled out the skimmer in the first place when SKIMMERS DONT REMOVE NITRATES OR PHOSPHATES. That alone should state your inexperience with reefs. Plus it doesnt help that you are a stranger to this forum. We dont know you, we dont know your experience, and we havent seen any of your established systems that surely youve practiced your bucket on....or perhaps this is why ehem you dont have an established tank....is because you used your bucket on them :lol:

Anyways Ive ranted. Im sure you'll ignore my points and tear apart my words to mean something else. P.S. what did you hope to get out of this? A pat on the back for enlightening the world that skimmers were a waste of time? Or sales of your "Miracle buckets"

 

[Anonymous]

Still waiting for either Ben or Lawdawg to explain how their evidence video proves that algae kills corals.

You already said that they can and that at least the first 10 minutes of the linked video says they do. Please please please don't pick and choose your 'data' to try to win points while ignoring the rest of it.

obviously you are not versed in it since you call them pods

Correct. I don't care. You are not very versed in EMF. So according to your logic, you should not be using return pumps.

[/quote]

Not at all. The point was, if you don't actually know the pods are eating the turf, which you don't, that you might not want to say they do.

 

[Anonymous]

the posts are critical, not wolfy, and subsequent fair explanations for the critiques were given

if i'd have wanted to be 'wolfy', i'd have made mincemeat out of mr. hype in a fashion that would make the most critical of my initial statements here seem like pillow talk, heh

instead i offered a fair opportunity for an acceptable backup/proof/explanation/argument, and was met with childish drivel non-sequiter (sp?)replies to nearly every point

the posts reek of a snot-nosed bratty kid attitude, and an insistence on remaining ignorant about the subject matter at hand in the discussion, most likely because santa feels himself an expert on the subject even though not even a smattering of experience on the very subject at hand, compared to what is known and verified by many others smarter/with better tools for investigation than he or i


i'm still curious as to who santa knows that tried to market an algal scrubber and was stopped via legal/economic means by a patent holder on algal scrubbing, and who the patent holder was, as implied in at least one of his threads/posts :lol:

 

[Anonymous]

the attitude of someone in this hobby like 'santa' who's been running a tank rather unsuccessfully for only about 2 yrs even beginning to argue to 3 people who prob'ly have 50 yrs plus experience between them on various and multiple types of systems ranging from single digit nanos to commercial operations is the only thing i find disgusting on this thread, and i'm astounded that that type of chutzpa behavior is acually drawing in fans

Another ad hominem post from vitz, with no relevency to the merits of turf. I'll be ignoring his further similar posts, and I'll just be replying with a copy of this sentence.


Still waiting on vitz's single example of the disasterous results of an algal filter.

Still waiting for either Ben or Lawdawg to explain how their evidence video proves that algae kills corals.

Did you just reply to your own thread with a different identity?

That must be it.

lemme get this straight. Your promoting basically letting algae grow on a screen rather than on the walls of the tank, rocks, etc. And thats about it right? Let the algae grow where its easy to remove

No.

New IDEA? Where have you both been? It's not new

Post a link to a turf bucket that has already been built. Yes, a bucket.

Actually yes, zero. The maker of my protein skimmer gave it to me

So, everyone should wait to set up their tanks until they are given free equipment.

obviously you are not versed in it since you call them pods

Correct. I don't care. You are not very versed in EMF. So according to your logic, you should not be using return pumps.

there is an endless supply of CO2 in the air which promotes algae growth, as compared to the limited amount of CO2 dissolved in a typical reef tank's water.

Very good point. Having a fan on it, and using a timer/surge, should do the trick.

Lastly, for anyone who missed the evidence/research/proof video from the USF Marine Center in St. Petersburg, which was touted by ben, coprolite, vitz and lawdawg as proof that algae kills corals (or even that high DOC kills corals), here it is again with quotes and time markers:

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 [???].

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

pointing out the lack of experience and understanding someone has who is making outlandish claims on ANY subject is hardly an ad hominem attack

if i had said that you like cuttlefish, and all cuttlefish fans are stupid, therefore you cannot present a good argument,THAT would have been an ad hominem 'attack'
maybe your comprehension of the term is on a level equal to your comprehension on turf scrubbers ? :idea: :wink:

Still waiting on vitz's single example of the disasterous results of an algal filter

you trully do not get it, do you-the onus of proof is upon YOU, and no one else

YOU posted the initial claims and outlandish statemnents about what the crubber does, can do, what it can replace, and how it maintains water quality

YOU'VE shown NOTHING to support any of this, other than testing your water with a hobby level test method for only 2 organic compounds, with an experience level of a few years, some of which was lspent eaving the care of your tank to a maintenance/service co

roflmfao :lol: :lol: :lol:

'here's my new widget! it does this and this and that and another thing!!!'

'no it doesn't, prove it!'

'i don't have to, i'm right and will ask all novices to follow my method because i'm right because i said i am!'

gimme a frikkin break

:roll:

 

[Anonymous]

You gotta admit Vitz, you do often come off like a pack of wolfs after a baby hoofed animal...

er- you REALLY need to re-read the 1st page of this thread, peter

:roll:

Um, yeah - your first post, the second in the thread... Pretty wolfy.

Who's Peter?

i was sure you'd get the 'peter and the wolf' reference, heh

 

[Anonymous]

I'll call Morgan (Inland) and see what he informally told you about "pods" then. In fact I think I'll be seeing him next week even so it won't be hard to ask in person :lol:

 

[blackcloudmedia]

Oh..my ....God!... Do you really want to get into a details nitpicking battle with an accounting student? Fine but I even said you would ignore my point and you did. Im not going to click quote that would take forever.

In response to me saying you have no test results.. you said "I don't have too" To that I say "YES YOU DO" I want you to go to a court of law and tell them you found that cancer is caused by Coca Cola. To that they will say.....SHOW US. You cant tell the judge..."I dont have to I just want to show the people what Ive heard" Doesnt work that way. If you make claims...You back it up.

You said "Correct me if I'm wrong, but if you are referring to skimmers, I don't think municipalities use skimmers. " To that I show you exhibit A http://saltaquarium.about.com/cs/protei ... 052200.htm Which is a website that would have helped you from the get go. And that author mentions in there how city waste engineers discovered skimmers years ago.

And my favorite I said "to have singled out the skimmer in the first place when SKIMMERS DONT REMOVE NITRATES OR PHOSPHATES"
to which you said "Duh. You're a bit behind in the discussion" I love this counter by you as your trying to act like this is something you know when....drum roll please....YOU STATED THAT SKIMMERS WOULD BE REPLACED. Let me state it again so you dont miss is YOU YOU YOU YOU STATED STATED STATED THAT THAT THAT SKIMMERS SKIMMERS SKIMMERS WOULD WOULD WOULD BE BE BE REPLACED!!!!!!!!!!! You said it in the title and you said it through this thread. So ignore the point once again Im sure.

You said "Why are you using a return pump... You have not experience with how it works. " To which I counter....what the hell are you talking about??? I have maintained a backyard catfish pond for 8 years and have gone through two 500 GPH Beckett Pond pumps, I have one 600 GPH Beckett pump that I use for water changes. I have a 500 GPH return pump on my sump and I sure as hell could explain to you the exact mechanics of how a magnetic coil working with current has the sufficient power to propel water through an 8 foot verticle lift! So I ask again....what the hell are you talking about.

You asked why bother presenting test results if vitz and the gang arent going to read them. I can honestly say that if you had test results that showed zero for all the baddies and you had used no other means of filtration and this system was flourishing for years with no crashes, I would be sold on something you said is 10 by 10. (Note you didnt use units so Im guessing inches lol) We have all butted heads on this thread and it may seem like were burning you at the stake. But all the time people come on to these forums SOMETHING THAT WILL CURE YOUR TANK and its always some kind of algae or plant innovation that is unsightly or unusual. Now theres a long history of people buying things that are unsightly or unusual in the US. However these things have either good marketing, good test results, or are designed for uneducated people to buy i.e. Healing bracelets.

But hey you know what? You win. You have fairly argued all the points that have been thrown at you. Vitz, guys lets just sit back and watch his marketing :wink: Santa Monica...whatever your name is...you have the floor, show us (oh damn I said it again I forgot you dont have to) lets see your proof ( oh damn you dont have any) Tell us please how (crap you cant tell us how) ....umm.....tell us what youve HEARD

 

[Ben1]

In anycase I am done since I realize you are already convinced of your own interest in this turf bucket, no one likes to have an idea put down.
Best of luck

Learn to read, I don't bother with people that have already convinced them selfs they are correct. You can choice to believe what you want but the people you choice to argue with could run circles around your reefkeeping knowledge. I have no interest in someone that twist conversations/proof online to suit their needs. Its rather ridiculous, that you have tryed something for one month and then come online to tout it as some amazing piece of equiptment that trumps all others. I don't argue with fools.....

So as I already said....

In anycase I am done since I realize you are already convinced of your own interest in this turf bucket, no one likes to have an idea put down.
Best of luck

 

[Anonymous]

I am opting out of this thread I think guys.
Someone PM if people start to violate the UA. Thanks.

 

[Anonymous]

And that author mentions in there how city waste engineers discovered skimmers years ago.

As some here already know, I do IT work for a small local government agency - one that has its own waste water handling facility.

My immediate supervisor is also the director of the waste water treatment plant.

I have a 12g nano in my office which sometimes brings us around to talking ****-water shop because of the similarities between reef keeping and maintaining a waste water treatment plant.

They still skim.... - A lot!

 

[Anonymous]

Here are 3 on one side of town compliments of Google Maps.

They sometimes build them out as "ladders" as well..

 

[Anonymous]

Where do the put the bubble towers?

there's more than one way to design an efficient foam fractionator, which have been used for wastewater treatment since the '50s or thereabouts

:roll: