Great thanks for the info since I only payed 300$ for the tank itself if I could get even 150$ out of them I'd be super happy.
Mega-powerful Nitrate And Phosphate Remover Replaces Skimmer, Refugium
- Thread starter SantaMonica
- Start date
The April FOTM Contest Poll is open!
🏆 Click to vote! 🏆
SantaMonica
Fish Crazy
Some success stories of upflow scrubbers that people built...
ReeferMat on the MASC site: "So I decided to build one of these [upflow scrubbers] today. It's huge because all I had was a 12 inch airstone, but I'm hoping that won't matter too much. It cost me less than $20 to build, so if it works that is the best bang for the buck I have ever seen in the war on algae! It has been up and running for 3 months now and I have to say my tank looks a lot better. Every time I clean it it grows a new type of algae, slime, turf, etc... and it grows fast. I would say I have seen a decline in nuisance algae in my tank, but to be honest that would be an understatement.... It has all but eradicated it. Every time I look at the scrubber I can't help but think that all that junk would be growing in my DT"
Owenreefin on the PNWMAS site: "The first two months of running this scrubber thing I was convinced I was going to rip it out for the algae growth was dismal, and I figured that my system just couldn't make it work. (I also have algae in my fuge) WELL I WAS WRONG. The thing started to really kick in. So much so that I just conducted my only water change in 2 months and I hardly think it was even necessary. I usually do a change of 30% every 2 weeks. My sand bed has cleared up big time too. With the water change I pulled out a good baseball sized amount of algae off the scrubber, couldn't be happier! I will always be running one of these. I will post pics of its growth next time I change water. Many months from now"
Bobba on the scrubber site: "Well, it's been almost 3 weeks with the [upflow scrubber], and 2 with my lone Turbo snail. I am happy to report that I have no Hair Algae left in the tank. No signs of any regrowth of what the snail has eaten either."
Clavius on the scrubber site:
"I've been running a 500 liter tank now for 5 years. It is very well stocked with SPS, LPS, softies, filter feeders and a modest amount of fish. The nutrients were being kept very low by a combination of a giant skimmer and the ZEOvit method. Off course, this results in very lightly coloured corals, which was my goal. Generally I'm very pleased with the colouring and growth of my corals, and please with my tank in general. But one battle I've always lost: brown algae covering my sandbed. I could not, for the life of me, find what was causing those algae. Not to mention solve it. I've tried many many things to solve it, but up untill recently, without luck.
Almost three weeks ago though, I installed a [upflow scrubber]. It was a little experiment that I wanted to do ever since I learned about algae scrubbers. Of course, with the ZEO-method, my nutrients already were really very low. I couldn't measure any NO3 or PO4 with my Salifert test kits. And I never bothered with more expensive kits; unmeasurable should be good enough. I wanted to see if the vitamins and amino acids that the algae scrubber produces would add anything to my reef. And, more importantly, if the algae would consume "something" that the brown algae on my sandbed require.
The result in my sandbed is staggering. After only 3 weeks, not a trace of the pesky brown algae is left! An extra benefit, that I didn't expect, is that my lightly coloured corals now all have noticably much more colour. Without getting darker. They seem to glow! I don't know if it is from the vitamins that are released in the water [from the algae scrubber]. Or maybe the ugly brown algae [on the sand] were also covering my corals and that I now finally seeing my uncovered corals! Strangely enough, the algae in my [scrubber] aren't light green, as you would expect with nutrient-poor tanks. But they're a mix of dark brown with red tints here and there. So, I have no idea why that is or how that works. But at this stage I'm just so happy that I really don't care."
ReeferMat on the MASC site: "So I decided to build one of these [upflow scrubbers] today. It's huge because all I had was a 12 inch airstone, but I'm hoping that won't matter too much. It cost me less than $20 to build, so if it works that is the best bang for the buck I have ever seen in the war on algae! It has been up and running for 3 months now and I have to say my tank looks a lot better. Every time I clean it it grows a new type of algae, slime, turf, etc... and it grows fast. I would say I have seen a decline in nuisance algae in my tank, but to be honest that would be an understatement.... It has all but eradicated it. Every time I look at the scrubber I can't help but think that all that junk would be growing in my DT"
Owenreefin on the PNWMAS site: "The first two months of running this scrubber thing I was convinced I was going to rip it out for the algae growth was dismal, and I figured that my system just couldn't make it work. (I also have algae in my fuge) WELL I WAS WRONG. The thing started to really kick in. So much so that I just conducted my only water change in 2 months and I hardly think it was even necessary. I usually do a change of 30% every 2 weeks. My sand bed has cleared up big time too. With the water change I pulled out a good baseball sized amount of algae off the scrubber, couldn't be happier! I will always be running one of these. I will post pics of its growth next time I change water. Many months from now"
Bobba on the scrubber site: "Well, it's been almost 3 weeks with the [upflow scrubber], and 2 with my lone Turbo snail. I am happy to report that I have no Hair Algae left in the tank. No signs of any regrowth of what the snail has eaten either."
Clavius on the scrubber site:
"I've been running a 500 liter tank now for 5 years. It is very well stocked with SPS, LPS, softies, filter feeders and a modest amount of fish. The nutrients were being kept very low by a combination of a giant skimmer and the ZEOvit method. Off course, this results in very lightly coloured corals, which was my goal. Generally I'm very pleased with the colouring and growth of my corals, and please with my tank in general. But one battle I've always lost: brown algae covering my sandbed. I could not, for the life of me, find what was causing those algae. Not to mention solve it. I've tried many many things to solve it, but up untill recently, without luck.
Almost three weeks ago though, I installed a [upflow scrubber]. It was a little experiment that I wanted to do ever since I learned about algae scrubbers. Of course, with the ZEO-method, my nutrients already were really very low. I couldn't measure any NO3 or PO4 with my Salifert test kits. And I never bothered with more expensive kits; unmeasurable should be good enough. I wanted to see if the vitamins and amino acids that the algae scrubber produces would add anything to my reef. And, more importantly, if the algae would consume "something" that the brown algae on my sandbed require.
The result in my sandbed is staggering. After only 3 weeks, not a trace of the pesky brown algae is left! An extra benefit, that I didn't expect, is that my lightly coloured corals now all have noticably much more colour. Without getting darker. They seem to glow! I don't know if it is from the vitamins that are released in the water [from the algae scrubber]. Or maybe the ugly brown algae [on the sand] were also covering my corals and that I now finally seeing my uncovered corals! Strangely enough, the algae in my [scrubber] aren't light green, as you would expect with nutrient-poor tanks. But they're a mix of dark brown with red tints here and there. So, I have no idea why that is or how that works. But at this stage I'm just so happy that I really don't care."
SantaMonica
Fish Crazy
Coming this summer 2016:
Waterfall algae scrubber
Version 2
After I invented the waterfall scrubber in 2008, it's great that so many people got to DIY it, and it's also great that lots of builders/sellers used it as their design up until the current day. It's had over 7 years to gather hobbyists.
2012 was a good year though, when I introduced the upflow scrubber. It's only had 3 years to gather hobbyists, but offers them what they did not have before: a compact place where they can put a scrubber that does not spill over when it fills up.
Now that the upflows are established, it's time to do some more work on the waterfalls. They've been unchanged since 2008, and almost every part of them can be improved. So over the next year or two I'll post up the improvements piece by piece. Hopefully the improvements will be useful to all.
Waterfall algae scrubber
Version 2
After I invented the waterfall scrubber in 2008, it's great that so many people got to DIY it, and it's also great that lots of builders/sellers used it as their design up until the current day. It's had over 7 years to gather hobbyists.
2012 was a good year though, when I introduced the upflow scrubber. It's only had 3 years to gather hobbyists, but offers them what they did not have before: a compact place where they can put a scrubber that does not spill over when it fills up.
Now that the upflows are established, it's time to do some more work on the waterfalls. They've been unchanged since 2008, and almost every part of them can be improved. So over the next year or two I'll post up the improvements piece by piece. Hopefully the improvements will be useful to all.
SantaMonica
Fish Crazy
Shade cloth:
All new scrubbers which use white growth surfaces should have a black cloth placed over some of the LEDs for the first week or two. Because the all-white interior reflects so much light, when it is new the light levels are way above the highest amount that can grow anything. Once growth starts, the white surfaces get covered with growth and the total light levels drop, and the cloth can be removed. Any cloth, stocking, or t-shirt can work; just don't melt the cloth with hot LEDs
This covering of the lights can be done by anyone, on any scrubber, even waterfalls. Waterfalls use plastic canvas which has more holes than material, and they are not in white compartments, so the light levels when new are not that high. But it still might help if a new screen stays completely empty or had bald spots.
The reason for a white colors, of course, is too allow more light to reach the base of the growth that does the attaching to the surfaces. As the growth gets thicker, the bottom layers will almost be in darkness, so the white surface doubles the light there by reflecting instead of absorbing the light.
Put the shade cloth about 2/3 or 3/4 over the lights; this way you can see which part grows better: the covered, or uncovered.
All new scrubbers which use white growth surfaces should have a black cloth placed over some of the LEDs for the first week or two. Because the all-white interior reflects so much light, when it is new the light levels are way above the highest amount that can grow anything. Once growth starts, the white surfaces get covered with growth and the total light levels drop, and the cloth can be removed. Any cloth, stocking, or t-shirt can work; just don't melt the cloth with hot LEDs
This covering of the lights can be done by anyone, on any scrubber, even waterfalls. Waterfalls use plastic canvas which has more holes than material, and they are not in white compartments, so the light levels when new are not that high. But it still might help if a new screen stays completely empty or had bald spots.
The reason for a white colors, of course, is too allow more light to reach the base of the growth that does the attaching to the surfaces. As the growth gets thicker, the bottom layers will almost be in darkness, so the white surface doubles the light there by reflecting instead of absorbing the light.
Put the shade cloth about 2/3 or 3/4 over the lights; this way you can see which part grows better: the covered, or uncovered.
SantaMonica
Fish Crazy
Scrubbers compared to refugiums
If you are starting a new tank, then the obvious difference is that a scrubber gives you the option of not having a fuge at all because an upflow scrubber can be placed on top of, in, or behind, the display. There are other uses for a sump/fuge of course, but we'll only cover the filtration concerns here.
A not-so-obvious difference is that a scrubber, if run together with a fuge with macros, will kill the macros even though the macros are much larger. This is because the scrubber thinks the macros are nuisance algae. Some people do run both together without killing the macros, but this is just because their scrubber is not strong enough, and actually the macros might even be slowing down the scrubber because the scrubber thinks it has to remove the macros, along with the nutrients in the water and the nuisance algae in the display. However if this works for them, good.
But assuming you have to decide on either a sump/fuge or a scrubber (not both)...
o Filtration with algae is proportional photosynthesis, which is proportional to Light X Air Water Turbulence Flow X Attachment. Meaning, stronger light grows more algae; stronger air/water interface turbulence grows more algae; and stronger attachment lets more algae grow without it detaching and floating away. A scrubber is thus designed to maximize Light, Flow, and Attachment.
o The main problem with macros in a refugium is the self-shading that the macros do. Any part of the macro which is not directly in front of the light at any moment is not filtering. And any macro inside of a "ball" of macro (like chaeto) is self-shaded all the time. Only the surface macro that is directly in front of the light is doing any real filtering. A scrubber is designed to have all the algae in front of the light at all times. Rotating the macro does not solve the problem, because the time that the macro is rotated away from the light is time that the macro is not filtering. This is why it takes a much larger size of chaeto to do the same filtering as a scrubber.
o Self-flow-blocking is another problem of macros in a refugium, for the same reason as light-blocking. And the thicker the "ball" of macro, the worse the flow-blocking.
o Particle trapping is another result of a ball of macro. These particles need to cycle back around to feed the corals, but instead they get trapped in the macro and they rot, and in doing so they block even more flow and light.
o With a scrubber, there is very little water standing in the way of the light. Also, the light is (or should be) very close to the scrubber... 4 inches (10cm) or less. The power of light varies with the inverse square of the distance, so going from 8" to 4" actually gives you 4X the power, not 2X. And the nutrient removal power of algae is proportional to the power of the light, because it's the photosynthesis that is doing the filtering.
o Rapid flow across the algae in a scrubber gives more delivery of nutrients, compared to the slow moving water in a fuge. Filtering is proportion to nutrient flow.
o The turbulence of water moving over the sections of algae in a scrubber help to remove the boundary layer of water around the algae. This boundary layer slows the transfer of metabolites in and out of the algae. There is no turbulence in a fuge (if there were, you'd have waves and bubbles). The interface between the air and water is what provides the most turbulence and boundary layer removal; there is no air/water interface in macros.
o Scrubbers do not let food particles settle like a refugium does; most particles flow right out of the scrubber.
o Scrubbers do not (if cleaned properly) release algal strands into display, like chaeto does.
o Scrubbers do not go sexual, like caulerpa can.
o Scrubbers do grow lots of pods; more than was previously thought, especially if not cleaned with freshwater.
o Scrubbers don't, obviously, provide a place for snails and crabs, etc.
However, if you already have a sump with an empty compartment, and you don't mind using all of it and putting a light over it, then maybe it's easier and cheaper to try macros first.
If you are starting a new tank, then the obvious difference is that a scrubber gives you the option of not having a fuge at all because an upflow scrubber can be placed on top of, in, or behind, the display. There are other uses for a sump/fuge of course, but we'll only cover the filtration concerns here.
A not-so-obvious difference is that a scrubber, if run together with a fuge with macros, will kill the macros even though the macros are much larger. This is because the scrubber thinks the macros are nuisance algae. Some people do run both together without killing the macros, but this is just because their scrubber is not strong enough, and actually the macros might even be slowing down the scrubber because the scrubber thinks it has to remove the macros, along with the nutrients in the water and the nuisance algae in the display. However if this works for them, good.
But assuming you have to decide on either a sump/fuge or a scrubber (not both)...
o Filtration with algae is proportional photosynthesis, which is proportional to Light X Air Water Turbulence Flow X Attachment. Meaning, stronger light grows more algae; stronger air/water interface turbulence grows more algae; and stronger attachment lets more algae grow without it detaching and floating away. A scrubber is thus designed to maximize Light, Flow, and Attachment.
o The main problem with macros in a refugium is the self-shading that the macros do. Any part of the macro which is not directly in front of the light at any moment is not filtering. And any macro inside of a "ball" of macro (like chaeto) is self-shaded all the time. Only the surface macro that is directly in front of the light is doing any real filtering. A scrubber is designed to have all the algae in front of the light at all times. Rotating the macro does not solve the problem, because the time that the macro is rotated away from the light is time that the macro is not filtering. This is why it takes a much larger size of chaeto to do the same filtering as a scrubber.
o Self-flow-blocking is another problem of macros in a refugium, for the same reason as light-blocking. And the thicker the "ball" of macro, the worse the flow-blocking.
o Particle trapping is another result of a ball of macro. These particles need to cycle back around to feed the corals, but instead they get trapped in the macro and they rot, and in doing so they block even more flow and light.
o With a scrubber, there is very little water standing in the way of the light. Also, the light is (or should be) very close to the scrubber... 4 inches (10cm) or less. The power of light varies with the inverse square of the distance, so going from 8" to 4" actually gives you 4X the power, not 2X. And the nutrient removal power of algae is proportional to the power of the light, because it's the photosynthesis that is doing the filtering.
o Rapid flow across the algae in a scrubber gives more delivery of nutrients, compared to the slow moving water in a fuge. Filtering is proportion to nutrient flow.
o The turbulence of water moving over the sections of algae in a scrubber help to remove the boundary layer of water around the algae. This boundary layer slows the transfer of metabolites in and out of the algae. There is no turbulence in a fuge (if there were, you'd have waves and bubbles). The interface between the air and water is what provides the most turbulence and boundary layer removal; there is no air/water interface in macros.
o Scrubbers do not let food particles settle like a refugium does; most particles flow right out of the scrubber.
o Scrubbers do not (if cleaned properly) release algal strands into display, like chaeto does.
o Scrubbers do not go sexual, like caulerpa can.
o Scrubbers do grow lots of pods; more than was previously thought, especially if not cleaned with freshwater.
o Scrubbers don't, obviously, provide a place for snails and crabs, etc.
However, if you already have a sump with an empty compartment, and you don't mind using all of it and putting a light over it, then maybe it's easier and cheaper to try macros first.
Most reactions
-
326 -
204 -
187 -
149 -
142 -
133 -
127 -
123 -
122 -
119 -
93 -
73 -
71 -
66 -
64
trending
-
-
-
-
-
F-1 Angel... a bit nervous... it'll be my 1st F-1 fish...
- Started by Magnum Man
- Replies: 17