Skimmer Comparison Article

[digital-audiophile]

I skimmed through the article (pardon the pun) And am I reading the conclusion correctly that all four tested basically ened up on par?

[FlamesFan]

I seen this article over at Advanced Aquarist, I tried to read it but for some reason on that site it always turns into glancing through everything. Everything on that site always seems like a text book when you read it. Some articles are good though and yeh I got the same thing as you digital.

[PoonTang]

Originally Posted by digital-audiophile

I skimmed through the article (pardon the pun) And am I reading the conclusion correctly that all four tested basically ened up on par?

Ya thats what i basically got out of it. Now if they would expand it a little and run some of the high end ones against the budget ones. It would be really interesting to see just how much you are getting what you paid for.

[untamed]

Originally Posted by digital-audiophile

I skimmed through the article (pardon the pun) And am I reading the conclusion correctly that all four tested basically ened up on par?

That was what I got from the study. All removed to about the same level at about the same rate within the accuracy of the study.

[Samw]

Very interesting. I would have liked to see how diffusion skimmers such as Tunze performed.

[mike31154]

I've been running a simple air stone, counter current skimmer (looks like a DYI) on my 75 for just over two years and am quite content with its performance. The whole set up was used and I improved on the original configuration by simply adding a ball valve to regulate the output (aka water column height in the skimmer body). Had read an article about how flow (not necessarily a lot of it) can have a significant impact on skimmate removal. Don't remember the author, but it was quite in depth and I think the gentleman's name is mentioned in the article referred to in this thread. Maximum contact time of bubbles in the water column seems to be the goal and when I first set this thing up, I'm sure I was pumping water through it too fast. Currently using a small AquaClear 301 power head (175 USgph, 8 watts) and a Stellar W60 air pump (3.2 watts) to run it. Total of close to 12 watts, ultra quiet and low enough power consumption to run for extended periods on backup power. I have no problem with replacing the two air stones every month or so for a few dollars. I've even boiled some of them in a vinegar/water solution to rejuvenate them. When I set up my 90 in the future, I'll more than likely build something similar, only a little taller and with capability for another air stone or two. The fact that I can independently control water and air flow to fine tune it, is to me an advantage over skimmer types that use a single pump to produce both air bubbles and water flow.

One other improvement I made on this venerable old thing is to fashion a small acrylic manifold with threaded holes to enable easier replacement of the air stones. I tried an AquaC Remora with Mag 3 pump for about 4 months and did not like it at all. Pump was a beast and the thing made a ton of noise. Skimmate was watery and thin. My old air stone jobbie doesn't produce a lot of wet skimmate so no need to empty the container at the end of the drain tube very often. Produces nice gooey chunks of fairly dry skimmate. When I look at some of the current offerings, I often wonder about the high prices and if it's worth spending that amount of money for a possibly minimal improvement over the older technology.