Whatever happened to the Big Skimmer Test?

JohnM99 · 07/25/2009, 08:55 AM

I admit to a lapse in reading RC - a few years ago around 05 06 an RC member in California set up a really impressive skimmer test, that looked like it was going to provide some meaningful comparison data between the top skimmers of the time - he had a huge tank, and was connecting skimmers at the same time and measuring what they did. It was a very long thread, with some extremely interesting and well informed discussion - but the experiment seemed to take a long time, and I never followed it to the end. I am back reading actively again - Haven't been able to find it by searching - anyone know the story?

skimmy · 07/25/2009, 10:30 AM

probably because my 15 y.o. could have done a better job with the "research" than he did...and I think it was becoming blatantly obvious that he was salting the results to suit his opinions.
It was really pretty stupid actually....

HighlandReef · 07/25/2009, 11:34 AM

mojo does a great job on the skimmer's, check his thread

JohnM99 · 07/25/2009, 11:49 AM

It was interesting reading - I suppose I didn't get to the point where results were questioned. The theory of it was interesting. Mojo does indeed have interesting posts - very useful.

It is a funny area - you can find lots of people who love their skimmer, and their "evidence" is a container full of goo. But, almost every skimmer will do that one way or another. Is there really a huge difference in skimming action? I like the way Mojo rates them - a bit more practical, and admittedly completely subjective.

Here is a question - for the same money you can get a new cone skimmer or a massive downdraft ETSS - the ETSS seem to do a great job for large public aquaria. Why not just get one of those? (Besides size). You can get a nice cone or a massive ETSS 1500 for around a grand.

JohnM99 · 07/25/2009, 12:08 PM

Actually - do you have a link to it? or can you remember who was doing it? Wouldn't mind reading it a bit.............with all due scepticism

skimmy · 07/25/2009, 01:24 PM

It was o2manyfish's (dave) thread.

It's on RF, at the rescource library, under "skimmer comarison data"

skimmy · 07/25/2009, 01:34 PM

I would say a comparably sized cone would kick an ETSS's ***, and good. plus the bubbles are way larger, no dwell, and mass watts....MEH, the 90's called and they want their skimmer back.

Wolfgang · 07/25/2009, 01:58 PM

Skimmy:
You have Never seen a Large ETSS Skimmer in operation, Have you? I have seen most all Cones running, and they work, But a ETSS Will Kick the Crap out of a Cone anyday!
AND For alot less $$$$$$$$$.
My opinion of Course!
If you have never ran one, How can you say? More Hearsay?
Even my MTC 1000 of Old will beat any Cone and I've seen pretty much them all running.
Did you see that ATB verses Vertex on The Premium Aquatics Sponser Forum? The Cone didn't Fare to well, did it? And it sure Cost more!!!!!
More Flavor of the Month Reef Central "Every one jump on the Bandwagon Kick".
I'll put a ETSS 800/900/1000 or a MTC or Barr Aquatic Skimmer from the 90's A-N-Y day against a cone!
But, Hey, That's just me!
-Wolfgang

nif · 07/25/2009, 02:48 PM

ksc · 07/25/2009, 03:05 PM

There was a real test done by a few scientists and an article written here-http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2009/1/aafeature2#h8

Not many people liked this article because they "proved" that skimmers are not that effective in removing TOC's. It's probably the reason why no manufacturer has attempted to test the efficiancy of their skimmers.....

Runfrumu · 07/25/2009, 04:07 PM

Didnt it say somewhere in that article that most skimmers only remove about 30% of DOC's?

Not great but better than nothing I guess. I wonder how much carbon removes?

JohnM99 · 07/26/2009, 08:04 AM

A few times when visiting large public aquaria I have spoken to staff and been taken "backstage" - it is humbling to see the massive stuff they have back there - gigantic towering skimmers 15 feet wide and as tall as a house! Always wondered whether it would make sense to put in a very oversized skimmer.
I also wonder how much real difference there is between retail skimmers - all of the top ones have devoted users who love the muck they see (as above!!) but I haven't ever seen a really well set up study. Thanks for the reference ksc - will read that.

JohnM99 · 07/26/2009, 08:49 AM

Just read through that article - very interesting - no real difference between the 4 tested skimmers - all removed about the same 20-30% TOC - but didn't really say how much of the TOC are theoretically removable - ie with a hydrophobic long chain
Also, I don't think the looked at what effect recirculating or overskimming would have. Also, all the methods had a similar method of bubble removal.
Glad to see someone is trying to put some science into it.

ksc · 07/26/2009, 08:49 AM

Here's another good article-http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2008/9/aafeature2/

It's pretty obvious that spending alot of money on a skimmer is a waste of money.

Justdrew · 07/26/2009, 10:52 AM

I just bought the MSX 250 about a month ago. I had the money for a cone, but was unconvinced that double the price would return double the performance. I have been extremely pleased with my traditional cylindrical skimmer.

Drew

JohnM99 · 07/26/2009, 12:10 PM

The second article, I have to say, confuses me. I would think the goal of protein skimming would be to reduce organic content in the water to around the level found in a natural reef. Many state that the natural levels of TOC are 0.5 - 1.4 ppm. But, the measurements on several of the tanks in that study were already in that range, without any skimming. One 55 g with no sand bed, no fuge and rarely changed water had values under 1 ppm. ??!!??

I think looking at the numbers showing 20-30 TOC removal is misleading. Another way of interpreting the first article is to say that since the error range of measurement is larger than the measured difference between skimmers, maybe it isn't a sensitive enough tool. But, it does make you question the different kinds.

I think the rationale of the cone skimmers is not that they will get more hydrophobic molecules adsorbed onto a bubble, but that they will transport the bubbles out more effectively - no?

skimmy · 07/26/2009, 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Wolfgang
Skimmy:
You have Never seen a Large ETSS Skimmer in operation, Have you? I have seen most all Cones running, and they work, But a ETSS Will Kick the Crap out of a Cone anyday!
AND For alot less $$$$$$$$$.
My opinion of Course!
If you have never ran one, How can you say? More Hearsay?
Even my MTC 1000 of Old will beat any Cone and I've seen pretty much them all running.
Did you see that ATB verses Vertex on The Premium Aquatics Sponser Forum? The Cone didn't Fare to well, did it? And it sure Cost more!!!!!
More Flavor of the Month Reef Central "Every one jump on the Bandwagon Kick".
I'll put a ETSS 800/900/1000 or a MTC or Barr Aquatic Skimmer from the 90's A-N-Y day against a cone!
But, Hey, That's just me!
-Wolfgang

wow...calm down...first off, were talking about skimmers, mkay?? not babies, trees, or mother earth here...lol

second off, I have owned from etss;
reef devil gen 1, & gen 3-4,
600,
800,
1400
And I'm pretty masterful at squeezing the most performance out of them. So why would you even say something like that to me without knowing my past history with skimmers? did I say they were bad skimmers that didn't perform??? no, I said that comparably, I was unsatisfied with the bubble size, dwell time, and consumption of watts. Will a large etss fill a 5g bucket full of poo?? of course it will, but it's how it gets there that bugs me...
And the dd/beckett injector design doesn't reflect modern advances in skimmer tech,
what we know works better in out more current models. Or is even at the very least more green and planet friendly to use, which if isn't a consideration to you these days then....?

...And you say you've "seen" a cone work, but have YOU owned one??? I have owned both, and sold/installed/maintained/troubleshot both designs professionally for different reef shops for years.
Anyway, totally aside from the point of why I dont care for dd/beckett injection,
let's take a poll. I've asked this before....
How many people on here have bought even a "crappy" cone skimmer and decided they liked their COMPARABLY SIZED/POWERED old cylindrical skimmers better?

And really, just the other day I was mentioning on here that a nicely designed cylinder skimmer with the properly matched PW/meshed pump can still be totally great,
so I got nuthin against 'em.... Just wanted to make that clear.
I just think cone design works better with less size, power, watts, and I think it's easier for wastes to make it into the cup with less resistance in a cone skimmer. pretty simple really. match that with the tiny bubbles from a PW/mesh wheel impeller and you have an insane power, low watt winning combination...a no brainer...

I'll never forget how blown away everyone at the shop I worked at was when we set up what is now the older, less powerful gen 1 w/eheim ATB cone skimmers, it was amazing how it kept up almost neck and neck to the dual sicce pump ATI that was in the sump normally of that system.
Incredible performance then,
refined incredible performance, with multiple quality brand choices to make now.

JohnM99 · 07/26/2009, 07:16 PM

Very interesting - power / size / ease of use - very important.
I have wondered - if the cone technology is better and more efficient - why do we not see it in public aquaria (even new ones) - such as http://www.oceandiscovery.ca/ - this is a really nice facility - cold water, fabulous tanks, just opened this month - visited for the first time today - they use RK2 skimmers.
Is it that it just takes a long time to change an industry? One would think such a large enterprise would be even more concerned about the energy costs than you or I.

MSX-Jeff · 07/26/2009, 07:27 PM

I think the biggest reason that commercial aquariums do not use "more modern" skimmers is that they simply do not exist in the sizes needed to take care of HUGE systems. Also, aspirating NW skimmer pumps do not do so well with really high head pressures....so getting a skimmer more than 36" tall is difficult with a NW/PW pump, and most large commercial skimmers are measured in FEET tall, not INCHES.

NexDog · 07/27/2009, 06:13 AM

Interesting thread. I took a break from RC for a year, came back and I see no mention of Deltec skimmers when 3 years ago they were all the rage. Anyone know what happened? My 902 plods on. I'm sure there are better skimmers out there and I'm definitely not buying a new one but am interested in what the general opinion on Deltec skimmers is these days.

07/25/2009, 08:55 AM	#1
JohnM99 Premium Member Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Victoria, BC, Canada Posts: 747	Whatever happened to the Big Skimmer Test? I admit to a lapse in reading RC - a few years ago around 05 06 an RC member in California set up a really impressive skimmer test, that looked like it was going to provide some meaningful comparison data between the top skimmers of the time - he had a huge tank, and was connecting skimmers at the same time and measuring what they did. It was a very long thread, with some extremely interesting and well informed discussion - but the experiment seemed to take a long time, and I never followed it to the end. I am back reading actively again - Haven't been able to find it by searching - anyone know the story?

07/25/2009, 01:24 PM	#6
skimmy T3am Zissou Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Galactic Sector ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha Posts: 1,123	It was o2manyfish's (dave) thread. It's on RF, at the rescource library, under "skimmer comarison data" Last edited by skimmy; 07/25/2009 at 01:29 PM.

07/25/2009, 01:58 PM	#8
Wolfgang Registered Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Ohio Posts: 465	Skimmy: You have Never seen a Large ETSS Skimmer in operation, Have you? I have seen most all Cones running, and they work, But a ETSS Will Kick the Crap out of a Cone anyday! AND For alot less $$$$$$$$$. My opinion of Course! If you have never ran one, How can you say? More Hearsay? Even my MTC 1000 of Old will beat any Cone and I've seen pretty much them all running. Did you see that ATB verses Vertex on The Premium Aquatics Sponser Forum? The Cone didn't Fare to well, did it? And it sure Cost more!!!!! More Flavor of the Month Reef Central "Every one jump on the Bandwagon Kick". I'll put a ETSS 800/900/1000 or a MTC or Barr Aquatic Skimmer from the 90's A-N-Y day against a cone! But, Hey, That's just me! -Wolfgang __________________ 75 Gal Reef Ready, Vertex Omega 150 Skimmer, Maxspect Riptide Gyre Pump, ATI 4x48 Sunpower T5, Bubble Magnus Doser. Current Tank Info: 75 gal Reef

07/25/2009, 04:07 PM	#11
Runfrumu Hi Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: NC Posts: 1,014	Didnt it say somewhere in that article that most skimmers only remove about 30% of DOC's? Not great but better than nothing I guess. I wonder how much carbon removes? __________________ Red Sea Max 130d and 125 gallon mixed reef. Current Tank Info: 125 gallon oceanic tank, Lighthouse Pro XLS, 72" outer orbit fixture, H&S 150-F2000/1 skimmer, H&S 110 Calcium Reactor, Tunze 7096, 2 Tunze 6105's , Tunze Osmolator, Prime 1/4hp drop-in chiller. 5 years running. Red Sea Max, 3 years.

07/26/2009, 10:52 AM	#15
Justdrew Dad with Triplets! Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Las Vegas, NV Posts: 583	I just bought the MSX 250 about a month ago. I had the money for a cone, but was unconvinced that double the price would return double the performance. I have been extremely pleased with my traditional cylindrical skimmer. Drew __________________ "As Far As You Know!" -Fletch Current Tank Info: 40 Breeder, 2X Radion XR15W, Vortech MP40 & MP10, Simplicity Aquatics 240DC Skimmer, Apex Controlled

07/25/2009, 10:30 AM	#2
skimmy T3am Zissou Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Galactic Sector ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha Posts: 1,123	probably because my 15 y.o. could have done a better job with the "research" than he did...and I think it was becoming blatantly obvious that he was salting the results to suit his opinions. It was really pretty stupid actually....

07/25/2009, 11:34 AM	#3
HighlandReef Chalice Monger Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: NW Indiana Posts: 1,163	mojo does a great job on the skimmer's, check his thread

07/25/2009, 11:49 AM	#4
JohnM99 Premium Member Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Victoria, BC, Canada Posts: 747	It was interesting reading - I suppose I didn't get to the point where results were questioned. The theory of it was interesting. Mojo does indeed have interesting posts - very useful. It is a funny area - you can find lots of people who love their skimmer, and their "evidence" is a container full of goo. But, almost every skimmer will do that one way or another. Is there really a huge difference in skimming action? I like the way Mojo rates them - a bit more practical, and admittedly completely subjective. Here is a question - for the same money you can get a new cone skimmer or a massive downdraft ETSS - the ETSS seem to do a great job for large public aquaria. Why not just get one of those? (Besides size). You can get a nice cone or a massive ETSS 1500 for around a grand.

07/25/2009, 12:08 PM	#5
JohnM99 Premium Member Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Victoria, BC, Canada Posts: 747	Actually - do you have a link to it? or can you remember who was doing it? Wouldn't mind reading it a bit.............with all due scepticism

07/25/2009, 01:34 PM	#7
skimmy T3am Zissou Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Galactic Sector ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha Posts: 1,123	I would say a comparably sized cone would kick an ETSS's ***, and good. plus the bubbles are way larger, no dwell, and mass watts....MEH, the 90's called and they want their skimmer back.

07/25/2009, 02:48 PM	#9
nif Premium Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Texas Posts: 57

07/25/2009, 03:05 PM	#10
ksc Registered Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 415	There was a real test done by a few scientists and an article written here-http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2009/1/aafeature2#h8 Not many people liked this article because they "proved" that skimmers are not that effective in removing TOC's. It's probably the reason why no manufacturer has attempted to test the efficiancy of their skimmers.....

07/26/2009, 08:04 AM	#12
JohnM99 Premium Member Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Victoria, BC, Canada Posts: 747	A few times when visiting large public aquaria I have spoken to staff and been taken "backstage" - it is humbling to see the massive stuff they have back there - gigantic towering skimmers 15 feet wide and as tall as a house! Always wondered whether it would make sense to put in a very oversized skimmer. I also wonder how much real difference there is between retail skimmers - all of the top ones have devoted users who love the muck they see (as above!!) but I haven't ever seen a really well set up study. Thanks for the reference ksc - will read that.

07/26/2009, 08:49 AM	#13
JohnM99 Premium Member Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Victoria, BC, Canada Posts: 747	Just read through that article - very interesting - no real difference between the 4 tested skimmers - all removed about the same 20-30% TOC - but didn't really say how much of the TOC are theoretically removable - ie with a hydrophobic long chain Also, I don't think the looked at what effect recirculating or overskimming would have. Also, all the methods had a similar method of bubble removal. Glad to see someone is trying to put some science into it.

07/26/2009, 12:10 PM	#16
JohnM99 Premium Member Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Victoria, BC, Canada Posts: 747	The second article, I have to say, confuses me. I would think the goal of protein skimming would be to reduce organic content in the water to around the level found in a natural reef. Many state that the natural levels of TOC are 0.5 - 1.4 ppm. But, the measurements on several of the tanks in that study were already in that range, without any skimming. One 55 g with no sand bed, no fuge and rarely changed water had values under 1 ppm. ??!!?? I think looking at the numbers showing 20-30 TOC removal is misleading. Another way of interpreting the first article is to say that since the error range of measurement is larger than the measured difference between skimmers, maybe it isn't a sensitive enough tool. But, it does make you question the different kinds. I think the rationale of the cone skimmers is not that they will get more hydrophobic molecules adsorbed onto a bubble, but that they will transport the bubbles out more effectively - no?

07/26/2009, 07:16 PM	#18
JohnM99 Premium Member Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Victoria, BC, Canada Posts: 747	Very interesting - power / size / ease of use - very important. I have wondered - if the cone technology is better and more efficient - why do we not see it in public aquaria (even new ones) - such as http://www.oceandiscovery.ca/ - this is a really nice facility - cold water, fabulous tanks, just opened this month - visited for the first time today - they use RK2 skimmers. Is it that it just takes a long time to change an industry? One would think such a large enterprise would be even more concerned about the energy costs than you or I.

07/26/2009, 07:27 PM	#19
MSX-Jeff Registered Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: On the Web Posts: 319	I think the biggest reason that commercial aquariums do not use "more modern" skimmers is that they simply do not exist in the sizes needed to take care of HUGE systems. Also, aspirating NW skimmer pumps do not do so well with really high head pressures....so getting a skimmer more than 36" tall is difficult with a NW/PW pump, and most large commercial skimmers are measured in FEET tall, not INCHES.

07/27/2009, 06:13 AM	#20
NexDog Snail Killer Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Kyushu, Japan Posts: 4,804	Interesting thread. I took a break from RC for a year, came back and I see no mention of Deltec skimmers when 3 years ago they were all the rage. Anyone know what happened? My 902 plods on. I'm sure there are better skimmers out there and I'm definitely not buying a new one but am interested in what the general opinion on Deltec skimmers is these days. __________________ Laurence Flynn 340g In-Wall Envision Tank and 150g Sump. Current Tank Info: Deltec 902, PFO hood with 3x400w Radium 20k and 4x96w PC's. Hammerhead closed loop - and 2 x Tunze 6105 (and Vortech still sucks).