New Skimmer – Price is no Object!

[hahnmeister]

My impression of Gelbstoff from all the articles is that it is not something that is directly removable by itself, but rather that it is what happens with whatever the skimmer isnt able to remove, no matter if it is protein 'A', 'B', or 'C'. Its a byproduct of the aerobic bacteria dealing with waste... by skimming out as much as possible before it gets to the nitrogen cycle, thats how to minimize the yellow. But other than carbon, I dont think there is a way to remove this tint from the water through skimming, only to prevent it. And since a skimmer wont get 100% out anyways... just the hydrophobic, there will always be some sort of tinting in the water. I think thats why you need to run carbon and do water changes no matter what. Also, it makes a strong case for vodka/sugar... as in carbon dosing. The bacteria produced through dosing wil consume the less or non hydrophobic proteins/DOC's, and then you can harvest the bacteria through the skimmer. Vodka dosing is a way to enable your skimmer to grab more of whats in the water in the first place.

[Fishbulb2]

Originally posted by BeanAnimal

So your logic equates to:

IF and ONLY IF D where non existent or skimmed out, would the skimmer remove any C

IF and ONLY IF C and D where non existent or skimmed out, would the skimmer remove any B

IF and ONLY IF A, B and C were non existent would the skimmer remove A.

No i think this is backwards from what we are saying. I think we are saying that

IF and ONLY IF C where non existent or skimmed out, would the skimmer remove any D

IF and ONLY IF C and B where non existent or skimmed out, would the skimmer remove any D

IF and ONLY IF A, B and C were non existent would the skimmer remove D.

You must skim out more soluble proteins (A,B,C) before you can pull out insoluble ones like D. I don't think you can ever get the sceneros you previously posted were one skimmer was pulling out 4 times as much D as A. If A is more insoluble, then you MUST pull out a before D now matter how you set up the skimmer or A will simply dislodge D. I really has to work that way.
FB

[hahnmeister]

Which version do you believe?... that a skimmer can just be better at A, B, or C, or that if A, then also B, then also C, but C does not mean B, and B does not mean A... (you get what I mean, not being technical here). I think thats where the two sides clash in the end. Holmes-Farley's model suggests that a skimmer may spend all its time being better at B, but that it doesnt mean that it will also cover all of A or C. his model suggests that as a bubble dwell's longer, the less attracted DOC's will be replaced by the more attracted... so a lesser attracted substance could be 'bumped' off. I suppose these would be considered more 'stubborn' substances according to Escobal... but it suggests that a longer dwell time could work against you. OTOH, it is a strong case for recirculating skimmers. If the throughput is too high, the lesser attracted DOC's could get blown out the outlet before there is a 'spare' air bubble to latch on to. With a recirculating (taller), you can slow the process down some... the water will in effect be passing through more air, as would it be if the skimmer was shorter and wider, and just used 2x as much air. But the problem seems to be that after a while, assuming your skimmer overtakes the production of waste in the tank, there isnt enough in the water to produce a stable foam head. A recirc might waste bubbles as well, but having the smaller diameter neck (since it doesnt have to have the extra neck space just in case the DOC level is high and it needs it for every bubble to collect w/o overflowing the cup) the skimmer is still able to function while the DOC levels are lower... which unless your skimmer is undersized, will happen at some point (assuming equilibrium is not stable/possible, which I would assume is the case).

[BeanAnimal]

Fishbulb, that is not what PJF said

But lets take what you say at face logic value:

A MUST be ELIMINATED before B can be bound.
B MUST be ELIMINATED before C can be bound.
C MUST be ELIMINATED before D can be bound.

Furthermore if a single D is removed, then NO A, B, or C would be left.
Again, you can't just short circuit the logic to fit the arguement or conclusion.

So if the above IS true, then given (2) skimmers that can remove D, the skimmer that has more throughput will be the better skimmer.

Now here is the kicker: (if we use the logic your proposed)

Given 2 skimmer that CAN remove D:
The skimmer that fill the collection cup the fastest will be the more efficient!

You can not have the logic both ways!

I can hear the moans! We all know that what I have just said is far from the truth.

So that MUST mean that a given skimmers collection cup can AND IS a mixture of A, B, C, and D. The ration depends on the skimmer and the settings. Measuring the amount of D removed is not meaningful

Again, back to the fact that a fixed amount of material is removed in a fixed amount of time, and that ratio is not fixed. Lets us beg the question yet again. WHAT IS THE DEFINITON OF A GOOD SKIMMER? WHAT COMPOUNDS should be be more concerned about A, B, C, or D and what ratios are they found in our tanks? What ratio is best to keep or target? Ahhh qestions that have no easy answers.

Shall we tilt at a few more windmills... I kind of have fun doing it

[pjf]

Hahn,

According to this definition of Gelbstoff and Gilvin, chromophoric dissolved organic matter (CDOM) can also come from macroalgae that secretes phenolic compounds.

"Dissolved material in sea water that is resistant to bacterial attack. Its name comes from the yellow color it imparts to the water. Brown algae, the principal algae group growing in coastal waters of temperature and higher latitudes, excrete phenolic compounds. These polyphenols are converted into a brown polymer by secondary reactions with carbohydrates and proteins of algal origin. The properties of the resulting substance are identical with Gelbstoff. Its concentration in sea water is around 1 mg/l and it is removed mainly by precipitation since its phenolic nature renders it resistant to bacterial attack. This is also known as yellow substance or gilvin. See Riley and Chester (1971)."
(http://oceanography.expert-answers.n...Gelbstoff.html)

gcarroll,

You are correct. Since surface proteins (A & B) can replace more soluble organics (C & D) as the bubbles rise through the gradient, a skimmer must reduce the less soluble compounds (A & B) first to give other organics a chance to be removed. My view is that many skimmers don't have the contact time to skim beyond surface proteins. In other words, many skimmers can only "skim the top" because of high turbulence or short contact times.

Fishbulb2,

I'm sure that Randy Holmes-Farley agrees with you 100%. The order of skimming is based on hydrophobicity. If a skimmer can skim the more soluble organics, it can skim the less soluble organics.

BeanAnimal,

If you can cite scientific references to support your views, that would be appreciated.

Thanks!

[BeanAnimal]

Hanh... your guess is as good as mine.

The point here is that you can't just measure the "D" and get any clue as to how good the skimmer is other than removing "D" at its current settings and water parameters.

[Fishbulb2]

Originally posted by BeanAnimal
Fishbulb, that is not what PJF said

But lets take what you say at face logic value:

A MUST be ELIMINATED before B can be bound.
B MUST be ELIMINATED before C can be bound.
C MUST be ELIMINATED before D can be bound.

Furthermore if a single D is removed, then NO A, B, or C would be left.
Again, you can't just short circuit the logic to fit the arguement or conclusion.

So if the above IS true, then given (2) skimmers that can remove D, the skimmer that has more throughput will be the better skimmer.

Now here is the kicker: (if we use the logic your proposed)

Given 2 skimmer that CAN remove D:
The skimmer that fill the collection cup the fastest will be the more efficient!

You can not have the logic both ways!

I can hear the moans! We all know that what I have just said is far from the truth.

So that MUST mean that a given skimmers collection cup can AND IS a mixture of A, B, C, and D. The ration depends on the skimmer and the settings. Measuring the amount of D removed is not meaningful

Again, back to the fact that a fixed amount of material is removed in a fixed amount of time, and that ratio is not fixed. Lets us beg the question yet again. WHAT IS THE DEFINITON OF A GOOD SKIMMER? WHAT COMPOUNDS should be be more concerned about A, B, C, or D and what ratios are they found in our tanks? What ratio is best to keep or target? Ahhh qestions that have no easy answers.

Shall we tilt at a few more windmills... I kind of have fun doing it

mmmm, I don't know. I would say I'm still VERY far from convinced that this will be as hard to do as you make it out to seem. First, I wouldn't say that EVERY molecule of A, needs to be removed before D is removed. All compounds are always being added to the tank and so yes of course A,B,C, and D will each appear in the collection. No big deal. A will still always be removed fast than B, and B faster then C, and so on. That's the point. Now if we use our little controlled test in a 50g reservoir with only one compound like D in. It is completely OK if two skimmers are capable of removing that compound. We can still compare then quantitatively by either the color card or photospectroscopy of some sort (probably not at the hobbiest level). You will can easily deterimne which skimmer cleared the water more in a given (Standardized) amount of time, say an hour. Or you could use a harder compound to skim, like compound E!, and use that to compare. The point is that it will tell you all you need to know about A,B, and C. You can't pull out more compound D in skimmer 1 compound to skimmer 2, and pull out more compound A with skimmer 2 than skimmer one. It doesn't work that way. It only works with regards to solubility so any single compound can be used as a reference. The only tricky part in choosing your reference protein is that it needs to be able to discriminate between skimmers. Not like A were everyone will pull it out in 1 hour, and not like E where no skimmer has a chance. Finding the right compound is not as hard as everyone is making it out to be.
FB

[Fishbulb2]

Originally posted by BeanAnimal
Hanh... your guess is as good as mine.

The point here is that you can't just measure the "D" and get any clue as to how good the skimmer is other than removing "D" at its current settings and water parameters.

Yeah, this is just I guess were we disagree then. If it pulls out D better than any other skimmer, then it has to pull out A better than any other skimmer. No other way around it.

[BeanAnimal]

PJF,

With all due respect: I don't need to cite any science. A simple application of logic to the postulates can weed out the possible from the impossible.

That is what is no nice about a MODEL

Some of your other assumptions do have sound logic behind them. I would fully agree that a skimmer that can skim more soluble organics CAN skim less soluble organics! I think Randy has shown that to be the case, and you have cited that.

I am not sure if you have ever been exposed to truth tables or not.

A very clean way of breaking down the possible outcomes is to build a truth table for each possible scenario.

I think you will find that, though some of the postulates feel right, they can not be true by a long shot

[BeanAnimal]

Originally posted by Fishbulb2
Yeah, this is just I guess were we disagree then. If it pulls out D better than any other skimmer, then it has to pull out A better than any other skimmer. No other way around it.

We do not disagree. Your missing 1 HUGE factor. If it is pulling D out, then it IS NOT pulling A out at the same time. We are looking at a TIME based action and have no way to determine if removing D in lue of A is a good or a bad thing.

We can go back to the logic.. but at this point it appears to be somewhat futile.

[BeanAnimal]

Fishbulb... thanks for your reply. I don't have time to respond at the moment, but you do have some good points.

See you guys this afternoon....

[hahnmeister]

Originally posted by Fishbulb2
Yeah, this is just I guess were we disagree then. If it pulls out D better than any other skimmer, then it has to pull out A better than any other skimmer. No other way around it.

This is the point where opinions collide as I pointed out before. If you follow Holmes-Farley, the longer the dwell time, the less attracted proteins can get bumped off. So in effect, you could have a skimmer that can skim B better but at the expense of A and C... not that if it can skim B, than A must be skimmed as well.

Thats why my opinions on 'ideal skimmer design' are 'all inclusive'. The best way to make sure that A will be skimmed out as well as B is to have the tallest skimmer possible (within reason), and to have it be recirculating to that the water has enough time to have all its proteins taken out.

The other POV is that if you have a skimmer with a higher throughput, you will recirculate it back into the skimmer that much quicker. The thing I dont like about that is that it gives the proteins a chance to get taken in by some other process in the tank... if its precipitation, or absorbtion into the sand or bacteria. Id rather keep it in the skimmer. Besides... recirc may also mean you can take out proteins that a single-pass couldnt.

What I like to look at is what happens over time. Sure, there are plenty of skimmers that do very well when you first get them, but how about 6 months later? The only ones I see always pulling out gunk after a tank matures are the tall ones... unless you keep a high enough fish population/feeding. Over time, as other processes digest the proteins in the tank, the skimmer would seem to be processing different proteins. The easier to get out ones would be, well... minimal. The less attracted ones would be in more abundance though with a shorter skimmer though it seems... as if you are too short (and depending on which school you believe in) or too turbulent, you may never harvest some of those harder to get proteins/DOC's. That ATI vs ATB skimmer comparison suggests that a longer dwell time is still a force to be considered. Just look at the ATI... it cant pull out anything but Tea. The ATB pulls out just as much, but its darker and nastier stuff. Not to sound like a promo... it just supports something I have thought for a long time.

[Fishbulb2]

Originally posted by BeanAnimal
We do not disagree. Your missing 1 HUGE factor. If it is pulling D out, then it IS NOT pulling A out at the same time. We are looking at a TIME based action and have no way to determine if removing D in lue of A is a good or a bad thing.

We can go back to the logic.. but at this point it appears to be somewhat futile.

You are also missing a couple HUGE factors. We all understand this is a dynamic equilibrium and of course some D will get pulled out on the same bubbles as A and B and C. No big deal at all. Really it's not. A decrease in concentration first in the aquarium, B next, and C next. All three molecules will always be constantly removed but A will always have a greater propensity to be removed first and with higher probability. Then B then C. So you can compare any two skimmers at any time by their ability to pull out any one of these molecules. Just do it with a known fixed concentration and volume. It a skimmer wins on compound C then it would win on compound A,B and D. At equilibrium and on the way there.

There is not way conceivable to design a skimmer to pull out D with a greater efficiency then A. That is exactly what you guys are trying to do. That is redefining solubility. Can't do that.

If a bubble king can rip D out of the water to unmeasuable levels, then you can be assured A, B, and C are being ripped out faster. Put a lesser skimmer in the same water and it may remove A, B, C, or D. If there is less C pulled out by skimmer 2, then you KNOW there is also less D being pulled out by skimmer 2. Any molecule should work like this. It really is that simple, but skimmer companies must love the idea that they can just convince us it's more complicated. Designing skimmers is complicated, testing need not be. Ok, we have come full circle. I've read everyone's views on this, formed my own based on what i've seen here and know about molecular biology. With that, I'm out. Gotta go do some science!
Happy Reefing!
FB

[hahnmeister]

Originally posted by Fishbulb2
You are also missing a couple HUGE factors. We all understand this is a dynamic equilibrium and of course some D will get pulled out on the same bubbles as A and B and C. No big deal at all. Really it's not. A decrease in concentration first in the aquarium, B next, and C next. All three molecules will always be constantly removed but A will always have a greater propensity to be removed first and with higher probability. Then B then C. So you can compare any two skimmers at any time by their ability to pull out any one of these molecules. Just do it with a known fixed concentration and volume. It a skimmer wins on compound C then it would win on compound A,B and D. At equilibrium and on the way there.

There is not way conceivable to design a skimmer to pull out D with a greater efficiency then A. That is exactly what you guys are trying to do. That is redefining solubility. Can't do that.

If a bubble king can rip D out of the water to unmeasuable levels, then you can be assured A, B, and C are being ripped out faster. Put a lesser skimmer in the same water and it may remove A, B, C, or D. If there is less C pulled out by skimmer 2, then you KNOW there is also less D being pulled out by skimmer 2. Any molecule should work like this. It really is that simple, but skimmer companies must love the idea that they can just convince us it's more complicated. Designing skimmers is complicated, testing need not be. Ok, we have come full circle. I've read everyone's views on this, formed my own based on what i've seen here and know about molecular biology. With that, I'm out. Gotta go do some science!
Happy Reefing!
FB

Depends on which School of thought you are in. I think Tunze's idea actually makes sense now that I think of it... it meshes with Holmes-Farleys in a way... I just think they have the wrong reasoning. The end result is that a taller skimmer can end up dumping off proteins towards the top. Lets say you start your bubble at the bottom... and it can easily pick up whatever is first in line... lets say one A, one B, and one C. But over time, as the bubble rises, A is stronger than B, and there are other A's in the water. As that bubble gets closer to the top, B and C might lose out, and only three A's will stay on the bubble. Where do the B's and C's go? Well... they would build up in the top of the skimmer.... kinda like what Tunze suggests, no? Now, depending on the height, a shorter skimmer might have more bubbles with A,B, and C, and a taller skimmer might only have A, and leave B and C in the water. How to compensate? Lower the throughput to make sure B anc C will get a bubble to latch onto before being 'moved on' and out the skimmer. This would seem as a huge benefit of shorter skimmers over taller ones...

But, as time goes on, eventually A will go down (unless the bioload is increased and can outproduce the intake of the skimmer... but then, in effect, your skimmer is undersized). Once A goes down, B anc C will have a chance to get collected. The flip-side to this is that then there may not be enough proteins in the water to make stable enough bubbles as when there was a full load of proteins. A taller, narrower skimmer has a neck that can always be filled easier then. A short and wide one with more air could just run out of things to process.

So I dont know if we can assume that if a skimmer can collect one protein, then it will collect another for sure. Some models suggest otherwise. Not to logical.

Thats why I see side by side testing somewhat futile as well... unless it can be done over an extended period. Depending on the skimmer design... things can change in the water over time. But, side by side would mean that the changes that one skimmer has can effect the other, so two seperate, yet somehow identical sources would be needed.

[pjf]

Originally posted by hahnmeister
Thats why I see side by side testing somewhat futile as well... unless it can be done over an extended period. Depending on the skimmer design... things can change in the water over time. But, side by side would mean that the changes that one skimmer has can effect the other, so two seperate, yet somehow identical sources would be needed.

I agree that side-by-side skimmer testing in the same tank will cause interference. Testing two skimmers in separate tanks filled from the same water source will work.

The water source can be water discarded from a water change. Place the discarded water into two 10-gallon tanks and set a skimmer on each tank. After a day or two, the skimmer on the tank that is less yellow (less compound D) wins. Otherwise, we will have to find a test to measure compound C.

I think the Salifert Organics test will work when differentiating a Remora from a Bubble King but I think it will need refinement before comparing a Deltec to an H&S.

[BeanAnimal]

It only wins with regard to D...

Ponder this:
What do we say when the one with "more D" in the cup has less overall skimmate and/or is less stinky and colored. Do we still say that the "D" efficient skimmer is "better"?

What do we do when no matter what, the stinky brown full skimmer cup is always the one with more "D"? Do we then just say that the skimmer that produces stinky brown skimmate is better?


What do we do if skimmer (1) produces more D when skimming dry but skimmer (2) does when skimming wet? What is the better skimmer?

You can't just test for "D" and reach a reasonable conclusion!

[hahnmeister]

The problem is still that then you would need two identically functioning systems... not just storage, for the two skimmers to run off of. You dont want to compare them under a limited supply (at least, I dont think you do)... you want to compare them on a functional system.

Perhaps something more like this:

2 identical reefs, say... two 120g tanks, side by side. Two identical sumps, identical lighting, identical sand type and amount, identical fish selection for both, identical feeding (via an automatic feeder or measured and portioned amounts), identical flow, identical maint schedules, identical dosing, etc... you could even link the two together until the test to make sure the bacterial colonies would be the same just in case the two tanks did develop differently at some level. Whatever coral you put in one, you put the same thing in the other... frags most likely. As for Live Rock... that is a variable as well that needs to be eliminated. Identical Live Rock is pretty much impossible, so dry live rock that is mined would be best, and then seed it as per the GARF grunge/bulletproof method.

Then you could simply put a skimmer on each system, disconnect them from each other, and see how they do over the course of a few months.

You could do the 'yellow scale card', phos, nitrate, etc tests to compare, as well as condense down the two skimmer's output.

It might sound impractical, but its most likely the best way to have a legitimate side by side test. Then after the test, remove the skimmers, or leave one, or whatever... and link the two systems back together until the next test. Other than that, the method that the Austrian ATB vs. ATI person used is the next best thing. Use one for a while, then switch and monitor conditions. Sure, the testing would be done at different times, but the system would be the same, and the skimmers wouldnt be competing. Perhaps one way to minimize the variables that would happen with different times would be to change the skimmers back and forth... run one for 3 months... then run the other for 3 months, and back and forth a few times. This way, if you happen to have a fish die, or grow... or you change your feeding schedule or amount, add corals, change your dosing, or even just experience a weather change... by switching the skimmers back and forth (maybe only a month at a time would be enough) and taking the mean, you would minimize that.

Otherwise, someone needs to set up two decent size tanks that are identical, right down to the bacteria, corals, fish, and equipment. I would consider that to be 120gallons at least... as this is a size which we could test everything from a remora to a BK200, maybe even 300 on if the load was high enough. Two 200+ gallon tanks would be the alternative... but its just not practical (unless you can get a bunch of skimmer companies to sponsor the skim-off)... I mean, who wants to have two identical tanks in their house that large? It would be a neat tool for a company though. Other than that... maybe just switching back and forth every month isnt such a bad idea... anyone think of any problems with that?

[pjf]

Originally posted by BeanAnimal
It only wins with regard to D...

Ponder this:
What do we say when the one with "more D" in the cup has less overall skimmate and/or is less stinky and colored. Do we still say that the "D" efficient skimmer is "better"?

What do we do when no matter what, the stinky brown full skimmer cup is always the one with more "D"? Do we then just say that the skimmer that produces stinky brown skimmate is better?


What do we do if skimmer (1) produces more D when skimming dry but skimmer (2) does when skimming wet? What is the better skimmer?

You can't just test for "D" and reach a reasonable conclusion!

What skimmer is better at skimming D than A, B or C? Please come back and tell us when you find it.

As for skimming wet, Anthony Calfo is fond of stating that wet skimming is good at removing particulate matter (i.e., compound A). Both dry and wet skimmers are better at removing compound A than compound D.

As proof, observe current skimmers. All can remove surface scum (compound A). Few, if any, can remove chromophoric dissolved organic matter (CDOM).

Again, please post the brand and model of the skimmer that can skim CDOM (compound D). Then pour oil in the tank and let me know which is skimmed first: the oil slick or the Gelbstoff.

Originally posted by pjf
Skimmers remove insoluble compounds more readily than soluble ones. You will probably not find a skimmer that filters X better than Y and another skimmer that filters Y better than X. Starting with equal concentrations, both skimmers will remove the less soluble compound more readily.

Bottom line:
Truth tables are like computers. Garbage in, garbage out. It is the assumptions that are flawed. The scientific method requires testable hypotheses.

Pour oil in your yellow tank and see what is skimmed first.

Edit: The rest of you don't have to use oil - fish food will do.

[Randy1]

I cant read it but those look like big prices in any langage.

s=&postid=10633299#post10633299 target=_blank>Originally posted by hahnmeister
Price no object, eh? Import an ATB Kegelpfannen skimmer...

http://www.aquariumtechnik.at/kegelabschaeumer.html

I am pretty convinced that the cone shape has several advantages over a pipe /w reducer design of traditional designs. I am pretty sure this is the reason for KZ's revolution skimmer's success in their design, and just look at the test reports of the ATB as well.... pretty amazing.

Otherwise... yeah... DAS EX-2 with Ozone would kill just about anything else... its the 'o'-factor which trumps alot of others.

[BeanAnimal]

Originally posted by pjf
What skimmer is better at skimming D than A, B or C? Please come back and tell us when you find it.

Why even post something like that? That is not what I said and amounts to a flip response with nothing but contempt to back it up. Please keep the comments in context. It will help everybody involved.

If you read the post in context to the comments, you will see that the first example (and your comments) show that the skimemr with the nasty collection cup is the winner. No test needed.

If you are going to try to beat me up, please do rember what your base premise here is. You can't have it both ways

Also, you use "US" like this is me against a thread full of people. I urge you to read the posts again, there are several opinions being floated and refined. Furthermore, several of the folks you keep citing are not in full agreement with each other nor would they be with with your logic.

As for skimming wet, Anthony Calfo is fond of stating that wet skimming is good at removing particulate matter (i.e., compound A). Both dry and wet skimmers are better at removing compound A than compound D.

Nobody said any differently. I responded to YOUR proposed logic. You have not commented on that and have instead tried to change the topic.

As proof, observe current skimmers. All can remove surface scum (compound A). Few, if any, can remove chromophoric dissolved organic matter (CDOM).

What in the world does that prove? Again, nobody said that they would not remove A, B, C, or D. The question regards in what order and/or concentration those compounds are skimmed and how to formulate a reliable test to indicate such.

It is one thing to use the "simple" model to represent the ideas. In reality we are talking about a large number of proteins and a complex interaction the skimmer between the many compounds and the few lucky bubbles that take them to the skimmer neck and hold them long enough to let them overflow.

Again, please post the brand and model of the skimmer that can skim CDOM (compound D). Then pour oil in the tank and let me know which is skimmed first: the oil slick or the Gelbstoff.

Your responses are starting become rather silly, but I think you know that. I had expected a much more intellectual response that was directed towards my comments and ideas. Fishbulb, Hahn, et al. certainly articulated their feelings and ideas without silly examples that have no bearing on the conversation.

Bottom line:
Truth tables are like computers. Garbage in, garbage out. It is the assumptions that are flawed. The scientific method requires testable hypotheses.

The irony is that you will not consider that fact that your assumptions may be what are flawed. You have not used the scientific process and instead are using postulate to argue your points as fact. What you posted with regard to Compounds A, B, C, and D just does not pass the most basic test of logic. You suggest that my logic is garbage, yet where is the proof that yours is not?

May I remind you that YOU proposed the logic... garbage in? And then used those assumptions to form your opinion... garbage out?

You are promoting them [your assumptions] as scientific fact to back up your premise. You have not showed why I am wrong and have actually, unwittingly, reinforced several of my points.

Pour oil in your yellow tank and see what is skimmed first.

Edit: The rest of you don't have to use oil - fish food will do.

Why keep posting things like this? I would ask you to please address my comments and ideas in a kind and respectful manner. If you disagree with my opinions; I welcome informed responses. Please keep the other stuff to yourself.

Bottom line:
I have offered reasoning to show that what you are saying may be flawed. I welcome responses related to what I have said, not snippets of pasted text that misrepresent the ideas put forth. I am more than happy to be wrong, but please show me with sound information or articulated responses. Telling me that Anthony likes wet skimming and oil and proteins will be skimmed at different rates is certainly far from a compelling rebuttal. Comparing a skimmer in a cesspool to a pristine aquarium is silly and asking me to pour oil in my tank is useless if not purposefully inflammatory.

So I pose the question again. If you insist that the skimmer that skims more D will also skim more of everything else, then would the skimmer that had the fullest and foulest cup be the one that is the clear winner? You have stated that the collection cup is not a good indicator of skimmer performance. We have come full circle and as I have pointed out, many of your comments contradict your own base premise in this thread.

[pjf]

Originally posted by pjf
If you can cite scientific references to support your views, that would be appreciated.

[hahnmeister]

So how do you guys feel about that 'interval' or 'relay' method of comparing two skimmers?

[BeanAnimal]

I like the simple idea of looking at the skimmate. I don't see any test being simple enough to draw meaningful conclusions on any scale larger than they DIY workbench of a few hobby tanks and different setups. There are just too many variables involved.

I am not trying to be funny here, but would like to draw what I feel is a relevant analogy. We can certainly pick it apart and twist it to mean anything... but in general terms just read it at face value.

We don't have a starting line and a finish line with two funny cars racing heads up. Green light to win light. ET matters and nothing else.

We are trying to compare Emmit to Barry to Walter to Jim to Tony. We know all were good, but we can not say who was better. What test do you use? Yardage? Touchdowns? First downs? Lack of fumbles? Receptions? Blocks? They had different lines, different eras, different opponents, different styles and different playing time. What do you use as a criteria? It depends on what you want to argue. No single stat defines who was best. We can look at them overall and make informed comments called OPINION.

I think each of us has a differing opinion on how to test a skimmer and what to test it for.

PJF has stated at the start that he wants a price no object skimmer that does it all. One answer is simple. Get the biggest tallest skimmer that money can buy. As you downsize from that you lose capacity and capability. So the next question becomes, what can you live with? My answer is to observe and choose. What lights are the best? Well we can get into all kinds of PUR, PAR, UV, aesthetics, color rendering, bulb life, bulb cost and other discussions... In the end there are so many variables that one has to look around and make an opinion based on observation not pure science.

[BeanAnimal]

Originally posted by pjf
If you can cite scientific references to support your views, that would be appreciated.

PJF, that response is a 100% cop-out and nothing more than an attempt to invalidate my comments by proxy. It is starting to get rather old.

If I may be pointed. We are not just talking about science here. This thread has a lot to do with the logic of the arguments or postulates that have been forwarded.

Some of your comments and assertions are starting to contradict themselves and your logic has found its own tail more than once in the process.

You have some good ideas and have put forth an interesting set of proposals but please don't look down upon me or others like we are ignorant buffoons that are beyond understanding you or speaking to the validity of your proposals.

You tend to counter with BOLDED headings and carefully worded barbs, catch phrases and bullet lists yet, you do not directly defend your ideas or the questions regarding them. I have directly questioned your logic in several posts and your response is either a rhetorical question or a query for scientific footnotes.

[pjf]

Originally posted by BeanAnimal
I like the simple idea of looking at the skimmate.

..but your water is still yellow..