/ Register

  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Screen size debate

Discussion in 'Advanced Topics' started by Garf, Jul 20, 2013.

Welcome to Algae Scrubbing Join our community today
Page 1 of 2
  1. Jul 20, 2013 #1
    Garf

    Garf Member Trusted Member

    516
    16
    England, Worcestershire
    I recently found this picture, posted by SM just 3 years ago. It explains why LARGE screens are required and why small screens do not work. Views and thoughts would be appreciated. It seems facts and science change fast in this game;

    [​IMG]
     
  2. Jul 20, 2013 #2
    Turbo

    Turbo Does not really look like Johnny Carson Staff Member Site Owner Multiple Units! Customer

    2,907
    156
    Iowa (United States)
    That's too funny. Talk about backtracking on your recommendations.

    The shift over to feeding-based screen sizing was supposedly to keep the algae from spreading out too thin and not growing green.

    I suppose that views, opinions, and recommendations are subject to change based on experience, but his above stance years ago tells me one of 2 things:

    1) the recommendation at that time was completely made up

    2) the recommendation changed to suit the needs of the more compact UAS, which was in his head, but not public.

    So essentially he changed the recommendation to "set the stage" for the introduction of the UAS. Notice that the guideline was changed in September of 2011, and the UAS was introduced in May of 2012.
     
  3. Jul 21, 2013 #3
    Rumpy Pumpy

    Rumpy Pumpy Member Trusted Member

    137
    2
    UK
    Give the guy a little break, it was 3 years ago. SM was the first (or one of the first anyway) to successfully use algae to filter aquariums and has done more than anyone imo to spread and develop the concept

    I know he sometimes says questionable things and he certainly suffered a sense of humour failure when he banned Garf from his forum, but I think we should give him his due really.

    How many of us would be using this method if SM hadn't popularized it?
     
  4. Jul 21, 2013 #4
    Rumpy Pumpy

    Rumpy Pumpy Member Trusted Member

    137
    2
    UK
    Anyway, on the topic of screen sizes;

    I personally like a bigger one

    [​IMG]

    Since I've found I can leave them for longer between cleaning.
     
  5. Jul 21, 2013 #5
    Garf

    Garf Member Trusted Member

    516
    16
    England, Worcestershire
    I see where your coming from, but from a filtering point of view this element of scrubbers is important. For instance, larger screens would tend to exudate larger amounts of carbs therefore feeding the bacterial population which in turn creates a food web which could either be skimmed or left as food for higher tropic levels. I only see this extra "free food" when I suppliment my scrubber with extra C02. My screen is sized for 5 or 6 cubes ( 15 to 18 cubic cm frozen food ) per day according to the new guidelines. After a bit of calculation and some guesstimating my screen is only removing nutrients from 3 cubes ( 9 cm frozen food ) per day.

    Your right about SM popularising the algae method but "making up" facts whether it's screen size, C02 enrichment through large bubble rubbing or nutrient reduction by using a low flow horizontal box is not acceptable and should be investigated. I'm glad this thread has stayed light hearted :)
     
  6. Jul 21, 2013 #6
    Turbo

    Turbo Does not really look like Johnny Carson Staff Member Site Owner Multiple Units! Customer

    2,907
    156
    Iowa (United States)
    I also realize that this recommendation was probably made before the "high intensity" light method was introduced, or before LED scrubbers really came to fruition. Both of those increased light penetration and probably eliminated the original issue presented in that picture.

    But I still stand by my statement that he seems to sometimes just pull stuff out of thin air or make hard-line recommendations that only just "seem to fit the situation". Anecdotal evidence is sometimes all we have, but that doesn't mean it's good enough to draw a solid conclusion and then give advice as if that conclusion were a scientifically proven fact. I think that approach shuts certain people out and might discourage experimentation.

    This is why I have tried to soften my approach - I tend to make more "it is likely" or "possibly" type of conclusions and recommendations. Because we are all learning, and this leaves the possibility open for someone to try something different and disprove a recommendation or at least an aspect of one, so that our understanding can progress.

    I think it is very difficult to take a one-size-fits-all approach. For instance, SM runs the SURF2 (4 of them) on his personal reef pond, and all his growth pics and conclusions about how to maintain and operate them, and what to expect for growth, are seemingly solely based on that one tank and those results, and what seems to work (or at least grow algae) for him may not work at all for someone else. So hopefully all of his marketing pics won't raise expectations that are not met, causing many people to turn their back on algae scrubbing completely like what has happened with so many people who tried the HOG units that fell apart in 6 months.
     
  7. Jul 21, 2013 #7
    Garf

    Garf Member Trusted Member

    516
    16
    England, Worcestershire
    An example to Floyds point is this;

    [​IMG]

    This SURF2 is touted as being able to remove 2 cubes ( 6 cubic cm ) food nutrients per day. That would make this unit 4 times more effective than his standard waterfall guidelines or 8 times more effective than my waterfall screen. Unrealistic Hype ?

    This particular SURF2 has been going for several weeks with no harvesting. How anybody could claim a certain amount of nutrient removal before he has even run it through a couple of cycles is beyond my comprehension. Alarm bells were ringing right from the outset of the SURF2. The apparent knee jerk reaction to some horizontal scrubber threads made on the AS site is apparently costing people their hard earned cash.
     
  8. Jul 21, 2013 #8
    Rumpy Pumpy

    Rumpy Pumpy Member Trusted Member

    137
    2
    UK
    Point taken.

    I just think it is better to have someone as a friend than an enemy.

    And anyway, none of this is going to change anything is it? Just a few silly sods mucking about with algae and talking about it on the interweb. What will work will work and what won't won't, no matter what any of us says.

    Carry on chaps, onwards and upwards!


    [​IMG]
     
  9. Jul 21, 2013 #9
    Turbo

    Turbo Does not really look like Johnny Carson Staff Member Site Owner Multiple Units! Customer

    2,907
    156
    Iowa (United States)
    You lost me on this part??
     
  10. Jul 21, 2013 #10
    Garf

    Garf Member Trusted Member

    516
    16
    England, Worcestershire
    Don't you think it's strange that his incomplete horizontal version ( SURF2 ) was made public while we were having a debate / thinking of testing methods for pulsed flow horizontals and verticals ? I know about the "reef pool" restrictions he was having, but why publicly unveil something he hadn't even built ? And to take pre-orders on them, before he had grown anything in them ? Sounds like a knee jerk reaction to me.
     
  11. Jul 21, 2013 #11
    Pny

    Pny Member

    38
    3
    Sweden
    I belive that picture is taken out of context, since the owner does not follow the guidlines in many ways (he is having a strange lightning schedule and has chaeto in it...). May I also ask why you are so negative about the SURF2? Its not that different from your b.a.d.a.s.s...
     
  12. Jul 21, 2013 #12
    Garf

    Garf Member Trusted Member

    516
    16
    England, Worcestershire
    I'm not selling mine, and would never claim it can do things that are not proved. But yeah, your right it is taken out of context in this thread. Can you show me one that works?
     
  13. Jul 21, 2013 #13
    Pny

    Pny Member

    38
    3
    Sweden
    I believe the one showed by Santa Monica does work, but he's the one making money of them... ;-)
     
  14. Jul 21, 2013 #14
    Garf

    Garf Member Trusted Member

    516
    16
    England, Worcestershire
    Hehe - you sort of understand my scepticism then. Maybe when someone else gets one to work and provides growth data I will change my mind. But that's sort of the point, how can you flog something with a certain nutrient removal claim but have no data to back it up. This applies to the waterfall guidelines also, so at least now we are back on topic :)
     
  15. Jul 21, 2013 #15
    Ricky

    Ricky Member Trusted Member Multiple Units! Customer

    215
    20
    Easton, PA
    I think we all missed the point though. You can grow a 5gal bucket of algae a week.. who cares??.. what are we rolling it and smoking it?. Are we selling nori sheets?.

    I want to see results, I want to see a video that shows the hog, surf, surge, badass reducing nitrate and phos to 0. Like my waterfall does.

    Yet no one except for buds l2 waterfall vs uas is posting test readings.

    Im in this hobby to grow coral, not algae.
     
  16. Jul 22, 2013 #16
    Pny

    Pny Member

    38
    3
    Sweden
    You can not simply grow any algae at all without using both N and P from the water... If you grow a bucket of algae a week you will remove plenty of nitrates and phosphates since the algae need both to exist.
     
  17. Jul 22, 2013 #17
    Ricky

    Ricky Member Trusted Member Multiple Units! Customer

    215
    20
    Easton, PA
    Not necessarily true. See buds thread. Same size screen. Uas was growing an amazing amount of algae, yet nutrients were through the roof. My uas grew algae but my p was always in the rise.

    If the above was true, then we would not be so opposed to the uas. Which shouldve been called uag. Upflow algae grower.TM

    Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 2
     
  18. Jul 22, 2013 #18
    Turbo

    Turbo Does not really look like Johnny Carson Staff Member Site Owner Multiple Units! Customer

    2,907
    156
    Iowa (United States)
    I tested and harvested last week (both of those scrubbers) and results were similar, except that N is dropping on the UAS tank, but P remains the same, around 0.8.
     
  19. Jul 22, 2013 #19
    Garf

    Garf Member Trusted Member

    516
    16
    England, Worcestershire
    The UAS is the one with next to no stock in, ain't it ? Remind us of the screen size and feeding Bud.
     
  20. Jul 22, 2013 #20
    Turbo

    Turbo Does not really look like Johnny Carson Staff Member Site Owner Multiple Units! Customer

    2,907
    156
    Iowa (United States)
    I just updated the thread on those tanks, I didn't notice that I hadn't mirrored the AS.net post over here, doh!
     
Page 1 of 2

Share This Page