Tunze skimmer question.

[NanoReefaholic]

I'm putting this question out there to see what others think.

I'm looking into my next mod when I started thinking that by the shear design of the Tunze 9002 I wouldn't get that much more of a benefit in skimming by reducing the chambers water flow from the current rate. The pump recirculates and doesn't actively draw any water in.

I was looking at reducing the flow and enlarging the fuge to the whole third chamber and also reducing the flow to the 'sump' when I thought, is there really a point, I should just do the fuge.

So what do you guys think, would the Tunze skim better with a reduced flow?

BTW tank hardware specs;

12gNC

• 150w K2 Viper, 20K
• Tunze 9002 skimmer in chamber 1 (wall between 1&2 removed)
• chamber 3 macro fuge
• cryptic fuge in chamber 1 (chamber 1 & 2 wall removed, under Tunze skimmer)
• 20lbs Miyaki Liverock
• 3" sugar sand
• MJ900 return with a closed loop in the works

 

[KidNano]

Apparently nobody knows what they think. I'm confused by the question. Do you want to reduce the flow to the skimmer by reducing the flow through the chamber? And then you mentioned maybe just reducing it to the fuge? what is your goal? I think that is what's confusing, you didn't actually state what the purpose is.

Is your skimmer not producing enough Skimate? Are you trying to fix something that's broken or just trying to find another mod becuase your bored? I've been there. I'm actually there right now however I don't have the money for what I want to do.

What's your theory on skimming in a nano? I think most people with nano's don't think its necessary if you keep up on your water changes and might reccomend taking it out and enlarging your fuge which could potentially be more benificial to your tank then skimming is.

anyway I'm really curious to see pics of your setup and trying to understand what your trying to accomplish with reducing flow to your skimmer.

 

[NanoReefaholic]

Sorry about being misleading, I've got a thread here on my tank (well the one I've been reduced to, had 5 nano's/pico's). This is for my nanocube so enlarging anything isn't an option. I have the 'sump' on the left chamber (wall between 1&2 removed) and the fuge on the right. I'm in process of installing a closed loop and was working out the flow. I was thinking of having the intake of the closed loop before the water actually goes into the rear by taking it directly from the custom overflow.

I was working out the return pump location and flow but more than likely would just be building a box to sit in the left chamber essentially creating a new chamber to house the return pump. The return would be T'ed off with a ball valved line feeding the right fuge chamber causing it to overflow into the return box chamber, and the other line returning to the main display (probably a spray bar).

Think of a normal large display fuge setup, same concept.

The skimmer works fine but just as macro algae will absorb nutrients in a ~3-5 times turnover fuge some skimmers work better with the ~5-7 time turnover of a sump environment. I was trying to get even better performance out of it and was asking for opinions.

Does this make sense now?

 

[KidNano]

I'm sorry but It is a little confusing. I'm more of a visual person. I've never seen a closed loop working with an overflow. isn't it possible that the pump would suck faster then the overflow would....well overflow. I guess you can do the math and figure out if it would.

That's interesting about skimmers. I didn't realize that the flow coming by the intake would affect it's efficiency.

I read an article once about getting at least 20 times turn over rate to maximize the nutrient absorption rate on Macro. It was really interesting. It said not the best for creating a home for all pods and what not, like a fuge, but to maximize growth and efficiency of the macro create enough flow to get the macro tumbling so that all of it is being exposed to the light source and water flowing through it. That's kind of the direction I went with my macro. I've got about a 5 gallon section in my sump for the macro and I have about 380 GPH flowing through it. I don't notice much life down there but there is no algae growth except for the macro which grows pretty well. This is however my first experience with macro so I couldn't say if it's growing faster then normal.

Have you heard about that? If you have what's your take on the theory?

 

[NanoReefaholic]

I've written up the code for a calculator for this over at aquariumpros.ca, here's the link (if mods feel that this is inappropriate please feel free to remove it) Drain and overflow calculator. Just enter in the amount of flow that will be going through it and it'll tell you the length you'll need as well as the drain pipe size and if you want to run two drain pipes it has their minimum size as well. There are also more calculators there but like I said if it needs to be removed, please remove.

I run a lower flow rate not only for the macro algae but the pods as well. However I have found that lower flow rates give the algae more time to absorb the nutrients in the fuges water column before it's returned to the display. I know I had an article somewhere about this so I'll post a link when I find it. The key imo is to find a happy balance between flow, macro density, lighting intensity, and 'other' algae. Too high of flow and you'll lose out on the pods. Too dense and the centre of the macro won't grow at a desirable rate. Too much light and you'll have other algae issues, especially if you have the light shining through glass. Other algae can also be a PITA, I'm having coralline algae out competing the chaeto... it's actually growing on the chaeto killing it, go figure.

 

[KidNano]

What's your theory on skimming in a nano? I think most people with nano's don't think its necessary if you keep up on your water changes and might reccomend taking it out and enlarging your fuge which could potentially be more benificial to your tank then skimming is.

you never responded to this...... I know you said enlarging the fuge isn't possible but what I meant by this is if you removed the skimmer then that section could also be filled with macro. I'm not saying I think you should do this, because I honestly don't know if it would be better. I'm just asking your thoughts on the idea. Thanks.

 

[NanoReefaholic]

Sorry got sidetracked when posting, lol.

I see skimmers as a tool. They have their place in nanos if the setup and coral selection deems necessary, but there is a balancing act. I have SPS so water quality is very important and fouling the water is very easy in a 12g tank. With a skimmer I can remove much of the pollutive aspect of coral feeding so my levels stay in check but I need to turn off the skimmer when feeding to ensure that the corals get a chance to eat. This gives me some control over the water quality in between water changes and provides a more stable environment.

Now here's where balance comes in, if I feed too heavy the food just ends up in the skimmer and I'm wasting money. It may give me good water quality but it may cost more to have if I'm not careful. There are some corals that do better in a 'dirtier' tank and some corals like clams feed off nitrates. Because the skimmer in tandem with water changes keep nitrates low you start to need to target feed, which can be a pain.

I see skimmers as a valuable tool when used correctly. Unfortunately almost all nano sized skimmers are a waste of money. There are a few that are good but generally their poor performance and improper use of decent models are one of the main reasons behind the conception that skimmers are unnecessary.

Well this is how I see it anyways.

 

[KidNano]

Thanks. It all makes sense.