roidan

great news to share: looks who's lurking around?

not as bad as i thought... but becareful dun let them take foothold of your tank..otherwise when u finally decide to get rid of them, u realise it is very difficult .. main tanks are places for corals and fishes...not weeds, more so if you have a refugium...the only places weed suppose to appear are there....in your refugium

u let weeds and plants grow in your main tank?? i wish u luck....really

i feel its much more hardy than AT.... and best of all, mine doesnt get harassed by other tangs...it's like in a world of its own amongst the commotion around him

set up quarantine tank lor... even if your main system wait till no more ich..ich may come back together with fish from later additions and u end back at square one again....if u are really unlucky so meanwhile set up a q tank lor

alfa: go grab your chevron

hehe...no problem but seriously i have great doubts with the manufacturer's numbers that with the same pump required, the height difference of 4 inches can result in max tank rating increase from 275gallons to 500 gallons and like i have said earlier...so much for max tank ratings of 275 gallons or 500 gallons... wat kinda 500 gallons are they talking about? a 500gallon tank of nice sps and some fishes or a 500 gallon tank of adult size angels and tangs? ratings, are useful as a guideline, but they dun really seem to matter alot to me now... i will buy a skimmer to the maximum that i am willing to pay and to the maximum dimensions that i am able to place in the sump or beside the tank.

bro, if i do not read wrongly, i think the 848 is rated for tanks from 200 to 2000 gallons... the 1500gph is the pump required for use with 848.. take 820 and 824, both use 1000gph pumps.. but because 820 chamber is 20inches high and 824 is 24inches high, this additional socalled 4inches is the difference between 820 and 824 the 820 tank rating of 50-275gallons and the 824 tank rating of 50-500gallons with the same pump required, the height difference of 4 inches resulted in max tank rating increase from 275gallons to 500 gallons...wow...wat a difference... well, to me...all these are just candy numbers...

what worm is this?

anyway, i am someone who uses both methodologies of skimming in my system. my aquaC of high thoroughput and my H&S of low thoroughput thus, i dun really tend to lean on any side of the methods, coz both work well for me, and i respect both schools of methods

ok..noted

bro ianj, no offense , but then i think you will be placing too much faith on the manufacturer... eg. it is known that the prowess of japanese cars tend to be overrated in comparison to their european counterparts... very rough example..a honda supercar is rated up to 400km/hr vs a mecedes mclaren supercar that is rated up to 400km/hr as well... but u dunno under what testing conditions both cars achieved their ratings of 400km/hr....maybe honda supercar can only reach that rating with wind blowing behind the car whereas the mclaren can reach that rating no matter wat conditions? as such....ratings from individual manufacturers are to be taken as guideline but not rule but both cars did manage to reach 400km/hr and both are not wrong in their ratings each manufacturer will rate their cars/skimmers in different conditions, in their own labs..and it's the different conditions that will affect the manufacturer's ratings in comparison to another rough example, skimmer A uses a reef tank 1000L to rate and it did skim very well under various testings and they label their skimmer as rated up to 1000L skimmer B uses another reef tank 1000L to rate and it also did skim very well under various testings and they label their skimmer as rated up to 1000L. but question is...are the both 1000L tanks totally identical? that's why u cannot sue skimmer A or B if they fail to skim well in your 1000L tank....because they also have proof that their skimmers have indeed skimmed very very well in their 1000L tank if, all manufacturers send their products to a central standards board for testing, then all ambiguity about ratings will be elminated, using the same 1000L tank conditions. but reality is that this is seldom or cannot be done, and thus, the manufacturers rating is a guideline, but not a rule no matter how reputable a car manufacturer or skimmer manufactuer is, it would be blind faith if we trust their ratings to a tee

ianj: i get your point also.. that's why we must be careful not to intentionally weaken the beckett capabilities by using a small size pump... eg...if use a 50W pump to drive a beckett and 50W pump to drive a needlewheel, i think the beckett is at a disadvantage and this is something we should avoid.. we should let beckett have the best conditions for operation.. if you use a very good pressure rated pump to drive a beckett to let it work at near potential, then get use a needlewheel skimmer of a few pumps to match the wattage... each working at their potential levels...we dun intentionally cripple one to aid the other... but robe's perspective is also very correct, the last man standing is also a good method... i just thought of including this wattage test since there will be a congregation of skimmers to play with

i also agree and get what you mean bro robe... your side of the test will determine which skimmer is better for their socalled advertised equivalent rating levels... we will be able to find out from your test, which skimmer is indeed better and which skimmer is grossly over-rated by the manufacturers at equivalent tank rating levels but for my preference of wattage comparison testing, even their socalled called rating levels is a factor that has been eliminated from the experiment automatically... just which technology works best at the same watts, watever non-scientific marketing numbers of tank rating levels get thrown out..

so when manufacturers rate their skimmers, it's already hard for them to know under what loading conditions customers will use the skimmers, add the likely unfortunate factor that they may over-rate rather than under-rate their skimmers to convince us that their TEENY WEENY skimmers can do more than they actually can... so u end up with skimmer usage ratings that can go grossly out of whack... but wattage consumption is something they cannot mask... wat pumps is used, wat wattage is consumed. as simple as that

but then using tank ratings is not very good also (in my opinion, totally not scientific at all), even if we compare 2 skimmers that are supposedly rated for the same capacity tank, it can turn out that the manufacturers themselve do not rate the skimmers correctly... and this is something we cannot blame the manufacturers... when a skimmer is said to be rated for 1000L, 1000L of wat condition? 1000L under a lightly loaded reef? or 1000L under heavily loaded reef? as such, it is just a arbitary number that the manufacturers throw at us to help us choose a skimmer.... at least deltecs take it one further step by saying...this skimmer model.. ... rated for heavy stocking up to 1000L yet the same skimmer rated for normal stocking is up to 2000L.. (numbers are not correct...u can check the deltec website) even so, how heavy is heavy stocking? how normal is normal stocking? thus, personally i feel that watt for watt comparison of different technologies can present another, if not more useful comparison of skimmers... no ambiguity of tank rating levels...just simple wattage consumption otherwise, tomorrow i come out with roidan rocket skimmers... 12 ft high chamber, 3 ft diameter chamber, running with a few 1000W pumps...yet i advertise as ..rated for 1000L tank... get the picture?

er...thank you also most of the time i am just *farting* around... pooot pooot just trying to defuse a potential explosive thread

my general take is that... while becketts have a high thoroughput, they are less thorough in cleaning the water at each pass....whereas the needlewheels have a lower thoroughput in comparison but are more thorough in their processing at each pass... meaning...lets say 10units of water flow thru the beckett skimmer, the same 10 units flow out very quickly with 8 units of water still dirty and 2 units cleaned..and the next batch of 10units drawn into the skimmer will arrive quickly to be cleaned again the needlwheel skimmer has 10 units of water flow thru, has 5 units of water cleaned and 5 units of water dirty leaving the skimmer... but the next batch of 10 units of water will arrive slower than the beckett all the numbers are just arbitary...just to help some to visualise better... hehe.. oh..i am farting again

can also put in a wattage challenge section... means using skimmers of same wattage consumption to see, watt for watt, which skimmer is better eg..single beckett using an iwaki pump vs needlewheel skimmer using a few needlewheel pumps get the wattage of the iwaki pump = total wattage combined of the few needlewheel pumps... see which one is better

definitely not.. have lavender purple ones as well as green ones or more... u can see them around in some reefers sps tanks wat..hehe i think deepblue has lavender/purple ones as well as green ones

max, dun start mud slinging lah anyway, back to topic,, i am not siding maxima here, but he is one reefer who has strong opinions on what he deems as good products... expensive never mind, but must be effective, he cannot stand the sight of reefers spending even a single dollar on useless products...haha i guess some of us here are thinking that now he is tied with ean, such opinions from him are biased towards his objectives... but, please also remember that long before the tieup, all along he has been a strong supporter of rowaphos as well as deltec products...remember the bulk order of rowaphos he initiated that sadly din go through? as well as his contribution of knowledge on deltec fluidised CRs? he feels that these products are worth standing up for and now that he is in a position to bring in such premium products for us, we should appreciate the introduction. otherwise, we will not be able to see deltecs here....other than our individual orders directly from internet or handbring in ourselves we are a small community and do not have the critical mass to support a wide range of brand names, more so for the premium brands.... so while we appreciate the ongoing intellectual debate, we should appreciate that premium products like deltecs are soon coming to our shores

anyway, whether rowa or contaphos concentrate, both are premium products and are both very effective in removing phosphate even though i do not have quantitative lab reports.... on visual sight, both seem to be the same material of bituminous coal, of coz actual chemical composition may be different....that i dunno... but definitely this physical similarity has tied them closely together in terms of performance and sets them apart from other phosphate media that looks vastly different...they are in a league of their own compared to other products but of coz...rowa is supposedly more widely known and popular...a search in the internet of the word rowaphos brings up many many times more links than contraphos... my personal opinion, both are equally good and even if there are minute performance differences between the 2, i think the price difference will be more important factor in purchasing decision... let the price wars begin

yeah i agree... best to vary a few types of food....they still gobble at the pellets i throw in... so i guess they can get iodine and wat not from the pellets... the veges are just like chewing gum for them...anytime they need a good chew, they can head for the clips yeah..but the rate they devour the ulva is much faster than the ulva grows in my sump....thus i tried to use terrestrial veges...and they also chomp down the veges.... so i just feed them ulva sparingly lor...

tonight our boss abit yeah....anyway, talking about vege clips, are there any side effects with long term feeding of tangs with terrestrial vegetables? other than washing them thoroughly to remove pesticides, any nutritional disadvantages?