Mega Powerful Nitrate and Phosphate Remover - DIY!

[Vlamingi_cont]

Succeses of the Week:

small_ranchu on the MFK site: "Here is the progress on my goldfish tank. 90 gallon tank with 3 goldfish + heavy feeding. Nitrate reading at the end of the week is usually around 40 PPM with a lot of brown algae on the wall. After 1 month of installing the Scrubber filter, Nitrate reading is 10 PPM and brown algae is disappearing slowly."

argi on the MD site: "I set up my scrubber on my 54 gallon tank a few weeks after its initial set up (it has been running for around 3 months now). One thing I have noticed on this tank compared to all my past tanks is the lack of algae growing on the glass. In the past I always left a magnet cleaner in the tank because I would have to scrub the brown diatom algae off the glass at least once per week. Now with this current tank I haven't had to clean off the glass nearly as often. While I still clean it, usually weekly to every other week, I can still see in the tank after 2 weeks!!! So far I am very happy with the results."

johnt on the UR site: "after 10 weeks of running a screen I can say it's the best method I've used, it also takes out metals and other nasties, and I've not even reached the turf algae stage yet. In the 10 weeks it's been running I've not run any reactors or the skimmer (I'm saving a small fortune not having to buy phosphate remover). I'm still running the refugium, Chaeto and deep sand bed, all corals are doing exceptionaly well, N&P are remaining low and rocks are looking better by the day."

Elliott on RC: "I built one about 5 wks ago and so far it seems to be working well. My cyano has diminished and there is less cleaning to do on the glass."

Mtroboer on the MASA site: "my algae is already visibly starting to disappear after only 1 1/2 weeks! Also added a PC Server fan in front of the screen and dropped my temps from 29.8 avg to 25.8 avg, saved me from buying a energy hungry chiller! First time in little more than a year I got to see results regarding getting rid of nuisance algae as well as dropping my high tempratures!"

Keifer1122 on the RS site: "Aquapod 12 gallon update: Its been couple days short of a month, and still no water change, my N & P have been at zero for 3 weeks now. everything is still growing just daily dosing, daily 2-3 feeding times a day, and weekly scrubbing"

bigtanner on RC: "I built this little one for about $65, pump, light, and all plumbing needed. Some people frown on these things and some people praise them. It's about like anything else really. I have had success with mine. Since building it and hooking it up, my tank is basically algae free. I also went from running my magnet daily to only running it every three to four days. [...] I never have any bad algae in my tank, my water is always crystal clear, and since adding it, I run my magnet a lot less than I used to.

corinna on the AC site: "I started out as a sceptic, but after spending a fortune on phosphate absorbers, carbon, sponges, water changes etc, Im convinced. Two months in, ive not done a water change or cleaned the glass, just to see what happened. Zooanthids are reproducing, seahorses are fat and active, values are reading zeroes. Scallops are happy. Plus I feed a lot."

Can i design this for my Red Sea Max??

[dfstan]

decided to re-do my refugium incorporating the algae scrubber. will post once done.

[SantaMonica]

A Red Sea Max will be tough, without un-Maxing it. I think the easiest is to build an external sumpless version:

We are working on the design of an easy-to-attach nano version that could easily be made by a manufacturer, but until someone makes one, it's build-your-own.

[Vlamingi_cont]

A Red Sea Max will be tough, without un-Maxing it. I think the easiest is to build an external sumpless version:

We are working on the design of an easy-to-attach nano version that could easily be made by a manufacturer, but until someone makes one, it's build-your-own.

Am too lazy to DIY Will hope someone makes it and i'll be buying one...

[SantaMonica]

Look in the Builder Directory... one of them can build it for you...

http://www.algaescrubber.net/forums/viewto...hp?f=9&t=25

[SantaMonica]

Well after three months of testing color temps, I've determined that 3000K out performs 6500K. It's not a huge difference, but enough to notice. At first they are about equal, but as the green hair gets over an inch thick, the 3000K continues getting thicker until it hits the acrylic wall (at 1.5"), whereas the 6500 stalls and rarely grows enough to reach the wall. So I'm ordering all T5HO 3000K replacement bulbs.

[Vlamingi_cont]

Look in the Builder Directory... one of them can build it for you...

http://www.algaescrubber.net/forums/viewto...hp?f=9&t=25

Will try my luck...

[SantaMonica]

.

The Santa Monica Light-Screen

After much thought about design (but no ability to build), here is my version of a G3 scrubber:

A light-screen is a scrubber where the screen IS the light, and the light IS the screen. This changes the game when it come to scrubber performance in a small size. Unfortunately, you can't DIY these, unless you happen to be both a plastics engineer and an electronics engineer. However I thought that if I posted these, they may spark some ideas for regular scrubbers, or, someone may work for a manufacturer who can actually build them. I'll be the first to buy one.

As a reminder, G1 scrubbers are DIY sumps/buckets, while G2 scrubbers are enclosed acrylic boxes. G3 scrubbers have luminescent screens, whether they be LEDs, fiber optics, or lasers. My design is LEDs; so compared to buckets or acrylics, these plastic-covered LED light screens:

o Are ultra small/thin.

o Have no algae die-off (see drawing below).

o Are practically unbreakable.

o Are electrically safe (12 volts or less).

o Can be made as small as desired for nano's.

o Can easily be built into the hood of a nano.

o Are double-sided with almost no increase in size.

Disadvantages:

o They will be expensive (equivalent to good skimmers).

o They are impossible to DIY

Here is my version of a nano scrubber:

Same concept, just smaller, and replaces the skimmer, mechanical filter, and other filtering "devices" in pre-fab nano's like Aquapods, Red Sea Max's, etc. Would actually make nano's less expensive, better filtered, more compact, and more reliable.

.

.

[johntanjm]

smart design but i think its gonna cause alot of heat to get trapped in that water tight LED screen.

[SantaMonica]

That's one of the design problems. One idea is to have heat sinks extend to the water surface. Or, have a heat-conductive layer on the PCB, below the clear resin layer.

[iceman]

Some update on the algae scrubber.

Pic taken 1 week after installation.(15Dec08). Not much growth yet, but looking good.

[iceman]

But after 4 days (19Dec08). have clean up one side of the screen, will clean up the other side next week.

Front.

Back

Close up

[SantaMonica]

Very good... you'll see much more growth this next week, now that the algae has attached.

[SantaMonica]

Update: CFL Bulb Lifetime

One of the CFL bucket scrubbers that I was testing began growing less and less algae, starting when it was about three months old. After five months, most growth had stopped. I did not think it could be the CFL bulbs because they looked fine, and they are supposed to last for years. But apparently this does not apply to algae growth, because after replacing the bulbs with new ones, growth immediately started again. These bulbs are cheap, so maybe a three-month replacement schedule should be followed.

[SantaMonica]

Several folks commented that they liked the hand-built nano-scrubber that Nitschke65 on the SWF site built for his Aquapod-type tank:

It looks bought-off-the-shelf. And several folks have asked how to put a scrubber on their own nano's, without resorting to building an external one. Problem is, of course, that Aquapod-type nano's are the most difficult to fit things into. So until someone manufactures some type of nano-scrubber like Nitschke65 built (G3 or otherwise), Nitschke has said that's he'll make custom scrubbers for other folk's nano's:

"I won't be able to get to work on any of them until mid January, but it's fine with me if you'd like to recommend me. My wife and I are gettting to leave on our 10th anniversary trip to London, so things around here have been pretty hectic. I'll be happy to make the trays and screens, and leave people to come up with their own lighting." He is in Wisconsin, USA.

So you can contact him if you are on that site, or PM me and I'll get it to him. I guess this will be his present to everyone

[SantaMonica]

Update Of The Day: Cleanings/Scrapings

Cleanings are when you take the screen to the sink and run tap water over it as you use your fingers (not fingernails) to remove the loose stuff and wash it off. It is done everyweek, no matter what, even if you think your screen needs to "grow more first". On brand new screens, this stuff is usually a light brown slime, but it can be green slime, green hair, or even black tar-looking stuff. It's important, especially on the first cleaning, to leave some algae on the screen so it can grow back easily. It's also important to only clean ONE side per week (or one-half, if it's a one-sided screen). Cleaning it under running tap water kills the pods that will start to eat the algae (don't worry, there will be thousands more the next day).

Scrapings are sometimes needed later on, after your screen has grown a few months. You'll know if scrapings are needed: You'll try using your fingers, or even fingernails, but nothing will come off. Scraping is only needed every month or so, and of course on ONE side only (or one-half, if it's a one-sided screen). I use a razor blade to scrape, but any straight sharp metal object will work. Go back and forth with the scraper until the algae is removed all the way down to the screen. You shouldn't have to worry about leaving algae on the screen; this type of algae is tough enough that there will surely be some left. You may never need to scrape, however, which is fine. But even if you do need to scrape monthly, you'll still need to clean weekly.

Here is a video showing a cleaning and a scraping:

YouTube:

Hi-res:

Part 1: http://www.radio-media.com/fish/Scraping1.mpg

Part 2: http://www.radio-media.com/fish/Scraping2.mpg

Part 2: http://www.radio-media.com/fish/Scraping3.mpg

Part 3: http://www.radio-media.com/fish/Scraping4.mpg

[SantaMonica]

Madeley on the scrubber site has come up with a great plan for an in-sump dual-screen scrubber, that could either be manufactured from plastic, or (if you simplify it) made out of acrylic. So for you technically adept folks, here's his drawing, with my arrows and words added:

His drawing is similar to Dohn's on the MASA site:

http://www.radio-media.com/fish/UserDohnOnMASA-2.jpg

...but simpler (Dohn's I believe was for HOB, so it's understandably more complex).

Operation: Madeley has it so it can be placed in a sump front-to-back (sump being sideways), and it will set on the rim; lights in the middle, screens on both sides through the slots in the horizontal water tray, and water fed in from the hole on the end which would thus be positioned at the back or front of the sump. If it's for a sump 12" front-to-back, then the lower section is probably 11" across, which makes the screen about 10" across. So if the screen is 10" tall, then it's 100 square inches, and lit on one side, which is good for a 50 gal tank per screen, or 100 gal tank total. Each 10" wide screen needs 10 X 35 = 350 gph flow, for a total of 700 gph. Lighting could either be two CFL's hung down the middle, or some type of two-sided T5HO (just think how powerful a row of ten 12" T5's would be. This could be an optional feature.)

To mold/manufacture out of plastic, here's what I'd change:

1. Water input-hole: Many sumps I've seen won't have room to route a tube/pipe along the back side of their sumps (in order to connect to that hole), and they'd prefer to not route it in from the front. I'd suggest a side or top connection.

2. The incoming 700 gph water, the way is is laid out, is going to be too strong when it hits that center piece. I'd use two separate holes, and let the user divide the water himself with a "Y" before the input. Also, if you make the two water pathways totally isolated, and if the user puts a valve on each water input, then he can keep the pump running on one screen while he turns off and cleans the other. This is a safety factor because some people forget to turn their pumps back on, and/or, they are feeding the scrubber from the overflow. Also, there would be a perceived advantage because "it never stops filtering, even when I'm cleaning it".

3. Screen slots: If the screen inserts through the water tray from the top, then how do you get it out when it's full? You can't pull it up through the slot when it's full. And if the screen inserts from the bottom, how do you push it up and get it through the slot when the screen is flexible?. What you could do is make the water tray removeable, so it just sets down in there. This way, the tray would lift up and bring the screen with it (would also make cleaning, and manufacturing, easier.) And, you'd want the tray to be in two pieces so you can remove one without needing to remove the other. This would work great with isolated water pathways.

4. Overflowing tray: If something real or imaginary blocks the water from going down the slot, the user needs to know that the water will simply overflow into the sump. This is easily done by lowering the outer walls a half inch or so, in the middle section, so water would spill over the edge.

5. Top heavy: With water in the top tray, and two hoses connected, and lights attached, the cener of gravity is going to be very high, and the unit could tip over. While you could fix this by making the unit sit lower into the sump, this would reduce screen area since more of the screen would be under water. A solution might be to attach weights (rock?) to the bottom.

6. Adjustable height: Due to the top-heavy problem, and the unknown height of water in the user's sump, and also due to manufacturing difficulties, it might be easier to eliminate the ledge (that sits on the sump's rim) entirely, and replace it with an adjustable "lip" or "tab". This adjustable piece would be on both ends, and could be moved up or down so that the screen's bottom could be positioned just at the water's surface. If top-heavy, the unit could be lowered (albeit putting the screen into the water.)

An alternate solution to the height issue is to have no lip at all (permanent or adjustable), and instead use some type of legs that go down to the bottom of the sump. This would make the top part of the unit smaller (does not need to set on sump rim), but would not reduce the lighting or screen areas. For balance in top-heavy situations, the legs could be weighted (they could be weights themselves), or they could extend out at an angle like a tripod.

To have it built from acrylic instead (by hand), here's what I'd change:

The above points still apply (water input on top or side, dual inputs, separate water pathways, removeable water trays, lowered-wall to handle overflow). The issue with acrylic is to use as many long straight pieces as possible, and to avoid any internal cross sections. This pretty much eliminates the lip that would sit on the sump's rim, so something would have to hold the unit up; either an adjustable lip on the sides, or legs on the bottom. An easy solution might be to just extend the outer sheets of acrylic (the ones parallel to the screen) all the way to the bottom, and just have slots in them (like vertical window blinds) for water to get through. If made for anyone other than yourself (in which case you would not know the height needed), the user could just cut off the excess acrylic in order to set the height properly.

The acrylic design is very simple; just four vertical acrylic sheets (same size), with two end pieces, a drop-in water tray on both sides, and a water hole on both sides.

.

[johntanjm]

should provide for a overflow failsafe at the other end of the tray otherwise this design is great.

reporting on water parameters:

NO3 is 12.5 according to Tetra test kits. Not perfect but considering i use no FR and no skimmer, have 10 fish and feed 5 times a day, it's pretty good I must say.

[SantaMonica]

Good readings, yes.

Overflow: That was what I meant in point #4.

[Creetin]

how does this compare with a chaeto setup? i mean that is also algae nutrient export?

[SantaMonica]

Scrubbers are different from a fuge in so many ways:

o With a scrubber, there is very little water standing in the way of the light. Also, the light is (or should be) very close to the scrubber... 4 inches (10cm) or less. The power of light varies with the square of the distance, so going from 8" to 4" actually gives you 4X the power, not 2X. And the nutrient removal power of algae and macro is proportional to the power of the light, because it's the photosynthesis that is doing the processing.

o Rapid flow across the algae give more delivery of nutrients, compared to the slow moving water in a fuge.

o The turbulence of water moving over the sections of algae help remove the boundary layer of water around the algae. This boundary layer slows the transfer of metabolites in and out of the algae. There is no turbulence in a fuge (if there were, you'd have bubbles).

o Pulsed Flow: The option of being able to pulse the flow on/off/on (and use a fan) REALLY helps get rid of the boundary layer of water, and also helps kill the slime that tends to cover up real turf (although green hair and brown slime still do lots of filtering). This is how turf algae grows on the beach, with wind and waves.

o Surface Area: When you clean/scrape a scrubber screen, the surface area is not reduced like it is when you harvest macros.

o Traps no waste/food like a refugium or DSB does; waste/food flows right past the screen.

o Does not release strands into display, like chaeto.

o Does not go sexual, like caulerpa can.

o Is 1/10 to 1/4 the physical size, for the same processing power.

o Weighs nothing (holds no water), so it can be placed on regular furniture.

o Cools the water. And if a fan is used, it REALLY cools the water.

o Does not ever produce hydrogen sulfide (rotten eggs), like DSBs or denitrators can.

o Can be set on top of the tank, so pods drain right into tank.

o Is free (you build it).

o Is portable.

o Can run two or three, for backup or extra filtering, in the same space as one fuge.

o Will oxygenate the tank if main return pump goes out (if the scrubber drains into the display.)

[Creetin]

i guess the selling point is the power of this thing. seems way better than a chaeto setup...

i guess i could diy one. planning to pipe it efficiently with a slotted pipe and a mesh screen on a black arcylic screen.

however i wouldnt want the algae floating into my return so i will build a cotton base to catch any stuff that falls off...

[SantaMonica]

I would not do a cotton filter. First, nothing should fall off the screen (it grows and attaches to the screen), and second, any thing (food, algae, waste) that does float around, you actually do want going into your tank so the corals and fish can eat it, instead of it rotting in the cotton and only releasing nitrates.

[Creetin]

heres my design. i realise both pipes can be piped to the same wool box. i wan this to be efficient so running it on the return, it will do just that. for cleaning, becos its on e wool box, i can just use a toothbrush to brush off the algae into the wool for collection.

[Creetin]

I would not do a cotton filter. First, nothing should fall off the screen (it grows and attaches to the screen), and second, any thing (food, algae, waste) that does float around, you actually do want going into your tank so the corals and fish can eat it, instead of it rotting in the cotton and only releasing nitrates.

ok going woolless is a new idea to me...will give it a tot. i just dont like the idea of stuff running into my return and fouling the pump.

wonder any guys here in SG found a good nice bulb 3000-6500k thats like a clip on spot light? those are easier to project i guess...?