Is a Seaclone Skimmer basically Useless??

Great input Scott, thank you...

The whole idea of why i do threads like this is for people who are concidering buying one, or who have one and want some facts about it, rather than the odd comment here and there through the marine forums...They can then see all discussions about it in one thread an dthey can then make an informed decision on what to do...

Thanks to all so far...Lets keep this constructive and we can fill this thread with some great experiences and valuable information..

Niko
 
Well, I think to illustrate Niko's point further is that fact that a LARGE amount of people aren't running skimmers, most of whom are using smaller tanks.

I, for example, don't use a skimmer and EVERYTHING in my tank has grown noticeably in the several months I've had it set up.

But, if you don't use a skimmer, it's VERY important to keep up on a tight water change schedule. I do roughly 17% water changes weekly on my tank, which is approx. a 5 gallon bucket.

But, that's neither here nor there...that's just your experience vs. mine. :)

Anyway, back on the topic, I have a seaclone, and I've found it to be worthless, if not useless.

For me, it was a constant source of aggravation. It was noisy, it would leak if bumped and it was tough to get it to produce skimmate at all without spooging all over my floor.

I'd rather just do the water changes.
 
I had one on my tank at 1st and I grew tired of adjusting it daily. It was producing about a 1/4 cup of brown skimmate a day after replacing the stock air valve for a brass one. I ended up replacing the Seaclone with an AquaC Remora and converted it into a biofilter (packed it with nano bioballs) and put it on my cichlid tank instead.
 
archer772 said:
Good Point!! The only thing that I know is that most people that go skimmerless with good luck are those that have very large fuges as in being equal to there display tanks with very large amounts and different types of macro's and they tend to do very frequent and larger WC's as in weekly where most of the people that I know do WC's once every 3-6 weeks. Skimmerless tanks that I have seen tend to run a very light bio load also. This is a good thread and I hope we can get some more people getting involved as I am always open to new ideas and thoughts.
Thanks
Scott
Click to expand...

I went skimmer less on my 55 and it's doing really well no nitrates or nitrites. I do a water change once a month, I have very little algae growth, my sump holds about 15 to 20 gals.
 
Very good points by all. Most of the reefers that I know around here in MI are running 90 gallon up to 300 gallon tanks plus there sumps and fuges and they are keeping mainly LPS and SPS corals and that is where I am getting some of my info from and making my choices from because if it works on SPS tanks then I know it will work for me. I am not trying to say that nobody on here is running SPS tanks skimmerlless or only running small tanks I just know what people around here are running and what works for them.
 
Heres a pic of my old Seaclone skimmer (sorry for poor image quality) and my new Deltec skimmer. Pretty evident on the skimmate production difference between the 2 skimmers. The Deltec collection cup is about twice the size of Seaclone.

SeaClone
Seaclone.jpg



Deltec
Deltec.jpg
 
Is it always a case of "the more the better" then? If so, why....

What still has not surfaced here is any documented evidence of what ammount of skimmate is "required" to be removed from a marine aquarium. Taking the two photo's above, who is to say that the ammount of skimmate that the Seaclone has removed, compared to the Deltec, makes the Seaclone useless? Simple answer is, no-one so far....

When comparing skimmate removal to a skimmerless tank, where no proteins are removed, is the amount removed from the Seaclone proof that it simply does do a job? Does it remove protiens from the water? Yes, it does remove skimmate, which effectivly removes from the discussion the word useless or worthless.

I would also like people to comment on a statement made earlier that a "useless" skimmer can effectivly do damage to corals.. I.E Stunt their growth or even kill off corals; when we have tanks, that do not have large sumps actually have corals that thrive in their enviroment. Tananator is my evidence presented here as his system is a superb example of a relativly small ( 55gal ) skimmerless system that is thriving and the following tank, via the link of another..

http://www.aquariacentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=105390 - Noskimmer's system...

So..the debate moves forward...ohhhhh...i love a good debate..

Niko
 
Last edited:
From what I see, Seaclone skimmer is not totally useless, just that its efficiency in removing protein from the water is not that fantastic. Tanks that thrive without skimmer can be due to a few reasons. They have a large enough fuge to support the tank itself or maybe the owner performs frequent water changes, thus exporting the excess nutrients from the tank.
 
Yes Niko, a great debate always be helpful to those who wishes to attempt many different things within their aquarium system for like to use a skimmer or not to have one. Like there be no two tanks here of the same unless those tanks or of the same person for which we all do most of the same things for our tanks, but yet our maintenance schedule are never the same in comparison to our live stock and feeding methods.

I'm taking a break from looking for other skimmer choices for the new QT>

As also there be many, Although they would never admit this that a good number of beginners or novice hobbyists do lack in the water changes. We all at one time had done this and I when I was a young kid had done this as well. The responsibility of maintaining a reef aquarium is forever taking care of it as if a baby. I don't mean that you have too stand there and wet nurse the tank but rather you need to check things out that the system is running great for if not, the cost could be costly depending on what situation it be.
Smaller tanks as a 55 or smaller can be managed without any skimmer, but I wouldn't suggest any beginner in trying to attempt this, for they a lot to learn first before trying something as going skimless.

But on the seaclone skimmers, these skimmers are really for smaller tanks such as 55 or less and not any larger then a 65 gal tank. Myself I would never use one and least of all, I not use this skimmer with corals. Short term in this skimmer effectiveness can be misleading to the hobbyist for the person years ago who have two of these skimmer on a 90 gal tank first had only one and added the second seaclone after only a few months.

But then this person had a problem in over stocking and feeding, so time had worked against him in reducing his tanks nitrate levels. After he changed to a sump and a ASM I think it was and about six months before I moved from NY, I had helped him in lowering the nitrates to 80 PPM and before it was way off the chart.

Its like that time when the LR in one the eel tanks had moved and caused a dead zone, after time this caused LR to die and this causes the nitrate to go up a little and a consent Ph drop. The tanks nitrate level only gone up to 20 PPM and before the problem it was at untraceable levels. It took me 2 weeks to correct this and every day I had to buffer the Ph to keep it stable.

So in a home aquarium, one could encounter almost any type of problem and a beginner who be just learning the basics can never have no idea in the things that can go very wrong. Just like for myself when into the middle of next year, I should be in to or ready for SPS corals and here im much more too learn as yet for some people say its no different from having soft corals to where as most will say it far different.

But as we all know, there is always a point of view to debate on and that is because not all have the very same level of success and knowledge>

Buddy
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
AquariaCentral.com
Top Bottom