Mega-Powerful Nitrate and Phosphate Remover Replaces Skimmer, Refugium, part 1-4

Up front cost come out to $145.50 plus shipping... so ya, I agree, it is still quite pricey when compared to CFL lights. I have all the parts needed just from over ordering parts for my main LED lights I made, so for me it is a no brainer to try out because I have the parts to do it already.

12x Cree Warm Whites = $60
Dimmable Driver = $34
Dimmer Kit (Potentiometer + Power Supply) = $13.50
2' of 1-1/2" Channel Aluminum = $18
2x Small Fans = $20

Grand Total = $145.50
 
I don't see why it would hurt to give it a try. With warm white leds and no optics, I don't really see, at least theoretically, why it wouldn't/couldn't work.
 
looking forward to the build ace.
 
Very good 2nd build. The wattage (100 real watts total) is decent, so it should grow some. Two things:

1. For a 265 gal, it would be a good idea to get up to 200 total watts. This is especially true since the edges of the screen are too far from the bulb, and will not contribute much to filtering. So later, if you decide to increase filtering, put another bulb on each side so that they are evenly spaced; this will put all parts of the screen within 4 inches of a bulb. You'll really need this for heavy feeding.

2. If you do (1) above, and you feed a lot, growth will get very thick. If the screen is smooth, and the flow is high, a chunk could let go and slow down the drain. So if you go the 200 watt route, I would drill a backup drain just before the water would hit the lights; this drain could then T into the first drain.

Overwise looks nice.
 
Thanks for the tips. After seeing it on, it did occur to me that a second set of lamps would be beneficial, but I had these on hand already so I just went with them. I'll see what kind of growth pattern I get on the screen. I was also thinking about putting in a second drain as a safety factor...thats actually why I went down to the mag 7 over the mag 9.5. The water was backing up 6-8" deep with the mag 9.5, although that was before I built the shelf for it too. Either way, not a bad idea.
 
Several updates:

1. Does anyone know of a diver, or can you post on a site with divers, who can take some pics and videos of reef water? What is needed is this: The diver takes a camera and a piece of black cloth/plastic/etc to a reef location; he holds the black sheet about 24 inches from the camera, and takes hi-res pics and video of the plankton floating between the camera and the sheet. Hi-res would be important because of the small particle sizes. Being near corals would be important because that's where the corals feed. And doing it at night would be a great plus, since that's when more plankton is out. Daytime will suffice, however. The purpose of this is to show that reefs really are packed with food particles, and are not "polished" the way reefers "think" they are.

2. Replace bulbs every 3 months, even when they look fine.

3. Clean pump in vinegar every 6 months, even if you think it runs fine.

4. "Turf" is not the goal; Green hair is the goal. It filters the best, because it lets light get to the roots, and it lets water flow throughout the strands. If you start getting real turf, remove it with a hacksaw blade:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d9fMdJRmYGM

5. Since the current scrubber recommendations are different from the original recommendations at the start of this thread, here is a new scrubber introduction which could replace post number one: http://www.radio-media.com/fish/AlgaeScrubbers.doc

6. The two most important quotes I've found so far:

"Where deep lagoons are formed, coral growth, especially of Acropora, can be prolific"

"Contrary to popular belief, species diversity is not at its highest on the scenically attractive reefs found in clear oceanic water. It reaches a peak for any given region on fringing reefs protected from strong wave action, where the water is slightly turbid."

-- Corals of the World, Vol 1 page 27

Why? Because it shows that there is more coral growth in lagoon areas than on reefs. How is this? Since lagoons have more algae, they have less nutrients, and more organics (food), than reef fronts (data easily found in reference studies). And that's what corals, especialy SPS, need to grow. Reef fronts (where mostly Acro's grow) actually have higher nutrients and lower organics (food) than lagoons. Why then are there mostly Acro's on reef fronts? Because Acro's don't break under wave action like other corals, and therefore Acro's have less competition (also taken from Corals of the World, Vol 1 page 27).

7. Do you like to research reefs and corals and nutrients etc? Start here:
http://www.reefbase.org/resource_center/publication/main.aspx
 
After over a year of testing, here is the first functional prototype of the Santa Monica 25 Nano scrubber, made pretty much from the plans that were posted here last year.


SM25-pipe1.jpg



SM25-pipe2.jpg



SM25-pipe3.jpg



SM25-pipe4.jpg



SM25-base1.jpg



SM25-base2.jpg



SM25-base3.jpg



SM25-base4.jpg



SM25-base5.jpg



SM25-base6.jpg



SM25-screen1.jpg



SM25-lid1.jpg



SM25-lid2.jpg



SM25-drain1.jpg



SM25-drain2.jpg



SM25-drain3.jpg



SM25-body1.jpg



SM25-body2.jpg



SM25-body3.jpg



SM25-body4.jpg



SM25-body5.jpg



SM25-body6.jpg



SM25-body7.jpg
 
AquariaCentral.com