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

Ya, gotta work with what you have.. right? ;) I have to use the lights the way they are due to my setup.. but it is working great with 3 higher wattage bulbs.. the pic doesn't show how bright it really is, but I am now close to having to clean the screens 2x a week they are growing so much.

I am in the process of getting a "Santa Monica 100" scrubber made though from your plans.. It came out to just shy of $100 for materials and to have it cut locally via a water jet. I just have to assemble it once it is all cut. I already have the exact lights needed for the setup so that will save me $160+ right there.
 
Just wanted to post a pic to show how close the lights are to the screen. Your FAQ said no more than 4", this is less than that from the top of the screen and high wattage, which I know means not much light at the bottom, but I am running 2 10"x6" double layered screens with 700gph flow over them. I know I won't get good "full" coverage of algae with my test setup though. I agree with you 100% that I could use less wattage bulbs if I placed them better like you suggested. This was just my first trial run of an ATS to see how well it would work.. and while it wasn't the most effecient setup I admit, it did teach me a few things I didn't know.. like how bad of an idea it is to incorporate an ATS into your sump the way I did... between week 2-3 I got that nasty slime algae. I was expecting it from the reading I have done... but what I wasn't expecting was for that slime algae to get all over my sump, rocks, powerhead, tubing, etc. Luckily it all stayed in the sump and didn't make it to the tank. I should have known putting that much light over my sump wasn't the smartest idea... so now I am having one of your sweet looking scrubbers made for me. :cheers:

4832529706_30a2bfa339.jpg
 
I'm adding twice the light this week to see if there are any changes. after last weeks large amount of turf being pulled off on sunday I'm not getting much growth at all this week.
My corals just got out of QT so I took those two lights I was using on that and added one to each side of the screen this afternoon. Well see what happens by Sunday at cleaning time I guess
 
Well I thought it couldn't grow any more in two weeks, but this time it reached the top of the window and was getting ready to spill out the end. My other scrubber was not very grown yet, so I did not want to clean this one today, but I thought I better before it spills. Tests today were N02=0, NO3=2, P=.015? (very faint blue). Feeding is one silverside per week to the eel, 4.8 ml/day continuous feeding of Oysterfeast for the corals (very low amount, currently), and misc nori/daphnia for the fish. Pics:


100-flow-slant.jpg


100-growth-to-top.jpg


100-growth-to-top-2.jpg


100-growth-on-plate.jpg


100-growth-in-cup.jpg



Video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJxzeAgOS_M
.
.
 
Finally getting the 25 nano scrubber to have consistant results. Am testing one side of it here, on a FW 10 gal with some tetras, catfish, suckerfish, and a discus. 0, 0, 0, when feeding one frozen cube blood worms a day. No water changes, and top off with tap water (no chlorine remover added)...

25testing1.jpg


25testing2.jpg


25testing3.jpg
 
Some people try to use acrylic or plastic sheet. They will grow, but the problem is that when you clean it, everything comes off and you have to start growing from scratch again. This means you get three or four days of zero filtering. You can try drilling hundreds of small holes in the sheet, but it's easier to just find a screen.

Have you tried using acrylic or plastic lighting panels because they have a very rough side (in fact they're spiky)? You could possibly drill holes in there too.
 
The finer the facets, the better off it will be. Most of those lighting panels will be a bit too coarse. You want it to be very, very rough, but not just big notches or gashes, which do little to help. I liken a good screen/surface to coarse sand paper, except spiny.
 
Great Barrier Reef Aquarium

Many people who have not built a scrubber properly (after August 1988) often say how the Great Barrier Reef aquarium was a scrubber "failure" because the corals did poorly. Apparently these people have not done much reading. In the early days of that aquarium, the scrubber was doing it's job great:

1988:

Nutrient Cycling In The Great Barrier Reef Aquarium
http://www.reefbase.org/download/download.aspx?type=10&docid=10506

"The Reef Tank represents the first application of algal scrubber technology to large volume aquarium systems. Aquaria using conventional water purification methods (e.g. bacterial filters) generally have nutrient levels in parts per million, while algal scrubbers have maintained parts per billion concentrations [much lower], despite heavy biological loading in the Reef Tank. The success of the algal scrubbers in maintaining suitable water quality for a coral reef was demonstrated in the observed spawning of scleractinian corals and many other tank inhabitants."

But did you know that they did not add calcium? That's right, in 1988 they did not know that calcium needed to be added to a reef tank. Even five years after that, the Pittsburgh Zoo was just starting to test a "mesocosm" scrubber reef tank to see if calcium levels would drop:

1993:

An Introduction to the Biogeochemical Cycling of Calcium and Substitutive Strontium in Living Coral Reef Mesocosms
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/zoo.1430120505/abstract

"It was hypothesized that Ca2+ and the substitutive elements Sr2+ and Mg2+ might [!] have reduced concentrations in a coral reef microcosm due to continuous reuse of the same seawater as a consequence of the recycling process inherent in the coral reef mesocosm."

"The scleractinians (Montastrea, Madracis, Porites, Diploria, and Acropora) and calcareous alga (Halimeda and others) present in the coral reef mesocosm are the most likely organisms responsible for the significant reduction in concentration of the Ca2+ and Sr2+ cations."

"Ca is not normally a biolimiting element, and strontium is never a biolimiting element; HCO3 [alk] can be. It appears that, because of a minor [!] limitation in the design parameters of the mesocosm, these elements and compounds may have become limiting factors. [...] It is surprising that the organisms could deplete the thousands of gallons of seawater (three to six thousand) of these elements even within two or more years [!!].

"The calcification processes are little understood."

So then in the late 90's, the Barrier Reef aquarium start using up it's supply of calcium, and the folks there said "the corals grew poorly". Really. No calcium, and the corals grew poorly. So they "removed the scrubbers" and "experimented with the addition of calcium" sometime after 1998. Then in 2004 it "definitely improved a lot". Really.
 
AquariaCentral.com