Algae Scrubber Basics

[srusso]

Originally Posted by BluScrnOdeth

have you tried incandecent bulbs? or seen anyone try them? Algae grows better in the red light spectrum and incandescents do have a good amount of light in that area, thats why 2700k CFL's grow algae better than 6500k bulbs.

My screen must be a freak of nature then if i get the same results as floyd with a lot less wattage of light.

Its the heat incandescent bulbs create that becomes the problem, among others issues. Same reason metal halids aren't a great choice for algae scrubbers. Color is not the only important factor here... Its how close you can get the bulb to the screen without burning or "cooking" the algae. (Cooking being too much heat) (Burning being too much PAR)

The reason you want the bulb to be close is you what the filter to be as small as possible right? I think we all do...

Your screen is no freak, its just well balanced. Light, to Flow, to Growth Area...

[Floyd R Turbo]

Just to clarify, the wattage is actual fluorescent watts, no equivalent incandescent watts.

CFLs are more efficient than standard T8s & T5s, but not T5HO simply because T5HO spreads the light evenly across a larger area with a decent reflector and is by far the better lamp for scrubbing.

BSOD your screen may produce a lot of growth, but likely would not be able to handle a completely full bio-load and 30 cubes of food per day. A properly designed 300g scrubber would. But if your nutrient levels are low, then it's doing what you built it to do. Just be aware of the potential limitation.

[bucks448]

Originally Posted by BluScrnOdeth

0.5 actual (not equivalent) fluorescent watts per gallon MINIMUM [0.13 watts per liter].
1.0 actual (not equivalent) fluorescent watts per gallon for HIGH filtering [0.26 watts per liter].


thats for flourescent lgihting, not compac flourescnet lights. CFL's have a higher efficiency so they can produce more lumens per watt. Thats straight from Santamonicas website. It doesnt specify if thats supposed to be CFL or flourescent tubes. Considering that CFL's as stated above, i dont think that it requires as muchas you are throwing at them.

How far away are you putting your lights from your scrubber? I'm at close to 6" and finally havent gotten a burn patch yet.

I think the reason Santamonica referenced "actual (not equivalent)" is because this comparison is on every CFL bulb you buy where as I don't believe this comparison is made with T5 bulbs. Look at Floyd's summary post http://reefcentral.com/forums/showpo...postcount=1036

Originally Posted by BluScrnOdeth

http://www.nps.gov/grba/naturescienc...-reduction.htm

here is an instance where algae has grown because of incandescent lights in caves.

This is a little different than a scrubber. Which is why I said incandescents wouldn't work for a scrubber. However, they would make a scrubber grow algae, just not efficiently and can't be used as a guideline.

[BluScrnOdeth]

Originally Posted by Floyd R Turbo

Just to clarify, the wattage is actual fluorescent watts, no equivalent incandescent watts.

CFLs are more efficient than standard T8s & T5s, but not T5HO simply because T5HO spreads the light evenly across a larger area with a decent reflector and is by far the better lamp for scrubbing.

BSOD your screen may produce a lot of growth, but likely would not be able to handle a completely full bio-load and 30 cubes of food per day. A properly designed 300g scrubber would. But if your nutrient levels are low, then it's doing what you built it to do. Just be aware of the potential limitation.

I'm not sure how many cubes per day i feed my fish, but if you see my tank, i have quite a few fish in there, i posted the video, and have never had any issues over the past 6mo. Sometimes i feed twice a day, there is always food left over on the sandbed and i just leave it there for any other small critters i may have or snail that wants a treat. My levels have never risen. Maybe everything is so well balanced that the "lack" of light you all claim i have is sufficient. I think sometimes people overkill things personally.

I have built several scrubbers for people as well and they are doing very well also. So i guess "properly designed" is a loose term.

Not trying to argue or insult anyone, but maybe the reasoning for some people to need so much lighting on their scrubbers is because something else is out of wack??

I have built this design for almost 10 tanks, (i dont use the incandescent equivelant in my formula for a proper design) and test their water bi-weekly, all water tests remain 0 aside from ph of course.

However, I will be brancing into LEDs within the next couple months, because i feel that the cost of replacing bulbs and the wattage are cost probibative to be an efficient replacement to a skimmer.

[BluScrnOdeth]

Originally Posted by bucks448

I think the reason Santamonica referenced "actual (not equivalent)" is because this comparison is on every CFL bulb you buy where as I don't believe this comparison is made with T5 bulbs.

If you read through his facts, he mentions T5's several times.

Originally Posted by bucks448

This is a little different than a scrubber. Which is why I said incandescents wouldn't work for a scrubber. However, they would make a scrubber grow algae, just not efficiently and can't be used as a guideline.

Yeah, its a little different. It doesnt have 40gph of water rushing over a screen to grow it. It's in a cave with porous rock where its constantly cool and damp, warming the area around the bulb enough to allow algae to grow without scorching it.

I know that this thread is a guideline, and everyones design can vary, but i think theres more to understand to this. Feels like something is missing. It's the next thing I'm going to tackle as i think the guidelines are a bit subjective. I donno, I'm an engineer, so i look for those kinds of things.

I understand light, intensity, spectrum, the need for water flow, bioload, etc, all the conditions needed to be met to grow algae. Maybe its just the whole CFL vs T5 (since T5's dissipate the light better) that I'm missing.

Maybe it's like i mentioned 600 posts ago that the CFL's need a diffusion sheet to prevent burning and will spread the light better so that you can get them closer.

But i think i might skip the whole, try to make CFLs/T5s better and jump into LEDs because CFLs are more toxic, wate of money in the long run (since you have to replace them every 3 months), and consume more energy than LEDs. This should get interesting.

[Floyd R Turbo]

I will have to talk to Santa Monica and get your answer on this one. FYI he is an engineer and so am I, so I understand where you're coming from, wanting to know the answer. I know I read it somewhere along the line but can't recall at this point.

I believe what it basically comes down to is that (simplified) 1 photon breaks 1 molecule of N and 1 of P and forms one chlorophyll. That's the general idea. The more light the more scrubbing power.

The design guidelines are there so that your scrubber has maximum power available and can handle any situation. This include the kid dumping a whole jar of food in the tank, or a neighbor feeding 10 cubes when you told them one. It has unparallelled capacity for error. It can handle an absolutely huge bioload on it's own. Most people don't maximum stock their tank with fish and corals because their filtration can't handle it, so you have to shift your perspective.

Santa Monica's design is tested to handle just about anything you can throw at it. Literally, he was feeding 10 cubes a day, that is a ton of food. Now he does continuous feeding with liquid DIY coral food

I will check back with you in a few days as I'm just getting ready to test fill my 120 and then moved everything into it.

[BluScrnOdeth]

Originally Posted by Floyd R Turbo

I will have to talk to Santa Monica and get your answer on this one. FYI he is an engineer and so am I, so I understand where you're coming from, wanting to know the answer. I know I read it somewhere along the line but can't recall at this point.

I believe what it basically comes down to is that (simplified) 1 photon breaks 1 molecule of N and 1 of P and forms one chlorophyll. That's the general idea. The more light the more scrubbing power.

The design guidelines are there so that your scrubber has maximum power available and can handle any situation. This include the kid dumping a whole jar of food in the tank, or a neighbor feeding 10 cubes when you told them one. It has unparallelled capacity for error. It can handle an absolutely huge bioload on it's own. Most people don't maximum stock their tank with fish and corals because their filtration can't handle it, so you have to shift your perspective.

Santa Monica's design is tested to handle just about anything you can throw at it. Literally, he was feeding 10 cubes a day, that is a ton of food. Now he does continuous feeding with liquid DIY coral food

I will check back with you in a few days as I'm just getting ready to test fill my 120 and then moved everything into it.

Good luck with the move to the 120, i just did my 300 a couple weeks ago. Such a pain. But yeah, i see what you are saying. I make my own food so its a bit hard to say how many cubes i feed them as i just break off a chunk and come back in a few minutes to see if they are still hungry. But usually the piece is maybe 1/2" thick and i give them a block about 3-4"x5" slice. So roughly 10sq". Man, thats a lot of food now that i think about it... Some still hits the floor and I'll see it there the next day.


I have read the photon thing before, but reading it again makes me think of an idea to make this a bit mroe efficient. They make dimmable CFLs. What if you had some high power CFLs and on day one they could be at lets say 50% (since oyu just cleaned it, etc) then progress to 100% through the week and start over. A low powered andeuino or other microcontroller could handle that and the offset in energy could be more cost effective in the long run, esp for LEDs. Instead of bombarding the algae with photons that it cant consume. Basically try to balance or overshoot a little with a supply of photons.

[inky]

OK, quick question for some of those that know :

1W CFL light per gallon is quoted. What is the lumen per gallon?

I've build an LED scrubber and after research, am doing a little experiment. I have one side with red LEDs and the other with warm white (2700K). It's only been going 2 weeks, but both sides have similar growth. Screen is 10" by 7" with 6 LEDs on each side.

Ian

[bk_market]

I am having a lot of trouble setting up the algea scrubber.

First problem is the water I come out at an angle so so it doesnt spread and cover the whole screen which is 6"x9". I am attaching the picture here to show what im taling about. Water is show in blue.



Second the screen seem only have water mostly on one side and the other side is pretty dry on top of the slant water stream coming out from the pvc pipe.

Third problem is I have a lot of bubbles and it is right next to my return pump so it is killing my display tank.

Please advise.

[bucks448]

It sounds like it could be a few different things, one you're slot isn't wide enough, two your slot isn't straight, three the slot isn't at the very bottom of the slot tube (causing the screen to be bent at the top), or four you have too much flow. I'm willing to bet though, your slot isn't wide enough, it should be 1/8", but if you have way to much flow it could be like holding you thumb over the end of a garden hose.

Once you have the slot figured out, your flow will even out.

As for bubbles, you may have to work out a bubble trap to diffuse the bubbles before they reach your pump. However, once you have your slot tube figured out, this problem may disappear as well. Part of the trick to reduce bubbles is to reduce splashing. Make sure the a little of the bottom of your screen is submerged in the water of your sump to make sure the water from the scrubber enters the water of your sump smoothly.

[bk_market]

Thanx for the quick response. The slot I cut is at least 1/8" and it should be at the very bottom of the pipe though it is not straight at all so that might be the problem. I will cut a new one tomorrow.

[BluScrnOdeth]

Originally Posted by inky

OK, quick question for some of those that know :

1W CFL light per gallon is quoted. What is the lumen per gallon?

I've build an LED scrubber and after research, am doing a little experiment. I have one side with red LEDs and the other with warm white (2700K). It's only been going 2 weeks, but both sides have similar growth. Screen is 10" by 7" with 6 LEDs on each side.

Ian

you cant go by lumen per gallon if you are trying to compare LEDs to CFL's. Lumens are also not a good measurement because its a measurement based of the human eye. I think what you will want to know is the radiant flux more than lumens.

[Floyd R Turbo]

If you're trying LED I strongly suggest reading Rygh's thread on the algae scrubber site. Look under "Designs" then "Version 3 ATS : Vertical, LED, bigger"

Do not dim CFL. The power line drop off like crazy when you dim. You want full power, all the time. Bottom line. There is no benefit to less light, unless you already have too much light. The only time when dimming really matter is with LED, IMO, and that's because there is not enough real-world data to determine what the 'sweet spot' is, both in combination with color matching and intensity. Again, read Rygh's build thread(s). He has gone through several iterations of LED builds.

bk market: The problem you describe usually results from a crooked slot, so yes I would check your slot tube cut to make sure it is as perfectly straight as possible first, then check for even flow. Have you verified your flow rate?

Also, this problem is not the result of too much flow. With higher flow, the slot tube would fill up from the far end back to the beginning of the slot and since the slot is on the bottom of the tube, and gravity takes over. If your slot tube was straight you would not see that kind of distribution. However, with a brand new screen you will see a little of this. After a few days, the flow should even out as the screen slimes up.

I'm going to have to get on part 2 summary. Lots of good 'troubleshooting' things have been coming up.

[BluScrnOdeth]

Originally Posted by Floyd R Turbo

Do not dim CFL.

Why would you want full power when you scrape your screen? There wouldnt be enough algae receptors to use the amount of photons hitting it? = wasted energy. I knowits better to have more than not enough, but i'm looking at an energy efficient measure here. Throwing 300-400w of light at some algae seems a bit wasteful when following the 1w per gallon rule considring the lack of algae on the screen at the present time.

[inky]

Originally Posted by Floyd R Turbo

If you're trying LED I strongly suggest reading Rygh's thread on the algae scrubber site. Look under "Designs" then "Version 3 ATS : Vertical, LED, bigger"

Thank's Floyd

I've already built one scrubber, using LEDs, lighting only one side as an experiment. Mixture of whites, blues and reds. Good results, but the screen wasn't big enough for the tank. It was an experiment and now the V2 is built hopefully, will be successful

Originally Posted by BluScrnOdeth

you cant go by lumen per gallon if you are trying to compare LEDs to CFL's. Lumens are also not a good measurement because its a measurement based of the human eye. I think what you will want to know is the radiant flux more than lumens.

OK, need to look up the data for radiant flux for my LEDs (Cree XM-L and Luxeon Rebel, then do research on how that compares to CFL. Unless someone knows that already

Basically trying to ork out if I have enough light from the LEDs

[BluScrnOdeth]

I'm sure that the LEDs provide enough radiant flux, its just that its so intense in a small area. I was thinking of trying this myself because i'll have some RB and CW left over form my other builds and snag a few reds. So i was thinking that if you made a difuser plate out of acrylic (sake some fine 800grit+ sand paper and just rough up one side, ut that between the LED and the screen, and see if that would help any with providing an even dispursement. Then of course you would have to measure how much light is lost when transfering through that plate. May have to just stick the LEDs about a foot away lol, i donno yet.

[inky]

Originally Posted by BluScrnOdeth

I'm sure that the LEDs provide enough radiant flux, its just that its so intense in a small area. I was thinking of trying this myself because i'll have some RB and CW left over form my other builds and snag a few reds. So i was thinking that if you made a difuser plate out of acrylic (sake some fine 800grit+ sand paper and just rough up one side, ut that between the LED and the screen, and see if that would help any with providing an even dispursement. Then of course you would have to measure how much light is lost when transfering through that plate. May have to just stick the LEDs about a foot away lol, i donno yet.

I'll put up some pics of my setup. Currently, not using optics and losing a lot of light top, bottom and sides. Am going to put some reflector material to stop the light escaping. LEDs are about 5cm from the screen, with 5mm clear acrylic protecting them from the water.

[Floyd R Turbo]

Rygh's thread covers diffusion pretty well. He uses a diamond diffuser (like what is used on a recessed 2x4 light fixture or a surface mounted fixture with a wraparound lens). I would think that roughing up acrylic would probably work also, but you might lose more light from reflection or absorption rather than diffusion.

Don't use CWs or RBs. Wrong spectrum. Warm white only if nothing else. Preferrably you want Deep Reds, Reds, and Blues. Rygh's work has shown that Deep Reds and Blues with WW in a 2:1:1 ratio is yielding the best results. The DRs and Bs are 5W LEDs from LEDengin and the WWs are Cree I think.

[Floyd R Turbo]

Originally Posted by inky

I'll put up some pics of my setup. Currently, not using optics and losing a lot of light top, bottom and sides. Am going to put some reflector material to stop the light escaping. LEDs are about 5cm from the screen, with 5mm clear acrylic protecting them from the water.

Way too close without diffusion. You are going to get very spotty growth. You want the light to spread & blend, so don't add optics, you don't want them. I would add a cheap piece of diamond diffusion plate, should be able to find it at Home Depot. Ask for where they keep the 2x4 lenses for recessed light fixtures (the "troffers" that you see in open office spaces). You will also find egg crate right next to it.

[Travis1787]

I gotta question for ya... I have the option of running my feed line for my ats from my return of my chiller now would this line be ok to use or would it hurt the alage when the chill kicked on and the cold water ran down the screen?

[Travis1787]

Eh darn the chiller output into the sump only seems to be at 240 gph my screen will be 10 wide 16 long so id need more towrds 350 gph

[BluScrnOdeth]

Originally Posted by Floyd R Turbo

Rygh's thread covers diffusion pretty well. He uses a diamond diffuser (like what is used on a recessed 2x4 light fixture or a surface mounted fixture with a wraparound lens). I would think that roughing up acrylic would probably work also, but you might lose more light from reflection or absorption rather than diffusion.

Don't use CWs or RBs. Wrong spectrum. Warm white only if nothing else. Preferrably you want Deep Reds, Reds, and Blues. Rygh's work has shown that Deep Reds and Blues with WW in a 2:1:1 ratio is yielding the best results. The DRs and Bs are 5W LEDs from LEDengin and the WWs are Cree I think.

Photosynthesis works best in the reds and blues, so how can RB be the wrong spectrum? i read that between 380-470and 600-720 were best. Maybe it's based off the type of algae we are actually growing? I'll have to read that guys thread that you posted this weekend once this funeral and stuff is out of the way.

Also with the acrylic i was talking about blends the light better than diamond diffuser, but yes, will absorb more light, how much depends on the design.

[Floyd R Turbo]

You can get frosted acrylic or other types of polycarbonate sheets with a more 'bumpy' coating on one side also. I would just have to guess that frosted acrylic or sanded acrylic would tend to deflect more light more than a diamond diffuser would. Something without any opaque properties but with good light diffusing properties, that's what I would think would be the ideal.

[Floyd R Turbo]

Just for future reference, I will not post or respond to any post on this thread regarding the effects of algae scrubbers on water chemistry with respect to anything other than Ammonia, Nitrite, Nitrate, and Phosphate.

It has become abundantly clear that inferring that algae has some kind of benefit other that reducing these nutrients is somehow fuel for a war against the algae scrubber system. It seems that any conversation that starts even closely down the path of discussing any benefits of an algae scrubber outside of the basics turns into one form of mudslinging or another, no matter how much an attempt is made to make a point as politically as possible.

I have to admit that I have a full time job, 4 kids, and 2 dogs, and now 3 tanks to take care of just in my house, so I just flat out do not have the time to dig up articles and have informed discussions with people about any of these topics, so even though I'm well educated and I for sure could do research and learn much of this information firsthand, I pretty much am forced to rely upon the research of others who like to dig up and compile this information so that I can reference their findings.

I personally feel uncomfortable answering questions this way, because I'm the type of person who likes to really explain how something works. In order to do that requires spending a lot of time digging and reading and I just don't have that. Apparently, relying on others to do this and referencing what they have found is just not good enough, no matter how much it proves the point to me.

So the bottom line here is that I have read everything I need to know to have confidence in the system to perform the basic functions of reducing Ammonia, Nitrite, Nitrate and Phosphate, and choking off algae in the display tank. I have confidence that it is capable of providing much more than that, but I will no longer address these potentials. Doing so otherwise seems to elevate conversations to the point where infraction points start getting issued and banning becomes a potential, neither of which I wish.

I also cannot reference that other site that has a ton of information on algae scrubbing, because Reef Central blocks the link. Working around a blocked link by putting spaces is considered an infraction offense, and therefore for the good of this or any other thread about the algae scrubber system, please do not attempt to do this or you will receive an infraction point if it is noticed (reported). As of this time, I have not received any kind of direction on an acceptable method of indirectly referencing someone to that site.

I wish to maintain good status with Reef Central. Therefore, since this device/system seems to be just too much of a hot button for some, I also will restrict all posting regarding the algae scrubber system to this thread, and only this thread, except when referring someone to this thread, and I will restrict my posts to the proper building and design of an algae scrubber.

I will not restrict my opinion in any way that an Algae Scrubber is totally awesome at reducing Nitrates and Phosphates, and it eats Ammonia and Nitrite and your DT algae for freakin breafast man. FOR FREAKIN BREAKFAST.

Because really, that's all the average aquarist really cares about. And I'm here to help those people out.

Here is a except from a recent interview:

Me: Hello Algae!

Algae: Nice to be here. Thanks for growing me.

Me: You're welcome! Tell me, is it true that you eat Ammonia, Nitrites, Nitrates, and Phosphate for breakfast?

Algae: Yes, it's my favorite!

Me: What else do you do?

Algae: I could tell you, but you have to turn off that camera first.

That's humor by the way, for anyone without a funny bone.

[BluScrnOdeth]

Originally Posted by Floyd R Turbo

You can get frosted acrylic or other types of polycarbonate sheets with a more 'bumpy' coating on one side also. I would just have to guess that frosted acrylic or sanded acrylic would tend to deflect more light more than a diamond diffuser would. Something without any opaque properties but with good light diffusing properties, that's what I would think would be the ideal.

Sorry Turbo, I was thinking something completely different when you said the diamond diffuser. I think your right that it would be best.