Mega Powerful Nitrate and Phosphate Remover - DIY!

SantaMonica

Plecostomus
MFK Member
Oct 9, 2008
680
53
61
Santa Monica, CA, USA

SantaMonica

Plecostomus
MFK Member
Oct 9, 2008
680
53
61
Santa Monica, CA, USA
Figure out the most you will be feeding. Then:

Scrubbers are now sized according to feeding. Nutrients "in" (feeding) must equal nutrients "out" (scrubber growth), no matter how many gallons you have. So...

An example VERTICAL waterfall screen size is 3 X 4 inches = 12 square inches of screen (7.5 X 10 cm = 75 sq cm) with a total of 12 real watts (not equivalent) of fluorescent light for 18 hours a day. If all 12 watts are on one side, it is a 1-sided screen. If 6 watts are on each side, it is a 2-sided screen, but the total is still 12 watts for 18 hours a day. This screen size and wattage should be able to handle the following amounts of daily feeding:

1 frozen cube per day (2-sided screen), or
1/2 frozen cube per day (1-sided screen), or
10 pinches of flake food per day (2-sided screen), or
5 pinches of flake food per day (1-sided screen), or
10 square inches (60 sq cm) of nori per day (2-sided screen), or
5 square inches (30 sq cm) of nori per day (1-sided screen), or
0.1 dry ounce (2.8 grams) of pellet food per day (2-sided screen), or
0.05 dry ounce (1.4 grams) of pellet food per day (1-sided screen)

High-wattage technique: Double the wattage, and cut the hours in half (to 9 per day). This will get brown screens to grow green much faster. Thus the example above would be 12 watts on each side, for a total of 24 watts, but for only 9 hours per day. If growth starts to turn YELLOW, then increase the flow, or add iron, or reduce the number of hours. And since the bulbs are operating for 9 hours instead of 18, they will last 6 months instead of 3 months.

HORIZONTAL screens: Multiply the screen size by 4, and the wattage by 1.5Flow is 24 hours, and is at least 35 gph per inch of width of screen [60 lph per cm], EVEN IF one sided or horizontal.

Very rough screen made of roughed-up-like-a-cactus plastic canvas.

Clean algae off of screen every 7 to 14 days, so that you can see the white screen material.
 

audifusion

Feeder Fish
MFK Member
May 28, 2011
37
0
0
toronto,on,canada
I'm looking to put my entire flow, 5000 gph through screens if I could.

seems more effective than protein skimming at decreasing n and p .

I would just run my 4 overflow pipes onto screens then into my sump, and completely remove all sump partitions.


Sent from my iPhone using MonsterAquariaNetwork app
 

SantaMonicaHelp

Jack Dempsey
MFK Member
Some more successes from waterfall scrubbers:

Damon on the IM site: "I have been completely skimmer less for over a month now, and my ats has brought my nitrates from off the chart above 50ppm and with yesterday's test it has come down to 5 on the high end with color choosing(can't wait for a Hanna to make a nitrate). I am extremely happy with my ats as it is now, but I do believe I'm going to build a second one next to it. I built this size for a small (75-90g heavy bioload), but I'm going to add a second one that will be a more professional build quality now that I have figured out how I want it to run. I still love the fact that I have dropped $25 a month in electricity, haven't done a water change in a month while still dropping nitrates and getting amazing coral growth. The best part is I am making these to utilize my overflow drains, so in essence I adding a more efficient form of filtration without adding any heat or extra electricity. I can't report on long term results as I've only been running an ats since last fall. But from where my tank was to where it is now is enough for me to jump ship, lol."

Kerry on the scrubber site: "I was hard for me to believe that this device worked. It took about a year before I built one and now I wish I knew about this years ago. Who would have thought algae would provide so much success? I even have one on my 150G FW Jack Dempsey tank as well. And yes, its so nice not to have a skimmer anymore!!!!"

Reefkeeper2 on the RC site: "I run a skimmer, biopellets and an ATS. The skimmer and the pellets worked well keeping nitrates at 0, but there was room for improvement with phosphate control. I tried GFO, and lanthanum. My sps do not like the GFO. I got STN often when I changed it out. The lanthanum worked, but was very labor intensive and so unpractical. The ATS did the trick nicely. I have been a reefer for a very long time. I think I have tried every method of nutrient control thought up by anyone. I really enjoy trying out new ideas and trying to improve on old ones. I have to say that this combination has worked the best of all I have tried over the years."

N728NY on the RC site: "Just chiming in to say I really hope this thread keeps going! Lots of good info. I'm still pretty new to keeping a reef tank. I have been running a scrubber with my skimmer for the past three months. Before then I could never get my nitrates below 15, and since I added my scrubber I never been able to detect any nitrates, even after feeding twice as much. I know with my 75 gallon set up, I made my scrubber slightly over sized (sized for 100 gallons) and I dump huge amounts of pellets and frozen shrimp in my tank on top of spot feeding my corals on a regular basis and I still have yet to register any nitrates on my test kit. Being that I'm still new I still haven't built up the courage to unplug the skimmer yet. I may try it once I know for sure my scrubber is fully matured, got plenty of ro water made up and salt ready just in case I need to do an emergency water change lol. I still have a clump of cheato left that I suppose would be good back up if the scrubber couldn't keep up. The cheato doesn't really grow very much right now because of the scrubber. I love these scrubbers, I'm so glad I took the time to read "both sides" of the arguments on them to find out the facts about them."

Kentth on the scrubber site: "overall the tank is much healthier, a lot of feather dusters, coming out of the rocks, yellow sponges, other opaque sponges. big thing is no water changes for over 8 months, almost no silt, it has really cut my maintenance"

Langtudatinh01 on the RC site: "i completely redo my 40B with the ATS from beginning, i barely see much algae on my display tank but i now have a mature ATS. i relocated all my fish and add another one without any issue. the dead rocks i use bleach quite a lot of phosphate back into the water, but the ATS has handle the issue like a cham. i do not see much algae on my display. everything is green like grass down at the ATS. i am very happy so far.'

Bicolour on the MFUK site: "quick update, so my ats has been running since [6 weeks ago] and i gotta say all the algea in my tank and on the sand has gone, wow. gotta say it was well worth doing. i dont monitor growth at the moment but this is something i will be doing in the future, my set up was basic costing very little as i wanted to try this before i really looked into the idea. very impressed and can only say if you got space look into it"

Rysher on the RC site: "i have a 6x9 screen, 1 inch is submerged so only 6x8 is really used, i also have a 40b. it has been my only form of filtration ever since i started the tank [months ago], i feed almost 2 cubes a day, only have 2 fishes but u cant see any algae on my DT, almost non existent film algae too, i clean my DT glass maybe once a week."

Packman90 on the RC site: "I have a 72 Gallon bow front and until a couple of months ago I was going to throw my tank away and give up on saltwater tanks all together. I was brand new, took a lot of advice, started my system and watched as it became more and more green, until i found out about scrubbers. I lost all of the coral frags I bought, about $400.00 worth, and just felt that I would never get it. I have it now, and just bought my first new frags in over 8 months. Thanks to all of you scrubbers out there who showed me the way. Here is the tank after the scrubber did it's magic. this took a total of 1 month for it to clear up, and I did not remove any of the algae, it just melted a way. Only problem I have is that i have some sea grass that is melting away as well and cheto in my sump is also slowly dieing."
 

ToolMan78

Feeder Fish
MFK Member
Aug 19, 2012
42
0
0
Costa Rica
The challenge is to run as little lighting as possible in the smallest footprint. I haven't seen anyone doing cylindrical screens around a lamp. Anyone have any thoughts on that?
Also, circular would be one-sided, which is less efficient than two sided, for the same number of watts.
Why would a 2-sided design make more efficient usage of the light/watts?

I was thinking for number of watts having cylindrical screens around bulbs would get the most out of each bulb.


3ftx3ft screen (2592 sq inches) with two bulbs on each side

or

a 3 foot tall cylinder that's 12 inches across (1356.48 sq inches) and only have one bulb.


The biggest advantage I see is the logistics of pumping that volume of water evenly over the entire area. With a cylinder I would think doing one pump that overflows from the top would make for a more effective system overall, and ensure an even coverage.



I would end up with two of these things to cover the same area as the 3x3 screen, but with no light being lost it would be more efficient I think.

I know I can make it so that the cylinder is easily removed after lifting the bulb out of it, then being only a 3ft by 1ft tube it would still be easy to clean.

View attachment 608658
I agree with Samad, a cylindrical screen completely surrounding the light source would make most efficient use of it. The more light that shines out of the scrubber or onto surfaces that aren't covered in algae, the less efficient it is because light is wasted.

You can try it. But it's still one-sided, which is less efficient than two.
Again, why?

I think a cylindrical screen would have the advantage that more of the screen surface would have a higher average lux intensity improving algal growth and this would more than compensate for the algae only growing on one side possibly also allowing for the use of a stightly weaker light. The best light source would obviously be radiating light 360 degrees like a vertical flouro without reflector or a compact energy saving bulb. As for cleaning the screen, simply build the screen with a vertical seem that can be easily opened and you have a flat screen for cleaning purposes.

An alternative to the seem idea is simply to cut a screen to size and place it around the inside of a round bucket. this would also limit the amount of light escaping. Just put a lid on the bucket with heat vents cut into the lid above the light.

j<><
It seems to me that to make the most efficient use of your wattage you would want your light source surrounded by algae so that as little of the light as possible is wasted. Even reflectors are wasteful. A light source in the middle of a tube with it's sides covered in algae seems to be about as efficient as it gets. I'm not sure why you believe that a screen illuminated from both sides is more efficient. It makes more efficient use of space possibly. But besides that, I don't see it.
 
zoomed.com
hikariusa.com
aqaimports.com
Store