Mega Powerful Nitrate and Phosphate Remover - DIY!

Caoboy

Feeder Fish
MFK Member
May 27, 2008
199
0
0
Modesto CA
Jgray152;2434145; said:
I think we need to revisit this (in bold above). I do believe that less light on freshwater will work better considering the results given in this thread.
True. OP keep preaching high light, but looking at his 'pictures per reference' post on page 26, shows that most of the spots with the strong light show little to no growth, and all around it packed with growth. Though, if they were using super strong light, it could just be making the algae transparent?

Maybe it's creating a SUPER-ALGAE that doesn't need photosynthesis to work!?!? :nilly:

JK. Back on track.
 

cvermeulen

Jack Dempsey
MFK Member
Jun 4, 2007
1,876
3
36
Los Osos, CA
I think nobody has invested the time in a fancy looking high tech scrubber is that everyone had their doubts about it's efficacy. Having seen some amazing results I would be inclined to build something slightly more sophisticated next time around.

I can't count the number of projects where I've gone to TOWN with an idea that I wasn't sure would work... and at the end of it you have a really nice looking turd that doesn't actually do anything.
 

Jgray152

Feeder Fish
MFK Member
Dec 23, 2006
1,659
2
0
NH
True. OP keep preaching high light, but looking at his 'pictures per reference' post on page 26, shows that most of the spots with the strong light show little to no growth, and all around it packed with growth. Though, if they were using super strong light, it could just be making the algae transparent?
It seems lots of light is good to use for saltwater applications but on freshwater, it seems from results that less light might be better. So instead of using a 60 watt, maybe use a 20-30watt?
 

zennzzo

Feeder Fish
MFK Member
Oct 18, 2005
8,051
46
0
65
Mile High in Northern AZ, baby!~
Jgray152;2435198; said:
It seems lots of light is good to use for saltwater applications but on freshwater, it seems from results that less light might be better. So instead of using a 60 watt, maybe use a 20-30watt?
I think duration might do the same thing...the light needs to be intense to get it going, then less ammount of time, maybe to get it to flourish...
 

cvermeulen

Jack Dempsey
MFK Member
Jun 4, 2007
1,876
3
36
Los Osos, CA
Well, my take on the whole light situation is from a step backwards... There are two things at play with the light thing - first, the amount of luminous watts are actually captured and used by the algae (Intensity of the light, duration that it's on, and the area over which the intensity is captured.) The other thing is the intensity of light that the algae can actually use. So putting a 1000 lumen light, concentrated on 1 square inch, may burn the algae (high intensity), but spreading it out over 100 square inches may be perfect (Moderate intensity), 1000 square inches is probably not enough (low intensity).

Using ammonia and nitrate byproducts as food is an endothermic process, so it requires energy input to happen. As such the rate that the nitrate can be removed is directly affected by the rate at which energy is put into the system (lumens).

So, you need to get two things right. Most important is the intensity. It seems that FW may require lower intensity than SW, so a larger area may be needed. The second thing is that with a given intensity, your light and screen combination must be large enough to capture and use the light energy at a sufficient rate to counter the rate at which Nitrogen products are being produced in the tank. This is easier to get right, as you can just build too big, and the algae will use whatever it can. Even if you go too small, the scrubber will help, it just won't do the whole job.
 

cvermeulen

Jack Dempsey
MFK Member
Jun 4, 2007
1,876
3
36
Los Osos, CA
SantaMonica;2436563; said:
Since the version I'm working on will require manufacturing (and commercial talk), I'll just keep it on the algae scrubber site. Especially since that site owner Worley wants manufacturers to discuss there to. So you are welcome to provide your input there if you like. All bucket/sump/solar/normal versions can be left here :)
Well, I think we might have wrung out a lot of the basic DIY discussion here, so I'll play.

If you want it to be no thicker than a book, the screen will have to be very carefully constrained, or specially manufactured with spacers on either side to keep it from touching the walls. Using 1/4" acrylic, with a 1/16" thick screen, and 1/2" to either side of the screen for water flow and algae buildup, you're already up to 1 5/16 thickness. Fluorescent lamps would be the cheapest/most available way to provide light, but they are quite bulky. A sleeker alternative, if you could get them at a reasonable cost would be an array of LEDs, or an LCD backlight screen ($). The LED array could probably fit in no more than 1/2" per side, so now you're up to 2 5/16" overall thickness, and the rest of the dimensions would be dictated by the surface area you need.

Alternatively, to cut down on the overall space required even further, you could run a couple of chambers sandwiched together, so it's around 4" thick, but half the area.
 

cvermeulen

Jack Dempsey
MFK Member
Jun 4, 2007
1,876
3
36
Los Osos, CA
I guess another problem with a compact design like that would be gas exchange. You could duct the entire chamber, with a muffin fan or something positioned above water level, to draw outside air through the scrubber chamber and expel the air out the other side. Finding an inexpensive muffin fan that could cope with the moist, salty air would be a challenge however. (I design marine electro-hydraulic equipment for a living, so I know something about salt mist!)
 
zoomed.com
hikariusa.com
aqaimports.com
Store