Two Protien Skimmers instead of 1 big one?

[Chris J]

Also efficiency is still being used in 2 contexts. One for the efficiency with which it cleans water, the other is the efficiency of power consumption. 1 larger skimmer will usually be more power efficient but not necessarily more efficient at skimming. 2 skimmers are usually less power efficient but depending on chamber size, pump size etc. could be more efficient at skimming.

 

[Gregcoyote]

If I have NO skimmer to start, I'm going with 1 larger model, if I have a working skimmer and it just needs help to keep up, I'm going to buy a smaller second skimmer and run 2, but that's my personal opinion.

I agree and I think that's what Doug meant. I had two skimmers for the exact same reason. But in my case I got tired of maintaining both as the new one was rated big enough for the system by itself. But there was no down side to running both. I did like the thought that if I was gone and a skimmer failed, the other one would take up the slack.

 

[Chris J]

I had a Red Sea 60g Venturi model on my 40b and recently bought a coral life 220g pinwheel skimmer as it was on sale on drsfostersmith but had I not come across that sale I had planned on buying a small secondary skimmer to help the Red Sea. I now run 1 skimmer as I have no room nor need for another skimmer.

 

[jeffaquarius]

Also efficiency is still being used in 2 contexts. One for the efficiency with which it cleans water, the other is the efficiency of power consumption. 1 larger skimmer will usually be more power efficient but not necessarily more efficient at skimming. 2 skimmers are usually less power efficient but depending on chamber size, pump size etc. could be more efficient at skimming.

You perfectly got it right Chris but I'm still not sure if Doug would accept that. The only thing is your last statement. You can't be less efficient in power consumption and be efficient at skimming at the same time. They should both go hand in hand. Its like driving your car faster but you are consuming more gas to travel the same distance. Moderate speed is more efficient because you consume less gas.

 

[Chris J]

All I was trying to state with my last thought was that power consumption isnt everything, more power doesn't mean a more productive skimmer. Design also plays a large role. I understand where you are coming from, on the same frame a larger pump will equal more skimming but a different design with a smaller pump might beat out a poor design with a larger pump. I look at it similar to lighting, LEDs use less power but put out more light than any type of other lighting. I was just trying to state that it is possible to do more with less.

 

[jeffaquarius]

True power is not everything but I'm just standing my ground to the question of efficiency. Design is another factor but it is besides the point here. I am not arguing which one would skim faster. However assuming all skimmers involved here have exactly the same design. I bet you the larger unit can clean up better than any of the 2 smaller ones even combined.

 

[Gregcoyote]

True power is not everything but I'm just standing my ground to the question of efficiency. Design is another factor but it is besides the point here. I am not arguing which one would skim faster. However assuming all skimmers involved here have exactly the same design. I bet you the larger unit can clean up better than any of the 2 smaller ones even combined.

Maybe not. If the skimmers were on the same sump, maybe. But mine were located in different parts of the system which covers multiple tanks. The DOCs delivered to my two sumps could be different (although they eventually mix) and the closest skimmer will get most of it, if your premise that otherwise the skimmers were equal, the amount of skim would depend on its location.

Other than the pennies it takes to run a second unit, I don't see any real downside of doing it either way.

 

[mr_X]

There are pumps (the sicce's come to mind) that use very little power and pull a lot of air and water. 2 skimmers with these pumps could outdo a larger skimmer with a larger, less efficient pump. It's all up to what you choose.
Efficiency is efficiency, period. It's a combination of energy consumption and cleaning the water. Not one or the other.

 

[Gregcoyote]

There are pumps (the sicce's come to mind) that use very little power and pull a lot of air and water. 2 skimmers with these pumps could outdo a larger skimmer with a larger, less efficient pump. It's all up to what you choose.
Efficiency is efficiency, period. It's a combination of energy consumption and cleaning the water. Not one or the other.

Again, for the last time for me, it is airflow (bubble creation) and pump type that controls how many bubbles and how fine the bubbles (increasing surface area) the system creates. The next variable is the size and design of the reaction chamber. Fold back designs are popular now to decrease skimmer height so they can fit in cabinets but still keeps the water in contact with the bubbles as long as possible.

It is the surface tension across the face of a bubble that is "sticky" to long chain protein molecules. It is these protein chains that skimmers lift from the water before your biological filtration has to break them down.

The more bubbles the better.

 

[jeffaquarius]

Again, for the last time for me, it is airflow (bubble creation) and pump type that controls how many bubbles and how fine the bubbles (increasing surface area) the system creates. The next variable is the size and design of the reaction chamber. Fold back designs are popular now to decrease skimmer height so they can fit in cabinets but still keeps the water in contact with the bubbles as long as possible.

It is the surface tension across the face of a bubble that is "sticky" to long chain protein molecules. It is these protein chains that skimmers lift from the water before your biological filtration has to break them down.

The more bubbles the better.

Your point is it depends on the design and the optimum adjustment. While Doug is bringing up a more efficient unit which also a consideration of the design. The question is does it answer the question of this thread which is 2 units or 1?

 

[Gregcoyote]

I think we can agree about saving money if you already have a good skimmer, but think it is under rated for your system, you can just buy another small unit and make up the difference. Good skimmers are pretty expensive, so opting to ditch your old one for a bigger new one is a real consideration.

 

[jeffaquarius]

If the choice to be made depends on a budget then yes but your effective skimming is limited to the remaining lifespan of the older unit. While a new bigger unit may cost more but it allows for longer usage and the older one can be stored as back up.

 

[Dary421]

The term "efficient" is being used in two different ways. On Mr.X's side efficiency is being used to describe the skimmers ability to pull out DOC's where as on Jeff's side he's using it to describe power consumption vs the amount of DOCs pulled out. Mr.X is correct in stating that one skimmer does NOT effect the others ability to pull out DOCs it just causes there to be less DOCs which in turn causes the other skimmer to be unable to pull out as much because there simply is nothing left for it to skim. It doesn't make the skimmer less efficient, it does however mean you are powering a piece of equipment that isn't working at its full potential thusly making it "inefficient" to run. In summary, I side with Mr.X, two skimmers in a sump setup don't effect each other, they both effect the water so when one pulls all the DOCs it appears as if the other is less efficient only because there are no DOCs left to pull out and the skimmers did their job "efficiently" but it is "inefficient" power consumption wise to run a skimmer that isn't skimming or only skimming half the amount it could... Clear as Mud I'm sure.

Well stated Chris ,but I really don't think this topic has a clear and final answer ,.."efficiently" may depend purely on the individual and his tank and what he or she is looking for,...for me and my tank,..I tried a couple of different units and although some seemingly did a nice job ,to me they were lacking in something making them less "efficient" in my book . I actually opted for a monster recirculating old school unit that requires two pumps to run,...one to feed it water and a giant pump to recirculate that water,..."efficient" ?? Power wise no,... Peace of mind wise and "efficiently" wise removing the gunk ? absolutely yes .,so to me ,this setup was my most "efficient" way go.
I would have to agree with most folks here that no matter how you look at it,it's a compromise,...too many variables to consider , design wise ,power wise etc,...BUT, if put in a corner and had to chose, I would prob go with the two smaller units ,..as greg said, we're talking pennies here,.redundancy can be a nice thing to have ,..peace of mind ,.making it more " efficient",.. ask any airline pilot.

 

[Gregcoyote]

I am a pilot and I like back up.

 

[Robert_ellis]

I run a nac9 on my 180. Really in this hobby if you want the best looking tank throw out efficiency power wise. Look at the numbers and, water flow and cf of air. Mine is rated at 395g on heavy load. I haven't changed my water in 5 weeks as I have no trace of nitrates and dose everything else. That's another thing to look at is if you get more skimmer may help with less water changes. Either way you look at it just compare how much air to water it pulls out. That's what it all comes down to.