One-light between two-screens: Makes better use of the light, but leaves the other sides of the screens unused (in the dark), thus wasting half your flow. The big advantage is cleaning: You can clean one screen, and leave the other in operation, which give you more consistent filtering.
Two-lights on one-screen: Makes better use of the screen (both sides are lit), but can waste light if not reflected properly. Advantages are (1) redundancy of the lights: If one goes out, you'll still have filtering until you can buy a replacement, and (2) higher performance for its size, since each side of the screen gets hit by light from both sides, especially right after cleaning when the algae is thin.
Best of both worlds: Multiple lights between two screens. Uses the most flow and power, but is always filtering, and will never go totally "dark" unexpectedly.
Looking from the backside, see how the filter box will set on the wall:
use a little bit of scrap plastic to raise this side a bit:
Now, epoxy some plastic sheet (I just cut them out from the hood material) onto the filter box so that it will hook onto the wall; the epoxy will also hold the little plastic scrap in place too:
Mounting done:
Now cut a piece of hard plastic (any color, any thickness) to fit in the filter box. Use sandpaper or a drill or a file to make the surface rough:
Now cut a piece of "Rug Canvas" or "Plastic Canvas" (found at any sewing or craft store, or online) to fit on the backing:
Rug canvas is preferred because it lets the algae to attach better, but since rug canvas is flimsy, you'll need to epoxy it to the backing. Plastic canvas (pictured) is rigid and can just be set down on the backing, but it does not hold algae as well.
Here is the screen finished. Water should flow off the edges and drain out, but if it collects and gets too deep, cut a little section as shown and it will drain out rapidly:
Attach your light; a halide was chosen so as to get good growth, easy attachment to the tank, and strong lighting for corals:
Here is the screen with a fews days of growth (food was put into the water to rot):
small_ranchu on the MFK site: "Here is the progress on my goldfish tank. 90 gallon tank with 3 goldfish + heavy feeding. nitrate reading at the end of the week is usually around 40 PPM with a lot of brown algae on the wall. After 1 month of installing the Scrubber filter, Nitrate reading is 10 PPM and brown algae is disappearing slowly."
argi on the MD site: "I set up my scrubber on my 54 gallon tank a few weeks after its initial set up (it has been running for around 3 months now). One thing I have noticed on this tank compared to all my past tanks is the lack of algae growing on the glass. In the past I always left a magnet cleaner in the tank because I would have to scrub the brown diatom algae off the glass at least once per week. Now with this current tank I haven't had to clean off the glass nearly as often. While I still clean it, usually weekly to every other week, I can still see in the tank after 2 weeks!!! So far I am very happy with the results."
johnt on the UR site: "after 10 weeks of running a screen I can say it's the best method I've used, it also takes out metals and other nasties, and I've not even reached the turf algae stage yet. In the 10 weeks it's been running I've not run any reactors or the skimmer (I'm saving a small fortune not having to buy phosphate remover). I'm still running the refugium, chaeto and deep sand bed, all corals are doing exceptionaly well, N&P are remaining low and rocks are looking better by the day."
Elliott on RC: "I built one about 5 wks ago and so far it seems to be working well. My cyano has diminished and there is less cleaning to do on the glass."
Mtroboer on the MASA site: "my algae is already visibly starting to disappear after only 1 1/2 weeks! Also added a PC Server fan in front of the screen and dropped my temps from 29.8 avg to 25.8 avg, saved me from buying a energy hungry chiller! First time in little more than a year I got to see results regarding getting rid of nuisance algae as well as dropping my high tempratures!"
Keifer1122 on the RS site: "Aquapod 12 gallon update: Its been couple days short of a month, and still no water change, my N & P have been at zero for 3 weeks now. everything is still growing just daily dosing, daily 2-3 feeding times a day, and weekly scrubbing"
bigtanner on RC: "I built this little one for about $65, pump, light, and all plumbing needed. Some people frown on these things and some people praise them. It's about like anything else really. I have had success with mine. Since building it and hooking it up, my tank is basically algae free. I also went from running my magnet daily to only running it every three to four days. [...] I never have any bad algae in my tank, my water is always crystal clear, and since adding it, I run my magnet a lot less than I used to.
corinna on the AC site: "I started out as a sceptic, but after spending a fortune on phosphate absorbers, carbon, sponges, water changes etc, Im convinced. Two months in, ive not done a water change or cleaned the glass, just to see what happened. Zooanthids are reproducing, seahorses are fat and active, values are reading zeroes. Scallops are happy. Plus I feed a lot."
Well after three months of testing color temps, I've determined that 3000K out performs 6500K. It's not a huge difference, but enough to notice. At first they are about equal, but as the green hair gets over an inch thick, the 3000K continues getting thicker until it hits the acrylic wall (at 1.5"), whereas the 6500 stalls and rarely grows enough to reach the wall. So I'm ordering all T5HO 3000K replacement bulbs.
After much thought about design (but no ability to build), here is my version of a G3 scrubber:
A light-screen is a scrubber where the screen IS the light, and the light IS the screen. This changes the game when it come to scrubber performance in a small size. Unfortunately, you can't DIY these, unless you happen to be both a plastics engineer and an electronics engineer. However I thought that if I posted these, they may spark some ideas for regular scrubbers, or, someone may work for a manufacturer who can actually build them. I'll be the first to buy one.
As a reminder, G1 scrubbers are DIY sumps/buckets, while G2 scrubbers are enclosed acrylic boxes. G3 scrubbers have luminescent screens, whether they be LEDs, fiber optics, or lasers. My design is LEDs; so compared to buckets or acrylics, these plastic-covered LED light screens:
o Are ultra small/thin.
o Have no algae die-off (see drawing below).
o Are practically unbreakable.
o Are electrically safe (12 volts or less).
o Can be made as small as desired for nano's.
o Can easily be built into the hood of a nano.
o Are double-sided with almost no increase in size.
Disadvantages:
o They will be expensive (equivalent to good skimmers).
o They are impossible to DIY
Here is my version of a nano scrubber:
Same concept, just smaller, and replaces the skimmer, mechanical filter, and other filtering "devices" in pre-fab nano's like Aquapods, Red Sea Max's, etc. Would actually make nano's less expensive, better filtered, more compact, and more reliable.
.
.
One of the CFL bucket scrubbers that I was testing began growing less and less algae, starting when it was about three months old. After five months, most growth had stopped. I did not think it could be the CFL bulbs because they looked fine, and they are supposed to last for years. But apparently this does not apply to algae growth, because after replacing the bulbs with new ones, growth immediately started again. These bulbs are cheap, so maybe a three-month replacement schedule should be followed.
Several folks commented that they liked the hand-built nano-scrubber that Nitschke65 on the SWF site built for his Aquapod-type tank:
It looks bought-off-the-shelf. And several folks have asked how to put a scrubber on their own nano's, without resorting to building an external one. Problem is, of course, that Aquapod-type nano's are the most difficult to fit things into. So until someone manufactures some type of nano-scrubber like Nitschke65 built (G3 or otherwise), Nitschke has said that's he'll make custom scrubbers for other folk's nano's:
"I won't be able to get to work on any of them until mid January, but it's fine with me if you'd like to recommend me. My wife and I are gettting to leave on our 10th anniversary trip to London, so things around here have been pretty hectic. I'll be happy to make the trays and screens, and leave people to come up with their own lighting." He is in Wisconsin, USA.
So you can contact him if you are on that site, or PM me and I'll get it to him. I guess this will be his present to everyone
Cleanings are when you take the screen to the sink and run tap water over it as you use your fingers (not fingernails) to remove the loose stuff and wash it off. It is done everyweek, no matter what, even if you think your screen needs to "grow more first". On brand new screens, this stuff is usually a light brown slime, but it can be green slime, green hair, or even black tar-looking stuff. It's important, especially on the first cleaning, to leave some algae on the screen so it can grow back easily. It's also important to only clean ONE side per week (or one-half, if it's a one-sided screen). Cleaning it under running tap water kills the pods that will start to eat the algae (don't worry, there will be thousands more the next day).
Scrapings are sometimes needed later on, after your screen has grown a few months. You'll know if scrapings are needed: You'll try using your fingers, or even fingernails, but nothing will come off. Scraping is only needed every month or so, and of course on ONE side only (or one-half, if it's a one-sided screen). I use a razor blade to scrape, but any straight sharp metal object will work. Go back and forth with the scraper until the algae is removed all the way down to the screen. You shouldn't have to worry about leaving algae on the screen; this type of algae is tough enough that there will surely be some left. You may never need to scrape, however, which is fine. But even if you do need to scrape monthly, you'll still need to clean weekly.
Here is a video showing a cleaning and a scraping:
I installed my aglea scrubber in my 29gal sump for my 75gal tank today, when I installed the lights I saw that there was nothing on the bottom of the tank to mount the lighs to and could see the bottom of the sand, solved the mounting problem for the lights. My question is 1)will the light cause aglea or bad bact. to grow on the bottom of the sand thru the glass on the bottom of the tank? 2)Should I blackout the bottom of the tank to stop the light?
Last edited by hop2jr; December 27th, 2008 at 05:16 AM.
Scrubbers don't cause any bacterial at all. As for your sand, you should only get algae growth on your screen if your lights are positioned properly (4" from the screen, and pointed at the middle of the screen). However you'll need to post pics for me to say for sure in your case. For now, I'd say you are fine.
Madeley on the scrubber site has come up with a great plan for an in-sump dual-screen scrubber, that could either be manufactured from plastic, or (if you simplify it) made out of acrylic. So for you technically adept folks, here's his drawing, with my arrows and words added:
...but simpler (Dohn's I believe was for HOB, so it's understandably more complex).
Operation: Madeley has it so it can be placed in a sump front-to-back (sump being sideways), and it will set on the rim; lights in the middle, screens on both sides through the slots in the horizontal water tray, and water fed in from the hole on the end which would thus be positioned at the back or front of the sump. If it's for a sump 12" front-to-back, then the lower section is probably 11" across, which makes the screen about 10" across. So if the screen is 10" tall, then it's 100 square inches, and lit on one side, which is good for a 50 gal tank per screen, or 100 gal tank total. Each 10" wide screen needs 10 X 35 = 350 GPH flow, for a total of 700 gph. Lighting could either be two CFL's hung down the middle, or some type of two-sided T5HO (just think how powerful a row of ten 12" T5's would be. This could be an optional feature.)
To mold/manufacture out of plastic, here's what I'd change:
1. Water input-hole: Many sumps I've seen won't have room to route a tube/pipe along the back side of their sumps (in order to connect to that hole), and they'd prefer to not route it in from the front. I'd suggest a side or top connection.
2. The incoming 700 gph water, the way is is laid out, is going to be too strong when it hits that center piece. I'd use two separate holes, and let the user divide the water himself with a "Y" before the input. Also, if you make the two water pathways totally isolated, and if the user puts a valve on each water input, then he can keep the pump running on one screen while he turns off and cleans the other. This is a safety factor because some people forget to turn their pumps back on, and/or, they are feeding the scrubber from the overflow. Also, there would be a perceived advantage because "it never stops filtering, even when I'm cleaning it".
3. Screen slots: If the screen inserts through the water tray from the top, then how do you get it out when it's full? You can't pull it up through the slot when it's full. And if the screen inserts from the bottom, how do you push it up and get it through the slot when the screen is flexible?. What you could do is make the water tray removeable, so it just sets down in there. This way, the tray would lift up and bring the screen with it (would also make cleaning, and manufacturing, easier.) And, you'd want the tray to be in two pieces so you can remove one without needing to remove the other. This would work great with isolated water pathways.
4. Overflowing tray: If something real or imaginary blocks the water from going down the slot, the user needs to know that the water will simply overflow into the sump. This is easily done by lowering the outer walls a half inch or so, in the middle section, so water would spill over the edge.
5. Top heavy: With water in the top tray, and two hoses connected, and lights attached, the cener of gravity is going to be very high, and the unit could tip over. While you could fix this by making the unit sit lower into the sump, this would reduce screen area since more of the screen would be under water. A solution might be to attach weights (rock?) to the bottom.
6. Adjustable height: Due to the top-heavy problem, and the unknown height of water in the user's sump, and also due to manufacturing difficulties, it might be easier to eliminate the ledge (that sits on the sump's rim) entirely, and replace it with an adjustable "lip" or "tab". This adjustable piece would be on both ends, and could be moved up or down so that the screen's bottom could be positioned just at the water's surface. If top-heavy, the unit could be lowered (albeit putting the screen into the water.)
An alternate solution to the height issue is to have no lip at all (permanent or adjustable), and instead use some type of legs that go down to the bottom of the sump. This would make the top part of the unit smaller (does not need to set on sump rim), but would not reduce the lighting or screen areas. For balance in top-heavy situations, the legs could be weighted (they could be weights themselves), or they could extend out at an angle like a tripod.
To have it built from acrylic instead (by hand), here's what I'd change:
The above points still apply (water input on top or side, dual inputs, separate water pathways, removeable water trays, lowered-wall to handle overflow). The issue with acrylic is to use as many long straight pieces as possible, and to avoid any internal cross sections. This pretty much eliminates the lip that would sit on the sump's rim, so something would have to hold the unit up; either an adjustable lip on the sides, or legs on the bottom. An easy solution might be to just extend the outer sheets of acrylic (the ones parallel to the screen) all the way to the bottom, and just have slots in them (like vertical window blinds) for water to get through. If made for anyone other than yourself (in which case you would not know the height needed), the user could just cut off the excess acrylic in order to set the height properly.
The acrylic design is very simple; just four vertical acrylic sheets (same size), with two end pieces, a drop-in water tray on both sides, and a water hole on both sides.
.
Thanks SantaMonica I know the scrubber wouldn't cause bact. but would it get rid of blue/green algea which tech. is a bact. not and aglea that grows from low nitrate levels in freshwater. Back to the scrubber its in tight space over a 29gal sump I used 2 clip lights which are 3" from the bottom of the tank I think I'll just black it out just in case. I didn't know if you here of this happening I'll post pics of the set-up soon thanks.
Cyano is the last thing to disappear, because like you said, it can make its own N in a low-nitrate environment. I have no nuisance algae left, but I do have a 1" spot of cyano that is fighting with the coralline to see who will win. The other remain cyano areas were beat out by the coralline.
I still can't picture your setup, maybe you can post pics. What wattage and K rating bulbs?
Here are some pics of my rig. I'm running 2 compact flor. = 100 watts each run at 23watt there the only ones I could find that where 6500k every thing else was in the 2500k range. Is the lighting right? In the pics you can see the zip-tie from the screen is touching the bottom of my tank. The PVC pipe on the right siide of the close-up is just a propup stick for now till I get everything rigged in correctly.
Last edited by hop2jr; December 30th, 2008 at 09:15 AM.
Very nice! You're going to have some great growth on that screen, because of the even flow and the strong fully-reflected bulbs that are very near and on both sides of the screen. So no scrubber improvements are needed that I can see. As far as the bulb color goes, 2300 might be better, but 6500 will work good for now.
Just a few non-scrubber ideas however: The gravel under the scrubber is not helping anything (on a FW FO tank), and worse, it will be collecting waste and rotting. You're best off removing it. Same for the foam filter and the filter sock on the left, unless you are cleaning them twice a week. If cleaning them only once a week, they will be adding nitrate and phosphate to the water. Lastly (and this would be hard to fix), the bubble-reducer dividers on the right side are backwards; they are over-under-over, whereas they should be under-over-under. Having the "under" side as the first one give you twice the bubble removing power, and having an "under" side as the last one does not add more bubbles like the "over" one does.
Overall a perfect first scrubber setup
Last edited by SantaMonica; December 30th, 2008 at 12:03 PM.
dave3441 on the UR site: "an update for you, been running scrubber since day 1, 19th nov 08 [7 weeks] and tank cycled very quickly 10 days!, although i did have some seeded tonga rock which i kept live bout 15 kgs, the rest was out of water for 36 hours so would have died off. started adding fish at 5 days just 3 chromis to get things fired up then added more fish and corals at 3 weeks still no sign of any additional spikes. its been about 6 weeks now and i have had the very faintest of blooms, just a dusting on glass. cant believe how good this cycle has been compared with first tank set up in 2002. scrubber has been cleaned weekly, to be honest i am cleaning both sides every week as it gets so clogged up . starting to see some more stable green algee now, and this does not come off like the brown/red/black slime does. i just use a george forman plastic spatula and run it down both sides of screen. i would say i get about 1/2 normal size tea cup off screen each time. i gotta say i think this is a very good system, as the algee is definatly growing on the scrubber rather than all over the tank. i have never seen a new tank without the dreaded algee bloom occuring before. i must add i am skimming, although just with a small mc500 deltec which needs emptying approx every 3 days or so. just did battery of tests today approx 7 weeks running now: sal 1.024, temp 27.5, phosphate absolutly zero crystal clear reading not even hint of blue."
For the new year I finally got a camera, learned how to use it, and took some pics. They are linked below, and will be updated as new pics/vids are taken.
Santa Monica: You CAN DIY your scrubber. Smush a surface mount LED array between a piece of acrylic and seal the edge with epoxy. (the backside could be the circuit board).
Running from 12VDC, you could make arrays containing 4 red and one blue, and no current limiting resistors which would simplify construction. Put as many of these 5 LED strings in parallel as you want.
you can make the circuit board yourself, you just need access to a laser printer. you can even surface mount solder at home, it just takes steady hands.
It the PCB, and the heatsinking, that's the real problem. I'd want about 50W of power on each side of a 12 X 12 PCB (100W total), and I think the acrylic may insulate it. Someone had a good idea of a little tab extending through the resin to the water, for cooling. And I tried ExpressPCB, but did not get far. If the circuit could be designed, I could cover it in resin. All-in-all, it's a very delicate process that most people would not be able to duplicated without some kind of kit to build.
It the PCB, and the heatsinking, that's the real problem. I'd want about 50W of power on each side of a 12 X 12 PCB (100W total), and I think the acrylic may insulate it. Someone had a good idea of a little tab extending through the resin to the water, for cooling. And I tried ExpressPCB, but did not get far. If the circuit could be designed, I could cover it in resin. All-in-all, it's a very delicate process that most people would not be able to duplicated without some kind of kit to build.
that's a lot of power, and a lot of light. it's equivalent to 1000 watts of incandescent lights and would draw 8 amps @ 12VDC.
The only way to get that kind of power on the cheap is with a computer power supply, but their voltage isn't stable enough for this application, so you'd have to introduce current limiting circuitry which would add cost and complexity.
I don't even think you can achieve that output with standard LED's and would have to use hi-output LED's which brings up a whole host of other problems.
Now...you don't NEED that kind of energy density. For one, people are using 15-20 watts to grow hydroponic gardens, why do you need 5x more for algae? Second, that kind of density would be wasted and very little algae could actually come in contact with the lights.
The light is coming from inside the panel, so you're not limited to two dimensions like when the source is external. You can stack several lower-density panels to achieve the desired output. It would be easier to build, cheaper, and more efficient by providing a larger surface area for the algae to bask in.
To sum up, you could make it yourself if you're willing to relax the spec.
Last edited by Tavel; January 2nd, 2009 at 04:06 PM.
Density is needed because (1) every square mm of screen needs to grow, and (2) as growth occurs (especially translucent green hair), the light needs to be able to penetrate through it so growth can continue getting thicker, and (3) it's better to have smaller, packed screens, but several of them, like slots in a computer. 10 X 10 screens (each suitable for 100gal) could be inserted into a carrier 1" apart. Ten of these would filter 1000gal, yet the whole system would only be 10 X 10 X 10.
I'm just basing my power projections on what lm/w I see available in the power leds.
as growth occurs (especially translucent green hair), the light needs to be able to penetrate through it so growth can continue getting thicker
which is exactly why it would be acceptable to have more low power panels. the growth is spread out so the light doesn't need as much penetration power. I believe the algae scrubber will work as long as the panels are brighter than the tank lights...they don't need to have retinal burning fury packed into every square inch.
we can already realize significant size reduction using standard LED's, so we shouldn't pass on that method just because we can theorize something better.
It's almost like saying "If I can't have a rocket car, I don't want any car." And you're walking to work while everyone else is driving by in their gasoline-engine cars.
And hey, maybe all the work with standard LED's will give you insights into how to build the hi-output version...insights you wouldn't have if you never tried with standard LED's first...
also...lumens isn't straight light intensity, it's light intensity as perceived by the human observer. The human eye is more sensitive to green than other colors, so a red light has a lower luminosity than a white light...even though it is probably emitting more mW.
Last edited by Tavel; January 2nd, 2009 at 06:23 PM.
Ok I think you should do the prototype I just can't be getting into such complex stuff right now. Post it on the scrubber site too... they're messing with leds there too. There's an acrylic expert there, so if you can get a board working, he can encase it.
unfortunately I can't get into it either. I can design the circuit board and give technical advice, but I can't run off on yet ANOTHER project...I've run out of money! lol
The more I look at it though, the more I'd really hate to solder 90 1mm LED's, plus 15 resistors onto a PCB. They're cheap enough, 100 would cost $8...but man, that would be the definition of tedium.
Hi-power is definitely the way to go...just not in the density you'd like.
I was thinking about an array of LEDs every half inch; a square foot panel would be 24 X 24 LEDs, which would be 576 LEDs. At 50W pers panel, each led would be .087 W.
Similar Aquarium Fish Forum Threads 
