Protein Skimmer?

[fatman]

What are you talking about...lmao. The Octo NW200 is $200 and the comparable CSS 220 is $210. The is no comparison between these skimmer. The Octo simply is a better skimmer design wise, price wise, construction wise and pump wise...period. Obviously you have not used both to see the differences or you wouldn't make that statement.

:frustrat: I have made no comparisons between the CSS 220 and the Octo NW200.
First off I was and am still referring to the CSS 125, second off the last time I looked at a Octopus that was made of cell cast acrylic it was a good deal more expensive than $200. I do not believe OctoPus sells a $200 skimmer made out of cell cast acrylic. Extruded plastic yes, but not cell cast acrylic. There pumps as I said are not as good as the pump sulpplied by Turboflotor. I have not said the pump in a CSS was better than a OctoPus, it might however be as good. The last Octopus I saw advertised as being made out of cell cast acrylic was around $350. I stiil state for the prices involved I wouldbuy two CSS 125's. The CSS 125 is the best bang for your buck. If you can come up with an url for a $200 dollar cell cast Octopus I would be more than happy to check it out.
As far as big dollar custom skimmers and expensive cell cast skimmers: In the words of the great Martin Moe, Jr. "Do you really need a U-Haul to bring back a library book?" or: In the words of Anthony Calfo, "Is it worth it to pay 100 % more to get 10 % or 20 % better performance?" or Again Anthony Calfo, "Will you get two times as much production from a $800 dollar skimmer as from two $400 skimmers?"
As far as using an Octopus, not interested in using one until on there cell cast models they start using better pumps and until they start using a gate valve instead of a slide tube for adjustment. For the prices they want for their cell cast models theyprovide too ittle, and for there extruded models they charge to much for what they provide, as does Turboflotor. I know no one who as of yet has tried out the CSS 220.

 

[fatman]

I have jut checked out the Octopus home site. I am red faced. They actually are only charging $199 for a cell cast NW200 skimmer. I am still leery about a pump in which they will not advertise a name brand or pumping capacity. I doubt that they have a pump designed and built just for them. The slide tube is still a cheap substandard design even though I realize the cost for a gate valve to replace it would be around $20 their cost, it should use a gate valve instead of the tube. I know what the performance is for a CSS 125 I do not know the performance of the Octopus NW200, but I know the slide tube is cheap garbage and the pump they are not even proud enough of to name. I would have to see the data on the pump before I considered buying the Octopus NW200 and would have to then decide if it would need to be replaced as the slide tube would need replacement with a gate valve for best adjust-ability and performance. I have tried to many skimmers with slide tubes and think that design element much inferior to a gate valve. A slide valve is usually even less effective than a ball valve and no one tries to say a ball valve supplies good adjustments. A ball valve is good for quickly turning flow on or off, not adjusting. A slide adjuster is not best for adjusting any sort of flow (pressure, fluid or air). I did see that they sell a gate valve modification for theeir NW200, does that mean they know the slide tube is garbage. Hum! Also, does Octopus claim a 200 gallon filtering capacity for the NW200 or is that just a model number?

 

[ccCapt]

OK...how about this. CSS125 (you're favorite) $173 and the Octo NW150 $149. I'm sorry, but you can not compare these 2 skimmers. They are night and day. If you think the CSS is good, try an Octo.
Slide tube or gate valve has absolutely no affect on performance. All they are for is adjusting the water level inside the skimmer. You can adjust either to the exact same level with no difference at all. The difference is with the slide tube your hand gets wet adjusting it while your hand stays dry turning the gate valve.
All the Octo's use OTP pumps...Octopus Turbine Pump. I have the NW200 which uses the OTP 3000 and the NW150 uses an OTP 2000.
As you should know, one of the factors determining how good a skimmer can skim it the amount of air that can be pumped into it. My Octo pulls about 30 SCFH on my Dywer air meter. I would guess a CSS does 2 or 3 SCFH. I got rid of my CSS so I can't measure it. Just look at the neck size. The Octo has a 3.5" neck while the CSS is what...maybe 1.5"?

Happy Skimming!

 

[fatman]

OK...how about this. CSS125 (you're favorite) $173 and the Octo NW150 $149. I'm sorry, but you can not compare these 2 skimmers. They are night and day. If you think the CSS is good, try an Octo.
Slide tube or gate valve has absolutely no affect on performance. All they are for is adjusting the water level inside the skimmer. You can adjust either to the exact same level with no difference at all. The difference is with the slide tube your hand gets wet adjusting it while your hand stays dry turning the gate valve.
All the Octo's use OTP pumps...Octopus Turbine Pump. I have the NW200 which uses the OTP 3000 and the NW150 uses an OTP 2000.
As you should know, one of the factors determining how good a skimmer can skim it the amount of air that can be pumped into it. My Octo pulls about 30 SCFH on my Dywer air meter. I would guess a CSS does 2 or 3 SCFH. I got rid of my CSS so I can't measure it. Just look at the neck size. The Octo has a 3.5" neck while the CSS is what...maybe 1.5"?

Happy Skimming!

Believe what ever you like, Dude. I have no wish to argue which bad skimmer is better or worse than the other. There is no such thing as a short neck, short body, good skimmer so all this bantering does not matter. If you are buying a skimmer that fits in an under tank stand you are just settling for an over priced inefficient skimmer no matter what brand or type you buy. I purchase under tank stand enclose-able skimmers because my customers want them, not because they are good. I try to maintain a display tank in my home that utilizes mostly the same equipment I supply my customers in their set ups (as I feel it is expected, it is not what I prefer). I do not use such skimmers when aesthetics is not an issue. Instead I use air driven skimmers averaging between four and six foot in height. They are cheaper and much more efficient to run. I also use few pumps on commercial grow our/frag tanks. I use an air blower that supplies the air needed for the skimmers and air lifts. They airlifts are much more energy efficient cost wise and set up wise than pumps. It is not my job, or intent to point out your errors in thinking, logic or mechanics so I will not address them anymore in open forum. If you wish to PM me that is your option, otherwise I have no more to say and I am through with this thread.

 

[ccCapt]

Ohhhhhh...come on now. This isn't an arguement, it's a discussion on our views of the skimmers mentioned. That's what most ppl do on discussion boards. Not sure how this 4'-6' air driver skimmer came into play. I thought it was about how great the CSS was, but I see where you're heading. It's cool. :Cheers:
Maybe I missed something, but why would I want to PM you?

 

[Asteroid]

Hey Guys - I'm just trying to figure out what to buy.... I know that "everybody and their brother" has an opinion... That's what makes it hard for the novice (me) to decide on.... I am just hoping to get some valued opinions here.... I am more perplexed than ever but definitely getting an education.

 

[McCrary]

Lol, that seems to happen on reef discussions boards when skimming comes into question. So lets summarize: Skimmer that is very good for HOB would be the Bermuda Rogue ($310). Skimmer that is good for a in-sump is the MSX-200 ($360). Both of those skimmers should be very good skimmers for long term results and will definitely skim more than a 55, so you can probably use them when you upgrade. They also don't cost an arm and a leg, they may not be cheap, but they also don't go into that borderline crazy range like H&S, Deltec and BK.

 

[ccCapt]

I agree with McCrary's list. Those are great skimmers.
I guess the bottom line is...how much $$$ do you want to spend?

 

[Asteroid]

Money appears to be no concern... But I will see.... So I will have options on hand.... If I make a mistake here, then I make a mistake... I expect I will make multiple mistakes, multiple times.... Just will learn from them. Later.....

 

[Piggy]

If you plan on upgradeing in the future I would buy a big skimmmer. You'll save money in the long run.

 

[d.french]

we need a poll of atleast a dozen brands of skimmer to see who all runs whatever brand of skimmers that might help you pick one.

 

[Asteroid]

we need a poll of atleast a dozen brands of skimmer to see who all runs whatever brand of skimmers that might help you pick one.

DAH..... Great Idea..... Why didn't I think of asking???? Sure would be appreciated.... Thanks....

 

[d.french]

how do we setup up a poll here

 

[Asteroid]

how do we setup up a poll here

Is it here?

It is under FAQ (frequently asked questions). Follow Reading & Posting Messages, How Do I Create & Vote in Polls.

 

[McCrary]

Dude the problem with a poll is it only tells you which skimmer is popular not which skimmer is superior to another. Heck, I owned a Remora Pro with the Mag 3.5 and the huge pre-filter box and thought it was great, as did most people a few years ago. So the Remora would have been a good choice based on its popularity, but in reality it was not a good choice.

 

[Piggy]

Lets try telling him which skimmer we use and our experience with it. I use the coralife super skimmer. It does collect a lot of gunk. It's a little touchy to dial in but once it is it works good. I've only used it in my sump so I have no idea how it does as HOB.

 

[McCrary]

I use an H&S 200-1260 and it works great for my tank, but I think the Eheim 1260 could be a little more powerful for the skimmer.

 

[Asteroid]

Dude the problem with a poll is it only tells you which skimmer is popular not which skimmer is superior to another. Heck, I owned a Remora Pro with the Mag 3.5 and the huge pre-filter box and thought it was great, as did most people a few years ago. So the Remora would have been a good choice based on its popularity, but in reality it was not a good choice.

I know but it provides another piece of information and who knows perhaps popularity and superiority may not be mutually exclusive. But your point is well taken..... Thanks to all of you helping me here.

 

[fatman]

I have recently agreed with the administration and moderators to limit my arguments on open forum and it is for this reason I will not continue in this thread on open forum. If somebody wants to know why I really like no short stature skimmer of any price or brand then that I will explain in a PM. In finishing my contributions to this thread I will just say that, "the most efficient skimming is done with tall skimmers and is done most economically with blower driven airstones." That is followed up by tall stature needle wheels driven by shaft driven pumps such as Sequence (Snapper or a Dart). Needle wheels are made for both of those pumps and they are used widely by professional coral growers, large retailers and wholesalers. Advancements in under tank skimmers are just that, "advancements in inherently inefficient skimmers."

 

[Bifferwine]

I use an Octopus recirculating skimmer for my 300 gallon system. It works great, and it was very wallet-friendly.