Skimmer Q&A Thread

[mojo]

ill take a picture of the bubble magus tonight. Luke did not get the us model that has been shipped here from my understanding. it was purchased overseas and brought back. Theat may be the difference I dont know. But ill post pics here in a few.

 

[luke33]

Yes I sell skimmers but thats not my point. The nac6 and 160 cone are much different. The nac6 may be able to handle a 75-90g the 160 a 90-135g no problem. There is a huge difference in bubble rise between the two, 100lph air pull difference and the transition to the cup is a huge difference. A better comparison would be the old octo 150 that pulled 500lph air and the nac6. FWIW i have ran all three of these skimmers and they are not close in comparison. I'm not saying the nac6 is a bad skimmer, but its not close in comparison. You need to run them both to see the difference

 

[Dr.Olmuls]

Luke I dont think that is what I said at all. Please re read the post. I said that the NAC 6 and the swc 160 were using the same pump. I said the swc would not be able to handle 50 to 100 gallons more than the NAC 6 just because of design. When a cone body is designed well it does make a small improvement. But one might argue taht the longer reaction time in the cylinder doesnt matter. How about all those euro reefs that are round and no bubble plate. They skim really well.

There is more to the make up of a skimmer than just a cone body. The SWC 120 and 160 are nice little skimmers and are built pretty well for the money. I have told you the same over the phone when we have talked. My other point is that you are selling the SWC 160 and 120 and may be a little bais as well. MAybe not. As I have always had respect for your opinion. But you cant say the same pump pulling the similar #'s is going to work for larger tanks of that big of a difference. Simply not true. That pump is a cheap pump that works well. No issues. But it simply doesnt have a good water turnover rate for tanks upwards of 150g +

Look at Deltec. They came out with there new line..... No Cones ...

Bubble king No cones
The alpha's are a proline product made by royal exclusive.

So just because its a cone doesnt mean it skims better. The ATB is a well balanced skimmer. The WM k2 has some of the best bubble rise of any skimmer I have seen. Second to mine of course....lol. But Again it has to be balanced and the added cost is hard to say if its worth it on all skimmers.

I have owned pushing 40 different skimmers now. I am not just talking theory. I have ran them all. All different makes and models.

Thanks Much, I will not comment further on this one topic. Moving on.

Mojo~

Mojo, Before you move on can you answer some of my questions i really want to make the right choice. You can PM me if need be. thank you for your time

 

[mojo]

Np problem dr.olmuls

uploading pics now

 

[mojo]

Ok here we go, First a couple nog shots

NAC7

 

[Troylee]

I'm all for different opinions but here's my thoughts on what i've read in the last few posts. What i've read is a cone skimmer vs a cylinder skimmer there is no advantage. So all the new cone skimmers coming out and out are all just a trend. For example since the sicce skimmer is so popular lets compare. So a cylinder skimmer using a sicce pump pulling 900lph that is designed well is going to handle the same size of tank as a similar cone like the new version 1.5 atb with the sicce pump, or H2 by WM or swc 180 cone? So the cylinder askoll skimmer pulling 70scfh are going to perform the same as a 70scfh cone like the atb you are running? I guess i just don't agree that a cone is going to perform the same as a cylinder. Yes there is less head pressure which allows more air to be injected but there is so much more going on there. If this were true all the manufacturer's are doing it wrong.

What I'm saying is from experience I have built tons of skimmers from the ground up my own cones, pyramids, tubes etc... The biggest player in a skimmer is the pump!!!! Once you have a good pump you need to build a skimmer around it... Are the new cones a fad??? IMO. No they are better in the sense that run more efficiant because there is less head pressure which means lower wattage and less heat transfer therefore making them better!!!! Now look at bk. For instance you gonna tell me a mini can't hang with a cone??? It's about balance and testing not just throwing a skimmer together like these companies are starting to do... A well designed and built tube skimmer can perform as well as a cone yes IMO... Not as efficant but it can skim the same... This is from hours and hours of research and hands on fabricating and testing... I took me 6 months to build my first cone skimmer that would hang with the best and I was hitting it hard... I went threw so much material for different cones, different volutes etc. It's not a fly by night operation like I'm seeing with these companies popping up for quick buck.. But that's another topic lol.... But to answer your question yA a well designed And built tube skimmer can perform as well as a cone... Not as efficant but yeah they can get down to.... Vertex is a classic example there better some ofthe cones on the market.... Just my 2...

 

[mojo]

ok measurements I figured I might as well take them all over....

zero

outside cup

id of cup

and ID of the neck 3.2215 now that I actually took it out to measure.

I hope that helps...

Mojo~

 

[mojo]

i tilted it slightly for the picture it is 3.2235 when I tilt it up. Just wanted to be clear.

 

[revhtree]

Remember everyone that this is not a "recommendation" thread, but a Q and A thread. Thanks.

 

[vbsaltydog]

Mojo, PM Sent.

 

[mojo]

pm replied. good luck. Mojo~

 

[skimmy]

The NAC6 and the swc 160 use the same exact pump. The SWC is not going to process anymore water than the NAC 6 really. But it is a good skimmer never less. I just want you to know what you are buying. The SWC isnt going to allow you to go up on tank anymore than the NAC6.

They both use the ATMAN 2500 pump. Yes the venturi and inletris a little different but not enough to allow you to run it on per say a tank with 50 to 100 gallons of more system volume.

Good luck to you with your purchase. Just remember I do not sell skimmers and make nothing off my advice. Just trying to give you all the information I can to make a educated choice.

Mojo~

now wait just a minute here....

are you ACTUALLY saying that a cone skimmer has no advantage over a cylinder skimmer that has a comparably powered pump??

....not trying to argue, but I know for a fact that is wrong.

this has been tested time and time again with other skimmers in multiple different comparative threads, of which, I'm sure you must have read, or for that matter experienced yourself.

and really, the nac6 (as well as the nac7) doesn't even come close to the SWC 160 cone...
just because it has the same pump doesn't mean squat.
the BP, neck, venturi, outlet, and gate valve are all superior in design and function then what is available on the BM skimmers.
and as a general rule, in my 15+ year experience with designing, installing, repairing and modifying skimmers I can whole heartedly say that cone skimmers w/ good BP's can compete with cylinder skimmers injecting even MORE air than their cone adversaries.
does a skimmer have to be a cone to be good?? no, of course not, it more depends upon using the right powered pump for the right size reaction chamber, neck and outlet.
but there is a DEFINATE increase in skimmate production with properly designed cone skimmers compared to a similar or identically powered cylinder skimmers, we've seen this over and over.

 

[mojo]

now wait just a minute here....

are you ACTUALLY saying that a cone skimmer has no advantage over a cylinder skimmer that has a comparably powered pump??

....not trying to argue, but I know for a fact that is wrong.

this has been tested time and time again with other skimmers in multiple different comparative threads, of which, I'm sure you must have read, or for that matter experienced yourself.

and really, the nac6 (as well as the nac7) doesn't even come close to the SWC 160 cone...
just because it has the same pump doesn't mean squat.
the BP, neck, venturi, outlet, and gate valve are all superior in design and function then what is available on the BM skimmers.
and as a general rule, in my 15+ year experience with designing, installing, repairing and modifying skimmers I can whole heartedly say that cone skimmers w/ good BP's can compete with cylinder skimmers injecting even MORE air than their cone adversaries.
does a skimmer have to be a cone to be good?? no, of course not, it more depends upon using the right powered pump for the right size reaction chamber, neck and outlet.
but there is a DEFINATE increase in skimmate production with properly designed cone skimmers compared to a similar or identically powered cylinder skimmers, we've seen this over and over.

I agree and disagree. But this isnt the forum for cone vs cylinder. I have tested about every popular skimmer made. I have built and tested my own skimmers and made parts for excsisting skimmers as well.

A cone does reduce head pressure on the pump giving a slight advantage over a cylinder. However you do loose reaction time. I have had cones that dont perform as well as cylinders. From my findings the bigger the bubble plate isnt the issue. there is a lot to the bubble plate design to make it even work at all. Most bubble plates really dont help or hurt the skimmer. hole size, thickness, shape, amount ect ect...

if you have the same exact everything pump, ect and only the body shape was changed. I would say you might see a 10% increase. Everyone has there own opinion. To say one skimmer such as the SWC 160 is superior over another with the same pump and similar #'s is a bit o a reach.

The SWC is built a little better than the bubble magus skimmers. I do own the SWC 120. it does have a small step in the neck and to the neck is small and it should be. I have it running on a 60 galon tank with a 50 gallon sump. It works well but the euro reef 5-2 on the same system pulls 2 to 3 times as much from that system. No bubble plate, and less air. But more water through put. They are not similar but you dont always need to open your wallet for the new latest and greatest to havea great performing skimmer and to have a wonderful reef tank. And I think that is all our common goal.

Let not make this a big discussion and move forward helping those who need it. If more cone vs cylinder is requested lets open another thread.

Thanks Much
Mojo~

 

[vbsaltydog]

I will add a note here since I asked a bunch of questions that may have lead to the current debate.

I decided to go with the swc 160 cone but it was not because it is a cone, it was because it is supposed to be a good skimmer and it fits in my sump that is only 10 gallons due to my stand geometry (54g corner bowfront).

If I were on a tight budget I would have likely gone with the Bubble Magus to save a few bucks and get a comparable skimmer and if I had a larger sump in addition to a tight budget, I would have gone with the vertex 100 but since I can spend the ~75.00 more and do have the small sump, the best choice seems to be the swc 160 cone.

This has been a tough decision and I would like to thank mojo for offering an unbiased, objective breakdown of the skimmers that fit my particular set of circumstances IN HIS OPINION but not declaring a winner since they all bring certain features to the table. He offered free expert advice and it helped me a lot in feeling good about my choice.

 

[Hammmerhead]

Luke I dont think that is what I said at all. Please re read the post. I said that the NAC 6 and the swc 160 were using the same pump. I said the swc would not be able to handle 50 to 100 gallons more than the NAC 6 just because of design. When a cone body is designed well it does make a small improvement. But one might argue taht the longer reaction time in the cylinder doesnt matter. How about all those euro reefs that are round and no bubble plate. They skim really well.

There is more to the make up of a skimmer than just a cone body. The SWC 120 and 160 are nice little skimmers and are built pretty well for the money. I have told you the same over the phone when we have talked. My other point is that you are selling the SWC 160 and 120 and may be a little bais as well. MAybe not. As I have always had respect for your opinion. But you cant say the same pump pulling the similar #'s is going to work for larger tanks of that big of a difference. Simply not true. That pump is a cheap pump that works well. No issues. But it simply doesnt have a good water turnover rate for tanks upwards of 150g +

Look at Deltec. They came out with there new line..... No Cones ...

Bubble king No cones
The alpha's are a proline product made by royal exclusive.

So just because its a cone doesnt mean it skims better. The ATB is a well balanced skimmer. The WM k2 has some of the best bubble rise of any skimmer I have seen. Second to mine of course....lol. But Again it has to be balanced and the added cost is hard to say if its worth it on all skimmers.

I have owned pushing 40 different skimmers now. I am not just talking theory. I have ran them all. All different makes and models.

Thanks Much, I will not comment further on this one topic. Moving on.

Mojo~

Really? Mojo.... the new SWC 160 cone has much better construction than the NAC7 and to say the SWC cones are built "pretty well" is a big understatement when comparing to the NAC7. The NAC's botched skim cup has the neck that just sticks down in the body with no tapered ring/seat. This is very rushed and poor design that gives no smooth transition at the upper level of the neck. What about the tiny bubble plates that NAC7 has? If it has minimal affect like you noted why are they are now revising it to a larger size? Its pretty obvious you have "interest's" and not just personal likes and dislikes with a few skimmers that fall in certain size categories.


To put it bluntly, with all the skimmer threads you have posted and all the skimmers you have tinkered with Mojo, are you still truly "unbiased" like you claim? It’s really not sounding that way anymore.

We are all certainly allowed to have our favorites and opinions about each brand and skimmer model and we are ALL biased to an extent. I thought it was really uncool for you to insinuate underhanded and publicly post the possibility of Luke’s point and direction based on his product offering, (him being a seller of SWC). One thing about Luke he has a product and he stands behind it. With you we can only guess who is currently chumming you, offering discounts and promising a new skimmer and goodies to play with.

 

[Troylee]

i think this thread has turned in the wrong direction, and like rev said it is just a q&a thread if we keep it that way none of this will arise because there will be no recomendations.....i think if someone want's to know the best skimmer for a buck maybe start a new thread...every skimmer has it's advantages and disadvantages imo.... i have actually never bought one in my life....i have built every skimmer i have owned i take the best of the best and combine in it into what i like and what work's best....i understand where everyone is coming from and it's hard to believe someone sometimes but honestly i think mojo does a pretty good job and is pretty honest from my standpoint....like i said i have never bought a swc, or nac etc. but i have fixed and done mod's to some of them to make them better...i have also seen alot of them action althou not a swc cone yet im really curious to see what all the fuss is...lol

 

[vbsaltydog]

Appreciated and valid but it is also valid that asking for a recommendation for a specific setup from someone that has more knowledge of the subject matter is one of the basic uses of forums. The problem is not asking for a recommendation nor is it getting one or hearing an alternate perspective but rather the "slamming" of one recommendation instead of simply offering another recommendation and backing it up with your facts/opinions.

Even though this thread has turned into a heated debate, the information in the debate is doing its job.... informing those who seek information beyond what they knew before reading the thread. Heated as it may be.

Example, before reading this thread, I was under the impression that cone skimmers were the next phase of skimming and that cylinders were antiquated and could not compete with the cone designs. Now that I read the thread and arguments, I know that the cone body style only serves the function of decreasing bubble popping during its ascent and improves skimming efficiency but not by a landslide. This is a small example of info that was derived from the thread so my two cents are ... recommendations = OK , opposing recommendations = OK, recommendations via PM = OK, alternate viewpoints = OK, slamming someone elses recommendation = NOT OK and source of the problem.

In closing, if you agree with me, great. If not, and you want to present an opposing viewpoint, great. If you want to argue my viewpoint with derogatory language, please bite your tongue or PM me and the threads will be more productive and informative.

Thanks again to everyone who helped with this thread as it truly did help me choose the right skimmer for my setup in my opinion which is all I was after anyway.

 

[Troylee]

Tottaly under stand were you and everyone are coming from... Also I think it's great that Luke stands behind the products he sells and he has ever right to being a sponser and all... But his opinion is gonna be biased because it's all he carries, which there is no problem with that but there is other skimmers besides swc out there... I'm not sure what all skimmers Luke has tried or demoed etc.. Obvouosly he likes the swc line and chooses to carry it because there good and cheap... Also I think it's great that there is more than one opinion being seen here and hope it all works out... Maybe the mods will step in and figure a way to resolve this it's not my place or cup of tea I'm just trying to keep the peace... Good luck everyone...

 

[luke33]

I'm really trying to stay out of this thread but you keep drawing me back : ) There are lots of great skimmers out there and i like many of them. I have tested out a ton of skimmers in the last 5-6yrs as well as made some myself and modded many. The only reason i popped in was because there was mis information about a product I carry. I don't like seeing that. Thats all. You can also say my opinion is biased, which is true but i do suggest other skimmers all the time. I run a bm hot and have tested out the entire line fwiw. I would also say that other opinion's in this thread are JUST as biased as mine. So carry on, and I appologize for disrupting the thread.

 

[Troylee]

I'm really trying to stay out of this thread but you keep drawing me back : ) There are lots of great skimmers out there and i like many of them. I have tested out a ton of skimmers in the last 5-6yrs as well as made some myself and modded many. The only reason i popped in was because there was mis information about a product I carry. I don't like seeing that. Thats all. You can also say my opinion is biased, which is true but i do suggest other skimmers all the time. I run a bm hot and have tested out the entire line fwiw. I would also say that other opinion's in this thread are JUST as biased as mine. So carry on, and I appologize for disrupting the thread.

with all do respect luke i would like to see you stay.. there is no problem with that at all imo. it's good to have more than one opinion in anything i know mojo started this thread but i jump in lol.. im no body just a guy that can't afford those big bad toys so i build them i got 3 kids to feed man, on a single income...it's all good and everything has been very informative and im sure it has helped people make wise decisions...maybe i should go lol... i have a ton exp. with skimmers so im just here trying to help like you and mojo.... here is a couple examples...

lagauna 2400 volute..

and a couple action shots of those skimmers i made from scratch...