Talk:Protein skimmer

Serious POV problems

Removed most of the section on Downdraft skimmers. The section on Beckett skimmers also needs paring down. There's too much "many aquarists believe..." kind of stuff. Anything comparing the benefits or drawbacks of designs need to be backed up with suitable references. Otherwise, they're not very convincing. Aquarists believe all kinds of stuff, but that doesn't make them right (the "scaleless fish are allergic to salt" notion springs to mind...).

Cheers, Neale —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Neale Monks (talk • contribs) 18:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC).

Edits too drastic?

Neale, I am concerned that you might have been too drastic on the protein skimmer entry. I'm not really going to argue the downdraft skimmer entry since that guy turned it into an advert. Now that it's pruned back to almost nothing maybe he or someone else will improve on it without turning it into a commercial. However, I think you went overboard on the beckett skimmer. I think you removed some useful information. It was not overtly commercial or incorrect. The opinions were listed with caveats noting that there were other opinions. I don't think there was too much "many aquarists believe..." stuff. There wasn't anything like the "scaleless fish are allergix to salt" example. Now there were clearly some opportunities for improvement, as is the case with almost every entry. I'd like to take a whack at it and see if I can retain the information while improving the entry. I also want to think about your Co-current and Counter-current organization change (at least I think you made that change). The distinctions made are not accurate any longer. For example, needlewheel skimmers can be either co-current or counter-current (at least mostly counter-current). I know that concept was there previously and you just reorganized it but I'm not sure that's the best way or even an accurate way to explain it.

Acroporia 06:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Acroporia -- obviously go ahead and make the article better! Marines aren't my speciality and I happily defer to others when it comes to the details. So please, yes, re-write or paste back anything you felt I'd removed without good reason.

Here's my thing though: some stuff is based on opinion (not, in itself a bad thing but Wikipedia articles should be referenced). So for example under Needlewheel skimmers, you have the following: This style skimmer has become very popular and is believed to be the most popular type of skimmer used with residential reef aquariums today. It has been particularly successful in smaller aquariums due to its usually compact size, ease of set up and use, and quiet operation. All that may be correct, but who "believed" it is the most popular and how is "particularly successful" measured? I'd like to see those statements substantiated with references to an aquarium book, magazine articles, well-regarded web site, or whatever.

The article is also rather vague in terms of science. A lot of aquarists quote buzzwords without actually knowing what they mean or why they're important. So is a higher or lower redox potential an "improvement" and why? Why does nitrogenous waste link to nitrogen, and how does that make it clear why removing organic compounds is helpful in an aquarium? How is the air-stone skimmer "obsolete" compared with the high-tech versions, and what scientific tests have actually proved that? My worry is that (like a lot of marine aquarium stuff) it focuses on the mechanics -- with newer and more expensive being assumed to be better -- without understanding how that affects the biological systems in the tank.

Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 14:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'll give a shot. One thing that I'm still not sure how to address is the example you make about needlewheel skimmers. I would guess that the large majority of knowledgable reef aquarists would agree with the statement about the needlewheel skimmer's current popularity and success in the market. Let's assume for a moment that it is an accurate statement. How do you substantiate something like that? There are not generally available industry statistics to define what volume of skimmers are sold each month. There will not be many articles written about something that many people generally regard to be true and unchallenged as a fact. I am sure there are articles written that mention in passing something like "the needlewheel skimmer is one of the most popular types of protein skimmer available today" or other somewhat vague references that most people will recognize as accurate. But these types of citations are hardly a convincing reference if you really want to verify the fact.

Acroporia 17:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

You'd substantiate facts by citing a properly edited book or published magazine article. Speaking of what I know, if you're keeping freshwater plants, there are any number of books that will say incandescent lights aren't that good, fluorescent lights better, high-output lights best. They'd also explain why in terms of light per unit energy, but balance that with discussion of installation costs and running costs (with fluorescent lights often hitting the sweet spot in terms of cost versus effectiveness). It's a lot like the Mac vs. PC, or Chevvy vs. Ford, thing -- people say the best design is the one they happen to be using and have experience of. Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 18:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Skimmer Bias

My apologies if I turned the Downdraft thing into an advert but I saw the Beckett as a clear advert and rather than erasing it all (like happened to the downdraft thing) I would write a less blatantly bashing article. I have read your comments and I hope you approve of this Downdraft correction. I have recently been made aware that the Downdraft term in the US is trademarked by AE Tech inc and the patent number was attached for information sake. There are a lot of illegal skimmers infringing on this patent entering the US lately and I think it is important that the patent number be displayed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Charlesda (talk • contribs) 19:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC).

I don't argue with the need to protect intellectual property or trademarks but Wikipedia isn't the place to do that. I've reworded the Donwdraft section to mention that it is a proprietary design and removed the patent number etc. Wikipedia isn't a place to advertise wares either, so links to the manufacturer have been removed. If you want to add a reference to a verifiable commentary on the skimmer design, perhaps a product review in a fishkeeping magazine, then I'd encourage you to do so. Simply linking to the catalogue pages (all I could find on the super skimmer site [1] isn't really acceptable for this. Neale Monks 21:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

can't have your cake and eat it too?

Out of fairness sake I suggest you remove all references to the companies that own the trademarks and patents in all of the references to all the pages contained in this encyclopedia. I have found many references to proprietary things like Mickey Mouse, the origins of Postum, who created Star Trek and who owns it now. I hope you begin to see the hypocrisy here. If you do not allow the ownership of the patent or developer information here then remove it from all references. I wrote the article with a non commercial and non biased voice since I saw that some of the others were written with a little less of a bias now. Everything I wrote is factual and can be verified and if that is no longer allowed in this article then what good is it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Charlesda (talk • contribs) 02:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC).

The problem is that while The Downdraft skimmer might be a proprietary design, downdraft skimmers themselves seem to be made by other companies, even by amateurs. So while McDonalds may be able to prevent someone calling their hamburgers Big Macs, they can't actually stop people selling hamburgers. Likewise, A E Tech can certainly hold onto their particular design of downdraft skimmer and call it the SuperSkimmer or whatever, but they can't stop anyone else from making a skimmer using the downdraft principle. For what it's worth, I've added AETech's name to the article, but adding patent numbers and addresses is irrelvant. You might also want to clarify how you know it is "extensively used in public aquaria", i.e., provide a verifiable source that says so (rather than a page of AETEch's sales and marketing, which may be accurate but can't be verified objectively). Also, some context is required: extensively used in the US? Europe? Japan? Where? How extensively? In four public aquaria? Forty? Four hundred? Neale Monks 10:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

While you are right that people are producing and using the term Downdraft that is Illegal to do in the US and they will be sued for trademark violation and patent infringement. 69.116.123.112 10:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)AE Tech

That's for the lawyers to figure out! Now focus on trying to add some verifiable sources to support the comment that the AETech's skimmers are "extensively used in public aquaria". Otherwise, that line has to go, because it doesn't mean anything if "extensively" isn't justified. If your work here is to advertise AETech's products, that isn't going to happen. If you want to put some information here that's objective and open to review, that's to be welcomed. Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 11:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

DAF

I think that these protein skimmers are a specialized type of thing called a dissolved air floatation unit (for which we don't have an article). If true, this should be incorporated into the article. ike9898 17:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect Reference

Neal Monks, unless I misunderstand it looks like you added the following sentence to the Protein Skimmer Design section on Feb 5, 2007:

Because the air bubbles are in contact with the water for a longer period in a counter-current flow system, protein skimmers of this type are more effective at removing organic wastes.[1]

The reference is for Escobal's book on Aquatic Systems Engineering. The problem is that Escobal does not say this is true although he implies he is willing to make the assumption that longer dwell time is a good thing and that some organic molecules may take a long time to bind to the surface of an air bubble. But these are simplifying assumptions that he made and represents his opinion. He does not represent that he has or knows of any research with this conclusion.

Escobal is held in great reverence by many people that care about protein skimmer design so invoking his name is a powerful reference. But this is an area where he does not claim to know the real answer.

If I misunderstand and this is not your posting then I am sorry for the confusion. However, the posting is incorrect and needs to be modified.

NaClH20 23:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Significant Changes

Ok, I've made a number of significant changes, the most important is to remove the above referenced incorrect claims attributed to Escobal and a number of others that are unattributed and appear to be incorrect. Some trimming on POV claims as well and some additions to the different skimmer designs. If you have any concerns please post here for discussion.

NaClH20 07:28, 11 November 2007 (UTC)and it rock's

Design Section

Reference #6 is a dead link and the material in the article it supports is a simple (but dubious and utterly untested) marketing claim.

While it does not specifically address the marketing niche of "shaped skimmers", this article on Advanced Aquarist is among the only quantitative research on comparative skimmer performance available and it suggests there is little to no difference between one well-working skimmer and the next - regardless of design.

I would suggest removing that paragraph completely.

Here's the paragraph in question:
"Also under considerable recent attention has been the general shape of a skimmer as well. In particular, much attention has been given to the introduction of cone shaped skimmer units. Originally designed by Klaus Jensen in 2004, the concept was founded on the principle that a conical body allows the foam to accumulate more steadily through a gently sloping transition. This reduces the overall turbulence, resulting in more efficient skimming. While research into the specific benefits of the design are still being measured, early reviews of many conical skimmers have been positive overall."

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.214.40.164 (talk • contribs) 07:39, December 17, 2013‎

I have no objection to doing that. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:44, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Air stone

I believe this device has other uses and warrants its own article.--عبد المؤمن (talk) 05:51, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree. That's a good idea. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:08, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Protein skimmer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090929100611/http://proteinskimmerinfo.com:80/vertex-royal-exclusiv-alpha-cone-250-protein-skimmer-review/ to http://proteinskimmerinfo.com/vertex-royal-exclusiv-alpha-cone-250-protein-skimmer-review/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:52, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Function section

Protein skimmers are used to harvest algae and phytoplankton gently enough to maintain viability for culturing or commercial sale as live cultures. There are no references added for this statement made. Nitrate and phosphate are referred to as being noxious. Is this a personal opinion? All nutrients are noxious to some extend. Why algae scrubbers are mentioned in an encyclopedic article about skimmers? What a skimmer may remove and what not! What an algae scrubber may remove should be part of an article about algae scrubbers. What about the ability of a skimmer to remove proteins, TOC and DOC.? Which may be estimated to be only max +- 30% No warning about the possible impact on the environment due to long term use of a skimmer in a closed marine system. Due to the selective removal of organisms selective evolution is encouraged, a problem which may not be overlooked.

De Mille — Preceding unsigned comment added by Demille001 (talk • contribs) 10:59, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

References