The problem with NTU values are differentiating between suspended material and dissolved material precipitated by your process. Skimmers will take out lower mass material in the water column as well as precipitating the proteins.
Of course one might reasonably be said to lead to the other so it's all good.
4-5 gallons per fortnight with the 100-300 NTU skimmate is rather more substantial than 1 gallon for 3 weeks.
I like the idea of operating it as a water changer multiplier. You get to extract a lot more material per until volume of water change. Further, watery skimmate is easier to get rid of without frequent and nauseating human intervention.
The only question is would it not be considerably more effective to simply run a surface skimmer with a continuous water changer in combination with regularly backflushed filters in order to keep dissolved organics under control.
With regard to Ozone. I have had noisy units before and I have had ones which created magnetic interference. You need to ensure you have a good quality one.
You do need to use ozone resistant pipe of course and that will not disintegrate and that includes ozone resistant check valves and skimmers of course.
Ozone units can be cheaper in the long run as there are no bulbs to change and no glass sleeves to keep clean or replace. Ozone units also use a great deal less electricity.
Finding the one best option isnt of course the objective but searching for an option which could outperform the others for less cost and less work is always worthwhile.
Since Duanes has helpfully delivered such rigorous data we have the chance of drawing such an informed empirically based conclusion. In fact if at all possible we can get Duanes to do the maths for us while were at it
Of course one might reasonably be said to lead to the other so it's all good.
4-5 gallons per fortnight with the 100-300 NTU skimmate is rather more substantial than 1 gallon for 3 weeks.
I like the idea of operating it as a water changer multiplier. You get to extract a lot more material per until volume of water change. Further, watery skimmate is easier to get rid of without frequent and nauseating human intervention.
The only question is would it not be considerably more effective to simply run a surface skimmer with a continuous water changer in combination with regularly backflushed filters in order to keep dissolved organics under control.
With regard to Ozone. I have had noisy units before and I have had ones which created magnetic interference. You need to ensure you have a good quality one.
You do need to use ozone resistant pipe of course and that will not disintegrate and that includes ozone resistant check valves and skimmers of course.
Ozone units can be cheaper in the long run as there are no bulbs to change and no glass sleeves to keep clean or replace. Ozone units also use a great deal less electricity.
Finding the one best option isnt of course the objective but searching for an option which could outperform the others for less cost and less work is always worthwhile.
Since Duanes has helpfully delivered such rigorous data we have the chance of drawing such an informed empirically based conclusion. In fact if at all possible we can get Duanes to do the maths for us while were at it
