+mcallahan Posted April 8, 2010 Share Posted April 8, 2010 I picked one up last Friday and I wrote an article on my impressions. Here is the link Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rjohn Posted April 8, 2010 Share Posted April 8, 2010 I was looking at the article on your new skimmer and I followed the link to the HPD food. How much was that baggie? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+mcallahan Posted April 8, 2010 Author Share Posted April 8, 2010 I was looking at the article on your new skimmer and I followed the link to the HPD food. How much was that baggie? $15 + shipping Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pbnj Posted April 8, 2010 Share Posted April 8, 2010 With 600lph/21scfh of airpull and maybe a 3" neck, I'm not suprised this skimmer only slightly outperforms your Vertex. FYI, for the same money, there's also the Super Reef Octopus XP1000 cone (available in May), which has 900lph/31scfh of airpull with the new Bubble Blaster pump and a 3.5" neck. I'm putting a Super Reef Octopus XP-5000 cone on my 240g (85-90scfh airpull with a 6" neck). I'll blog my review when the time comes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+mcallahan Posted April 8, 2010 Author Share Posted April 8, 2010 With 600lph/21scfh of airpull and maybe a 3" neck, I'm not suprised this skimmer only slightly outperforms your Vertex. FYI, for the same money, there's also the Super Reef Octopus XP1000 cone (available in May), which has 900lph/31scfh of airpull with the new Bubble Blaster pump and a 3.5" neck. I'm putting a Super Reef Octopus XP-5000 cone on my 240g (85-90scfh airpull with a 6" neck). I'll blog my review when the time comes. Interesting. I won't touch anything Reef Octopus again though - I've had 2 and I did not like them at all. The other thing I didn't like about the Reef Octo's was that the gate valve adjustment was low down on the skimmer, so you had to get your hand wet as well as maneuver your hand down to the valve to get to it. Good to see more competition among makers tho. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pbnj Posted April 8, 2010 Share Posted April 8, 2010 Interesting. I won't touch anything Reef Octopus again though - I've had 2 and I did not like them at all. The other thing I didn't like about the Reef Octo's was that the gate valve adjustment was low down on the skimmer, so you had to get your hand wet as well as maneuver your hand down to the valve to get to it. Good to see more competition among makers tho. The SRO XP cones are most efficient when sitting in about 6" of water, so the gate valve should be above the water line. There's a thread on RC (under vendor Reef Specialty) about these cones. I don't think these are even in the same ballpark as the old Octopus Extremes. The new Bubble Blaster pumps make a big difference. Plenty of favorable reviews. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+mcallahan Posted April 8, 2010 Author Share Posted April 8, 2010 The SRO XP cones are most efficient when sitting in about 6" of water, so the gate valve should be above the water line. There's a thread on RC (under vendor Reef Specialty) about these cones. I don't think these are even in the same ballpark as the old Octopus Extremes. The new Bubble Blaster pumps make a big difference. Plenty of favorable reviews. The 6" of water thing was another thing that made me choose against the SRO. When I was looking @ the SWC, I also considered the SRO 2000 which was 23" tall. Since the SRO had to sit in 6" of water, I would not have had enough room under my tank to raise the skimmer up high enough to get it to 6". I also wasn't going to modify my sump to lower the water level so the SRO's were out. The Bubble Blaster pump sounds nice, and it was enticing, but I got the same hype when the old Octo Extremes had the sicce pumps. Everyone though the sicce was THE pump and mine was 10 db louder than my vertex pump. I replaced the shaft which helped, but the sicce still too loud for my tastes. If the sicce was THAT good, I shouldn't of had those problems. As far as air draw, the cone does have a bit more air draw than my vertex and I wanted to see if the small air draw with the cone design would make a noticeable difference. For me, it did. Would I like to get an even bigger air draw? For sure, so when SWC gets more in of the next model up - the 200 I think - I'll probably upgrade to that, but for now, the 160 works great, requires no modifications to my current setup (I didn't even have to use a skimmer stand) and its quiet. Hard to beat that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pbnj Posted April 8, 2010 Share Posted April 8, 2010 The 6" of water thing was another thing that made me choose against the SRO. When I was looking @ the SWC, I also considered the SRO 2000 which was 23" tall. Since the SRO had to sit in 6" of water, I would not have had enough room under my tank to raise the skimmer up high enough to get it to 6". I also wasn't going to modify my sump to lower the water level so the SRO's were out. The XP2000 is the next size up. The XP1000 is actually a "space-saver" model (the skimmer body sits on top of the pump) and it's about 1/2" shorter than the SWC 160, so you wouldn't have to raise it and it would take up even less height room in your sump. Trust me, I'm not getting a commission on these, so please don't think I'm trying to sell SRO XP's to everyone. Just putting out some facts if people are interested in comparing the two. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+mcallahan Posted April 8, 2010 Author Share Posted April 8, 2010 The XP2000 is the next size up. The XP1000 is actually a "space-saver" model (the skimmer body sits on top of the pump) and it's about 1/2" shorter than the SWC 160, so you wouldn't have to raise it and it would take up even less height room in your sump. Trust me, I'm not getting a commission on these, so please don't think I'm trying to sell SRO XP's to everyone. Just putting out some facts if people are interested in comparing the two. Thanks for the info...will you loan me yours when you get it so I can review it against the SWC? I'd be interested to see the results and to give Octo a chance to change my opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pbnj Posted April 8, 2010 Share Posted April 8, 2010 Thanks for the info...will you loan me yours when you get it so I can review it against the SWC? I'd be interested to see the results and to give Octo a chance to change my opinion. Well, I'm getting the XP-5000 for my 240g, so I don't think it would be a fair comparison. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+mcallahan Posted April 8, 2010 Author Share Posted April 8, 2010 Well, I'm getting the XP-5000 for my 240g, so I don't think it would be a fair comparison. hahaha..that'd be funny. "what the heck!" This 5000 doesn't pull ANYTHING out of my 90G!" "its rated for a 240G tank" "oh." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pbnj Posted April 8, 2010 Share Posted April 8, 2010 hahaha..that'd be funny. "what the heck!" This 5000 doesn't pull ANYTHING out of my 90G!" "its rated for a 240G tank" "oh." A 240g is actually towards the minimum recommended tank size for the XP5000. They guy at Reef Specialty said that if I use the 5000 (instead of the more appropriate XP3000), I need to make sure I keep a heavy bioload....no problem, dude. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisfowler99 Posted April 8, 2010 Share Posted April 8, 2010 eek! It's bigger than I thought. Need to build a small stand to raise it up a bit. Hope it all still fits. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisfowler99 Posted April 8, 2010 Share Posted April 8, 2010 Fits perfectly! Man that thing is quiet! Love it. And the adjustments are so easy. Now...gotta see how it skims. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crab Rangoon Posted April 9, 2010 Share Posted April 9, 2010 The XP2000 is the next size up. The XP1000 is actually a "space-saver" model (the skimmer body sits on top of the pump) Don't forget the XP-2000SSSS - it's already available, and has the pump enclosed in the bottom of the cone as well. In a week or two I'm supposed to come into my XP-2000 or XP-3000, whichever I go with will be an internal model though - not external. My friend has been running his XP-3000 for a whole 7 days now, and has been impressed from the start - and he's running it on a 90gal. All he has to compare it to is his old EuroReef RS-100 or RS-135, I forget. He bought the Octopus for his upcoming transition into a 185. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GKarshens Posted April 9, 2010 Share Posted April 9, 2010 I noticed in your write up that you were not messing with the air intake. Smaller bubbles should mean better skimming. The more surface area on the bubbles the more stuff can attach to them. I would adjust it down and run it that way a couple days and see if you notice a difference. A lot of people get caught up in the scfh, but that is just one factor in a skimmer's performance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crab Rangoon Posted April 9, 2010 Share Posted April 9, 2010 I would adjust it down and run it that way a couple days and see if you notice a difference. A lot of people get caught up in the scfh, but that is just one factor in a skimmer's performance. I agree, and the final settings will really boil down to user preference on wet vs dry skimmate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisfowler99 Posted April 9, 2010 Share Posted April 9, 2010 Mine's run for about 16 hours with water and air flow full open and the skimmate is very wet. Tuned for smaller bubbles and less water this morning to try to get something a little drier. Going to take some tuning, but man is it easy to do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crab Rangoon Posted April 9, 2010 Share Posted April 9, 2010 Mine's run for about 16 hours with water and air flow full open and the skimmate is very wet. Is yours submerged 6", 7", 8"? And are you talking about an XP cone, or the SWC? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisfowler99 Posted April 9, 2010 Share Posted April 9, 2010 SWC 160 cone, in about 8 1/2" of water. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.