小朱兄
若是這兩款比較, 我相信 Multi 絕對勝過 ASF100的
1. 針狀葉片效果, 泡沫細緻大為提高
2. 內外管的設計, 增長泡沫停留時間

呵~~真好!!
感謝KHU兄的解說!!
這樣換SKIMMER勢在必行囉!!呵~~~
再請教一個問題,就是有關噪音的部份
我使用ASF-100搭配RIO-4100,所產生的噪音多來自共震及文氏管,
不知道Multi 搭配40W的馬達,其運作時的聲音會不會小聲一點??

KHU 兄

你又將小弟推出來. 開個玩笑
我的水量是300L AB Multi 是目前用過最滿意的skimmer,他的馬達是伊罕的1060型耗電38瓦還是德國原廠的.我們不談除泡器本身光是馬達一個市面就要4000至5000.扣掉馬達的錢skimmer 本身剩4000左右是比台製的貴一點.等你看了它的質量設計的完美你就不會後悔.裡面付有消音器及消泡的裝置.不是一般skimmer 都沒為使用著考慮
以上是設計的優點至於使用上極靜完全沒有文式管的吸氣聲.打出來的泡沫真的非常細量又多,其他優點只有你去參考有使用的人你就會知道.以上提供給各位參考

我也來提供一些看法吧.........ccc
基本上Tunze 230我有實際拆解過(khu大大的).......它的造泡原因也是等同於針狀葉片...但只有三根葉片...
而且..它的反應槽的大小卻只有小小的一個方盒..而且會有很多細泡流出.....不管是氣泡量和反應槽的大小.... 都比AB multi 小太多...所以我個人..也會選擇AB multi ....
要討論省電......我是覺得...效率大於省電...而且市面上所有的skimmer所建議的適用水量...並沒有一定的標準(如汽車馬力)...而且在調整搭配裝設之下..也會有一點差異...所以要完整公平的比較是有困難的.....

1. 先回到本帖的原始問題:
請問各位前輩,總水量280公升,Tunze 230,AB1000Multi 1000,那一支蛋白除沫比較適合?
我的答案是:：AB Multi
2. 身為Multi的現役使用者，CHEN兄字字珠璣，我心有戚戚焉
3. 談到"省電"的部份，相同瓦數的馬達，耗電當然相同，台電收的電費也一樣，如同中油直營站95一公升都要19.4元一樣；今天有兩台車，一台一公升跑10公里，另一台跑13公里,你不會因為油一公升都要19.4，而斷定"耗油"相同。若一支去蛋白能以50W馬達來推，卻達到另一支用70W才能達到的效果，自然可以說它省電。
4. Multi能不能適用1000L，我懷疑！或者說以我所要的養殖環境，我是不會選擇用它在1000L的缸子。記得看過一篇文章，作者建議把市售去蛋白廠商(不分品牌)的建議水量，至少除以3-4，當然這是該作者個人的看法，只是我也發現這樣的數據，比較適合自己的缸子。
5. 如同COB所言，任何產品"要完整公平的比較是有困難的..."。更何況產品的選擇，還牽扯到個人對品牌的認同、取得是否方便、....等非關效能的因素，所以其實是見仁見智。
但還是借用一下版面，提出自己的疑問，主要希望所有網友都能不吝提出個人的經驗及看法，彼此分享學習，這才是最重要的。
但關於效能的討論上面，我有幾個不太明白的疑問，還請各位多指導牽成：
1. 管腔大小與處理水量的關係
2. 流量與效率的關係
關於管腔大小，我有兩點問題：
A. skimmer管腔長，目的是在延長氣泡與水接觸的時間，所以理論上，越長越好，這點在skimmer上好像說的通，但我想不通的是：如果單位時間流過水量一樣的話，硝酸鹽化除器為何要作那麼大？是不是兩倍長的化除器每秒水滴數目可以變兩倍(或至少1.5倍)？如果不是這樣，那作長的好處在那？
如果有兩種化除器，管徑相同，甲為1公尺長，乙為2公尺長，入水皆為NO3=50的條件下，兩者出水控制為NO3=0的最大水流量分別為5滴/秒以及8滴/秒。在不考慮成本及美觀的狀況下，用兩支甲是不是比一支乙還要好？
會有上面這種怪問題，只是直覺硝酸鹽化除器的有效處理水流量好像不會跟管長成完全正比（斜率＝１），如果真是如此，那還不如作好幾支小支的較好，但這點需有大傢伙化除器的人來回答解惑了！
B. 在Albert兄的回覆中，提到"以Turbofolotor multi的反應區大小來看應該處理不到1000L的水量....."
恕vaca實在是太肉腳了，不明白的是如果可以用Multi的反應區大小來評量它的處理水量，那麼Tunze的反應區更小，處理的水量不就更小囉？那依您的經驗，Tunze優於Multi的地方是....？
還請Albert兄多與我們分享一下您的經驗，小弟考慮也許改天也來敗一台Tunze 230回來！

關於skimmer流量與效率
單位時間流過skimmer的水量越大，效率越好？應該不是這樣的吧！
流量越大，表示水停留在反應區的時間越短，不見得效率會越好。流量太小當然不行，但過大也會有反效果的。
關於蛋白的最適水流量，以下連結有參考的計算法：
http://www.hawkfish.org/snailman/skimmer101.htm　
所以認為水流量越大，效率越好的想法，恐怕跟skimmer的作用原理相去頗遠。

得到了不少知識與經驗
推一下此系列文章囉
是不是要列入精華區呢？

個人主缸是用 AB multi 1000 , 主要考量點是他接UPS , 停電時不用去理他 , 650VA 可以至少撐個6個小時跑不掉 , SUMP 適用ASF100 的 , 最近朋友幫我買一顆馬達 , 打算有空時再把炒人的文式管鋸掉換裝馬達 .
因為我的魚都是大型神仙的幼魚 . 食量超大 , 一天餵食紀錄最多高達17次...故沒有足夠的SKIMMER 我早就倒缸了 , 外國標FOR 1000 Liter, 是建議值 , 基本上若以國外的養殖密度而言是絕對夠的 , 但是以國內高密度養殖法 , 減半都不一定夠 ...供參考 .

Tunze is making a come back at least in the US. They are now aggressively marketing their improved products. Down Draft, Spray Injection, Becket and needle wheel skimmers are actually working differently in their primary purposes. Besides needle wheel, most of the other skimmers are actually plankton friendly. For those of you constantly visiting sites in the US, you would know about refugium. It is a whole different ecosystem we created to supply food for our corals and expel excessive nutrients. I was not comparing Turboflotor with the current skimmer I have (ETSS 800), but rather than using my own past experiences to make the determination I stated. Actually, there is no comparison.
T1000 and Tunze are actually different in design. MWSHU stated that the impeller itself is different. Albert stated the facts about the elbow restricted the proper flows on T1000 and how the overall design been different too. If you ask Andy from CA, he would tell you the T1000 we get come with a Rio 2100, but in Taiwan, you guys are getting the Ehime. Ehime itself creates a better overhead pressure than Rio IMHO, so I cannot give input on that part. But for the overall flow rate, with restricted elbows, could T1000 actually process the water volume it clams?? I think KHU already gave the answer.
Needle wheel itself is quiet interesting. There are actually two schools of thoughts. One is that it actually works. The other says that it is purely marketing efforts made by the manufacturers. I feel it is the second one. Many of you are currently involving in the DIY of the needle wheel impeller you purchased, If I am not mistaken, don't the T1000 uses the pump as the creator of foam. Not a direct source of air to the water injector style? Then why is there an air tubing sticking out at the connector between the pump and skimmer?
If I am correct, then come and think of it, when a pump is produced, the actual numbers of times the impeller spins determine the actual water output. Needle wheel installed on the pump slows the water output rate, the magnet the spins within the pump housing is turning in the same speed but the water been impelled has decreased. Then with the restricted tubing, I would suggest the actual water output decreased at a rate of least 30%. Do take into the consideration that the actual decrease in performance of the needle wheel came from tubing distance and elbow. I am not sure what kind of Ehime came with the T1000; I would love to find out. Since you mentioned Euroreef? T1000’s design and ideal are pretty much the same. I think the same goes with the new Kent skimmer. The only problem is, the pump. Euroreef’s needle wheel is installed in the Sedra 5000 pump. It is a kick ass pump that cannot be matched with the Ehime and Rio. The overhead pressure it creates out performs the other two.
However, another manufacturer here in the States is currently working on a clone model of a well -known needle wheel skimmer. The fact is that the skimmer performs better without the needle wheel but he put it on anyway because people would actually buy the products if it were in fact needle wheel. He puts both impellers in the box for the user to decide on their own. Please read the following thread started by a reef hobbyist here and see all the replies.
http://www.reefcentral.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=89877&highlight=needle+wheel+impeller
My experience with T1000 is that you actually need to install another water pump for the proper water input to reach its optimal performance. That means you need to regulate the actual water input. In the States, most of the vendors will tell you to use a Rio 600 with modified fittings that you need to purchase separately. On this Rio 600, you will see the water intake on the bottom have another build in air intake hose attached. Now why is that?? I am assuming that this air intake tube will increase the air- flow rate into the skimmer for more mixture thus to increase its performance. Have anyone of you try to put the original impeller back to the pump?? I think you will notice the difference in performance. Be sure to monitor the water level closely as the increase water input with stronger air input could overflow your skimmer. I am not sure how Andy in CA hooked up his skimmer; perhaps he could give his two cents. Since the last time I visit the pH 8.4 site, you guys gave a lot of good addition. I remember KHU recommended a forum popular in the US. Wet Web Media?? Well, read this thread then.
http://www.wetwebmedia.com/turboskimfaqs.htm
I must first say that I have not yet had a chance to personally use the model 230 skimmer. I have experience observing the 210/2 and 3110/2 operating on this friend’s 65gallon SPS tank with large fish load. So I asked for his input on his experience. His experience with these skimmers was a better performance of the model 210/2 but a compromise in the ease of mounting and the sensitivity to water level fluctuations. For this reason he recommended the 3110/2. The 210/3 has only been available for about 6 months. The problems regarding water level and mounting are resolved with this new model. He thinks the main decision for anyone to make is which is more aesthetically pleasing in his/her set up. I have seen the 210/3 operating at the factory and was quite impressed. The Tunze skimmers operate very quietly and reliably. The parts are also readily available in the States with many online ordering places and I would be hard pressed to think of a skimmer in this price range that offers such value. Yes, again, I am not sure of the prices in Taiwan.
Regarding the skimmer cup the size is 4" tall and 3.75" diameter with a volume of 300ml. The pump is a small Italian made pump which has performed safely and reliably so I don't believe you need a spare impeller or any motor parts only to keep track of the small plastic bushings during service. Only running dry seems to ruin these pumps and even in these conditions the thermostatic switch prevents any harm to the user or aquarium inhabitants. The overhead pressures of these pumps are amazing. The mixture of air and water produced by these pumps produced the driest foam I have ever seen. The size of this skimmer is overall impressive. If I have the chance to start over with I was deciding between the T1000 and Tunze? I would go with Tunze.
Well, this is a long post and I do not want to con’t with this debate anymore. Let the dude decide on what kind of skimmer he wants.

COB said:
要討論省電......我是覺得...效率大於省電...而且市面上所有的skimmer所建議的適用水量...並沒有一定的標準(如汽車馬力)...而且在調整搭配裝設之下..也會有一點差異...所以要完整公平的比較是有困難的.....
This is the part I left out. I agree with what he said. Truth to the matter is that we all know in this hobby, energy efficiency is the lest concerns of mine.

While I am at it, I might as well post this one too about the Red Sea skimmer.
http://www.reefcentral.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=111438&highlight=red+sea+skimmer

哇!看來tunze果真東山再起了,不過如果你想要選擇tunze230可要確定是新款的喔!不然效果會差很多,
to andrew兄:請問你提起的t1000所遇到的問題,像是pump的用法,針狀葉片的更換,是舊款的那型classic1000嗎?因為只有那款是利用bypass的方法,而且付的是很爛的rio2100,還併用文氏管,是真的很爛,不過multi這台在台灣是配上eheim1060且已經裝好葉片,光這個,效果就差很多了(可能無法想像),有很多知名利用針狀葉片的廠商都是用eheim 的馬達,而red sea那台如果也是用eheim的1060效果也會差很多,tunze的馬達不錯,eheim的也很好,不過rio就差很多了,不過如果說針狀葉片的skimmer只是唬人的,應該不會吧,euroreef的skimmer效果比ETSS還好耶,不過euroreef的skimmer還有muti1000這台和kent的文氏管應該起泡方式也不一樣吧,而且euroreef的氣管是接在馬達進水口處,至於對浮游生物影響的程度,我可能覺得只有用氣泡木的,才是最不會有影響的吧
請andrew兄幫個忙,因為我們這邊看不到新款的tunze230,請幫忙比比看新款230和multi1000配1060的效果差多少,謝謝,麻煩你了
ps:如果那台tunze230是新款的,我就會推這一台

Tumze 230 , 或是其它的 Tunze 有新款嗎? 我剛剛又去瀏覽 一下德國Tunze 網頁, 並沒有這個發現, 台灣這邊的 AB Multi 是配 eheim 1060 pump的,和原先 AB 1000 classic 不同, andrew 兄提到的問題和介紹的 網頁上面說的 AB t1000 問題, 目前在台灣配備的款式都沒有發生吧
同意小凡兄所說的, 因為我們這邊看不到新款的tunze230,請幫忙比比看新款230和multi1000配1060的效果差多少,如果以我這位 Tunze 230 使用者, 我還是堅持, 它的效果頂多和 ASF 300差不多ㄝ, 至於 andrew 在朋友家看到的 Tunze dry foam 的形成, 在我的使用經驗上, Tunze 形成dry foam 的效率非常地低, 我覺得Tunze 缺點是
1. 在亞洲非常地貴, 通常要 10000以上
2. 調整上並不靈巧, 可調整範圍很有限
3. 反應區非常地小,
4. 那個 義大利的可調式馬達, 經過我的拆解, 與eheim 相差甚多
5. 因為它事實上是 paddle wheel ,不是如 Aquamedic 或 Euro-Reef 的 needle wheel ,所以, 氣泡並不細膩
.....so... 我換了 ASF100
再說到 needle wheel skimmer , 在我PO過另一帖的評比中, Euroreef 的效率比起同類款處理水量的的ETSS 更佳, 更為省電, 我同意小凡的看法, 我並不認為needle wheel skimmer 是唬人的, 決定skimmer 的效果在於泡沫細密與反應時間長, 如果說流量是最為重要, 我並不認同, 我傾向認為, 在氣泡細密度已經到達一個基本程度後, 流量更高才是更佳, 否則, 若流量很大, 但氣泡又大又少, 乾有大流量有何用? 在新一代的 Aerofoamer ( or spray jet, foam jet) , needle wheel skimmer, downdraft skimmer, 都在氣泡上面下了很大的功夫改進, 在這些檔次的 skimmer 間, 再推舉出最高流量的 ( 記得, 通常也是最耗電與使用最大pump的 , 選擇見人見智...) , 比較才有意義, 否則, 推不出細密的氣泡, 豈不好像一味追求流量, 效果大減!!
在目前, 真正做出 needle wheel 的廠商據我所知只有 AB 和 Marine Techincal Concept 公司做的 EuroReef, 其它 copy 版本針狀葉片都不夠細, 都變成 paddle wheel , 片狀的葉片
請參考 http://www.animalnetwork.com/fish2/aqfm/1998/nov/product/default.asp
我並不想在此推薦AB Multi 1000或推薦 needle wheel 產品一定是 best one , 但我覺得它至少是 among the best , 並非浪得虛名, 站上許多高手都有使用記錄,我只是研究派的, 並沒有真正使用 multi 經驗, 但如果和我曾經使用過的 Tunze 230 , 真是相差太多太多了