Talk:Protein skimmer

message: 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)
thread_title:  Serious POV problems 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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  isn't really acceptable for this. Neale Monks 21:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Skimmer Bias 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  can't have your cake and eat it too? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  DAF 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Incorrect Reference 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Significant Changes 

message: 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)
thread_title: Design Section

message: I believe this device has other uses and warrants its own article.--عبد المؤمن (talk) 05:51, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. That's a good idea. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:08, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Air stone]] 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Protein skimmer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  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.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:52, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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% FeldmanMaers2010 Feature Article: Further Studies on Protein Skimmer Performance — Advanced Aquarist | Aquarist Magazine and Blog [WWW Document], n.d. URL http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2010/1/aafeature .
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.
 FeldmanEnCo2009. Feature Article: The Development of a Method for the Quantitative Evaluation of Protein Skimmer Performance [WWW Document]. URL http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2009/1/aafeature2 
 CMF De Haes 2018: de eiwitafschuimer http://www.baharini.eu/baharini/doku.php?id=nl:makazi:het_water:filtratie:eiwitafschuimer  
De Mille — Preceding unsigned comment added by Demille001 (talk • contribs) 10:59, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Function section