Talk:Protein skimmer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the Aquarium Fishes WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. This project is an offshoot of the WikiProject Fishes and is associated with the Fish Portal.

Contents 1 Serious POV problems 2 Edits too drastic? 3 Skimmer Bias 4 can't have your cake and eat it too?

[edit] 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).

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)