how many times a hour should the water go through the sump?

[Milad]

just wondering how many times an hour should the tank water go through the sump? 1? 5? 10?

[xtreme]

I would aim for about 3-5x per hour.

[golf nut]

just wondering how many times an hour should the tank water go through the sump? 1? 5? 10?

If you have selected the correct skimmer and the flow in the tank is moving the water towards the overflow box then.. 2 or 2 1/2 times max.

[Zoaelite]

There is really no set amount, slow or fast both work the same. Mine is set at about 800GPH swap over or almost 5 complete tank volumes.

If you have selected the correct skimmer and the flow in the tank is moving the water towards the overflow box then.. 2 or 2 1/2 times max.

Why a max of 2?

[golf nut]

There is really no set amount, slow or fast both work the same. Mine is set at about 800GPH swap over or almost 5 complete tank volumes..
Levi


Actually skimmers work best at a 1 times turnover, that's how they are designed, beyond that they become less efficient.

[Zoaelite]

I was waiting for someone to make this argument, please explain to me why that would be?

If a skimmer draws in water @ a set rate which is completely unrelated to the water movement around it then why would slowing that water down increase its efficiency?
Levi

[golf nut]

It's quite simple, if you run a lower turnover rate the water(containing surfactants) coming from the overflow box is concentrated rather than being 10% crap and 90% water in a 10x rate, the skimmer does a far more effective job with a concentrated solution than a diluted one.

[freezetyle]

By that logic, the same amount of water would pass through the skimmer would it not?

Theoretically:
1gph=100% skimmed
10gph= 10%/gal

I dont really have a preference. As long as water gets skimmed its a win situation.

[golf nut]

By that logic, the same amount of water would pass through the skimmer would it not?

Theoretically:
1gph=100% skimmed
10gph= 10%/gal

I dont really have a preference. As long as water gets skimmed its a win situation.

If you skim it 100% then what you return to the tank is clean, if you skim 10% of it then 90% of what you return is dirty or unskimmed, why would you do that when it costs more money in hydro and pumps to do worse?

[freezetyle]

If you skim it 100% then what you return to the tank is clean, if you skim 10% of it then 90% of what you return is dirty or unskimmed, why would you do that when it costs more money in hydro and pumps to do worse?

I understand that. But say, someone was using there return pump for extra flow to their tank. The extra water movement through there wouldn't technically affect the skim-mate that is pulled out of the water.

That being said, there is no actual way to test out these theories as a skimmer pulls out skim-mate in both situations. This test would be almost impossible because everyones tank (or say a "test tank") would differ from one another so getting a control would be practically impossible. I am not saying your opinion is wrong/invalid , I am just saying that in my opinion the flow rate through your sump isn't a big thing to lose sleep on.

[golf nut]

I understand that. But say, someone was using there return pump for extra flow to their tank. The extra water movement through there wouldn't technically affect the skim-mate that is pulled out of the water.

That being said, there is no actual way to test out these theories as a skimmer pulls out skim-mate in both situations. This test would be almost impossible because everyones tank (or say a "test tank") would differ from one another so getting a control would be practically impossible. I am not saying your opinion is wrong/invalid , I am just saying that in my opinion the flow rate through your sump isn't a big thing to lose sleep on.
I would hate you to lose sleep, however the flow past the skimmer is directly proportional to it's performance.

From my first post I mentioned that PROVIDING the flow in the tank is moving correctly then a 1 to 2 times turnover rate is more than adequate and anything else id disadvantageous.

If I give you phone numbers for the top ten skimmer manufacturers would you call them and tell them they are wrong?

Just a question to you, do you think that a 10% water change done everyday is the same as a 100% water change every 10 days?

[Zoaelite]

If you skim it 100% then what you return to the tank is clean, if you skim 10% of it then 90% of what you return is dirty or unskimmed, why would you do that when it costs more money in hydro and pumps to do worse?

When it comes down to it a sump has more uses than placing your skimmer in it, extremely slow flow could invoke negative side effects for your reactors, heaters and makes filter socks practically useless.

Do you have any articles that I could read that would sway my opinion? I understand your logic but in a practical setting nutrients are not only on the surface and increasing the flow allows proteins that are dissolved to be removed.

[freezetyle]

Just a question to you, do you think that a 10% water change done everyday is the same as a 100% water change every 10 days?

No they are not the same. My comments were not made as an attack, which it seems to me is how they were taken as per the condescending tone in the last post. I understand that slower flow would result in better skimming due to less dilution from mixing the skimmed water with the DT water. that is also an example of your water change remark. a 100% water change is a lot different that 10%/day.

I were merely stating my opinion and am done on the matter. Anything else feel free to pm instead of filling up the boards.

[danny zubot]

These theories are all based on the idea that your sump is a filter. While it may seam that most of the water cleaning devices people use are situated in the sump, this doesn't make the sump a filter. It's a place to house filtration equipment. I view my tank, my sump, my refugium and all of the plumbing in between as 1 body of water. So to me it doesn't matter how much flow goes through my sump because my skimmer would work the same down there as it would hanging off the side of my tank, or in my refugium.

As Levi said, the skimmer works at a set rate so it shouldn't matter how much flow is churning around it.

[golf nut]

When it comes down to it a sump has more uses than placing your skimmer in it, extremely slow flow could invoke negative side effects for your reactors, heaters and makes filter socks practically useless.

In what way could they be problematic how would a filter sock become useless

what should the flow be through the following?

Refugium
UV filter
Charcoal filter
Phosphate filter
Water polisher
etc etc etc.

all are very low requirements, other than the possibility that the skimmer MAY work at 10 times turn over why would you do it?

[golf nut]

my skimmer would work the same down there as it would hanging off the side of my tank, or in my refugium.



That part of your statement is not true it would work better under lower flow circumstances,
it would be more effective hanging on the back of your tank than being in the sump with a 10x turnover rate.

[golf nut]

No they are not the same. My comments were not made as an attack, which it seems to me is how they were taken as per the condescending tone in the last post. I understand that slower flow would result in better skimming due to less dilution from mixing the skimmed water with the DT water. that is also an example of your water change remark. a 100% water change is a lot different that 10%/day.

I were merely stating my opinion and am done on the matter. Anything else feel free to pm instead of filling up the boards.


I answered a post, I was challenged with my answers and replied to the questions, I would be happy to PM you so the boards are uncluttered, but why?

PM sent

[Milad]

so did my thread just get hijacked?
all i wanted to know was should i buy a 1325gph pump or a smaller one, lol

[golf nut]

Buy the smaller, cheaper, practical, more efficient one.

[Zoaelite]

In what way could they be problematic how would a filter sock become useless

what should the flow be through the following?

Refugium
UV filter
Charcoal filter
Phosphate filter
Water polisher
etc etc etc.

all are very low requirements, other than the possibility that the skimmer MAY work at 10 times turn over why would you do it?

The filter sock would loose efficiency because it requires high flow to capture as much particulate as possible. You keep restating your point, your logic is understandable but I need some concrete proof (And no I'm not going to call Euro reef and ask them) before I believe it.

The reason I don't believe you is because I own a skimmer, I have 7X turn over in my main tank and still get a very large amount of skimmate production.

If I slowed the flow down even more to the sump would I get more concentrated skimate...? I highly doubt it, again nutrients don't only exist on the surface they are mostly found dissolved in the water column. Considering that letting your skimmer have more access to the polluted water makes more sense.

[freezetyle]

Ha! thats why i love science. Its all conflicting theories. :lol:

[Zoaelite]

Ha! thats why i love science. Its all conflicting theories. :lol:

It makes for some good debates. I would say any pump between 500 GPH and 1300 GPH will work for you, draw your conclusions off of what people have posted.

[golf nut]

The filter sock would loose efficiency because it requires high flow to capture as much particulate as possible.
It does? how does that work, it is a filter, why so much flow the water falls out of the overflow box at a constant unless you are running a siphon ?


You keep restating your point, your logic is understandable but I need some concrete proof (And no I'm not going to call Euro reef and ask them) before I believe it. As Jack Nicholson would say "you can't handle the truth"

The reason I don't believe you is because I own a skimmer, I have 7X turn over in my main tank and still get a very large amount of skimmate production. as compared to what?

If I slowed the flow down even more to the sump would I get more concentrated skimate...? I highly doubt it, again nutrients don't only exist on the surface they are mostly found dissolved in the water column.
Of course you will, if you slow it down by half the surfactants delivered to the skimmer will be double in the same time frame


Considering that letting your skimmer have more access to the polluted water makes more sense.That is the point.

[Zoaelite]

It does? how does that work, it is a filter, why so much flow the water falls out of the overflow box at a constant unless you are running a siphon ?

Water flowing out of an overflow box is proportional to the amount of water going into your tank... from your return pump, as that level increases more will flow out of the overflow box. More flow through a filter means that more particulate will be captured. This is a very simple concept, no need to be snarky if you can't understand it.

As Jack Nicholson would say "you can't handle the truth"
I'm not touching that one...

as compared to what?
As compared to not getting any skimmate at all, If I didn't have positive results out of my skimmer I would assume something is wrong. I'm getting positive results so I'm assuming my mode of skimming is correct.


Of course you will, if you slow it down by half the surfactants delivered to the skimmer will be double in the same time frame
Magically more surfactant is generated because less water is getting to the skimmer? Do you read what you write before posting?

This is my last post on the topic, as I don't enjoy arguing in circles.

[freezetyle]

This is my last post on the topic, as I don't enjoy arguing in circles.

I was going to say just let it go. Our PM's have followed a similar path.

[golf nut]

I may as well talk to a couch....

[Zoaelite]

I may as well talk to a couch....

Or two couches for that matter :neutral:.

[Bloodasp]

la di dah. just make sure it doesn't slow down to a trickle and not too fast that the equipment in your sump are tumbling around.

[MikeInToronto]

That part of your statement is not true it would work better under lower flow circumstances,
it would be more effective hanging on the back of your tank than being in the sump with a 10x turnover rate.

I was with you up until this post, and that's mostly because I was having trouble understanding both sides until now. However, a tank + sump is a closed system. The amount of water running through the sump should be irrelevant. It would be the same as a HOB skimmer running in a sumpless tank with 100x turnover using just powerheads. In this case, the DT is just like a big sump (since there is no sump).

Water in the sump is the same water as the DT. There is no special separation between the two except the OF, a pump, and some pipe.

The concept that "a sump is not a filter" is a good one. A sump really is nothing except a place to store equipment.

Now if your argument is that a low-flow overflow extracts surfactants better, perhaps you can discuss that more.

[MikeInToronto]

To the OP, I believe the recommended rate is ~5x but this is only what I read.

"I saw it on TV so it has to be true!"

[danny zubot]

I was with you up until this post, and that's mostly because I was having trouble understanding both sides until now. However, a tank + sump is a closed system. The amount of water running through the sump should be irrelevant. It would be the same as a HOB skimmer running in a sumpless tank with 100x turnover using just powerheads. In this case, the DT is just like a big sump (since there is no sump).

Water in the sump is the same water as the DT. There is no special separation between the two except the OF, a pump, and some pipe.

The concept that "a sump is not a filter" is a good one. A sump really is nothing except a place to store equipment.

Now if your argument is that a low-flow overflow extracts surfactants better, perhaps you can discuss that more.

That's what I said only in different words. Not to kick a dead horse, but the skimmer controls its own rate of flow through the body of the skimmer. In which case slower is better for extracting surfactants, but only within the skimmer itself. The higher the contact time between the water and the bubbles, the more effective the skimmer is at pulling out waste. This has nothing to do with the rate of flow through the sump, tank, fuge etc.

[brizzo]

Find whatever flow keeps everything the most silent, don't worry about anything else :mrgreen::mrgreen:

[golf nut]

Now if your argument is that a low-flow overflow extracts surfactants better, perhaps you can discuss that more.


That is the whole point Mike.

Firstly we all have overflow commonly called prefilter boxes...Why call them this?

Because they are moving the surface water only from the tank when done properly, If you imagined that fish waste, coral waste and detritus was similar to oil it isn't hard to visualize oil floating on the surface of the DT, the prefilter box is there to remove it, the slower the removal the more concentrated that would be , if the extraction rate is increased the oil is mixed with more water and becomes diluted.
So this oil/ water mix then goes to the sump where some use filter sock for containing large bits etc, it then should enter the skimmer as concentrated as possible and then the skimmer can do it's job properly.

Why anyone would want to keep returning dirty water continuously back to the tank so they can keep skimming a little at a time is beyond me, get it out get rid of it and return clean water back to the tank.

[kien]

I've always thought of it this way.. imagine that there is one car wash in the city and all the cars have to go through it. The car wash can only service cars at a certain rate, say 5 cars an hour? Unfortunately the cars can only wait at the car wash for so long before they have to move on (that is they can't sit there forever and wait), so cars are moving through the car wash at a certain rate independent of how fast the car wash can wash cars. As cars come in they get washed, or if they've waited for too long they move on and don't get washed. If cars come in very quickly, obviously fewer will get washed and will just end up passing on through unwashed and so the dirty car ends right back on the streets. If the cars come in slower at a rate that the car wash can handle then more cars will get washed. If it is a perfect day where the rate of cars coming in equals the rate of the cars being washed then all cars will get washed. Also, keep in mind that this is the only car wash in the city so all cars must eventually get washed, so eventually those dirty cars that had to pass through unwashed last time will eventually come back and try again to get washed. The faster they can turn around and get off the streets and come back to the car wash the better their chances of getting washed within a small time frame, but that also means they can't spend as much time at the car wash.

[MikeInToronto]

That is the whole point Mike.

Firstly we all have overflow commonly called prefilter boxes...Why call them this?

Because they are moving the surface water only from the tank when done properly, If you imagined that fish waste, coral waste and detritus was similar to oil it isn't hard to visualize oil floating on the surface of the DT, the prefilter box is there to remove it, the slower the removal the more concentrated that would be , if the extraction rate is increased the oil is mixed with more water and becomes diluted.
So this oil/ water mix then goes to the sump where some use filter sock for containing large bits etc, it then should enter the skimmer as concentrated as possible and then the skimmer can do it's job properly.

Why anyone would want to keep returning dirty water continuously back to the tank so they can keep skimming a little at a time is beyond me, get it out get rid of it and return clean water back to the tank.

Agreed.

Slowly we can see the use of closed loops falling out of favour because of the high energy costs and a number of other reasons (tank wall integrity, OMs, maintenance, etc). That leaves powerheads and propeller pumps. Many people, a long time ago, decided they preferred to not have PHs in their tanks long term, if not for the appearance, then for safety. That leaves propeller pumps which are very costly once you get beyond, well, one. For this reason I think we will see large volume returns continue.

I don't use a pre-filter so I have nothing to add about that. I do use filter socks but that's just to reduce bubbles in the sump.

[Bloodasp]

I'm gonna use the same car analogy. Going too slow means you are burning all the fuel that goes into the engine but you are not utilizing all the energy that the car is capable of, going too fast and you are not burning all the fuel that goes into the engine. In either case you need more fuel to get to where you want to go. The sweet number according to experts if I am not mistaken which they say would be fuel efficient would be between 60-80.
In a way if you have a tank that is 100 gal and you have a skimmer that has a pump rated at 800 gph and you have a turnover rate of 1 that would just mean that at least the same water goes through the skimmer 8 times. If you have a turnover rate of say 40 that would mean water would just be passing from your tank to your sump without even going to your skimmer. It you go around say 4-8 then the water would at least pass through your skimmer at least once or twice. I think that would be efficient enough. Going too slow and you are just going through water that has already been stripped of all those waste and oil and going too fast and you are not getting stripped at all.
Same thing with the heater if you have it in your sump. If it is too slow then the water is not heated up with evenly, if it is too fast then the water just passes through it without getting heated up at all.
best way is to just match the capability of your equipment with the turnover rate of your tank to your sump otherwise you are either wasting energy either it is just being redundant or not doing the job at all. It is going to be a trial end error thing but you will get the feel for it as it goes along.

[MikeInToronto]

I'm gonna use the same car analogy. Going too slow means you are burning all the fuel that goes into the engine but you are not utilizing all the energy that the car is capable of, going too fast and you are not burning all the fuel that goes into the engine. In either case you need more fuel to get to where you want to go. The sweet number according to experts if I am not mistaken which they say would be fuel efficient would be between 60-80.
In a way if you have a tank that is 100 gal and you have a skimmer that has a pump rated at 800 gph and you have a turnover rate of 1 that would just mean that at least the same water goes through the skimmer 8 times. If you have a turnover rate of say 40 that would mean water would just be passing from your tank to your sump without even going to your skimmer. It you go around say 4-8 then the water would at least pass through your skimmer at least once or twice. I think that would be efficient enough. Going too slow and you are just going through water that has already been stripped of all those waste and oil and going too fast and you are not getting stripped at all.

Except that the sump isn't a separate unit; the tank and sump are the same system. The turnover rate should be a non-issue. What is important is that the overflow box is large enough to handle the volume going through it. If your OF is 10' long and is able to extract the surface of the water and not just a lot of water, it is running efficiently. This means you could have 1000x turnover in your 20 gallon tank. The amount skimmed off the surface, whether 10% or 100%, removed by the skimmer is a non-issue because the skimmer can only handle what it's rated for.

I think the issue here is redundant recycling of clean water, not turn over.

This whole argument is theoretical.

[Bloodasp]

Am I going off topic here? The poster was asking how fast the turnover rate is suggested. And so is the analogy I was putting in there. A car is not separate from it's engine either. It may not be separate from your system but it contains a lot of your equipment. It may or may not be that the skimmer might be efficient with a slower turnover or not, believe what you want until a thorough study comes out about it. The skimmer isn't the only equipment in your sump some of them do need some lingering time to work efficiently at the same time they won't work well if the water was almost not moving.

[golf nut]

The opening post asked about sump turnover,not tank turnover. whether you like it or not if you have an overflow box you do have a prefilter box they are technically doing the same thing, why are people saying as I said years ago that having no teeth in the oveflow box is more effective? why because it skims better.

[mark]

There might be an ideal turnover rate if the skimmers were 100% efficient but doubt they're close. Even if they were, what's the big deal if one decides to have the return pump contribute to the overall turnover of the tank. Really, if one could accurately measure waste remove by our little hobby skimmers, would there be a significant difference between 1x, 2x, 5x flow through?

[StirCrazy]

Ok this is totaly silly, a 1X turn over for tank volume will have absolutly nothing to do with skimmer preformance. you telling me if I have a 180 gal tank with a 1X turn over a berlin will do a 100% skim on it.. :rolleyes:

you not going to get a 100% skim unless you match the flow of the sump to the flow of the skimmer, that means your overflows go into your skimmer then to the sump and there is no way you could aford a skimme that will handle that flow.

so in the real world, shoot for between 3 to 10X turnover depending on what the sump can handle. this is the most important thing as depending on how you designed the sump will dictate the max amount of flow that is reasonable throug it. personaly I go for 10 to 20X through the sump as I have it set up like a setteling pond. with 160X turn over in a main tank not much settles out of the water colume so I take it to the sump where it goes high speed through a couple baffeles then just opens up to a very large area where it slows down and junk falls out. so that was about 1800 gal per hour through the sump, my skimmer was a becket fed by a mak4 so irt was probably doing about 800gph.

this 100% vs 10% thing is a waist of a good argument also as no one is going to do a 100% waterchang every month and it just doesn't matter after the say 10 hours of doing 80% and 10% you are gettting the same results from either method and no skimmer has a 100% efficiency, maybe 20% if you are lucky.

so don't worry about skimmer preformance vs sump flow. set it up so the flow is good and not to turbulant in the sump, get the best skimmer you can afford and enjoy the tank.

Steve

[StirCrazy]

The opening post asked about sump turnover,not tank turnover. whether you like it or not if you have an overflow box you do have a prefilter box they are technically doing the same thing, why are people saying as I said years ago that having no teeth in the oveflow box is more effective? why because it skims better.

no teath yes will take the surface water a bit better, not a lot, but the big advantage is it is quiet and less air in the overflow so you get better flow.

Steve

[StirCrazy]

believe what you want until a thorough study comes out about it. The skimmer isn't the only equipment in your sump .


I just lost all my typing so I will try get it down again :twised:

there was a study, that showed that the best turnover was between 5 to 10% with almost as good in the 3-5% range and the 10-15% range.

now this is hard to quantify and a useless study because it is only aplicable to a system with the same size sump, display tank, skimmer and even simular tank stocking as if you change any one of thoes aspects you alter the outcome. so unless we at least know sump size/shape, display tank volume, and the skimmer he is using no one can even pretend to say what sump flow rate would be good.

now as for Mr OM's 100%vs10% thing, pure bunk.. first all no one does constant weekly 100% water changes so it is a fary tale.. Second no skimmer has a 100% efficency so it aint going to happen, your skimmer probably skimms at a 5 to 15% efficiency at best.

but it was a entertaining thread.. made me chuckel a few times.:mrgreen:

Steve

[mr.wilson]

For what it's worth, the proper flow rate according to Pedro Ramon Escobal, the man who literally wrote the book on filtration devices http://www.amazon.co.uk/Aquatic-Systems-Engineering-Devices-Function/dp/1888381051
... and wrote the book on rocket science. http://www.amazon.co.uk/Methods-Astrodynamics-Pedro-Ramon-Escobal/dp/0471245283/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpt_1
... then another book after the rocket scientists finally understood the first one. http://www.amazon.co.uk/Methods-Orbit-Determination-Pedro-Escobal/dp/0882753193/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpt_2

According to Escobal, founder of Aquatronics (premier aquarium medication manufacturer) and Filtronics (innovative filtration device manufacturer), protein skimmers should have a 1.333333 throughput per hour for maximum efficiency. He uses the same flow through rate for sumps for obvious reasons. If you go on to read his recommendations for UV sterilizer throughput the math works out to 2 x per day, yes DAY turnover ratio.

Media filters such as fluidized beds operate with small powerheads so we're talking 300 GPH, at best. Refugia require slow flow for pod development and longer dwell time with algae.

As far as filter socks go, they work best with a slow flow so the detritus you collect isn't pulverized by water flow and converted from POC (particulate organic carbon) to a liquid form - DOC (dissolved organic carbon). keeping the detritus in the display tank suspended with dedicated water flow such as a closed loop or powerheads is the key to collecting more detritus. A flow rate of 1.33333 x the volume of the display tank is enough to collect the maximum amount of detritus without diminished returns.

Ozone is dosed into the protein skimmer so we can go with the magic skimmer number of 1.33333. Are you starting to see a pattern yet? All of these devices are operating concurrently, that is to say the water entering one, then goes into the next device until the water exits the sump.

There is absolutely no reason to deliver more water to filtration devices than they require to operate. It is a waste or resources and actually decreases performance. It skims a thicker water sample from the surface of the display which yields less surfactant proteins, pre-skimmed for the protein skimmer. The water travelling over the overflow box does not move faster (meaning more rapid surface skimming) when you increase the return pump output volume. The water simply climbs higher over the box drawing the excess water from below the surface "skin". This taxes your overflow drains causing more microbubbles, noise, turbulence, saltcreep and heat & energy from the pump.

The most efficient filtration system is a first in first out (FIFO) system. The water skimmed by the overflow box should be fed directly into the protein skimmer in the sump. That water should then be drained out of the skimmer and move on to the other devices you have selected in series/succession (one at a time). If your protein skimmer does not allow for direct feeding, you should locate the protein skimmer in a partitioned area at the beginning of the sump where water drains from the display tank at the same rate as the skimmer pump (likely 1.33333 x display tank volume per hr). The processed water that exits the protein skimmer should be directed over the partition so it enters the next stage of filtration, usually the refugium with media filters being last.

If you implement this simple system, you will process 100% of the water entering the sump, and do so only once. If you do not use a FIFO system your protein skimmer is filtering the same water over and over randomly, missing some display tank water entirely.

Now let's look at some scenarios if the return pump and skimmer pump are not matched exactly. If the skimmer pump is stronger than the return pump, more water will go through the skimmer than the amount entering the sump. This will result in the excess portion of water travelling "backwards" over the partition from the second stage back to the first to equal out the pumps. The disadvantage of this is that excess water will get processed a second time, but no water will go unskimmed. If the return pump is stronger than the skimmer pump, the excess flow will bypass the skimmer, but you will not process any water two times before it is returned to the display tank. If this is the case, it is a lot easier to restrict the return pump than mess with the skimmer pump. Some manufacturers allow you to adjust air flow which in turn lowers or increases water flow.

If we continue with this idea, the media filters could be housed in the second partition with a dedicated pump (powerhead). The effluent (exit/processed) water from the media filters would be directed over a second partition so it is processed only once. If you use a return pump bypass, the water will be reprocessed randomly.

In summary, the sump is not a filter, it's merely a vessel to old them. If we could live with the clutter hanging on the back of the display tank, we would not have to go though the expense, noise, flood hazard and bubbles that come with moving water to and from a sump. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to understand that less is more in the case of display tank flow through/throughput rates, but if you ask a rocket scientist he will agree that the flow rate is governed by the protein skimmer pump output which happens to be in the neighbourhood of 1.33333 x the volume of the tank.

[mr.wilson]

no skimmer has a 100% efficency so it aint going to happen, your skimmer probably skimms at a 5 to 15% efficiency at best.

Steve

Actually protein skimmers have an efficacy rate of 80% for removing proteins and 20% for removing TOC (total organic carbon - DOC & POC).

http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2010/1/aafeature

[banditpowdercoat]

I have a DIY Recirc skimmer on ly 150, return pump is a Little Giant 4 Mqdx, like 1100GPH or something at 0 head. I was running about 6-700GPH through sump. I throttled the return back, and added a N/P pellet reactor T'd off the return pump. Now, I am about 300GPH i would say, and my skimmer works WAY better. I'm pulling more tea than before, and consistent. No adjustments were made to skimmer, or water height. Just flow.....
Make your own conclusions from that

[golf nut]

now as for Mr OM's 100%vs10% thing, pure bunk.. first all no one does constant weekly 100% water changes so it is a fary tale.. Second no skimmer has a 100% efficency so it aint going to happen, your skimmer probably skimms at a 5 to 15% efficiency at best.

but it was a entertaining thread.. made me chuckel a few times.:mrgreen:

Steve

Just so it is on record could you point me to where I said that.

[mr.wilson]

The question on the table isn't the limitations of protein skimmers, it's simply how much water do we need to feed them. I really don't see how anyone can argue that their protein skimmer that processes 500 GPH needs 1000 GPH fed to it. After you move beyond that no brainer you figure out a way of making sure that all of the water you run through the sump goes through the protein skimmer and does so only once. That's maximum efficiency.

[banditpowdercoat]

The question on the table isn't the limitations of protein skimmers, it's simply how much water do we need to feed them. I really don't see how anyone can argue that their protein skimmer that processes 500 GPH needs 1000 GPH fed to it. After you move beyond that no brainer you figure out a way of making sure that all of the water you run through the sump goes through the protein skimmer and does so only once. That's maximum efficiency.

Exactly. But, one does have to consider tank flow if it's enough to maintian detritus in suspension so the low sump flow can take it. Most have that taken care of no problem. Some, however use sump flow as a contributor to overal tank turnover. If you don't get the crud from the tank to the sump, it doesnt matter what flow the sump/skimmer has.

[golf nut]

Exactly. But, one does have to consider tank flow if it's enough to maintian detritus in suspension so the low sump flow can take it. Most have that taken care of no problem. Some, however use sump flow as a contributor to overal tank turnover. If you don't get the crud from the tank to the sump, it doesnt matter what flow the sump/skimmer has.

Hey Dan, every single post I have ever made regarding this has been precluded by the statement that "if the flow in the display is enough" what part do they miss.

[banditpowdercoat]

ya, I realized that after, figured I repost it though LOL.


I think this topic is like the MH/T5 debate. There is soo many possible variations and is one really better than the other? It will all depend on tank, inhabitant's other equip. etc etc.

One thing I like about this hobby is nothing is in STONE. You don't have to do it this way, or you will crash/loose everything. It's a completely custom hobby. The only thing we all have in common is we use salt water. The rest is completely up to the owner.

Fiddle with it, change things. NEVER be afraid to try something new. Even if it didn't work for so and so, doesn't mean it is wrong and wont work for you.

[mr.wilson]

Exactly. But, one does have to consider tank flow if it's enough to maintian detritus in suspension so the low sump flow can take it. Most have that taken care of no problem. Some, however use sump flow as a contributor to overal tank turnover. If you don't get the crud from the tank to the sump, it doesnt matter what flow the sump/skimmer has.

Absolutely. We are going under the assumption that the display tank water is moved by powerheads or a closed loop pump, as it should be for efficiency. using sump turnover ratios to increase flow in the tank makes no more sense than pumping water through your light fixture for more flow.

Some people try to do a one-pump-fits-all system, but you will find this is a false economy. save money on your return pump and use the savings to build a closed loop or add powerheads.

[Zoaelite]

Mr. Wilson,
First of all thank you for that properly constructed post if every single person on this forum was like you I don't think I would ever stop reading :lol:. I will break my "No more posting" post as there are finally some factual intelligent comments on here.

The only one major difference between what you have described and what takes places in the average reefer's sump is that almost in all cases the skimmer is never fed by the return. In the future I might design my sump like this as its an interesting concept and I'm sure it would save energy/ increase efficiency. Just out of curiosity do you have any photos of your sump as I would love to take a look?

Now that being said, as most sumps are not like this and include a sump volume with multiple apparatus drawing water out of that volume (and not being plumbed in line). We can determine that some of this water is leaked and gets pumped back into the main tank has to be dirty (as there is no way you could 100% clean this before it makes its way back).

So if dirty water is being plumbed into the tank anyways why not increase the flow so there is constantly a new supply of DOC and surfactants for the skimmer to skim off? Also with the advent of Biopellet reactors, Zeovit and other nitrate/ite/NH3 sinks would it not be more beneficial to have a higher turn over to supply fresh dissolved (As compared to surface) organics to these reactors?

[mr.wilson]

Mr. Wilson,
First of all thank you for that properly constructed post if every single person on this forum was like you I don't think I would ever stop reading :lol:. I will break my "No more posting" post as there are finally some factual intelligent comments on here.

The only one major difference between what you have described and what takes places in the average reefer's sump is that almost in all cases the skimmer is never fed by the return. In the future I might design my sump like this as its an interesting concept and I'm sure it would save energy/ increase efficiency. Just out of curiosity do you have any photos of your sump as I would love to take a look?

Now that being said, as most sumps are not like this and include a sump volume with multiple apparatus drawing water out of that volume (and not being plumbed in line). We can determine that some of this water is leaked and gets pumped back into the main tank has to be dirty (as there is no way you could 100% clean this before it makes its way back).

So if dirty water is being plumbed into the tank anyways why not increase the flow so there is constantly a new supply of DOC and surfactants for the skimmer to skim off? Also with the advent of Biopellet reactors, Zeovit and other nitrate/ite/NH3 sinks would it not be more beneficial to have a higher turn over to supply fresh dissolved (As compared to surface) organics to these reactors?

Sorry, I guess I wasn't clear. The protein skimmer is not fed by the sump return pump directly. The water first passes through the display tank for an unknown amount of time. The water eventually overflows into the overflow box where it is then available to the skimmer. I wish there was a FIFO (first in first out) system that would assure display tank water is processed at maximum efficiency. For our purposes, we will call the display tank water "dirty" and the sump water "clean".

If you install a single glass partition wall to segregate your protein skimmer in a an area we will call the "skimmer zone", and you plumb the protein skimmer effluent so it puts the "clean" water into the second zone, then you will process 100% of the water entering the sump, providing your sump return pump is matched to the output of your skimmer pump.

Let's look at an example. If you have a tank between 75-300 gallons you will likely be using a modified laguna Max-Flo 1500 pump that produces 800-1000 LPH air, and 450-500 GPH of water throughput. This is the pump you will find on Royal Exclusive Bubbleking and ATB models. Protein skimmers using Sicce PSK-2500 pumps have approximately 660 GPH output, but that is dialed back as more air is introduced.

Now that we know 500 GPH is the maximum amount of water we can treat, we match our sump return pump accordingly. Simply go to a handy head loss calculator and punch in your head distance, pipe size, and plumbing parts. http://www.reefcentral.com/index.php/head-loss-calculator I picked Poseidon/Velocity PS2 for cost effectiveness, low heat transfer, external pump, and absolutely dead quiet operating sound. My calculation came up with 592 GPH, and 664 GPH with the PS3. The price and power consumption is the same for both models so I would go with the larger PS3 and run a bypass of 150 GPH through a UV sterilizer. If you are an energy miser go with an external powerhead of some sort. You should be able to move that much water using half as much electricity. Personally I feel it's cheaper to pay for the extra electricity with the comfort of knowing your PS2 or 3 will run for many years without service. Or take that $5.00 energy savings per month and keep it in a jar. You will be able to buy a new powerhead in three years when that one dies. They will be running on solar or wind by then anyway :)

There is no reason why media reactors or bags of media in a dam & weir can't be fed strictly "dirty" water. The water exits the skimmer and flows over the media bag once as it travels through the sump, or your media reactor effluent is directed to the third zone so it is only treated once.

[mr.wilson]

Also with the advent of Biopellet reactors, Zeovit and other nitrate/ite/NH3 sinks would it not be more beneficial to have a higher turn over to supply fresh dissolved (As compared to surface) organics to these reactors?

I didn't address this point in my last post. Overflow boxes of any design skim only the thin crust of hydrophobic surfactants off of the surface. The brunt of the water is not from the surface and will contain all kinds of wonderful "dirt" for the various gizmos and gadgets.

[banditpowdercoat]

One way you get close to a FIFO style sump is with a recirc style skimmer. If the drain of the tank is fed Directly into skimmer, then the skimmer will skim 100% of the sump flow.(to the skimmers efficiency's of course) The Sump return pump would then only need to be sized for the skimmers need. But, it seem's most skimmers now are being made single pass.

[banditpowdercoat]

I didn't address this point in my last post. Overflow boxes of any design skim only the thin crust of hydrophobic surfactants off of the surface. The brunt of the water is not from the surface and will contain all kinds of wonderful "dirt" for the various gizmos and gadgets.

I was allways told that it is only the very thin layer of the surface we want? The solid particulate waste acctually gets absorbed/eaten by corals, inverts etc.

[Zoaelite]

I was allways told that it is only the very thin layer of the surface we want? The solid particulate waste acctually gets absorbed/eaten by corals, inverts etc.

Or NP Biopellet bacteria for that matter :lol:. Thank you both of you, learned some new info today because of you!

[MikeInToronto]

I'd like to know what the solution is to a system that cannot have intakes in any other location but the overflow.

[banditpowdercoat]

I'd like to know what the solution is to a system that cannot have intakes in any other location but the overflow.

Not understanding what you mean? The tank drains Are located in the overflow.

[MikeInToronto]

Not understanding what you mean? The tank drains Are located in the overflow.

Restated: What would be the solution to water flow needs if you cannot have open intakes in the aquarium? Let's assume the overflow can't be breached in order to reach those intakes.

[golf nut]

Restated: What would be the solution to water flow needs if you cannot have open intakes in the aquarium? Let's assume the overflow can't be breached in order to reach those intakes.

One more time, what exactly do you mean?

[MikeInToronto]

I'll use an example. Let's say you have a tank full of sea anemones. We'll make them ritteri anemones because they like lots of water flow. In this tank you don't want a PH, closed loop, or anything with an intake. The OF is fine because it is easy to safeguard an overflow without losing efficiency. How do you get the flow up to, say, 10x flow without using PH or CL?

[golf nut]

I'll use an example. Let's say you have a tank full of sea anemones. We'll make them ritteri anemones because they like lots of water flow. In this tank you don't want a PH, closed loop, or anything with an intake. The OF is fine because it is easy to safeguard an overflow without losing efficiency. How do you get the flow up to, say, 10x flow without using PH or CL?

Use a C/L with multiple inlets to reduce the velocity.the overflow box is still an intake. protect the C/L or powerheads the same way..

[MikeInToronto]

Use a C/L with multiple inlets to reduce the velocity.

I'd assume you'd cover the intakes with sponges.

[banditpowdercoat]

That goes back to what I was saying about Every tank being different. If you do not want to use Powerheads, consider a closed loop. An intake is real easy to guard. Best thing is T the intake off a few times, then there is little suction at all the intake inlets, not just one. If you flow to much through a sump, regardless of skimmer, your going to introduce microbubbles. part of a sump's design is to be slow enough, add time/passages to let the microbbbles escape.

[banditpowdercoat]

No, don;t use sponges, Nitrate factories. Use Egg crate. If you have 1 1/2" CL intake, but you split it to T's. you now have 4 intakes, each one had a real low suction. an amemone won't get sucked in if you cover the opening with egg crate.

But were getting off the OP's topic here I think.

[Ryan]

Half the problem now seems to be everyone going big display tanks and small sumps. Back when sumps were 1st introduced they were always as big or bigger than the display. Now I am seeing 75 gallons with 20 gallon sumps, which is much too small.

[banditpowdercoat]

Ya, my 150g with a 300g sump would be strange LOL

[mr.wilson]

Mike: Use a perforated nylon intake strainer on a closed loop. I used to use a 1/2 HP (3600 GPH) pump on a canister filter for 25 gallon tanks of small neons and they could comfortably swim right up to the intake or return when I used a perforated nylon strainer. An anemone could live on one while it draws in 3600 GPH. http://www.industrialnetting.com/filtration_tubes.html

Bandit: Single pass skimmers will work for a FIFO system because most of them use Sicce or Laguna pumps that only move 500 GPH.

[golf nut]

I'd assume you'd cover the intakes with sponges.
Why?

Providing the diameter of the intakes is large enough then the velocity would be very little, what size tank are you wanting to get 10x turnover in? if all you want to keep is Nems then build another box out of egg crate and shove the PH or C/L intake in there.

[mr.wilson]

Half the problem now seems to be everyone going big display tanks and small sumps. Back when sumps were 1st introduced they were always as big or bigger than the display. Now I am seeing 75 gallons with 20 gallon sumps, which is much too small.

I think a lot of people get caught up in the challenge of fitting as much equipment as possible in a small footprint. If you have the space, always go for as much system volume as you can fit. You can pick up 500 gallon water tanks for a lot less money than the equipment it would take to give you the same water quality. Even daisy chaining a bunch of 50 gallon plastic drums and keeping them in a cool place works well as the flow rate doesn't need to be very fast... oh here we go again :)

[MikeInToronto]

That's something to consider for next time. I don't trust CLs and prefer propeller pumps with the included mesh right now. But it's not like the flow through my sump is that great anyway, maybe 2-3x skimmer capacity.

[golf nut]

That's something to consider for next time. I don't trust CLs and prefer propeller pumps with the included mesh right now. But it's not like the flow through my sump is that great anyway, maybe 2-3x skimmer capacity.
You didn't trust Bill Burnetts overflow system until you tried it and now realize it is the best thing since sliced bread, oh yea of little faith.

[MikeInToronto]

Why?

Providing the diameter of the intakes is large enough then the velocity would be very little, what size tank are you wanting to get 10x turnover in? if all you want to keep is Nems then build another box out of egg crate and shove the PH or C/L intake in there.

It might not seem like it but my anemone 6-8" diameter was pulled into my sump through eggcrate; actually it migrated through the eggcrate on the OF and got pulled into the sump. I have a FIFO system in my sump as well as a filter sock so there wasn't much of a problem. The anemone was ripped up a bit but made it. Sponge and filter floss are the only anemone-proofs I've experienced.

[MikeInToronto]

You didn't trust Bill Burnetts overflow system until you tried it and now realize it is the best thing since sliced bread, oh yea of little faith.

Haha! But I followed it with blind faith anyway.

[golf nut]

It might not seem like it but my anemone 6-8" diameter was pulled into my sump through eggcrate; actually it migrated through the eggcrate on the OF and got pulled into the sump. I have a FIFO system in my sump as well as a filter sock so there wasn't much of a problem. The anemone was ripped up a bit but made it. Sponge and filter floss are the only anemone-proofs I've experienced.

So how do you explain this comment? remember I have downloaded the whole internet and know who everone is and what they said :)


. The OF is fine because it is easy to safeguard an overflow without losing efficiency. How do you get the flow up to, say, 10x flow without using PH or CL?

[mr.wilson]

Sometimes it's easier when I don't understand what someone is saying because I can usually assume it is something logical. Other times I give them too much credit :)

[banditpowdercoat]

Mr Wilson. If you were to use a single pass skimmer for a FIFO, how would you guarantee that the sump return pump equaled EXACTLY what the skimmer inlet pump was pushing? To be true FIFO, all the water from the tank drain needs to pass through the skimmer, just once. Then, the return pump pumps the skimmed water back to the tank. it would be next to impossible to match them exactly. Thats why a recirc would work better. A recirc doesnt care what goes into it for flow to make the bubbles etc. The slower the inlet flow, the longer the contact time the water has, because bubble production remains constant.

[MikeInToronto]

So how do you explain this comment? remember I have downloaded the whole internet and know who everone is and what they said :)

If you put a sponge below the rim of the OF you won't be disrupting the flow into it. That should keep anemones out and allow surface film to go in.
People tend to pick at minor details - I'm not referring to you or anyone else here - so I tend to add all the "exceptions" to my posts to avoid people dwelling on them. See? I just did it again and didn't realise it. I was just imagining someone reading that original post and writing, "The OF has intakes as well, you know." I wanted to avoid that.

Also, I didn't have sponge or floss on the egg crate when the anemone went over.

[mr.wilson]

Mr Wilson. If you were to use a single pass skimmer for a FIFO, how would you guarantee that the sump return pump equaled EXACTLY what the skimmer inlet pump was pushing? To be true FIFO, all the water from the tank drain needs to pass through the skimmer, just once. Then, the return pump pumps the skimmed water back to the tank. it would be next to impossible to match them exactly. Thats why a recirc would work better. A recirc doesnt care what goes into it for flow to make the bubbles etc. The slower the inlet flow, the longer the contact time the water has, because bubble production remains constant.

It doesn't have to exactly matched. As I stated in the example above...

If the return pump is too strong, the extra water the skimmer can't handle will bypass the skimmer and go over the glass partition to the second zone. If the return pump is too weak, the extra water processed by the protein skimmer will overflow backwards over the glass partition back into the on deck circle for the skimmer. Both scenarios are less than perfect but what is :)

[StirCrazy]

Actually protein skimmers have an efficacy rate of 80% for removing proteins and 20% for removing TOC (total organic carbon - DOC & POC).

http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2010/1/aafeature

Ok, if you read that it is not an efficiency, it is how much it will remove in 24 hours.. an eficiency would be how much it would remove in one volume change of the skimmer, which is what this discussion is about having a flow rate matched to your skimmer. so if my skimmer had a flow rate of 600gph, I would call the efficiency the amount of crap removed from 10gal of water in 1 min, a power efficiency would be how much is removed compared to the power input.

so ya the 80 and 20%s have nothing to do with what we are talking about really.

Steve

[StirCrazy]

For what it's worth, the proper flow rate according to Pedro Ramon Escobal, the man who literally wrote the book on filtration devices http://www.amazon.co.uk/Aquatic-Systems-Engineering-Devices-Function/dp/1888381051
... and wrote the book on rocket science. http://www.amazon.co.uk/Methods-Astrodynamics-Pedro-Ramon-Escobal/dp/0471245283/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpt_1
... then another book after the rocket scientists finally understood the first one. http://www.amazon.co.uk/Methods-Orbit-Determination-Pedro-Escobal/dp/0882753193/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpt_2




give me a break, there are tones of books out there that say you want over 20X flow rate. just because some one writs a book doesn't mean it is right, it may work for him, it ma be how he feels, but that is it. as for being a rocket scientest whopity doo.. I am an Marine Engineer, he my direct line of work deals with water flow and movment, but does it mean I know about turf scrubbers... hell no never even seen one, but I di know alot of people have to low of flow on them also (I have been reading about them) but I do know water flow and pumps, and heaters, and well anything else that is mechanical with out tanks. hmm maybe I should write a book now that I am retired.

Steve

[StirCrazy]

Just so it is on record could you point me to where I said that.

ok, not exactly but implied now that I read it again. by sayign skimm it 100% while you are talkign about the lower flow you are saying that the skimmer is 100% or close to it efficient.

If you skim it 100% then what you return to the tank is clean, if you skim 10% of it then 90% of what you return is dirty or unskimmed, why would you do that when it costs more money in hydro and pumps to do worse?

Steve

[banditpowdercoat]

It doesn't have to exactly matched. As I stated in the example above...

If the return pump is too strong, the extra water the skimmer can't handle will bypass the skimmer and go over the glass partition to the second zone. If the return pump is too weak, the extra water processed by the protein skimmer will overflow backwards over the glass partition back into the on deck circle for the skimmer. Both scenarios are less than perfect but what is :)

Then by your own words, is NOT a FIFO. can not have extra, or recirculating water for a FIFO style sump

For a FIFO, All water that enters sump, needs to pass through the skimmer ONCE, then on through the rest of the system ONCE, then back to tank. NO bypass, and no water recircing in loops. Everything is in series.

[StirCrazy]

One way you get close to a FIFO style sump is with a recirc style skimmer. If the drain of the tank is fed Directly into skimmer, then the skimmer will skim 100% of the sump flow.(to the skimmers efficiency's of course) The Sump return pump would then only need to be sized for the skimmers need. But, it seem's most skimmers now are being made single pass.

recirc skimmer are usaly fed slow Dan, it would work but not sure if it would be any better.

Steve

[mr.wilson]

Ok, if you read that it is not an efficiency, it is how much it will remove in 24 hours.. an eficiency would be how much it would remove in one volume change of the skimmer, which is what this discussion is about having a flow rate matched to your skimmer. so if my skimmer had a flow rate of 600gph, I would call the efficiency the amount of crap removed from 10gal of water in 1 min, a power efficiency would be how much is removed compared to the power input.

so ya the 80 and 20%s have nothing to do with what we are talking about really.

Steve

So how would you rate the efficiency of the following example...

You have a protein skimmer that requires a 600 GPH feed. You feed said skimmer 600 gallons of display tank water every hour with no bypass in the sump and without allowing the skimmer to process water twice before it is returned to the display tank.

No one in this thread claimed that is 100% efficacy, but since you are broaching the subject, how efficient do you consider that configuration to be?

The thread isn't about protein skimmer limitations. It's about making the operation of the equipment you have run efficiently.

[mr.wilson]

give me a break, there are tones of books out there that say you want over 20X flow rate. just because some one writs a book doesn't mean it is right, it may work for him, it ma be how he feels, but that is it. as for being a rocket scientest whopity doo.. I am an Marine Engineer, he my direct line of work deals with water flow and movment, but does it mean I know about turf scrubbers... hell no never even seen one, but I di know alot of people have to low of flow on them also (I have been reading about them) but I do know water flow and pumps, and heaters, and well anything else that is mechanical with out tanks. hmm maybe I should write a book now that I am retired.

Steve

Let me guess, you haven't even read the book :)

So based on the book you read, you are discounting P.R. Escobal's mathematical formulas. Please post your references so we can compare the math. If the author of the book you read had a breakthrough that challenges the industry standards that Escobal has set, then I would love to see how they came to a different conclusion.

[banditpowdercoat]

recirc skimmer are usaly fed slow Dan, it would work but not sure if it would be any better.

Steve

I know, hence the needing slow sump flow, or a REALLY large skimmer that would be so costly as to make the FIFO design not that appealing.


But really, in a sump with your skimmer, how much water is being recirced by a regular one pass skimmer in a sump chamber? Sure, you match sump flow to skimmer flow, but there is allways skimmer outlet water that will be sucked back into the inlet. Only true way to ensure that doesnt happen is to feed skimmer from different compartment.

[banditpowdercoat]

So how would you rate the efficiency of the following example...

You have a protein skimmer that requires a 600 GPH feed. You feed said skimmer 600 gallons of display tank water every hour with no bypass in the sump and without allowing the skimmer to process water twice before it is returned to the display tank.

No one in this thread claimed that is 100% efficacy, but since you are broaching the subject, how efficient do you consider that configuration to be?

The thread isn't about protein skimmer limitations. It's about making the operation of the equipment you have run efficiently.

That scenario will be as efficient as the Skimmer manufactures designed it to be.

[mr.wilson]

ok, not exactly but implied now that I read it again. by sayign skimm it 100% while you are talkign about the lower flow you are saying that the skimmer is 100% or close to it efficient.

Steve

MrOm's comment makes perfect sense to me and I can't see how he infers anything about the efficiency of the actual protein skimming device.

I don't know why you keep trying to change the focus of the thread, which is throughput for a sump.

If you stop at a gas station and fill your tank to the top with 50 litres of gas, then proceed to overflow another 950 litres of gas (20 x the amount needed) on the ground, where does that rate on the efficiency meter? Would you do this if you read it in a book? Would you reconsider the practice if someone offered you irrefutable proof that it isn't necessary?

[mr.wilson]

Then by your own words, is NOT a FIFO. can not have extra, or recirculating water for a FIFO style sump

For a FIFO, All water that enters sump, needs to pass through the skimmer ONCE, then on through the rest of the system ONCE, then back to tank. NO bypass, and no water recircing in loops. Everything is in series.

I agree that the most efficient skimmer feeding system is a direct feed from the display drain, but most protein skimmers are built by manufacturers to cut production costs, so they use a one pump does all system.

If you are directly feeding a recirculating skimmer from a drain, you should always have an emergency bypass T or Y in the event that the skimmer clogs, can't keep up with the sump return pump, or a surge of water in the tank while you are servicing it. In the event that any water takes the T or Y, the system is no longer FIFO or 100% efficient as MrOm would say :)

With a little valve tweaking you can get close enough to a perfect match with the sump & skimmer pumps to call it "efficient". The good thing about directing the skimmer effluent over a glass partition and trying to match the pump outputs is if you don't get a perfect match, the system is se;f regulating, in that you don't have a skimmer zone that runs dry when the skimmer pump outcompetes, or an overflowing skimmer if the return pump outcompetes.

[mr.wilson]

recirc skimmer are usaly fed slow Dan, it would work but not sure if it would be any better.

Steve

As bandit pointed out, our goal here is to move water from the display tank to the sump and back for the purpose of filtration. If the filtration only requires a slow throughput, then that's all we need to give it.

If your recirculating skimmer needs 300 GPH throughput, it doesn't matter how big your tank is, you need to install a sump return pump that delivers 300 GPh to the display and subsequent sump/skimmer.

[Bloodasp]

Just like i said match your flow with your equipment.

[mr.wilson]

I know, hence the needing slow sump flow, or a REALLY large skimmer that would be so costly as to make the FIFO design not that appealing.


But really, in a sump with your skimmer, how much water is being recirced by a regular one pass skimmer in a sump chamber? Sure, you match sump flow to skimmer flow, but there is allways skimmer outlet water that will be sucked back into the inlet. Only true way to ensure that doesnt happen is to feed skimmer from different compartment.

As I stated in an earlier post, the Sicce PSK 2500 pump used on many skimmers has a maximum output of 660 GPH. I would suspect less than that with the high range of air to water ratio that pump offers. Another very popular skimmer pump is the Laguna Max-Flo which puts out 450 GPH in most cases. These are pumps that you will see on high end skimmers that are rated for tanks up to 300 gallons.

A magic number like 10 or 20 x the volume of the tank turnover has absolutely no bearing on the issue at hand when the protein skimmer used is the same for a 75 or 300 gallon tank. The display/sump throughput should be 500 GPH which is equal to 6.6666 x for the former and 1.6666 for the latter.

I would suggest you use a bucket and stopwatch to meter the exact output of the skimmer once it is broken in and running at maximum efficiency with respect to air intake/production. Only then will you have hard numbers of skimmer pump water flow rates.

Some of the large Beckett skimmers require a very strong feed pump, but these are typically plumbed right into the display tank with an influent at one end and the effluent at the other. They may be sitting in a sump or catch basin, but they are usually plumbed independent of them.

[StirCrazy]

Ok this whole thing is bing made a lot more complacated that it has to be. let me try clarafy and put an end to the back and forth which is getting no where and just confusing people reading this.

Ok so I will put forth 2 senarios for you to read and tell me which one works better all equipment is the same so tank is 80 gal sump is 30 gal, skimmer is fed by a 500gph pump

so senario 1, lets match the skimmer so the return flow is 500 gal per hour

Senario 2, lets use a bigger return pump so the flow is 1500 gph.

and heck let throw one more in
senario 3 lets match the tank, flow rate is 30 gal per hour.

so in senarios 1+2 the skimmer is given all the water it can handle but yet in senario 3 you are starving the skimmer.

so lets pick a number and say that this skimmer is 20% efficient (picked 20 as it is easier to work with) which means in 1 hour this skimmer will reduce the "crap" in 500gal of water by 20%

so our total water volume in these systems is the same at 100gal

system 1 the skimmer has all the water it can handle so it reduces the waist to it theoretical maximum reduction. as per the article Mr Wilson poster that is about a 80% removal.

in system number 2, the exact same amount of water is processed, so you get the same results as system 1.

but in system 3 where we matched the tank size for a 1X turnover, the skimmer only sees 80gal in that hour, but since it skimms the hell out of that 80 gal it is reduced to the max pull down so 80% clean 20% dirty then mixed with the 100% dirty water in the display so 80 gal at 20% mixed with 20 gal at 100% is going to give you about a 35% dirty mixture as aposed to the 20% from the first 2. so you can see if we matched the sump flow for a 1X turn over it would be even worse as we would have 20 gal of 80% clean water mixing with 80 gal of 100% dirty, which would end up with a number of 84% dirty.

So what do we get from this, not enough flow is very bad, to much flow works good but isn't efficient in power used for moving the water.

heaters will work just as good in high flow as in low flow but they transfer more heat to a perticular sample of water in a lower flow, but in a closed system where we have constant cirulation the end result will be the same. and to low a flow can cause heat gradiants which you don't want. as for UV this is a hard one as you have to match the flow written on the UV unit.. mine wanter 400 to 550 gph so I gave it a 550gph pump and knew there would be between 50 and 100gph of losses, chiller same thing match the flow rating.

so the way I had my tank set up I created massive amounts of flow in the display to keep everythign suspended. my surface was very turbulant so I never developed bio film that needed to be skimmed off the surface. but I still used a smooth overflow to reduce noise and I had the water flowing over it at a depth of about 1/4" so I would have enough water flow to carry suspended junk to the sump.

from the sump I had one pump tt remove water for my skimmer, this sucked from my settling pond and returned at the return pump chamber, my heaters were located in the settleing pond where the flow was a little lower. I had two pumps pull water out of the return pump chamber and send it to the chiller and the UV then return at the very bigining again to help keep the flow in the bigining section very fast and turbulant so any suspended matter wouldn't fall out befor the settling pond.

the result of this system was very very little cleaning of crap from the bottom of the desplay, but lots from the settling pond which is what I wanted. I would shut down the return pump, skimmer pump and UV pump, suck all the water from the settling area (about 20) then put my new salt water in there and water change and clean up was done. I don't like refuge, algae or anything else in the sump, as they do need a low flow, so I had my refuge remote and I pumped water to it and it trickeled back into the display directly.

Steve

[mr.wilson]

Ok this whole thing is bing made a lot more complacated that it has to be. let me try clarafy and put an end to the back and forth which is getting no where and just confusing people reading this.

Ok so I will put forth 2 senarios for you to read and tell me which one works better all equipment is the same so tank is 80 gal sump is 30 gal, skimmer is fed by a 500gph pump

so senario 1, lets match the skimmer so the return flow is 500 gal per hour

Senario 2, lets use a bigger return pump so the flow is 1500 gph.

and heck let throw one more in
senario 3 lets match the tank, flow rate is 30 gal per hour.

so in senarios 1+2 the skimmer is given all the water it can handle but yet in senario 3 you are starving the skimmer.

so lets pick a number and say that this skimmer is 20% efficient (picked 20 as it is easier to work with) which means in 1 hour this skimmer will reduce the "crap" in 500gal of water by 20%

so our total water volume in these systems is the same at 100gal

system 1 the skimmer has all the water it can handle so it reduces the waist to it theoretical maximum reduction. as per the article Mr Wilson poster that is about a 80% removal.

in system number 2, the exact same amount of water is processed, so you get the same results as system 1.

but in system 3 where we matched the tank size for a 1X turnover, the skimmer only sees 80gal in that hour, but since it skimms the hell out of that 80 gal it is reduced to the max pull down so 80% clean 20% dirty then mixed with the 100% dirty water in the display so 80 gal at 20% mixed with 20 gal at 100% is going to give you about a 35% dirty mixture as aposed to the 20% from the first 2. so you can see if we matched the sump flow for a 1X turn over it would be even worse as we would have 20 gal of 80% clean water mixing with 80 gal of 100% dirty, which would end up with a number of 84% dirty.

So what do we get from this, not enough flow is very bad, to much flow works good but isn't efficient in power used for moving the water.



I really don't see how that simplified matters.

In example one we have high efficiency.

In example two we have a waste of resources (extra drain noise, additional plumbing, more expensive pump, saltcreep, microbubbles, added heat and noise from larger pump etc. etc.). There is a lot more to it than "to much flow works good but isn't efficient in power used for moving the water." Protein skimmers are designed to maintain bubble stability long enough to deliver the "bad stuff" to the collection cup. Once you lower salinity, add ozone, or decrease the concentration of "bad stuff" you compromise the stability with a net result of premature bubble merging and popping (wet foam). This is why protein skimmer must be sized correctly for the tank and subsequent bioload it is intended for. Installing an oversized skimmer on a tank will often result in poor foam development.

In example three we are giving the skimmer a deficit of "dirty" water, and falling short of the manufacturer's feed requirements. Whatever the shortfall is, will be your rate of inefficiency. Unless you are prepared to challenge the skimmer manufacturer's recommended feed amount for a slower feed, you have a net loss of efficiency. Extra passes through the skimmer with the same effluent water that has just been skimmed is not the same as increasing contact time and does not "skim the hell out of the water".

Your math is incorrect in scenario three as well. The skimmer is fed new "dirty" water at a rate of 80 gallons per hour. Providing you agree that a FIFO system is the most efficient, some of that water will be processed once, while other molecules will be processed many times. There is actually a formula for this in Escobal's book that you disagree with.

How can you assume that you are getting "max pulldown" by reskimming the same water over and over at that unknown rate. Based on a feed of 80 GPH and skimmer pump output of 500 GPH, the water will pass through the protein skimmer 6.25 times per hour, providing your design incorporates a way of telling how many times each molecule has travelled through the skimmer before returning to the display :) A FIFO design can assure that all 80 GPH passes through once, but after that it's entirely random.

heaters will work just as good in high flow as in low flow but they transfer more heat to a perticular sample of water in a lower flow, but in a closed system where we have constant cirulation the end result will be the same. and to low a flow can cause heat gradiants which you don't want. as for UV this is a hard one as you have to match the flow written on the UV unit.. mine wanter 400 to 550 gph so I gave it a 550gph pump and knew there would be between 50 and 100gph of losses, chiller same thing match the flow rating.


Heaters rarely come on in reef tanks, but I still install them nonetheless. Debating their maximum efficiency at the cost of the other equipment you will actually use on a daily basis is moot. There is a difference between manufacturer's directions and scientific formulas for zap rates. If you want efficiency, then use Escobal's formula. Here is a simplified version you can follow. http://www.aquariumadvice.com/articles/articles/44/1/Introduction-to-UV-sterilizers/Page1.html
A typical 25 watt UV sterilizer works most efficiently at 80 GPH throughput.

so the way I had my tank set up I created massive amounts of flow in the display to keep everythign suspended. my surface was very turbulant so I never developed bio film that needed to be skimmed off the surface. but I still used a smooth overflow to reduce noise and I had the water flowing over it at a depth of about 1/4" so I would have enough water flow to carry suspended junk to the sump.

Proteins are polar, with one end being hydrophilic (attracted to water/repelled by air) and the other hydrophobic (repelled by water/attracted to air). Protein constantly switch polarity back and forth, so when we collect surface water it is always rich in hydrophobic proteins, or surfactants (surface active agents).

from the sump I had one pump tt remove water for my skimmer, this sucked from my settling pond and returned at the return pump chamber, my heaters were located in the settleing pond where the flow was a little lower. I had two pumps pull water out of the return pump chamber and send it to the chiller and the UV then return at the very bigining again to help keep the flow in the bigining section very fast and turbulant so any suspended matter wouldn't fall out befor the settling pond.

the result of this system was very very little cleaning of crap from the bottom of the desplay, but lots from the settling pond which is what I wanted. I would shut down the return pump, skimmer pump and UV pump, suck all the water from the settling area (about 20) then put my new salt water in there and water change and clean up was done. I don't like refuge, algae or anything else in the sump, as they do need a low flow, so I had my refuge remote and I pumped water to it and it trickeled back into the display directly.

Steve

Chaetomorpha and Gracilaria do very well under high flow rates, but it isn't a requirement.

I don't understand why you wanted high flow in your sump? I like the idea of a settling chamber, but it should be slow moving and at the base of the first zone (skimmer/settling/mechanical filtration). Also why not use one pump for the chiller and UV unit? By returning these effluents (UV & chiller) to the beginning of your sump, you are irradiating the water two or more times, and getting a heat gain by not sending the chilled water directly to the tank. It looks like your system is a "water juggler" with a lot of resources expended to complete a simple task. By you description, your sump served two purposes 1) House the protein skimmer. 2) House a settling chamber. The rest of the equipment you mentioned is either a header tank or inline. Why not put the skimmer in the refugium header tank?

[golf nut]

Ok this whole thing is bing made a lot more complacated that it has to be. let me try clarafy and put an end to the back and forth which is getting no where and just confusing people reading this.

Whenever I see this statement written it always means the same thing. you simply do not believe it and your way is the best way and you cannot prove it, you have been offered a number of alternatives with proof yet you want us to believe you rather than have a civil discussion, you are tired of trying to get us to believe that we are wrong.

I really do not care if we confuse people, I am sure if they ask the correct questions they will get the correct answers, and it isn't because we always did it that way.

Even if we confuse people then at least they start to think about it one poster even admitted that he tried something in blind faith and found it to be so good he tells everybody, until he tried it he simply did not believe it.

I answered an opening post about flow trough the sump, I answered with facts yet for some reason because it isn't not what you are doing then it is wrong.

I did call skimmer manufactures, many of them and was given the same answer, over sizing the skimmer or giving the skimmer more water than it requires is a absolute waste of money.

[MikeInToronto]

... one poster even admitted that he tried something in blind faith and found it to be so good he tells everybody, until he tried it he simply did not believe it.

To be fair, the overflow system made sense and I couldn't find any fault in it. Plus, once it was set up I had hard proof it worked, even though I didn't set it up exactly as I should. If someone then told me it was noisy or didn't work I'd probably laugh before I got angry.

But I am not totally convinced about everything in this thread. It is mostly theoretical. Logically it makes sense but there is no way I could prove it for myself. Logically a high sump flow makes sense, too. I read StirCrazy's posts and he has good points. This is why there is debate. In the beananimal thread, you noticed that the nay-sayers eventually fell away. I don't think they will ever fall away here. Countless people have healthy, successful reef and marine tanks using strong flow through the sump.

FWIW, the Beananimal OF system is AWESOME! There, I said it again.

Well my new clownfish are sick so I'm going to read up on curing them now.

[Zoaelite]

Whenever I see this statement written it always means the same thing. you simply do not believe it and your way is the best way and you cannot prove it, you have been offered a number of alternatives with proof yet you want us to believe you rather than have a civil discussion, you are tired of trying to get us to believe that we are wrong.

I really do not care if we confuse people, I am sure if they ask the correct questions they will get the correct answers, and it isn't because we always did it that way.

Even if we confuse people then at least they start to think about it one poster even admitted that he tried something in blind faith and found it to be so good he tells everybody, until he tried it he simply did not believe it.

I answered an opening post about flow trough the sump, I answered with facts yet for some reason because it isn't not what you are doing then it is wrong.

I did call skimmer manufactures, many of them and was given the same answer, over sizing the skimmer or giving the skimmer more water than it requires is a absolute waste of money.

Are you technically not doing the exact same thing? Stir crazy has spent hours on his posts and his examples do have some relevancy but you have shot them down each and every time because you believe you are right...

After reading all of this I can quite clearly see that the gentlemen from Toronto have there facts strait. In there FIFO sump model I'm positive you could achieve higher skimmer efficiency, but lets face it folks the simple truth about it is that very few people have set up there tanks to be FIFO style...
If your tank is not set up to be FIFO lowering your turn over to 1X is useless as you're not filtering all of the water. As Mike has pointed out this is all theoretical, there are so many different variables in the equation to the perfect skimmer its redundant to argue back and forth.

Its funny that this article was posted "http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2010/1/aafeature" as it actually downplays the importance of a skimmer in the reef setting:

"None of the skimmers tested removed more than 35% of the extant TOC, leading to the conclusion that bubbles are really not a very effective medium for organic nutrient removal."

[golf nut]

Its funny that this article was posted "http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2010/1/aafeature" as it actually downplays the importance of a skimmer in the reef setting:


If you read carefully I never mentioned FIFO, do not put words into my mouth.

Funny you should mention the article, did you read it? did you see how the tests were done?

Do you see what "Q " represents and what the values were?

[mark]

did the original post even mention a skimmer?

[Riptide]

just wondering how many times an hour should the tank water go through the sump? 1? 5? 10?

I'm even more confused now than before reading this thread....how big is the display tank, how big is the sump, what kinda of skimmer and how many gal is it rated for? also what other equip do you have

[mr.wilson]

I can only lead a horse to water, the rest is out of my hands. This is the last time I answer this question, as there is nothing ambiguous in my responses thus far.

The original question was "just wondering how many times an hour should the tank water go through the sump? 1? 5? 10?".

Before that question can be answered we must first establish why you are using a sump? The answer to that question is the sump is used to house filtration devices so we don't have them hanging on the back of the tank and to a certain extent, to improve efficiency of these filters.

The next question is how much water do these devices require? The answer is whatever the highest demand is of any one particular device you are using. If you have a rapid sand filter that runs on a 1 HP pump, then you should run about 6000 GPH through your sump. If you are using a protein skimmer and it has the highest demand for feed water, then you need to establish how much water it has flowing through it. This number is likely to be 450 GPH, depending on the skimmer design. So in this case the answer to your question is your flow rate through the sump should be 450 GPH, regardless of the size of your tank.

If you are not concerned about the efficiency of your filtration devices, noise, operational cost, plumbing, saltcreep, water quality, temperature, display surface skimming, or initial equipment cost then pick a random number and multiply it by the size of your tank. Then place your protein skimmer in your sump and allow it to randomly draw in water and return it in the same compartment.

[Zoaelite]

If you read carefully I never mentioned FIFO, do not put words into my mouth.

Funny you should mention the article, did you read it? did you see how the tests were done?

Do you see what "Q " represents and what the values were?

My comment was not directed to you, when I said the "Gentlemen in Toronto" I should of said the "Gentlemen in Toronto here for a discussion and not personal attacks". This will be my actual final post, for the original poster I apologize if this got off topic but you sure have a fun 11 page read :lol:.
Levi

[golf nut]

My comment was not directed to you, when I said the "Gentlemen in Toronto" I should of said the "Gentlemen in Toronto here for a discussion and not personal attacks". This will be my actual final post, for the original poster I apologize if this got off topic but you sure have a fun 11 page read :lol:.
Levi


I will ask a question again, did you read the link that you posted?

This never got of topic, I responded to the OP and you decided to make it an issue
This will be my actual final post,

Whenever I see this statement written it always means the same thing. you simply do not believe it and your way is the best way and you cannot prove it, you have been offered a number of alternatives with proof yet you want us to believe you rather than have a civil discussion, you are tired of trying to get us to believe that we are wrong

[golf nut]

My comment was not directed to you, when I said the "Gentlemen in Toronto" I should of said the "Gentlemen in Toronto here for a discussion and not personal attacks". This will be my actual final post, for the original poster I apologize if this got off topic but you sure have a fun 11 page read :lol:.
Levi

Just one more thought, there are many here from Toronto or surrounding areas, please do not make this a geographical argument.

Paul

[kien]

So what's the verdict? How many times per hour should the water go through the sump?? :lol:

[golf nut]

1.567832

[Bloodasp]

I'm just gonna wait for this episode to be shown on mythbusters, not that they are any good but it would be fun to watch.

[mike31154]

Alas, I am sumpless. And now I fear proceeding with my planned build which includes a basement sump!!

[banditpowdercoat]

I give up!!!


Whatever you run for sump flow, is Perfect!

[StirCrazy]

I
Your math is incorrect in scenario three as well. The skimmer is fed new "dirty" water at a rate of 80 gallons per hour. Providing you agree that a FIFO system is the most efficient, some of that water will be processed once, while other molecules will be processed many times. There is actually a formula for this in Escobal's book that you disagree with.

which math, and it was all just off the top of my head.. it is close enough for this discussion.

How can you assume that you are getting "max pulldown" by reskimming the same water over and over at that unknown rate. Based on a feed of 80 GPH and skimmer pump output of 500 GPH, the water will pass through the protein skimmer 6.25 times per hour, providing your design incorporates a way of telling how many times each molecule has travelled through the skimmer before returning to the display :) A FIFO design can assure that all 80 GPH passes through once, but after that it's entirely random.

We can assume that if this is happening we have a hell of a lot better chance of getting a better pulldown than if we put 500 gph or 1500 gph through the sump. the point is the skimmer is going to skim the same amount of water weather it is the same water (or portion there of) over and over or some of the new water going buy. and what does FIFO stand for?? I hate abreabiations as everyone makes them up and doesnt state them on the first use like they should.

I don't understand why you wanted high flow in your sump? I like the idea of a settling chamber, but it should be slow moving and at the base of the first zone (skimmer/settling/mechanical filtration). Also why not use one pump for the chiller and UV unit? By returning these effluents (UV & chiller) to the beginning of your sump, you are irradiating the water two or more times, and getting a heat gain by not sending the chilled water directly to the tank. It looks like your system is a "water juggler" with a lot of resources expended to complete a simple task. By you description, your sump served two purposes 1) House the protein skimmer. 2) House a settling chamber. The rest of the equipment you mentioned is either a header tank or inline. Why not put the skimmer in the refugium header tank?

I didn't want high flow through the sump, that was a result of wanting high flow out of the tank to carry suspended "crap" out of the maintank into the sump. the settling chamber is the second one. the inlet chamber "first" is about 6X6 and over flows over 2 sides to a 18X12 section, then through some weirs and into the return pump section. as for putting the chiller and UV on the same pump.. not a chance way to far apart flow requirments. All my equipment was in line, except for two pumps. so I had less heat contrubution than most. and what I didn't mention was I was also running another 25 gal tank off the same sump. the new one I am building will be much different with regards to pumps and locations. to me a sump serves to purposes, hide equipment, settle out junk, and add water volume.

One thing that we have to remember is when we have a sump system people tent to treat the water in it as different from the water in the tank, it is all one system and one large water volume, so in reality the flow is a mute point as the water in the system all gets skimes at the same rate no mater what the flow through the sump is, Unless you go with a ultra low flow then you are putting enough of a seperation to the system to actualy had different water qualities in your Sump than you do in the tank, not by much but if the flow is low enough there is a possibility, a fast water flow helps disperse/desolve/spread things more evenly and faster.

I guess the point is to think of your system as a system not two systems, the sump just give a remote option for hiding equipment not a seperate water system.

Steve

[StirCrazy]

I really do not care if we confuse people, I am sure if they ask the correct questions they will get the correct answers, and it isn't because we always did it that way.

.

you should care. personaly I like to help people and I will try make things as simple as posable if thats what is needed. I never do things because "we always did it that way" if we did I would still be using VHO bulbs and under gravel filters. I do think there are a lot of "snake oil" products out there that are a short cut for people who don't set tanks up properly or tank the time to mature there tanks. there is also a lot of products that prey on or desire for the "easy way" or "quick fix" do some of them work.. ya sure, are they needed .. no. so is some of my thinking old fashion.. ya maybe, do I stay with them because we have always done it that way, Hell no I stay with them because they work.

Steve

[banditpowdercoat]

FIFO

First In First Out. No reskimming and No bypassing.

[StirCrazy]

FIFO

First In First Out. No reskimming and No bypassing.

thanks Dan.

[banditpowdercoat]

thanks Dan.

No problem. I'm so used to using that term in PLC programming that I forget others don't know what it stands for.