Flow & hole placement feedback.

[michika]

Hey Guys,

I'm getting ready to pull the trigger on the order for our display tank Tibet. I need some feedback about the current design. It is a big tank, and it will have two visible panes.

This is about as far as we've refined this design. We've been working on it on and off since 2008 when we bought our house.

A couple things that aren't properly described in the drawing;
1) There will also be front to back bracing, probably two stripes.
2) The intention was to use Ocean Motions for return flow with all those holes.
3) Tank will be lit for a couple of years with a MH & T5 combination while we wait for either LEDs to be a reasonable options, or for Kevin to build us reasonable option LEDs.

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b286/michika/DSC_0689.jpg

[Delphinus]

Why not consider something like Vortechs or Tunzes? I love the dynamic aspect of those and that you can change them around as often you like, whereas a closed loop is in place forever and forever puts out the same flow pattern.

They are now claiming 7500gph on the new MP60's. Holy wowza. Two of those on this tank and you have hot tub of flow...

Just my $0.02. I'm totally not a fan of holes in tanks so my take on it is usually just to avoid them when possible.

[Skimmerking]

I'm with Tony on this one, the cost of 2 vortechs the 40's and may be a 60 is going to give you alot better flow IMO.. I have 1 40 in my 150 and its plenty for the rolling affect.. something to consider Catherine...... once they are there its no turning back. then you rock work will have to be a certain way.... Like I wish that i didnt put my rock work there its gettign blown over from the closed loop//:sad:

[untamed]

I'm not a big fan of the look of powerheads in the tank, so that is the other side of the discussion.

The way I approached it, I built a circulation system based on closed loops with the thought that I could always add powerheads later if I wanted. You can't add the CL later...
So far, I haven't added any.

The end panel looks straightforward...One 2" intake and 4 - 1.5" outputs. My CLs run on a Dart pump and each output is actually only 1". I don't think you need the 1.5" outputs. The OM4way outputs are all 1"...not 1.5", btw. I like how you have the outputs high and low. I don't think you can go wrong with the sequencing. I would fire the two low ones, then the two high ones...

I see the same idea on the back wall...but I'm not sure what the fifth 1.5" bh is for. Again, you probably only need 1" outlets for the OM4way.

Your challenge is going to be to get good circ in that front right corner. There is no reason that you have to put all your outputs on the vertical walls...you can put them in the bottom as well. In my case, 4 of my 8 outlets are actually on the bottom. The trick with placement in the front right is to still make the outlet hidden from view.

[Delphinus]

I totally understand the desire to minimize the obtrusiveness of equipment in the main display.

However having said that.. with the exception of outputs/inlets in the bottom pane, which are easy enough to aquascape around and hide ... as far as the side walls go, don't you still have a bulkhead on the glass and a piece of pipe and/or nozzle? Or worse yet, in the case of using penductors - a bulkhead, pipe of pipe and a thing that looks reminiscent of an air raid siren of old? At that point you're still hiding "something" behind a pillar or something - in this case though it's permanently there and not something you can decide to move later on.

I can see that the ones on a bottom pane would not be subject to the same criteria though. But man oh man, holes on a bottom pane scare me worse. Maybe it's less of a concern with an acrylic tank but even still what happens if 2 years from now it develops a small leak? (Or does that effectively never happen unless they were installed wrong to begin with?)

[untamed]

I don't know how people with large glass tanks sleep at night regardless of how many holes the panels might have... I'm an acrylic guy, glass scares me! If drilling weakens glass, then I'm all in favour of NOT doing it!

I don't use penductors. I agree, they look silly.

It is pretty easy to hide the intakes...but, yes, it is more difficult to hide the outputs because putting anything in front of them kind of defeats their purpose.

The four outlets I have on the bottom of the tank are effectively invisible. They shoot up at a 45 degree angle, but there are rocks blocking direct view from the front and sides.

There is another philosophy that this touches upon. I'm a big believer in leaving the system alone. There are places of low and higher flow in the system, but leaving the flow alone for a long time allows life to thrive in the flow/light conditions that it prefers. I've noticed this effect with sponges in particular that tend to find high flow, low light places only.

[Parker]

I don't know how people with large glass tanks sleep at night regardless of how many holes the panels might have... I'm an acrylic guy, glass scares me! If drilling weakens glass, then I'm all in favour of NOT doing it!


I have 16 holes in my glass tank and I sleep well at night. I have insurance and the preimiums are up to date. :mrgreen:

[michika]

I'm not a big fan of the look of powerheads in the tank, so that is the other side of the discussion.

The way I approached it, I built a circulation system based on closed loops with the thought that I could always add powerheads later if I wanted. You can't add the CL later...
So far, I haven't added any.

The end panel looks straightforward...One 2" intake and 4 - 1.5" outputs. My CLs run on a Dart pump and each output is actually only 1". I don't think you need the 1.5" outputs. The OM4way outputs are all 1"...not 1.5", btw. I like how you have the outputs high and low. I don't think you can go wrong with the sequencing. I would fire the two low ones, then the two high ones...

I see the same idea on the back wall...but I'm not sure what the fifth 1.5" bh is for. Again, you probably only need 1" outlets for the OM4way.

Your challenge is going to be to get good circ in that front right corner. There is no reason that you have to put all your outputs on the vertical walls...you can put them in the bottom as well. In my case, 4 of my 8 outlets are actually on the bottom. The trick with placement in the front right is to still make the outlet hidden from view.

We seem to have most of the same views. I wanted CL for exact reason you outlined. If I went the powerhead route, could I possibly get a variety of flow patterns with only a few powerheads? I just don't want to to have a million things in the tank with a million associated cords on the backside. So if I went the powerhead route, and given my aquascaping description below (if you can interpret it), how would you arrange powerheads in a system this large?

I got the measurements (1.5") from the OM website (I think), I'll definitely double check those to make sure.

I can't remember what the 2" hole was for. I think it related to the return. We got a great deal on a Snapper pump awhile back and we've decided to use it. Also I thought Dart's had been discontinued for some reason.

Up until now everyone I've talked to about holes in the bottom of the tank has warned me against them. Also Kevin tells me he won't sleep well at night if we have them. I like the idea of having maybe four of them, but I would question their longevity, and want to know about the additional stress it puts on the tank as a whole.

The aquascaping plan (shhh its top secret!)
On the left in front of the overflow will be a tall pillar, the plan is to have it essentially be large (girthy) with lots of jutting ledges for SPS. Directly to the left of the pillar will be a small bay, so essentially a clam lagoon. Left again will be an island? with bridges, I plan to do some SPS, mostly tightly weaving species that fish could hide in. Then on the far right I want a little bit of a pillar, only about half the height of the tank.

I want the aquascaping to be of varying heights and emphasize the length when you look down the tank, and emphasize the depth when you look straight on. I plan to do a lot of interlocking, but not touching rock paths to try and give the illusion of a larger tank then is really there. I did a lot of looking and note taking from the photos on that guy's set up. You know the guy whose name I can't remember. His tank crashed due to a bad water change, he pulled it down. He also has a cold water tank. Urg can't remember his name or website to save my life.

[lastlight]

Glass isn't exactly a uniform and perfect thing it's still sortof a product like wood with each piece being a little different and who knows how holes will affect the bottom (or even sides). They definitely don't strengthen the glass we know that.

I don't think a snapper will do much in a tank that size. I had a Dart gold on my 225 and it lost a ton of it's oomph before making it into the tank and your tank is far larger.

If these MP60s are reliable and not as noisey as you'd think they'd be (comparing size and flow to the mp40) then they sounds like serious WIN.

I've often fantasized about building a decent sized island overflow in the middle of the tank (but not drilling the bottom or using it as the overflow). Then you'd drill this tower with outlets and drop a pair of the big RD 12m3 into it so they sit right in the tank, are dead silent and provide a fail-proof CL flow from your island. Reach overtop and yank them out for servicing. Only issue is I don't think 36" front to back is wide enough to make this an option.

[michika]

Sound is something we need to be conscious of. This tank is going to face into our media/gaming/tv/entertainment room.

I have a MP40 on my 180g now. I love it, but think I'd probably need 6 of this particular model to make a slight bit of difference in Tibet. Tibet is ~750 on her own. How would i place them? Along the back and on the left side? If it was an MP60 though, I'd want to a) see them in action first, b) be assured they could even work on the glass we get, and c) will last for at least 5 years.

I do have plans to consider piping in one of the return holes into piping that will run in and throughout one of the columns. However I can't visualize it, or even make a call on if this is feasible at this point.

[mark]

when planning mine, sent a copy of the drawing to Oceans Motions for comment. Got a reply back (and was followed up by a phone call), that found helpful

[michika]

Really? I'm DEFINITELY going to do that. Thanks!

[untamed]

Yup...Paul at OM is very helpful.

[lastlight]

10.5 x 3 x 2 gives me 470 gallons. How did you arrive at 750 out of curiosity?

[michika]

Through the magic of bad typing skills! :mrgreen:

Tibet's TOTAL volume should be around 750g...my bad.