Who rates skimmers

[sphelps]

Originally Posted by Mr OM

What has 10x total flow got to do with 10x sump rates? they ask for 3x sump rates and 10x total flow, not your 10x sump recommendation, trust me I read it properly, I think you were the one that used it to prove your point, but had not read it properly.

Interesting, did you notice that repeatably mentioned the 10x flow is general guideline tank flow but obviously some tanks require more. I just think it's easier to run 10x through the sump and then add extra if it's needed with power heads. I also mentioned time after time that I'm not arguing for 10x sump turnover nor am I recommending it. My point has always been that people have options, and just because some choose to produce there tank flow differently than others doesn't mean they are wrong.

I never took a side and said what was wrong and what was right. Simply put, people think differently and have different priorities, low flow or high flow, it makes little difference.

[golf nut]

Originally Posted by sphelps

I never took a side and said what was wrong and what was right. Simply put, people think differently and have different priorities, low flow or high flow, it makes little difference.

Unfortunately if you had made this statement 50 posts ago we wouldn't be still posting back and forth, the fact is in general you feel 10x is the acceptable rate and I believe the slower rate to be better and I will explain.

[sphelps]

Originally Posted by Mr OM

Unfortunately if you had made this statement 50 posts ago we wouldn't be still posting back and forth, the fact is in general you feel 10x is the acceptable rate and I believe the slower rate to be better and I will explain.

Really? I'm pretty sure I made it clear from the start, even in the thread this discussion started in.....

Originally Posted by sphelps

Like previously stated it's a matter of preference, both low and high flow have there advantages but it's a preference not a requirement. There are obviously limits but the range is large.

Originally Posted by sphelps

I never said low flow was a bad thing but rather advantages exist for both so it comes down to personal preference.

Originally Posted by sphelps

I’m not looking for math or sources to back up claims, mainly because I don’t care that much but also because I’m not disagreeing. I know many people just love to argue but that’s not my goal here. Honestly you can use pretty much whatever flow you want for a sump turnover and my argument is that it doesn’t matter. Yes lower turnover rates are quieter and for this reason more common because higher flow rates require more experience to achieve quieter results. In addition lower flow rates require cheaper internal pumps; high flow pumps are more expensive and for the most part louder.

I’ve said it over and over again and feel now that I’m really beating it too death but a flow rate of 3-5x will produce success and so will 10-15x there really isn’t much of a difference. Skimmers are independent and other parts of the sump filtration need to be designed for a certain flow rate. What that flow rate is, is completely up to the owner’s or maintainer’s preference and there is no real scientific evidence to support either option.

[golf nut]

Originally Posted by Mr OM

the fact is in general you feel 10x is the acceptable rate and I believe the slower rate to be better and I will explain.

Originally Posted by sphelps

Really? I'm pretty sure I made it clear from the start, even in the thread this discussion started in.....

Are you sure that's what you said? and that you were not biased for 10x sump returns?

Originally Posted by sphelps

The 10X turn over recommendation is based on tank/sump flow and not skimmer flow

Originally Posted by sphelps

Basically I think it's fairly obvious that more return flow means more filtration.

Originally Posted by sphelps

higher return flow will not only keep particles and matter suspended but it will also filter them out faster.

Originally Posted by sphelps

I prefer to practice around 10x turnover with additional in tank flow if required

Originally Posted by sphelps

My way of thinking is to start with the minimum requirement, which I believe is about 10x, then supplement more if needed and of course only if it’s practical. Remember I’m not arguing the fact that 3-5x won’t work but rather than running 10x will also work, personally I believe it may work slightly better but that’s not my main argument.

Originally Posted by sphelps

One more reason I see more being better is matching the flow doesn't actually make sense if you look at the numbers. My skimmer for example flows 4000L/h and it's rated for tanks up to 3000L, hmmm so the "required" flow results in a turn over of 1.3

Originally Posted by sphelps

I believe it's actually just over 10x

[golf nut]

10x flow rates through sump..

Due to the large flow rate through the sump to the tank the water flowing through the overflow box creates it's own surface flow towards the overflow box, this is likely the original reason for such high return rates The issue with this method is that when only 2 or 3 x rates are required using 10x or greater pulls more than just the surfactants
from the tank but also a large percentage of non contaminated water which changes the surfactants properties from a concentrated to a diluted solution.

It causes drain issues which if understood could easily be resolved, it enhances micro bubbles in the sump, requires the need for a more expensive pump with high running costs.

Most if not all skimmer manufactures suggest it makes the skimmer less effective.





low flow rates through sump ie from 1x to 3x..

Providing flow is configured correctly the low flow rate will remove surfactants in concentrated form, it will make the skimmer more effective, reduce the need for large overflow systems,reduce the cost of the return pump, reduce the operating costs of the return pump, eliminate micro bubbles, reduce noise and heat.

[sphelps]

Originally Posted by Mr OM

Are you sure that's what you said? and that you were not biased for 10x sump returns?

Really? Are you serious? Most of those are even out of context and in the rest I even stated it's my preference or my belief or my opinion. I'm pretty sure I'm allowed to have a preference and the fact that my preference is around 10x was always made perfectly clear. Yes I provided some reasoning which focused on my preference because others had already covered reasoning for there preferences.

If we can't share our opinions, experience and ideas why are we hear? You actually took the time to search through all my posts and quote only the particular parts (out of context) for the sole purpose to prove me wrong and accuse me of saying something different. I'm sorry but I'm not going to feed your need to debate and argue anymore. Find someone else to stroke your ego.

[golf nut]

Originally Posted by sphelps

Really? Are you serious? Most of those are even out of context and in the rest I even stated it's my preference or my belief or my opinion. I'm pretty sure I'm allowed to have a preference and the fact that my preference is around 10x was always made perfectly clear. Yes I provided some reasoning which focused on my preference because others had already covered reasoning for there preferences.

If we can't share our opinions, experience and ideas why are we hear? You actually took the time to search through all my posts and quote only the particular parts (out of context) for the sole purpose to prove me wrong and accuse me of saying something different. I'm sorry but I'm not going to feed your need to debate and argue anymore. Find someone else to stroke your ego.

I simply quoted where you suggested that 10x was the magic number, not one of these quotes was out of context, the very fact that you disagree with me confirms the fact that you subcribe to higher than lower flow.

[mr.wilson]

I will be the first to admit I enjoy playing the devils advocate. A debate or discussion doesn't have to be an argument. As long as you present your position with some substance you can't possibly be wrong, just different. There's also no reason why you have to follow my advice even if it is valid. I've used oversized, less efficient equipment just because it works out that way sometimes.

There are many contradictions in the reef hobby. I've run skimmerless tanks, tanks with no water changes, closed loop (pressurized) filtration systems, and experiments with every method that warranted the effort. Some work better than others, but they all work. I've done more than a few 180's, but I always admit it when I do it. I'm willing to take or at least consider advice from the bottom or top of the hobby.

You have the right to disregard information, but you can't dispute it with hollow claims for 50 posts then try to back peddle that you never said any of it.

I'm sure this thread has been interesting reading and a great soap opera for all that are following. Three people in the aquarium trade having a heated argument about a simple subject. Everyone is going to think it was staged

I think this particular horse is sufficiently flogged. If someone wants to discuss the merits of water changes in a new thread, I'm there. I'll even take "against"