![]() |
|
![]() |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||||
|
|||||
![]() I agree with Myka, the need for siphon breaks or check valves is a result from bad design. I think the majority of experienced people will agree you shouldn't rely on such things. However you may want to add them to prevent full back back flow all the time but your system should still be able to handle the back flow if the breaks or valve fail. If this were the case check valves would be a better option than break holes as they require more maintenance being that they are often plagued with algae growth.
|
#2
|
|||||
|
|||||
![]() In my case it's not bad design..... I do my water changes by siphoning from the display most of the time.... Siphon break holes and check valves help keep more water in the display so I can siphon out more crap....
__________________
260g mixed reef, 105g sump, water blaster 7000 return, Bubble King SM 300 skimmer, Aqua Controller Jr, 4 radions, 3 Tunze 6055s,1 tunze 6065, 2 Vortech MP40s, Vortech MP20, Tunze ATO, GHL SA2 doser, 2 TLF reactors (1 carbon, 1 rowa). http://www.canreef.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=50034 . Tank Video here http://www.vimeo.com/2304609 and here http://www.vimeo.com/16591694 |
#3
|
|||||
|
|||||
![]() Agreed provided they aren't actually needed.
|
#4
|
|||||
|
|||||
![]() Quote:
Quote:
![]() I agree. Although there is a difference between redundancy and superfluency. Knowledge in cause and effect will define the difference. Last edited by Myka; 04-08-2012 at 04:31 PM. |