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

[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..

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]

Originally Posted by Mr OM

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]

Originally Posted by Bloodasp

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

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.

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-Syst.../dp/1888381051
... and wrote the book on rocket science. http://www.amazon.co.uk/Methods-Astr...tt_at_ep_dpt_1
... then another book after the rocket scientists finally understood the first one. http://www.amazon.co.uk/Methods-Orbi...tt_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]

Originally Posted by StirCrazy

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]

Originally Posted by StirCrazy

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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by banditpowdercoat

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.