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

[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]

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.

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 . 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]

Originally Posted by 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 . 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...oss-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]

Originally Posted by zoaElite

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]

Originally Posted by mr.wilson

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]

Originally Posted by banditpowdercoat

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 . 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]

Originally Posted by MikeInToronto

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.