fuge design

[jacksonpt]

Has anyone ever thought about doing something like this? My thought is that by controlling water flow through the fuge, you could force more/better interaction of the water with LR/macro algae. This would be for a dedicated fuge... sump/skimmer needs are not part of this. And it's just a quick mock-up... I didn't space/size the baffles or anything like that... just enough to give you an idea.

Am I thinking too much again?

http://bingweb.binghamton.edu/~jtaylor/pictures/bbs/Fuge.jpg

[pimpinitup6969]

Jackson I had something really similar to that on my 125. If I can find pictures I will post them.

[clear oceans]

Hi Jason,

I think what you have designed is basically a "race track" design for the fuge. This design is fairly common for sumps but I have never seen one for a fuge.

I can see what you are trying to acheive. I think it will work. My only concern would be how much water will flow through the macro algae. A certain amount of flow across a wide area (conventional design sump) will be slow but if you put the same amount of flow into a tight channel such as yours, it will be much faster. I think this will ultimately determine your success or otherwise.

How much flow are you considering and what are the dimensions of the fuge and "channels".

cheers

Paul

[reef_keeper]

sorry to get off topic here. how did you draw this out. i like it. very detailed

[jacksonpt]

I'm working with a 20tall, but at this point the design is purely conceptual. Your point about the increased flow rate through a narrower channel did occur to me. I'm lucky enough to be able to slow the flow rate down as much as necessary to maximize nutrient export. Perhaps 1 baffle (u-shaped flow) would be a better compromise compared to the 2 baffles (s-shaped flow).

[uncleof6]

IMHUO, you are sorta over thinking this. LR, is not going to do what you want it to do (provide denitrification) unless the water moves THROUGH the rock, at the exact speed necessary for denitrification to occur, and regardless of how slow or fast the water moves around the rock, it will not move THROUGH the rock. There is no mechanism to accomplish that. It will merely provide a substrate for nitrosomonas and nitrobacter, much the same as it does in the DT.

As far as improving contact time with the macro, I see that as rather mythical also, in that there is insufficient data to support the notion that macro will take up more nitrates if the contact time is increased. IME, it makes little if any difference. Macro growth will be determined by lighting (photosynthesis) and the available nutrients will be taken up as needed by the macro. It is much the same as skimmer efficiency and flow rate through the sump. ;)

FWIW,

Jim

[jacksonpt]

Well, this certainly isn't the first time I've over thought something. Thanks for the help/info.

[jacksonpt]

Google sketchup. It's free, and once you get the hang of it it's pretty easy.

sorry to get off topic here. how did you draw this out. i like it. very detailed

[jacksonpt]

Update...
It's still not to scale (skimmer will obviously be larger, baffles will probably be moved some, etc), but this is the basic concept of what I'm thinking.

http://bingweb.binghamton.edu/~jtaylor/pictures/bbs/fugeV2.jpg

Here is some of what I'm thinking with the design:

Make best use of limited space under stand
Maximize fuge for biological diversity and nutrient export (i.e. pods, worms, DSB, LR, macro aglae, etc)
Promote "better interaction" between macro algae and water (race track design will hopefully force more water through macro algae, as opposed to just flowing around/over). I hear what Jim is saying above (there is little to suggest this will have any real benefit), but I figure it can't hurt, and it's always fun to try something a little different.


Those are the highlights. Fuge will be a 20tall, and I ordered the skimmer (SWC 120 cone), bulkheads and hole saw this morning, so if the gods are smiling on me, I'll have a weekend project.

Thoughts and opinions are always welcome.