Sump Walkthrough

[Sharpie_]

I know these are around and have been done before but I felt I would post my writeup for people to learn from but to also have it fne tuned by more advanced hobbyists... let the games begin:


This is the most simple yet fully functional design I feel works.

http://i47.*******.com/wwamit.jpg

A - Valve, this valve goes on the main drain and allows you to control the water level in the overflow box, the pipe beside it is an emergency drain.

B + C - These were added to the drawing in order for you to visualize the space required to have an in sump skimmer such as the Red Sea Berlin. This section can be smaller if the skimmer used will be HOB, Nano, or non existent. This area can also house other equipment such as heaters, probes, and media.

D - Is your return pump, it is hooked into;

E - Which is a flexible hose on two barbed fittings, this allows you to reduce vibrations transferred to your plumbing as well as have a quick disconnect for your pump. From the barbed fitting hard PVC pipe is used.

F + G - A "Tee" fitting is used to split the water so the flow through the refugiem can be controlled. This also allows for excess flow from an overpowered pump to be redirected without damaging the pump (throttling it back). Keep in mind, when adjusting the valve it will affect the water level in your Herbie overflow and can cause problems. Find a happy place for flow through the refugiem and keep the valve there. If you will be using a check valve on your return line, place it above the Tee and make sure that the refugiem line is submerged otherwise air will be let into the system and the check valve will burp and fail.

H - Your refugiem, it can be lit by a simple flood light in a standard socket wired to a plug.

I - The RDSB provides a place for anaerobic bacteria to grow unhindered by disturbing current or oxygen. It also provides a place for roots of some macro algae to grab hold. Do more research on the (R)DSB before adding it.

J - The bubble trap is used to stop problem micro-bubbles from returning to the display tank. The first sheet of glass sits relatively low to the bottom of the tank (1" - 1/2" clearance) this stops floating proteins from being recirculated into the water column as well as keeps the current at the bottom of the sump section allowing bubbles to float up. The next pane keeps the water level in the skimmer section constant, certain skimmers need more water than others, 9-11" being average. It is always better to have the section taller then necessary because a skimmer can be raised, this is however a problem in short stands. The final pane of glass is about two to three inches away from the second and sits at a similar height as the first, this last section gives a place for any remaining bubbles to rise before the water is recirculated into the tank.

You may consider adding a single pane of glass as a bubble trap on the refugiem side of the return section with a similar method of placement. It is however unnecessary if the flow in the refugiem is slow enough.

HTH, Zach.

[uncleof6]

Forgo the DSB in the "fuge" section. Your flow rate will not be near high enough to support it, and it will simply become another nitrate factory. The return section needs to be larger. Running the return dead end into a tee will kill the flow. No valves on a drain line, unless it is a siphon system. (which according to your description it is) though a three pipe "bean animal" is a far superior system.

Jim

[Sharpie_]

That's what I thought about the DSB and why I added the note about reading more before adding it. Although I have heard that a moderate flow is what is desired, I will remove it from the writeup. As for the return section the areas are not to scale in any way, but I will make note of that as well.

This will happen when I have time.

[necessary evil]

Not a bad design, I would gate valve the output on your skimmer if you haven't already done so or if it doesn't come that way

[Sharpie_]

Not a bad design, I would gate valve the output on your skimmer if you haven't already done so or if it doesn't come that way

This isn't my sump right now, and trivial things like the skimmer's design aren't include in the Sump's layout, I'm just giving a visual representation for people who have questions about how to build a sump and what to take into consideration.

[chuman]

Thanks for posting. I have been trying to redo my sump and was struggling for a way to deal with bubbles in the refugiem section. comming off the return solves that problem. Now I only have to deal with the bubbles from the inlet side. I am changing from a 29 reg sump to a 20 long. I will give up some water volume but it is just too difficult to get around in the cabinet with the taller sump and I am running about 3" off the top for the water level. I'm thinking a plexi top but I'm not sure how effetive it will be with the skimmer and all that equipment in that section. Any recommendations would be greatly appreciated.

[Sharpie_]

do you mean a plexi glass top on the sump to decrease evaporation? The beauty of plexi/acrylic is that you can cut it to fit no matter what the shape with a simple jig saw or dremel. By cutting it to fit and using more then one piece, you can cut out half circles to sit on either side of things like skimmers and remove each piece without having to remove plumbing etc.

[Jeff000]

do you mean a plexi glass top on the sump to decrease evaporation? The beauty of plexi/acrylic is that you can cut it to fit no matter what the shape with a simple jig saw or dremel. By cutting it to fit and using more then one piece, you can cut out half circles to sit on either side of things like skimmers and remove each piece without having to remove plumbing etc.

Is covering the sump a good idea?

[uncleof6]

Is covering the sump a good idea?

No it isn't. Gas exchange is an important process. Closing up the sump or the DT inhibits gas exchange, causing CO2 buildup, declining pH and and and.....

Jim

[Jeff000]

No it isn't. Gas exchange is an important process. Closing up the sump or the DT inhibits gas exchange, causing CO2 buildup, declining pH and and and.....

Jim

thanks :)

[der_wille_zur_macht]

A few thoughts:


A - Valve, this valve goes on the main drain and allows you to control the water level in the overflow box, the pipe beside it is an emergency drain.

Valves on drain lines can be extremely risky business, unless a drain setup is specifically designed to incorporate a valve (i.e. herbie, bean-style, etc.) IMHO it's worth adding a disclaimer to this effect. Later on, you mention a "herbie style" overflow drain, but IMHO it should be in screaming big red letters - otherwise, someone is going to see a valve on the drain in your diagram, and slap one on a conventional single-drain overflow with a Durso or Stockman standpipe, try to use it to control flow, then wake up in the middle of the night to a wet floor.

F + G - A "Tee" fitting is used to split the water so the flow through the refugiem can be controlled. This also allows for excess flow from an overpowered pump to be redirected without damaging the pump (throttling it back).

The vast majority of pumps used in this hobby will NOT be damaged by throttling back the output side. In fact, many of our hobby pumps run better (more efficiently) when throttled back to a certain degree. There's certainly nothing wrong with T'ing off the return line to feed a 'fuge, but justifying it by claiming it's better for the pump is bad logic.

[JARJOZ]

How about this ?
- Adjustable flow to REFU.
- High flow throug DSB

http://i143.photobucket.com/albums/r152/JARJOZ/wwamit-3.jpg

[der_wille_zur_macht]

How about this ?
- Adjustable flow to REFU.
- High flow throug DSB

http://i143.photobucket.com/albums/r152/JARJOZ/wwamit-3.jpg

Assuming the two drains are standard mixed fluid drains (i.e. Durso, Stockman, etc) that'll be OK, though IME splitting and valving a mixed drain can be problematic.

As I said above, there's nothing wrong with a valve on a drain, as long as it's part of a design intended to feature a valve. And there's nothing wrong with T'ing the return pump, as long as you have a need for the flow, and you're not just doing it to "save the pump."

[chuman]

I definitely can appreciate gas exchange. I would only wnat to cover the first section where that water from the main tank comes in. After it goes through the bubble trap then I should be fine. In the drawign you show tall walls which would be ideal if I had the space. If the water level is rinning 3-4 inches from the top of the tank the splashing from the air in the water comming into the sump makes a mess. Has anybody had this problem? I've seen some wet try systems use the floss fabric. I even thought about using one of the felt boots or some sponge material but from my current setup none of it is very effective unless you just cover the top or have a high enough wall.

On another note. I still like the return going through the refu better than plumbing from the inlet side (air bubble issue).

[uncleof6]

Valves in a SIPHON drain line, are used to adjust the water level in the overflow, not as flow control devices. In your diagram you are using valves in the drain line to control/redirect flow. Flow control, is provided with a valve on the return pump. You are adding a level of complexity that is at least, unnecessary. Power feeding accessories (and the "fuge" is an accessory) is by far a sounder methodology. Though the skimmer section, is gravity fed, the device itself is power fed, (some are gravity fed, but I find such a method is just shy of pointless) and is, and should be, independent of the gravity flow rate. Which allows a higher overall flow rate through the sump. Commonly, the flow rate through the "fuge" is recommended to be lower, but there is really no firm data to say this is "better," than a higher flow rate. Regardless, however, it is a sounder method to seperate the "fuge" flow from the main flow, as it is an "accessory," and power feeding provides controllable flow, without affecting the rest of the system.

Seems you are insistant on a DSB in the sump, however, this time, the surface area of the DSB is so low, it will be useless, regardless of the increased flow rate. (which has then been reduced by splitting the drain to the "fuge") and so ultimately, you gain nothing, but there is nothing to gain, with a comparmentalized DSB in a sump anyway. The bucket DSB, was oriented towards a "5 gallon bucket", seperate from the main system, and powered by a seperate pump, of suitable flow rate (40 - 60x) and an RDSB, is a tank sized sand bed seperate from the main system, powered by a seperate pump. The compromises needed to incorporate them into a typical compartmentalized sump, make it not worth the effort and complexity.

A compartmentalized sump, is a necessary thing, however, if simply to provide a constant water level for an in sump skimmer--which is required for their operation. A non compartmentalized sump will not provide this, no matter how many think that no baffles works fine.

As far as throttling back pumps, only one manufacturer (I am not going to research this topic, as it is pointless) ardently says that their pumps are fine throttled back, and that is Reeflo. Flow biased pumps to not work well against head pressure, and throttling increases head pressure, obviously. Properly sizing a pump, to the system, and matching the drain system to the flow, eliminates the need to "throttle" a pump. System design is "engineering" if you will, it starts with doing the math, and selecting components that will meet the requirements with the least amount of waste. Compromises are made sometimes, but throttling an oversized pump is a big waste, though determining what oversized actually is is very subjective. Dumping the water back into the sump is an even bigger waste. Power feeding accessories with that cool everyone likes it bigger pump, works better than throttling. Anyway.......

Sumps should be minimal, low maintenance, and functional. It is going to be hard to beat a basic three compartment sump. It is like trying to reinvent the wheel. Generally credited to melev, (though I don't know if he invented it) and covered fairly well on his website, and also hammered well here on RC.

http://i655.photobucket.com/albums/uu274/uncleof6/sump3-4.jpg

http://i655.photobucket.com/albums/uu274/uncleof6/sump3-5.jpg

However, it never hurts to keep the subject fresh as it comes up very often,

Jim

[uncleof6]

I definitely can appreciate gas exchange. I would only wnat to cover the first section where that water from the main tank comes in. After it goes through the bubble trap then I should be fine. In the drawign you show tall walls which would be ideal if I had the space. If the water level is rinning 3-4 inches from the top of the tank the splashing from the air in the water comming into the sump makes a mess. Has anybody had this problem? I've seen some wet try systems use the floss fabric. I even thought about using one of the felt boots or some sponge material but from my current setup none of it is very effective unless you just cover the top or have a high enough wall.

On another note. I still like the return going through the refu better than plumbing from the inlet side (air bubble issue).

Should be no need to cover anything in the sump. The skimmer section included. If you have bubbles, splashing, and other such obnoxious problems, then your drain system is inadequate for the flow rate. These problems are associated with "open channel" "air/water mix" Durso, stockman--whatever you want to call them, and are ALWAYS due to the flow rate being too high. These devices are LOW flow devices with 1.5" pipe having a "laminar" flow rate below 320 gph. (ballpark.) 1" is not even useful for a "reef" tank much more than a pico/nano size (and nano is questionable.) :)

Jim

[builderguy]

In the original design the bubble trap had the outer panes lifted off the glass and the middle one raised, the final one a bit spaced away. I have often thought this approach made more sense than the "melev" bubble trap where the middle one is the raised (subsequent design) as it would allow the bubbles to be "trapped" as they floated up.

What am I missing?

[builderguy]

I'm sorry...in the original design the middle one is on the bottom...that's what I meant.

[juan319]

great designs, wish could do all in one

[Sharpie_]

Seems I can't go back and edit the OP, I'll send out a pm to see about editing it as information is compiled. I just want to liek you said, keep the topic fresh as in my few weeks here I have seen multiple questions with searching yield more threads asking questions then providing answers.

Firstly:
Seems you are insistant on a DSB in the sump, however, this time, the surface area of the DSB is so low, it will be useless, regardless of the increased flow rate. (which has then been reduced by splitting the drain to the "fuge") and so...

I was unsure about it and did not come up with that second drawing, I tried to go back and remove and comments about a DSB in sump but couldn't.

Teeing of of a pump to feed the refugiem is not a "waste" and allows you to control your pump without adding extra head pressure, just as uncle said.

On the note of covering your tank and sump, I feel it is acceptable so long as you are running a protein skimmer, the surface area of all those bubbles and contact time is multiple times the size of both sump and DT surface combined.

Finally; I have tried both bubble traps and I find the one I illustrated works better, not only does it decrease the number of (micro)bubbles allowed to enter the following sections but also stop water from falling from the last baffles and creating more bubbles, it also adds volume to the return section. Not only that but keeps floating debris out of the next sections as well - scum etc.

[B-Willz]

I have to agree with uncleof6 on the DSB. The first pic, not enough flow, the second no surface area. All I see with the second design is sturing up the sand and and getting in the pump. Why not just live rock with macro? Also is there a difference in the flow in a fuge section (H) coming from the drain side or the pump side. I would think it would be better from the drain side, or does it really even matter.

[builderguy]

Finally; I have tried both bubble traps and I find the one I illustrated works better, not only does it decrease the number of (micro)bubbles allowed to enter the following sections but also stop water from falling from the last baffles and creating more bubbles, it also adds volume to the return section. Not only that but keeps floating debris out of the next sections as well - scum etc.

Cool...that's the way I'm going to do it on my new sump build then.

[Sharpie_]

it doesn't it's just preference, it allows pods etc to flow into the return section without being sucked into the skimmer.

builder I would wait for more input then just my own, I offer a biased argument and haven't done research into the other method aside from doing it on my first sump.

[Sharpie_]

it doesn't it's just preference, it allows pods etc to flow into the return section without being sucked into the skimmer.

builder I would wait for more input then just my own, I offer a biased argument and haven't done research into the other method aside from doing it on my first sump.

[uncleof6]

I have to agree with uncleof6 on the DSB. The first pic, not enough flow, the second no surface area. All I see with the second design is sturing up the sand and and getting in the pump. Why not just live rock with macro? Also is there a difference in the flow in a fuge section (H) coming from the drain side or the pump side. I would think it would be better from the drain side, or does it really even matter.

There is no real advantage to feeding the "fuge" from the drain line. A possible advantage could be in the use of a smaller return pump, equating to "lower" power consumption, (green,) however the difference is negligable as we are only talking a couple hundred gallons per hour, with some insistent that is too much, though there is no data to say that it is or isn't. Careful pump selection (as opposed to popular opinion) can usually turn up a pump with a higher output, and a LOWER power consumption, but it is not going to be an el cheapo.

"Oh, but the skimmer removes stuff the 'fuge' needs, so it is better to feed from the drainline,"-- this is the other most often used "argument" in favor of feeding the drain. This is in the mythical realm, and usually comes either just before or just after #1, so really is just an invented justification-- for #1. ;)

With open channel drain systems, messing with control valves is a "no no" as stated several times already. With siphon drains, the valve is already there, but feeding two seperate compartments, with different water levels, could have unpredictiable results, when it comes time to start the siphon. It can be deduced, that it is best not to mess with the drain lines.

Jim

[chuman]

Should be no need to cover anything in the sump. The skimmer section included. If you have bubbles, splashing, and other such obnoxious problems, then your drain system is inadequate for the flow rate. These problems are associated with "open channel" "air/water mix" Durso, stockman--whatever you want to call them, and are ALWAYS due to the flow rate being too high. These devices are LOW flow devices with 1.5" pipe having a "laminar" flow rate below 320 gph. (ballpark.) 1" is not even useful for a "reef" tank much more than a pico/nano size (and nano is questionable.)

Thanks for info. Definitely something I had not considered. I just thought I had to live with the fact that I would have bubbles. It seems like I have a conundrum. I either "throttle" the pump(rated at 950 gph I think) with a vlave which I actually did in the past with not so good outcome for the pump (do not recommend this as previously stated in thread). So, I may try the fuge re-circ option this time . My other option would be to increase the size of the drian which I can't really think of an easy way to do. At any rate it seems like I would have to "dial" it in, to get optimal "noise/flow/air" mix. By the way I have no idea if that would even work.

Any suggestions on how to get rid of the biubbles at that approx flow rate and 1.5" drain would be "GREATLY" appreciated.

[Sharpie_]

I actually read a paper saying something along the lines of a longer dwell time in the refugiem has been shown to increase nutrient uptake. Their results were not identified as 100% true by themselves because of variable they couldn't eliminate. Maybe I'll look for it later.

I'm noticing I'm doing alot of "I'll do it later" sorry about that. :)

[uncleof6]

I actually read a paper saying something along the lines of a longer dwell time in the refugiem has been shown to increase nutrient uptake. Their results were not identified as 100% true by themselves because of variable they couldn't eliminate. Maybe I'll look for it later.

I'm noticing I'm doing alot of "I'll do it later" sorry about that. :)

In essence, they have shown nothing-- it is unlikely that a follow up will be forth coming. It is just words on paper. They failed in the early stages of the "process." the hypothesis being that longer dwell time increases nutrient uptake, so between identifying the variables and designing the experiment, they fudged it, making the data useless, and misleading. They published anyway-- hoping that everyone would buy it. Hummm-- sounds just like politics if you ask me :D

Simple observation, with no scientific method: Low flow rate, macro grows like crazy, high flow rate-- macro grows like crazy. Works for me, and I am VERY scientifically oriented...... Simple observation: Low flow rate through skimmer section, skimmer works good. High flow rate through skimmer section-- skimmer works good.......well yeah it is the same-- different mechanism, but the same.

Consider this: No matter how slow the flow rate is, more water is going to flow past the skimmer, unaffected, than will be processed.

Jim

[laverda]

With ever increasing electrical rates, I think it is foolish to use the return pump to feed a refugium. It makes way more sense to use a smaller properly sized return pump and feed the refugium via gravity. Especially as it will be running 24/7 and is typicly the largest energy user on our tanks.

[TheFishMan65]

chuman, look at these 2 threads. They should help you get more flow through your pipe.
Silent and Failsafe Overflow System (http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1541946&page=88)
NEW plumbing method for an ULTRA QUIET REEF TANK!!!! LONG !!!! (http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=344892&page=51)
The main drain on each is throttled back so there is not air. This allows a faster flow of water.

[chuman]

WOW! Talk about a can of worms!

This deffinitely brings a new perspective on something that happens even before you get into sump set-up.

I feel so small. jaja.... You leran something new every day. :reading:

[uncleof6]

chuman, look at these 2 threads. They should help you get more flow through your pipe.
Silent and Failsafe Overflow System (http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1541946&page=88)
NEW plumbing method for an ULTRA QUIET REEF TANK!!!! LONG !!!! (http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=344892&page=51)
The main drain on each is throttled back so there is not air. This allows a faster flow of water.

The drain lines are throttled back to raise the water level in the overflow--to allow flow in the open channel drain line (in bean's system). Closing the valve on the siphon line REDUCES the flow in the line. In conjunction with the valve on the return line, the system is balanced. By definition, there will be no air in a siphon line, regardless of the flow rate or velocity (speed.) So it is the physics of the system that gives the higher flow rate, not the adjustment of the valves.

Jim

[TheFishMan65]

Maybe i said it poorly, but I was trying to say the lack of air causes a higher flow rate.

[uncleof6]

With ever increasing electrical rates, I think it is foolish to use the return pump to feed a refugium. It makes way more sense to use a smaller properly sized return pump and feed the refugium via gravity. Especially as it will be running 24/7 and is typicly the largest energy user on our tanks.

Fair enough. In kind, and respectfully, I think it is "foolish" to run 4 marine systems, two of significant size, and argue the merits of saving on energy costs. Sorry, but it was just too convenient-- to illustrate the point. ;)

A couple hundred gallons of flow rate vs. higher energy costs, in a larger perspective, is insignificant, This is what makes these "arguments" pointless, of little merit, and purely "argumentative." (for the sake of argument.)

"Typically" is a very broad statement, and I would say "typically" that the lighting is the greater energy cost. "Typically" running hundreds of watts (sometimes over a 1000 watts adding MH with fluorescent supplement) for even half of a day, costs more than a "typical" pump, sized to feed a "fuge," running 24/7. Which, if you have done your homework, will use little more energy-- than 1 or 2 incandescent light bulbs: the variation being the light bulb you wish to compare it too.

Jim

[uncleof6]

Maybe i said it poorly, but I was trying to say the lack of air causes a higher flow rate.

Going past the surface of drain systems, is a rather complex subject. Fortunately, I suppose, an understanding of the physics involved, is not really necessary to implement the siphon systems. However, it is important, when trying to discuss why air/water mix drains behave the way they do, and why siphon systems behave differently. But I think we are getting far away from the functional design of a sump.... ;)

Jim

[Bern Mac]

Uncle of 6...

Is it neccesary to have that much volume of water for the return pump? I'd rather have a larger fuge.

Also just clarifying... the prefered order for the sump would be drain->skimmer->return pumf<-fuge? I have been leaning towards drain->skimmer->fuge->return.

BTW... Tank specs would be 135 DT, 40 breeder sump*, twin durso's, Eheim 1262 return*.

* could change.

Thanks for any input

[der_wille_zur_macht]

I'm not Uncle, and some of your questions border on personal preference (IMHO) but here's my take:

Is it neccesary to have that much volume of water for the return pump? I'd rather have a larger fuge.

IMHO the most optimal flow through a sump is the minimal flow that will meet your functional requirements. Lower-flow sumps will result in fewer problems overall - fewer drain problems, quieter operation, less likelihood of microbubbles, smaller energy requirement for the return pump, etc.

Also just clarifying... the prefered order for the sump would be drain->skimmer->return pumf<-fuge? I have been leaning towards drain->skimmer->fuge->return.


I like the second method best, myself. I'm paraphrasing and using poor terminology here, but A refugium stocked with macroalgae is more or less going to absorb well-dissolved nutrients. Meanwhile, a protein skimmer is going to work on particulate matter and/or not so well dissolved nutrients. Hence, I find it optimal to have the skimmer first - so it can pull out the "big" stuff, before the "little" stuff makes it to the 'fuge.

[TheFishMan65]

Bern I have read of people doing it.
As I understand the fuge needs a relatively low volume of water. There is a lot of discussion over how much turn over the skimmer needs I think I have seen 3-10 times the tank volume. People tend to lean toward the higher I think, because they want water movement in the tank. However, that is kind of a power waste since a closed loop or power head is more efficient. Here is a thread sort of discussing what you are thinking of doing:
http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=969713
I am sort of leaning that way, but still trying to figure everything out. It would mean that the water height in the skimmer section is as high or higher than the fuge.

The larger reserve is usually suggested for evaporation or to keep from overworking the ATO pump.

[uncleof6]

I'm not Uncle, and some of your questions border on personal preference (IMHO) but here's my take:



IMHO the most optimal flow through a sump is the minimal flow that will meet your functional requirements. Lower-flow sumps will result in fewer problems overall - fewer drain problems, quieter operation, less likelihood of microbubbles, smaller energy requirement for the return pump, etc.

Most often it shows bad form to criticize opinions, unless they directly go against facts-- or lack a relevance to the question that was asked. ;) Bern was asking about the volume of water in the return section versus the water volume of the "fuge," the flow rate has nothing to do with this. But since you mentioned it, problems with sumps (bubbles, noise, etc) are due to poor system design, and are not a function of flow rate.

Non- scientific, simple observation: Sumps with low flow rates have problems, if the system is not designed well. Sumps with high flow rates on the order of 2000-3000 gph operate with 0 problems, if the system is well designed. None of the FUNCTION of the sump is based on flow rate, (other than gas exchange which affects many aspects of the biological process in a marine system) but rather a question of design of the system as a whole. This is from experience, sans any scientific data.

Again, the flow rate debate is always "bottom lined" with energy cost, however, it seems that the return pump is always targeted. Using rules of thumb that were made up, with under gravel filters and fish only tanks, (yet are hardly applicable to the systems in use today) as justification. With SPS flow rates, of 40 - 60x, and sometimes up to 100x, it can hardly be believable, that limiting the return pump to 5x system volume is going to lower energy costs. Rather that difference will be swallowed up by a rather hefty closed loop pump (though Vortechs are more bang for the power usage.)

Let's face it, aquariums are luxury items, and are NOT energy efficient, and trying to make them so, will have unpredictable biological results. (though frankly I could list many that are very predictable) So pick your poison, I guess. ;)





I like the second method best, myself. I'm paraphrasing and using poor terminology here, but A refugium stocked with macroalgae is more or less going to absorb well-dissolved nutrients. Meanwhile, a protein skimmer is going to work on particulate matter and/or not so well dissolved nutrients. Hence, I find it optimal to have the skimmer first - so it can pull out the "big" stuff, before the "little" stuff makes it to the 'fuge.

Protein skimmers (foam fractionation is a better term) work at the molecular level. They remove individual molecules of dissolved organic compounds, that are only used by bacteria (for all practical purposes) as an energy source, and the end product being "nutrients." Organic compounds are "organic compounds," whereas nitrates are nutrients, which are INORGANIC. They are both at the molecular/ionic "size." and neither is "particulate" in nature. "Particles" being multiple molecules, in this case.
So the skimmer is taking out little stuff, and more little stuff is getting to the "fuge" than is getting taken out.

The skimmer is not designed to remove "particulate" matter, or lifeforms. Some are removed, incidental to the intended fucntion, but far more goes right past the skimmer, regardless of the flow rate. But this has little to do with where the "fuge" is in the flow logic of the sump. There are other considerations, for the placement and size of the "fuge." ;)

Jim

[Bern Mac]

der_wille_zur_macht...

All info is apreciated... From other posts I was recomended the Eheim 1262 for my needs. I also agree with you that you would want a low and steady flow un your fuge, as well as, with the layout. However the benefit that I see Uncle of 6 design is that the plumbing would balance out nicely due to having the pump in the middle, this isn't a big deal though.

TheFishMan65...

I've read many links on the the subject, seen the youtube videos, read books and every time the subject comes up I end up with questions and doubts on my design.

When I mean volume I'm not referring to water movement but to gallons of water and "space" that is dedicated to the return pum vs. fuge.

All...

I guess my specifice question is... On a 40 gal breeder [36x18x16], where you you recommend placement of the partitions? Skimmer SWC 160 would be in the sump???

Again thanks

[uncleof6]

Uncle of 6...

Is it neccesary to have that much volume of water for the return pump? I'd rather have a larger fuge.

Also just clarifying... the prefered order for the sump would be drain->skimmer->return pumf<-fuge? I have been leaning towards drain->skimmer->fuge->return.

BTW... Tank specs would be 135 DT, 40 breeder sump*, twin durso's, Eheim 1262 return*.

* could change.

Thanks for any input

The volume of the return section is a function of how long before the evaporation needs to be dealt with and how long before the pump runs dry and burns up. The smaller the volume of the return section, the more closely it must be watched and taken care of. Larger = better I would think.



I would consider the 1262 with your system very underpowered. And will increase the demand on other components of the system, which will equal no efficiency (read cost) difference.

Flow logic in a sump, is partly a preference thing as wille stated, but in my experience, the center return works better, separating the "fuge" from the main flow of the tank, better flow control when power fed, and the ability to take it "offline" should/when the need arises--without affecting the rest of the system. Not to mention you gain a larger volume of water for the "fuge."

Jim

[Bern Mac]

So what pump would you recommend?

[Bern Mac]

So what pump would you recommend? One of the members was very impressed with the water blaster pumps...

[der_wille_zur_macht]

I agree 100% that flow rate is to be considered as part of the design of a sump. Perhaps my post above would have been more clear if I had stated that, given that other variables remain relatively unchanged, it's "easier" to design a problem-free sump with a low flow rate.

In other words, the design of features such as the standpipe, drain line, bubble trap, etc. are less critical - if you mess up the standpipe design, or have some constraint that is preventing a "proper" standpipe design, you are likely to have fewer design and operation challenges if you choose a lower flow rate.

Let's face it, aquariums are luxury items, and are NOT energy efficient, and trying to make them so, will have unpredictable biological results. (though frankly I could list many that are very predictable) So pick your poison, I guess. ;)

Agreed 100%, but that's not going to stop me from considering energy consumption in ways where it does not significantly impact the enjoyment I get from a reef tank. If pumps "a" and "b" would both meet my targeted flow rate, but "b" operates at 60w less, why would I not choose "b?" Similarly, if pump "c" is another 60w less to operate, but has a slightly lower flow rate, why not consider a design where "c's" flow rate is sufficient, without impacting my enjoyment of the reef tank? I don't see anything unpredictable in this train of thought.

Protein skimmers (foam fractionation is a better term) work at the molecular level. They remove individual molecules of dissolved organic compounds, that are only used by bacteria (for all practical purposes) as an energy source, and the end product being "nutrients." Organic compounds are "organic compounds," whereas nitrates are nutrients, which are INORGANIC. They are both at the molecular/ionic "size." and neither is "particulate" in nature. "Particles" being multiple molecules, in this case.
So the skimmer is taking out little stuff, and more little stuff is getting to the "fuge" than is getting taken out.

The skimmer is not designed to remove "particulate" matter, or lifeforms. Some are removed, incidental to the intended fucntion, but far more goes right past the skimmer, regardless of the flow rate.

Thanks for the clarification. :) Indeed, foam fractionators work on the molecular level, in addition to the particulate level. BUT, they work best with large, complex, highly polarized molecules (the "big stuff" I was referring to above). Meanwhile, macroalgae in a refugium can't even touch those large molecules - the macro is more suited to grabbing much more fully dissolved pollutants (the "little stuff" I was referring to above).

And again, I agree 100% that there are other considerations - hence my disclaimer at the top of my last post that the material contained therein was more or less opinion, and not to be taken as gospel.

[der_wille_zur_macht]

So what pump would you recommend? One of the members was very impressed with the water blaster pumps...

FWIW If you get THAT much more powerful than the 1262 (rated @ 900gph for 0 head), you're going to overpower your twin Durso standpipes (I'm assuming they're standard-issue, based on a 1" bulkhead). Unless those Dursos are on large bulkheads, you'll probably find the 1262 to be just right.

[Rizup]

FWIW If you get THAT much more powerful than the 1262 (rated @ 900gph for 0 head), you're going to overpower your twin Durso standpipes (I'm assuming they're standard-issue, based on a 1" bulkhead). Unless those Dursos are on large bulkheads, you'll probably find the 1262 to be just right.

I really don't agree with this. I am running a Reeflo Snapper pump on my tank which is rated at 2300 gph at 0' of head. It is running a manifold feeding a fuge, and two reactors, but even with all of those turned off it doesn't overpower my 2 - 1" drains. The thing you have to remember is that unless you are using pressure rated pumps, you will lose a lot of flow to head loss. For example, my co-worker is running a Mag 18 on his tank with only a single 1" drain :eek2:

[Bern Mac]

Let me refrase... Eheim being a good pump... In my system, will the 1262 be sufficient? Also, what would be the recommended spacing for partitions?

[der_wille_zur_macht]

Clearly what you are describing shows the large variation in system performance, specifically head pressures with respect to plumbing design. I have a Reeflo Snapper that's overpowering two 1.5" bulkhead Durso drains. This is on a very low head-loss installation.

To be clear, by "overpowering" I mean creating a flow rate high enough that it is impossible to tune for quiet operation. Not "overpowering" in the absolute sense, i.e. the system is overflowing.

I wonder if you and your coworker are using return plumbing smaller than the manufacturer specs, and/or have some other obvious restriction? Or maybe you're just more noise tolerant than I am?

[uncleof6]

I really don't agree with this. I am running a Reeflo Snapper pump on my tank which is rated at 2300 gph at 0' of head. It is running a manifold feeding a fuge, and two reactors, but even with all of those turned off it doesn't overpower my 2 - 1" drains. The thing you have to remember is that unless you are using pressure rated pumps, you will lose a lot of flow to head loss. For example, my co-worker is running a Mag 18 on his tank with only a single 1" drain :eek2:

I actually almost agree with wille on this subject, however, I think his statement on 1" pipe, is a a bit overly optimistic, even after head loss, from a 1262. With reliable flow rate in a 1" durso, described by the inventor of the durso "for very low flow systems," (read useless for reef tanks) and reliable flow rates in 1.5" dursos ~<320 gph, it is not likely to be just right.

So I have to sit back and wonder what it is that you are not telling us. Sans any of my own experience, and an understanding of the physics involved, the volume of information available, points clearly towards a direct contradiciton to what you are stating.

Simply putting it, you are not going to get the output of a snapper (even after headloss -- unless it is extreme) down 2 -1" DUSRO standpipes, without issues-- unless your standpipes defy the physics, and needless to say, you cannot beat the physics. :)

Jim

[chimmike]

So lets assume the center return method is utilized. What's the best way to feed the fuge then? from the return pump itself, rather than splitting the drains?

I'll be doing the beananimal drain on a 100g, and was planning on just dumping into the skimmer section. Beneficial? No? I'm guessing I'll have to do some vacuuming out of the skimmer section to get detritus out, but I'm trying to avoid that so maybe a filter sock.......

[uncleof6]

Let me refrase... Eheim being a good pump... In my system, will the 1262 be sufficient? Also, what would be the recommended spacing for partitions?


It is going to largely depend on the biological demand of the system. However, if going by archaic rules of thumb, it is going to barely squeak by (after headloss.) However, again, your 1" dursos, are most likely, going to be a problem at that flow rate.

On the spacing, the lower the VELOCTIY (only partially dependent on flow rate) the better the bubble trap will work. So the wider the spacing, at a given flow rate, the lower the velocity, and the better the performance. The recommendation starts at 1" spacing, and goes up to ~2" or so. The last couple of sumps I built, did not have bubble traps-- just a single baffle. I have found with siphon drain systems, they are not all that necessary.

Jim

[Rizup]

Clearly what you are describing shows the large variation in system performance, specifically head pressures with respect to plumbing design. I have a Reeflo Snapper that's overpowering two 1.5" bulkhead Durso drains. This is on a very low head-loss installation.

To be clear, by "overpowering" I mean creating a flow rate high enough that it is impossible to tune for quiet operation. Not "overpowering" in the absolute sense, i.e. the system is overflowing.

I wonder if you and your coworker are using return plumbing smaller than the manufacturer specs, and/or have some other obvious restriction? Or maybe you're just more noise tolerant than I am?

To me, the definition of "overpowering" the drains means that you are pumping more water into the display tank than your drains can drain to the sump.

My co-worker is certainly using less than the rated piping, however I am using 1.5" for as much of the run as possible. I split from 1.5" to two 1" return lines under the tank. I would not describe it as noisy at all, but then each person's definition of quiet is different :)

[uncleof6]

So lets assume the center return method is utilized. What's the best way to feed the fuge then? from the return pump itself, rather than splitting the drains?

I'll be doing the beananimal drain on a 100g, and was planning on just dumping into the skimmer section. Beneficial? No? I'm guessing I'll have to do some vacuuming out of the skimmer section to get detritus out, but I'm trying to avoid that so maybe a filter sock.......

Loaded question :D Clearly, I am stating feed from the return pump, don't mess with drain system.

Simple, straight forward, low maintenance are the best traits in a sump. Socks are high maintenance, daily changing (opposed to weekly-- which causes deterioration of the system) same goes for skimmer cleaning, for that matter. Every other day at the most but ya get a frownie :(.

Detritus fallout is directly related to flow rate, if the flow rate is high enough, the detritus will not fall out, hence no vacuuming needed. One of the design goals, is to keep the detritus in suspension long enough to be consumed by the food chain. It is an important natural food source. Mechanical filtration for a fresh water system is good and needed. However, the things we NEED to remove from a marine system cannot be removed by mechanical filtration.

Jim

[uncleof6]

To me, the definition of "overpowering" the drains means that you are pumping more water into the display tank than your drains can drain to the sump.

My co-worker is certainly using less than the rated piping, however I am using 1.5" for as much of the run as possible. I split from 1.5" to two 1" return lines under the tank. I would not describe it as noisy at all, but then each person's definition of quiet is different :)

A design issue here: 2 - 1" pipes do not equal a 1.5" pipe. So actually you are restricting your drain system.

Jim

[chimmike]

Loaded question :D Clearly, I am stating feed from the return pump, don't mess with drain system.

Simple, straight forward, low maintenance are the best traits in a sump. Socks are high maintenance, daily changing (opposed to weekly-- which causes deterioration of the system) same goes for skimmer cleaning, for that matter. Every other day at the most but ya get a frownie :(.

Detritus fallout is directly related to flow rate, if the flow rate is high enough, the detritus will not fall out, hence no vacuuming needed. One of the design goals, is to keep the detritus in suspension long enough to be consumed by the food chain. It is an important natural food source. Mechanical filtration for a fresh water system is good and needed. However, the things we NEED to remove from a marine system cannot be removed by mechanical filtration.

Jim


Then with the BA I'm probably looking at doing a 1.5" drain system with those rather than 1" for all three? Of course, the third is an emergency overflow. It's a 100g with at least a 40g sump and 30g frag tank in there. Return pump will be a little giant 3mdqx-sc. So plenty of flow at a max of 7' head. http://www.lgpc.com/ProductFiles/SpecSheets/995038.pdf

I do have the 4mdqxsc as well. But if I want max flow from the drains, 1.5" will probably be overkill right? I'm thinking that much turnover through the sump will be good, and yes, I was thinking feeding the fuge via return pump is good. Probably do that with just LR and shallow sand.

I don't ask any questions on this stuff with sarcasm, I genuinely need opinions and others' knowledge!

[Rizup]

I actually almost agree with wille on this subject, however, I think his statement on 1" pipe, is a a bit overly optimistic, even after head loss, from a 1262. With reliable flow rate in a 1" durso, described by the inventor of the durso "for very low flow systems," (read useless for reef tanks) and reliable flow rates in 1.5" dursos ~<320 gph, it is not likely to be just right.

So I have to sit back and wonder what it is that you are not telling us. Sans any of my own experience, and an understanding of the physics involved, the volume of information available, points clearly towards a direct contradiciton to what you are stating.

Simply putting it, you are not going to get the output of a snapper (even after headloss -- unless it is extreme) down 2 -1" DUSRO standpipes, without issues-- unless your standpipes defy the physics, and needless to say, you cannot beat the physics. :)

Jim

So I guess maybe you can clarify what you are saying here. Are you saying that I don't know what return pump I am using or that my standpipes are defying the laws of physics? :)

All tank manufacturers that I am aware of rate their overflows (using a single 1" drain) at 600 gph. For two 1" drains that means 1200gph. If you look at Reeflo's site, the Snapper flows just over that at 7' of head. I am over that considering that I have a vertical rise of probably 5'+, a 5-6' horizontal run, not to mention 90 degree fittings, Tee's, reduction to smaller pipe for the return bulkheads,etc. I am sure I have more head loss than most since my setup isn't under the tank, but I wouldn't call it extreme :) By the way, I am not using Durso's, they are a modified Stockman (Hofer's).

Not trying to be confrontational here, just want to clear things up. I am always up for learning something new if I am wrong.

[Rizup]

A design issue here: 2 - 1" pipes do not equal a 1.5" pipe. So actually you are restricting your drain system.

Jim

Never said 2 - 1" pipes equal a 1.5". Where did you get that from? And what does that have to do with my drain system?

[Rizup]

So lets assume the center return method is utilized. What's the best way to feed the fuge then? from the return pump itself, rather than splitting the drains?

I'll be doing the beananimal drain on a 100g, and was planning on just dumping into the skimmer section. Beneficial? No? I'm guessing I'll have to do some vacuuming out of the skimmer section to get detritus out, but I'm trying to avoid that so maybe a filter sock.......


I would feed the fuge from the return pump, not from the drain. As for filter socks, you are going to get mixed opinions on this. As Uncle has said, he is against them. I am on the fence. I run them most of them time, but have been debating about running them only when cleaning the tank.

[Rizup]

Then with the BA I'm probably looking at doing a 1.5" drain system with those rather than 1" for all three? Of course, the third is an emergency overflow. It's a 100g with at least a 40g sump and 30g frag tank in there. Return pump will be a little giant 3mdqx-sc. So plenty of flow at a max of 7' head. http://www.lgpc.com/ProductFiles/SpecSheets/995038.pdf

I do have the 4mdqxsc as well. But if I want max flow from the drains, 1.5" will probably be overkill right? I'm thinking that much turnover through the sump will be good, and yes, I was thinking feeding the fuge via return pump is good. Probably do that with just LR and shallow sand.

I don't ask any questions on this stuff with sarcasm, I genuinely need opinions and others' knowledge!

I'll defer to the experts on what size pipe to use, but in my opinion bigger is better :) I would go with three 1.5" drains for the BA.

[uncleof6]

Then with the BA I'm probably looking at doing a 1.5" drain system with those rather than 1" for all three? Of course, the third is an emergency overflow. It's a 100g with at least a 40g sump and 30g frag tank in there. Return pump will be a little giant 3mdqx-sc. So plenty of flow at a max of 7' head. http://www.lgpc.com/ProductFiles/SpecSheets/995038.pdf

I do have the 4mdqxsc as well. But if I want max flow from the drains, 1.5" will probably be overkill right? I'm thinking that much turnover through the sump will be good, and yes, I was thinking feeding the fuge via return pump is good. Probably do that with just LR and shallow sand.

I don't ask any questions on this stuff with sarcasm, I genuinely need opinions and others' knowledge!

You guys are hauling me to task in this thread. Where to start? Hummmmm....

3 or 4 "size" little giant pumps flow after headloss etc, will severely UNDERPOWER your drains @ 1". The difference here is siphon vs durso. A 1" siphon will handle well in excess of 2000 gph..... (depends on the length of the drop) this would be fine for the siphon and emergency. The open channel, on the other hand, should be upsized to 1.25" (the smallest practical size for a durso on a 1" bulkhead) This is per the inventors words. (Richard Durso.) Absolutely nothing wrong with upsizing the whole system to 1.5" though, gives you a lot of headroom.

What would be the purpose of the live rock in the sump? It is not going to perform denitrification (a lengthy and complex topic,) and is the same as putting bio-balls in the sump i.e. just more surface area to produce nitrates. Usually there is more than enough live rock in the DT, to adequately serve the tank.

I already touched on DSB's in sumps earlier. IF the flow rate is high enough, to keep the detritus in suspension, then some sand in the "fuge" will not really add to the burden of the system, however with the "push" towards lower flow systems, detritus fallout could very well be a problem.

Jim

[builderguy]

Well here's a question...aren't you limited by the bulkhead...I mean if the bulkhead drains are 1" aren't you stuck with 1" pipe?

Also, if you only have a single drain (no second hole in the overflow compartment) aren't you limited to a Stockman or Durso style drain?

[uncleof6]

Well here's a question...aren't you limited by the bulkhead...I mean if the bulkhead drains are 1" aren't you stuck with 1" pipe?

Nope

Also, if you only have a single drain (no second hole in the overflow compartment) aren't you limited to a Stockman or Durso style drain?

Yep, unless you like living dangerously, or have drill will travel, and don't mind modifying the tank. The moral here is 'reef ready' tanks are not. Manufacturers do not build what is best, they build what SELLS best. It is a consumer driven market. And, this is what drives DIY/custom design. Building things that will outperform what is available. Of course in some cases, DIY cannot build a better mousetrap, but overflow and drain system: easy.

Jim

[Rizup]

Well here's a question...aren't you limited by the bulkhead...I mean if the bulkhead drains are 1" aren't you stuck with 1" pipe?

Also, if you only have a single drain (no second hole in the overflow compartment) aren't you limited to a Stockman or Durso style drain?

1" bulkhead should use 1.25" standpipe.

[builderguy]

but still a 1" drainline after the bulkhead right?

Also, I have 1.5" bulkheads. I've read that at 1.5" bulkhead or larger you don't need to go to the next larger pipe for the standpipe.

And I guess I'm stuck with a Durso or Stockman since I only have on hole in each overflow and my tank is tempered glass - so I can't drill another one.

[uncleof6]

So I guess maybe you can clarify what you are saying here. Are you saying that I don't know what return pump I am using or that my standpipes are defying the laws of physics? :)

I would never presume to tell you that you do not know what pump you are running........

All tank manufacturers that I am aware of rate their overflows (using a single 1" drain) at 600 gph. For two 1" drains that means 1200gph. If you look at Reeflo's site, the Snapper flows just over that at 7' of head. I am over that considering that I have a vertical rise of probably 5'+, a 5-6' horizontal run, not to mention 90 degree fittings, Tee's, reduction to smaller pipe for the return bulkheads,etc. I am sure I have more head loss than most since my setup isn't under the tank, but I wouldn't call it extreme :) By the way, I am not using Durso's, they are a modified Stockman (Hofer's).

Durso/Stockman same same--- same physics, same limitations. There are many variables involved with air/water mix drains, And there is little doubt that you CAN get 600 gph through a 1" air/water mix drain. But do you really think that this would sell-- if the manufacturers told you "yeah, but the laminar flow rate is down below a hundred gallons an hour, so you will have bubbles, toilet flushing and noise? I hardly think so. The laminar flow rate is not set in stone, but with a given size pipe, simple observation can give you an idea of where that flow rate is, and it is not going to vary that much.

So yes, I cannot help but question the validity of the data. Either your standpipes are operating against the laws of physics, or your flow rate estimate is not exactly accurate.

Not trying to be confrontational here, just want to clear things up. I am always up for learning something new if I am wrong.

Don't worry about it, but this thread needs to get back on track......

Jim

[uncleof6]

but still a 1" drainline after the bulkhead right?

Also, I have 1.5" bulkheads. I've read that at 1.5" bulkhead or larger you don't need to go to the next larger pipe for the standpipe.

And I guess I'm stuck with a Durso or Stockman since I only have on hole in each overflow and my tank is tempered glass - so I can't drill another one.

Tempered glass, the kiss of death. Not to mention that balancing two siphons is different overflows would not exactly be simple. But I bet you that I can get a herbie in that tank, with just a small amount of effort, and a few bucks. Not ideal really, but better than the air/water mix.

Ok, let's get back to the sump.....

Jim

[Jeff000]

http://i655.photobucket.com/albums/uu274/uncleof6/sump3-5.jpg

Jim

Why is there 3 drains?
My tank only has one drain hole.

I have a 1 1/2" pipe and a 3/4" pipe. I have a 90 gallon, and will have a 36"long x 12" wide x 16" high sump with baffles similar to the picture I quoted.

I was going to plum my return pump into the refugium and have the drain just go to the skimmer section.
I have no idea what skimmer or sump to get though, no idea on what powerhead or whatever they are called in the tank too.

I am very confused.

[uncleof6]

I suggest that you stop, breath, sit down with a pencil and paper, and figure out what you are going to do, before you get in too deep, and find out none of it is going to work together. ;) Good design starts on paper, not in the middle of a build. When you are confused, it is usually due to too much information, riddled with too much opinion, and not enough sound advice.

For an explanation of drain basics, and the "three pipes" go here (http://www.beananimal.com/projects/silent-and-fail-safe-aquarium-overflow-system.aspx). The information is presented on RC also, but is very lengthy, and will probably only add to the confusion, though you can pick up the method within the first couple of pages.

Jim

[Jeff000]

I suggest that you stop, breath, sit down with a pencil and paper, and figure out what you are going to do, before you get in too deep, and find out none of it is going to work together. ;) Good design starts on paper, not in the middle of a build. When you are confused, it is usually due to too much information, riddled with too much opinion, and not enough sound advice.

For an explanation of drain basics, and the "three pipes" go here (http://www.beananimal.com/projects/silent-and-fail-safe-aquarium-overflow-system.aspx). The information is presented on RC also, but is very lengthy, and will probably only add to the confusion, though you can pick up the method within the first couple of pages.

Jim

That was a good read, but I do not have 3 drains, and do not have the ability to drill 2 extra holes in my tank. Mostly because my bottom is tempered and having the tank 2-3" from the wall is not an option I am willing to work with.

[chimmike]

the 3 hole drilling would be in the back of the tank, not the bottom. You could utilize the bottom holes for returns.
What is pictured is the beananimal silent overflow. I'm still unsure as to why there's a gate valve on one of the siphons but I'll read Bean's page more closely. The third pipe is an emergency overflow which dumps directly into the return chamber of the sump.

Thanks Uncle. That's the sump setup I'll go with. And since you say 1" drains will be more than enough for my pumps, that's good enough for me (since they'll be the bean setup)........edit: now that I think about it, Bean suggest 1.5" pipe coming out of the 1" bulkheads.

I'm assuming he uses 1" street elbows inside the overflow box too? hmm.

[Jeff000]

the 3 hole drilling would be in the back of the tank, not the bottom. You could utilize the bottom holes for returns.
What is pictured is the beananimal silent overflow. I'm still unsure as to why there's a gate valve on one of the siphons but I'll read Bean's page more closely. The third pipe is an emergency overflow which dumps directly into the return chamber of the sump.

Thanks Uncle. That's the sump setup I'll go with. And since you say 1" drains will be more than enough for my pumps, that's good enough for me (since they'll be the bean setup)........edit: now that I think about it, Bean suggest 1.5" pipe coming out of the 1" bulkheads.

I'm assuming he uses 1" street elbows inside the overflow box too? hmm.

I am trying to avoid pulling the tank away from the wall as the side view is seen very easy.

I'm not worried about a flood, I have insurance and will be running a PLC so will just put a float in the overflow and if the water level hits it have the return turn off and a trouble light turn on.

[uncleof6]

Double post

[uncleof6]

I am trying to avoid pulling the tank away from the wall as the side view is seen very easy.

I'm not worried about a flood, I have insurance and will be running a PLC so will just put a float in the overflow and if the water level hits it have the return turn off and a trouble light turn on.


You should have the tank 3 or so inches off the wall anyway, just good common sense, for air circulation if for no other reason. Also, if you use a hood with back vent fans, jamming them against the wall will make them useless. What is stopping you from using a filler panel at the end of the tank, to hide the space anyway. This is DIY for cryin out loud, we don't live with tanks the way the manufacturers drill them ;)

Jim

[chuman]

:hmm5:I'm beginning to get a picture of the set-up for my sump. I was feeling a bit like Jeff. It deffinitely helped looking a thte reference info. Also, I have a couple of decisions to make on partition size and drain height/set-up.

Check this link out. It gives the basics for drain options:
http://dinardiengineering.com/blog/?p=34

I am leaning towards the Herbie. I have 75g all-glass aquarium with the corner drilled. Much like Jeff I am not inclined to drilling, tearing the tank down, etc, etc. to set up a bean animal with a coast to coast overflow which seems to be the safest and most efficient system. So, as uncle suggested, a Herbie using both the 3/4" as a full syphoon and the 1" as a Durso seems the path of least resistance; Plus thus far (knock on wood), I have not had any "major" accidents and adding the syphoon should add a level of "security" that I currently don't have. If I wanted to make the system safer I could use an Old school HOB overflow box that I took down with a wet-dry I ran in the past but again, I don't feel it's needed plus with the added flow from the Herbie I should be more than fine. I am running a Mag 12 which, at approx. 4', gives me 1100 gph, if I adjust the height of the 3/4 pipe it should get me where I want to be by a narrow margin and I can keep the 1" Durso intact. I will have to re-direct the return plumbing but this should not be too difficult plus the re-circ provided by plumbing to the fuge from the return should give me another degree of adjustment to the flow rate.

The next thing would be to decide the optimum partition size for the sump.
As mentioned above I am switching to a 20 long which is 30LX12X12. I was going to equally split the sections but now that I will not have the "bubble" issue I will keep the skimmer section at approx 7-8", and I have to decide wha the best size for the fuge is and subtract from the mid return section. Some of my initial thoughts were to keep the fuge at 1/3 or 10" and the mid section at 12"-13" to increase the volume and facilitate water changes without turning off the system pump.

I would appreciate any feedback on my "short" response just to see if I'm not batting something out to left field.

[Jeff000]

You should have the tank 3 or so inches off the wall anyway, just good common sense, for air circulation if for no other reason. Also, if you use a hood with back vent fans, jamming them against the wall will make them useless. What is stopping you from using a filler panel at the end of the tank, to hide the space anyway. This is DIY for cryin out loud, we don't live with tanks the way the manufacturers drill them ;)

Jim

Its away 2 3/8" from the wall. The canopy vents up. No fans, using 110C rated t5 ballasts, although they are not going to get anywhere near that hot.

I bought a drilled tank with overflow to avoid drilling and making an overflow. Drilled tanks are far more expensive, would be a waste of money to just rip it out and drill my own holes.
My PLC will prevent any floods, and my backup is insurance.

Looking back a non drilled might have been a better idea, but at the same time there are countless set ups with the factory drilled holes running without problems.

[chuman]

bump

[Rizup]

:hmm5:I'm beginning to get a picture of the set-up for my sump. I was feeling a bit like Jeff. It deffinitely helped looking a thte reference info. Also, I have a couple of decisions to make on partition size and drain height/set-up.

Check this link out. It gives the basics for drain options:
http://dinardiengineering.com/blog/?p=34

I am leaning towards the Herbie. I have 75g all-glass aquarium with the corner drilled. Much like Jeff I am not inclined to drilling, tearing the tank down, etc, etc. to set up a bean animal with a coast to coast overflow which seems to be the safest and most efficient system. So, as uncle suggested, a Herbie using both the 3/4" as a full syphoon and the 1" as a Durso seems the path of least resistance; Plus thus far (knock on wood), I have not had any "major" accidents and adding the syphoon should add a level of "security" that I currently don't have. If I wanted to make the system safer I could use an Old school HOB overflow box that I took down with a wet-dry I ran in the past but again, I don't feel it's needed plus with the added flow from the Herbie I should be more than fine. I am running a Mag 12 which, at approx. 4', gives me 1100 gph, if I adjust the height of the 3/4 pipe it should get me where I want to be by a narrow margin and I can keep the 1" Durso intact. I will have to re-direct the return plumbing but this should not be too difficult plus the re-circ provided by plumbing to the fuge from the return should give me another degree of adjustment to the flow rate.

The next thing would be to decide the optimum partition size for the sump.
As mentioned above I am switching to a 20 long which is 30LX12X12. I was going to equally split the sections but now that I will not have the "bubble" issue I will keep the skimmer section at approx 7-8", and I have to decide wha the best size for the fuge is and subtract from the mid return section. Some of my initial thoughts were to keep the fuge at 1/3 or 10" and the mid section at 12"-13" to increase the volume and facilitate water changes without turning off the system pump.

I would appreciate any feedback on my "short" response just to see if I'm not batting something out to left field.

Just to throw this out there, you won't be anywhere near 1100 gph with the Mag12 unless you are using 1.5" pipe. Check out the Head Loss calculator and put in your pump and plumbing specs and you'll get a better idea of the actual flow you can expect. Like I mentioned earlier in the thread when I got flamed :furious:, my coworker uses a Mag18 on his 90g AGA with a single 1" drain! Only way this is even possible is because I think he uses 3/4" plumbing which greatly reduces the flow of the Mag pumps. I am sure someone will tell me I am wrong, but who knows :wave:

As far as the sump design, I ended up eliminating the fuge from my sump. If you are set on using a fuge in your sump, I would make the skimmer section just big enough for your skimmer with a little room to spare, throw in a couple baffles spaced an 1" apart, have a return section big enough for your return pump and some extra, and use the rest for the fuge. If you are not using an ATO, I would make the return section a bit bigger to allow more time before top offs. You don't want the pump to run dry or start sucking bubbles. Also, of course don't forget to have the height of the baffles set correctly so that your sump will have enough space to handle the extra water that drains when your return pump is off. Something you don't want to overlook :)

[uncleof6]

:hmm5:I'm beginning to get a picture of the set-up for my sump. I was feeling a bit like Jeff. It deffinitely helped looking a thte reference info. Also, I have a couple of decisions to make on partition size and drain height/set-up.

Check this link out. It gives the basics for drain options:
http://dinardiengineering.com/blog/?p=34

I am leaning towards the Herbie. I have 75g all-glass aquarium with the corner drilled. Much like Jeff I am not inclined to drilling, tearing the tank down, etc, etc. to set up a bean animal with a coast to coast overflow which seems to be the safest and most efficient system. So, as uncle suggested, a Herbie using both the 3/4" as a full syphoon and the 1" as a Durso seems the path of least resistance; Plus thus far (knock on wood), I have not had any "major" accidents and adding the syphoon should add a level of "security" that I currently don't have. If I wanted to make the system safer I could use an Old school HOB overflow box that I took down with a wet-dry I ran in the past but again, I don't feel it's needed plus with the added flow from the Herbie I should be more than fine. I am running a Mag 12 which, at approx. 4', gives me 1100 gph, if I adjust the height of the 3/4 pipe it should get me where I want to be by a narrow margin and I can keep the 1" Durso intact. I will have to re-direct the return plumbing but this should not be too difficult plus the re-circ provided by plumbing to the fuge from the return should give me another degree of adjustment to the flow rate.

The next thing would be to decide the optimum partition size for the sump.
As mentioned above I am switching to a 20 long which is 30LX12X12. I was going to equally split the sections but now that I will not have the "bubble" issue I will keep the skimmer section at approx 7-8", and I have to decide wha the best size for the fuge is and subtract from the mid return section. Some of my initial thoughts were to keep the fuge at 1/3 or 10" and the mid section at 12"-13" to increase the volume and facilitate water changes without turning off the system pump.

I would appreciate any feedback on my "short" response just to see if I'm not batting something out to left field.

Just as a very strong warning, the herbie method, does not consist of a siphon, and an OPEN CHANNEL. (durso, stockman et al, for short) This is a hybrid, that is mistakenly felt to adequately fail safe the system, yet be self adjustable. However, it seems that some folks with little understanding of the "why" of the bean system, and exactly why it IS failsafe, thought this was a good way to save on a third hole. This is not the case, and this 'hybrid' is not failsafe. Running this system, without the dry emergency is asking for a flood. Yes, it is a bean system, without the dry emergency. Herbie did not consider the self adust feature in his method, that belongs to bean.

Herbie's system is a siphon and a dry emergency. Read the thread, not what other people want you to think he said. He did understand the risks, with running a siphon. With the siphon and an open channel, without the dry emergency, you only have to plug 1 pipe, to have a flood. If it is the open channel that plugs, you WILL have a flood, and that is a certainty.

To put it very straight forward, from the hip: You do not run a siphon, without a DRY emergency, unless you want the water all over your floor. :)

Rizup: If my post was a 'flame' a few more people would have had their tail feathers singed, than you :) It is not a flame. I simply question the validity of the information. In the post, I based this on simple observation, and the higher volume of information, that contradicts it. However, I do understand the physics of drain lines, and I have used them all. Based on that, I still question the validity.

The stockman, and durso are birds of the same feather, the only difference being where the air enters the standpipe. These things are never quiet, or stable, unless the flow is laminar. Laminar meaning, water flowing down the walls of the stand pipe, and the air in the standpipe is undisturbed. The laminar flow rate, in a given pipe size at a given time, can vary. However, it is not going to vary THAT much. Richard Durso, the inventer, states that a 1" "durso" is not practical, as the flow capability--without issues, is far too low. It is not going to vary from ~<100 gph (ballparked his words: very low flow rate) to accomodate the typical flow rates from a Snapper pump. Even with 2 - 1" open channel stand pipes.

There are numerous band aids for the issues, but the results are various. The point is, you can "mask" the issues, but you cannot beat the physics.

I apologize if you take this personal. It is not intended. It is simply contradictory information, based on observation, the volume of information available, a knowledge of physics, and experience with the drain systems. :)

Regards,

Jim

[Rizup]

Rizup: If my post was a 'flame' a few more people would have had their tail feathers singed, than you :) It is not a flame. I simply question the validity of the information. In the post, I based this on simple observation, and the higher volume of information, that contradicts it. However, I do understand the physics of drain lines, and I have used them all. Based on that, I still question the validity.

The stockman, and durso are birds of the same feather, the only difference being where the air enters the standpipe. These things are never quiet, or stable, unless the flow is laminar. Laminar meaning, water flowing down the walls of the stand pipe, and the air in the standpipe is undisturbed. The laminar flow rate, in a given pipe size at a given time, can vary. However, it is not going to vary THAT much. Richard Durso, the inventer, states that a 1" "durso" is not practical, as the flow capability--without issues, is far too low. It is not going to vary from ~<100 gph (ballparked his words: very low flow rate) to accomodate the typical flow rates from a Snapper pump. Even with 2 - 1" open channel stand pipes.

There are numerous band aids for the issues, but the results are various. The point is, you can "mask" the issues, but you cannot beat the physics.

I apologize if you take this personal. It is not intended. It is simply contradictory information, based on observation, the volume of information available, a knowledge of physics, and experience with the drain systems. :)

Regards,

Jim

Let's lay it to rest once and for all :) It was my mistake to mention it again. I really didn't feel I was flamed, I was just trying to be humorous I guess.

Although I clearly don't have the same knowledge as you in some subjects and have been in this hobby for a much short time, I can read and understand what you mean by laminar flow. The only reason I posted in the first place is because I didn't agree with information that was being given. It was said that a pump rated at 900 gph at 0' of head would "overpower" two Dursos. We obviously had different opinions on what "overpower" means, but everybody is entitled to their own opinion so I feel that I was not wrong for posting and I still don't feel I am wrong in what I said. As it was said earlier in this thread, everyone's definition of quiet is different. I wasn't trying to say that my setup is silent. I also didn't give very many specifics of the system design and I think you were inferring a lot. For example, nowhere did I say that I had 1" Dursos. I don't even have 1" standpipes. But either way, I have said all I am going to say on this thread. I am definitely not taking anything personal :)

[chimmike]

Head loss calculator: http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2007/5/aafeature2

sure seems to me that 1.5" is more optimum in many cases than 1"

[TheFishMan65]

Uncle, I disagree a bit. Now maybe I interpreted differently, but the herbie is self adjusting to some sense. If the height between the siphon darin and emergency is several inches then it is self adjusting. As the water get higher in the overflow more water will flow through the drain becuase of the head bressure. And less as the water level goes down.


As I read it the Bean did not have the height difference since he designed a short Calfo overflow. So in order to get some self regulation he added the third (or second depending on how you count) open drain.

[chuman]

Guys, thanks for all the valuable input and informative debate. There is deffinitely some things to consider from your input. Uncle, I'm a bit confused by your statement that the description is not a Herbie? Deffinitely I need to do some more reading; However, wouldn't you say that running a syphoon with a durso adds an extra degree of safety when you consider that I am currently running only a durso (probably at it's limits)? Also, Per your input, I may go back and rely on electronics with a float switch (which I need to research a bit) to shut off the pump if it turns out that I will get close to a flood condition. The real positive thing is that the thread is forcing me to consider the "real" posibility of how accidents "will" happen if you are not well prepared. Plus a rehash on physics that is most refreshing an welcome.

Rizup, thanks for the input as well. I was considering splitting up the sump as you describe (with fuge); Although, I'm running into constraints every step of the way. As it turns out the skimmer has an operating depth of about 7" and is going to be right on the edge of fitting under the cabinet when I put it in a shelf. The total volume of the sump is right against the lower limit for the tank size and thus the fuge is also down there. I am not very happy about operating right at the lower limits without buffer or "safety factors" but I am still moving forward. 80 lb of live rock in the DT have to be good for something, right?

Cheers! :bigeyes:

[uncleof6]

Guys, thanks for all the valuable input and informative debate. There is deffinitely some things to consider from your input. Uncle, I'm a bit confused by your statement that the description is not a Herbie? Deffinitely I need to do some more reading; However, wouldn't you say that running a syphoon with a durso adds an extra degree of safety when you consider that I am currently running only a durso (probably at it's limits)? Also, Per your input, I may go back and rely on electronics with a float switch (which I need to research a bit) to shut off the pump if it turns out that I will get close to a flood condition. The real positive thing is that the thread is forcing me to consider the "real" posibility of how accidents "will" happen if you are not well prepared. Plus a rehash on physics that is most refreshing an welcome.


Cheers! :bigeyes:

No, with a single durso, 1 pipe plugs up, and you flood. With a siphon, and an open channel-- one pipe plugs up and you flood. You have added nothing in terms of flood prevention, but the snail now has two paths to choose from, on his venture quest to the sump.

Nothing I ever say, should be construed as an endorsement or recommendation, for the use of an electro/mechanical device to prevent flooding. Such failsafe features, must be designed into the system. In terms of applied physics, Murphy's Law, is a very important.

I can think of two cases, where an electro/mechanical auto shutdown would be useful: A low water sensor for the sump, and an auto shutdown for the second pump, if a booster pump shuts down. Both prevent damage to the pump. If they fail, you got a damaged pump, yes, but if a high water level fails, you got a damaged house............

Jim

[sjm817]

Am I missing something here? A Herbie has 2 pipes. One is full siphon, the other open channel emergency. Siphon pipe clogs, open channel is the backup. Either can handle all the flow. Why is there a flood?

[Rizup]

Rizup, thanks for the input as well. I was considering splitting up the sump as you describe (with fuge); Although, I'm running into constraints every step of the way. As it turns out the skimmer has an operating depth of about 7" and is going to be right on the edge of fitting under the cabinet when I put it in a shelf. The total volume of the sump is right against the lower limit for the tank size and thus the fuge is also down there. I am not very happy about operating right at the lower limits without buffer or "safety factors" but I am still moving forward. 80 lb of live rock in the DT have to be good for something, right?

Cheers! :bigeyes:

When I first setup my sump, I went with the refugium in the middle and the return on the end. Of course with this setup you would be limited to your refugium being shallower. However it still works well this way and you would have more volume left over when you return pump is off. Or ditch the refugium if it is going to be too tight. I ended up redoing my baffles when I got my new skimmer and now my sump is just divided in two. One section for the skimmer and one for the return area. There is certainly enough room to grow chaeto in the return section if I wanted.

[TheFishMan65]

sjm, You are missing the fact that chuman is thinking of running the Herbie emergency with a little water. So it is not a true emergency. That means if uncle's snail (I don't want any o fhis :)) blocks either pipe you have a flood.

[uncleof6]

Am I missing something here? A Herbie has 2 pipes. One is full siphon, the other open channel emergency. Siphon pipe clogs, open channel is the backup. Either can handle all the flow. Why is there a flood?

Herbie's system is a siphon standpipe, with a DRY emergency.

"So I came up with a VERY IMPORTANT SAFETY FEATURE!!!!! I took out the rigid pump output line inside the overflow box and set it up as a higher (just below the intake overflow box "teeth") safety return plumbed directly to the sump, above the water a little bit. It should be empty at all times unless something is out of wack with the main return line!.....

.....It will only flow water in the event of a restriction in the main return line.........I kept this "emergency return" above the water level in the sump in case it was draining water I would be able to hear it! This tube should never have water flowing through it unless there is something wrong in your main return or someone fooled with the adjustment of the ball valves."

The use of the "open channel" aka Durso modified standpipe, did not come up, till bean first described its use, in his Silent and Failsafe Overflow System thread. Although, there was some controversy over who came up with what, that is hardly important.

Both designers were insistent that a DRY emergency be used for either system. (so am I) Bean's statement being very similar to herbie's:

"This system MUST use the (3) standpipes that are described above. The emergency standpipe is a CRITICAL part of this design. Omitting the emergency standpipe is asking for a flood!" (from the website--though it is also stated in the thread (the original from 2008)

The DRY emergency stand pipe, is the "emergency" drain. The "open channel" or 'durso,' whatever you wish to call it, is for self adjustment of the system The "open channel" has flow through it under normal operating conditions. It therefore, does not qualify as a DRY emergency. The open channel, can become a siphon, due to the design.

In either system, the siphon is subject to being blocked. This is not the issue here. What is the issue, is the "open channel" in bean's system is also subject to be blocked. The dry emergency in either system, is not subject to being block, unless it is in use. (things can happen of course, but it is unlikely) The problem here is, with a siphon, and the "open channel" lacking the dry emergency.

If the siphon plugs, the "open channel" will take the flow, as long as the capability of the "open channel" is sufficient-- over and above the flow already in it. On the other hand, because the siphon is restricted-- by the valve in the line, to match the flow rate from the pump, LESS the flow through the "open channel." If the "open channel" plugs, the siphon cannot handle the additional flow-- because it is restricted.

One could argue for the use of a "dry" durso, I suppose, but that would really be pointless. ;)

Using an 'open channel' with the siphon, is an "attempt" to make the "herbie" self adjusting. But in doing so you, lose the safety of the design.

Despite "anedote", or mis-information, or merely being uninformed, the herbie will NOT self adjust, to handle the additional demand on the siphon. That is why there is a flood. :)



This is not an opinion, nor is it a flame, or stating a preference for one over the other, it is simply a fact.

Have a read, if you have the time:


http://reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1722515&highlight=ac+induction+motor

Regards,

Jim

[TheFishMan65]

I read the thread (ok, I skipped some of the motor discussion). I will admit the Bean is subject to more self adjustment. But the thread is question only had 2 inches to work with. I would still say the herbie is self adjusting to some degree. It works well in a standard corner oveflow just becuase you can have a large difference in height. And I will do a Bean on my next tank becuase I want a Calfo style overflow where there is not a lot of height dfference. I just don't think yo can say "the herbie will NOT self adjust".

[uncleof6]

I read the thread (ok, I skipped some of the motor discussion). I will admit the Bean is subject to more self adjustment. But the thread is question only had 2 inches to work with. I would still say the herbie is self adjusting to some degree. It works well in a standard corner oveflow just becuase you can have a large difference in height. And I will do a Bean on my next tank becuase I want a Calfo style overflow where there is not a lot of height dfference. I just don't think yo can say "the herbie will NOT self adjust".

I can say that and I do. :) and have probably around a 100 or so times. We can continue to split hairs, just for the sake of argument-- and that is all it amounts to, or people can just take the sound advice: Do not run a siphon without a dry emergency. Look at it like this: People build (or buy) their home on a flood plane, then whine and cry when the river rises. It cannot be the rivers fault, and have only themselves to blame.

Regards,

Jim

[TheFishMan65]

I agree not "do not run a siphon without a dry emergency". I was just trying to discuss the self regulating part.

[uncleof6]

Well fortunately, or unfortunately, it has already been covered several times in this thread, and numerous others. Don't see any point is going over it again, and again, and again-- not in the same thread, at any rate. It is just argumentative at that point. :)

Regards,

Jim

[Vegas.]

My 02.

The Herbie= Simple
The Bean= Complex

They both work flawlessly.

I use a Herbie on a small 20g tank, it does not "self regulate". I applaud Bean and his design but do not really see the point of all the "extras". More specific if my Herbie is fully clogged the dry emergency is setup to handle all the flow. If the emergency gets backed up.... well I guess I'll just have a burnt up return pump, no flood.

[Vegas.]

I'm retracting the last two words. I will have a flood, I forgot about my ato. DUH!!

[new2dareef]

hey uncleof6, Im setting up a 180 gal tank. If I were to use the plumbing system you laid out what size bulkheads and return pump would you suggest.I'd like to move around 2700gph.

[sail33]

OK, I certainly am NOT an expert but the two things that come to mind with the designs I see posted here are

1) Why not show a sock filter in the sump? Is there a reason not to include one?

2) I'm pretty sure that there are minimum tank to fuge size and flow ratios available. Wouldn't the fuge be too small to be of any great value in the sizes discussed?

I'm planning to kick the old sump out and install a 20 gallon long under my 72 bow front. It's the biggest that will fit without removing the center braces. I've tried to include a fuge in the plan but I just don't think It will be large enough. Especially if I include a filter sock. Rather than a fuge, I think I'll create a pocket where I can sit bags of carbon or phosban or what ever temporary media I need at a the time.

One last thought Does anyone have experience with Corian and marine usage? I have a lot of scrap and thought I could use Corian for baffles rather than glass. I mean it is cast acrylic but there are also minerals.

[uncleof6]

hey uncleof6, Im setting up a 180 gal tank. If I were to use the plumbing system you laid out what size bulkheads and return pump would you suggest.I'd like to move around 2700gph.

1.5". Reeflo Dart/Snapper--you get both play with it.

[uncleof6]

OK, I certainly am NOT an expert but the two things that come to mind with the designs I see posted here are

1) Why not show a sock filter in the sump? Is there a reason not to include one?

2) I'm pretty sure that there are minimum tank to fuge size and flow ratios available. Wouldn't the fuge be too small to be of any great value in the sizes discussed?

I'm planning to kick the old sump out and install a 20 gallon long under my 72 bow front. It's the biggest that will fit without removing the center braces. I've tried to include a fuge in the plan but I just don't think It will be large enough. Especially if I include a filter sock. Rather than a fuge, I think I'll create a pocket where I can sit bags of carbon or phosban or what ever temporary media I need at a the time.

One last thought Does anyone have experience with Corian and marine usage? I have a lot of scrap and thought I could use Corian for baffles rather than glass. I mean it is cast acrylic but there are also minerals.

1) Because what we are concerned with in a Marine system, cannot be removed by mechanical filtration. Socks are a maintenance issue, and are seldom changed as often as they really need to be.

2) Anything smaller than 10% of your system volume is not going to be very beneficial, though if you have the room, something is better than nothing. Just don't crowd your return pump. Many commonly used sump tanks, are too small for practical three section sumps. 20L tanks included.

3) Tossing bags of media in the sump is ineffective. Water will simply flow around it, not through it. Carbon has uses (in a reactor,) however, I have not yet found the usefulness of phosban to be significant enough to include in an original build plan. Indiscriminate use of phosban, can do more harm than good.

[sail33]

I can appreciate the effort that went onto the designs posted on this thread. It is much appreciated. Of course I checked 4 opinions not in this thread before before building my sump.

So I have the baffles installed incorrectly. I now see that drawing water off the bottom of the water column in the first stage is better for several reasons.

Rather than draining the sump, I think I'll just have to add another baffle using a "reef safe sets underwater" adhesive. That's going to crowd my skimmer and sock filter as I cut that space to a bare minimum to increase the size of the fuge.

Back to the glass shop !

[zaheda]

Which way is best to place the baffles for the bubble trap. Im busy building a sump with 3 baffles for the bubble trap. I was thinking that water flows over the first, under the second baffle and lastly over the third baffle. What spacing would would be best between the baffles, going to use a Waterblaster 4000L/H