Please Critique my latest 215 design

[REEFKEEPA]

Please see my sump design thread for details.
All drain and return is 1" I have not included all check valves and unions.
Any suggestions?

[REEFKEEPA]

http://reefcentral.com/gallery/data/586/14364Back_View-Model.jpg
Sorry!

[stugray]

REEFKEEPA,

Awesome setup & drawing!

You'll want a ball valve & union on each side of every pump.
( imagine a pump leak or pump maintenance without them )

For the bulkheads that poke through the back: Use threaded bulkheads. If you have to repair the plumbing on the outside of the tank, you can thread a cap into the inside while you work on the outside.

You should also have a bypass from the output of the return pump ( on the sump ) that goes back to the sump. Put a few extra 'ports' on this line ( you'll find a use for them later ) and you can tune the flow to the display.

The skimmer should sit higher if it really looks like the one in the pic. The outflow should be down-hill. Look into a hartford loop for return to the sump.

see gallery for ideas.

Stu

[REEFKEEPA]

Thanks Stu,
This is a rough drawing.
i do plan on the valves and unions.
Just wanted to post a general idea.
The skimmer height is not an issue. I will be able to raise or lower it as nec. in order to facilitate flow.
Thanks for the reply.
Art

[h20cooled]

I would add another baffle to the one for your return pump. I found it hard to stop micro bubble with only two of the three works great. Otherwise looks great...

[hahnmeister]

This is just how I would do it....

I would raise the closed loop's intake bulkhead. It will need cleaning, and down behind all your rocks makes it pretty hard to even notice (makes it easier to suck in falling sand though!). I like to put those about 6" below the surface, and in a corner if you can...the glass is much stronger if holes are put in the corners rather than in the center. FWIW, you could also spread out those CL outlets...no need to have them so close.

Then, for the two sump returns... IMO, its better to run almost all your flow through the closed loop (more gph per watt because of no head loss), and use a smaller sump return. So, run the closed loop with 3 or 4 outlets, and the sump return with one. Make the CL pump larger to compensate, and make the sump return about 300-400gph only. This will do something else as well...

Run your overflows into the skimmer directly...then have your skimmer overflow into the sump. Get rid of the downdraft/beckett skimmer (outdated energy hog) and use a recirculating needlewheel skimmer for this. Examples include...Euroreef RC series, Deltec, H&S, and Aqua Medic 5000 series (oooh, a 5000 baby or 5000 shorty2 would be my picks).

With a lower flow through the sump, you can eliminate one of the overflows as well and use it for something more useful...like rock and corals.

http://reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=550482&perpage=25&pagenumber=1

There, with those things, I eliminated one large pump, shrunk another down a couple hundred watts, increased your skimmer performance, eliminated an overflow, lowered the heat from pumps, and increased the flow in the main tank by a good percentage.

[ChemE]

hahnmeister drilled it and he is completely right (he and I often see eye to eye). I'd shoot for 300 gph through your sump/skimmer loop. By feeding your skimmer ALL the raw overflow water you will greatly increase skimate production.

Also, if it were me, I'd make that skimmer a CC airstone skimmer and use a MJ900 with the needlewheel mod to make it recirculate. This would keep the skimmer energy consumption down to under 20 watts and would assure you ridiculously good performance.

[dougwilliams]

I might be inclined to increase the pipe diameter in some places- like the overflows etc. Especially on somethign that large - even if you dont "need" it now, it's much easier to overdesign up front then it is to add on later.

PS- what did you use to draw up your plans?

[REEFKEEPA]

Thanks guys,
The overflows are sized as such due to Richard Durso's suggested method. The flow rate through the sump will be SLOW.
Probably around 325gph.
I am working on the front view which will give a much better Idea of the closed loop design. I wonder if one 1" overflow would be adequate for 300-400gph flow.
The skimmer is not written in stone even though everyone has their own opinion. I am still looking at the needlewheels but have yet to see a DIY design that I could build for less than the Becket.
I don't want an air pump. I hate them.
All drawings were done in Autocad 2000. Im too cheap to upgrade to ACAD 2006. It's really cool to work with though.

[hahnmeister]

Check out Spazz'z needlewheel designs...or...I have some as well. We use Oceanrunner pumps > premium aquatic sells the 3700 for about $90. One or two of these pumps on a 36-48" tall 8" cylinder and you've got a rocking skimmer. Or, a good option is 'semi-DIY'. Sometimes the DIY option isnt always the cheapest. You can buy a ASM skimmer from asmskimmer.com, and have them recirculate mod it. This skimmer is cheap, and so is the mod, yet is turned into a deltec/H&S of sorts. OR, a highly underrated skimmer here in the states is the Aqua Medic 5000 series. A 5000 baby or shorty2 would be perfect for a system like this.

For the overflow diameter, one 1" standpipe would be plenty, but to cut down noise, make the standpipe a stockman out of 1.5" PVC (2-3" cap) that reduces to the 1" bulkhead at the bottom. This cuts down on the amount of air that the standpipe sucks in.

Also, depending on the height of the skimmer if you direct feed it, keep in mind that a standpipe muffler might not even be needed in the overflows...but on the skimmer's output instead...since that will be the new drain really.

I have a tank with an overflow where the tank is 5' tall at the top, and the skimmer is 4' tall. The overflow direct feeds the skimmer, and so the water only drops 18" from the overflow into the skimmer (skimmers water level is just over 36"). Very little noise is created because of this. I only use a 1.5" standpipe with an open top. Then the skimmer's standpipe/outlet is about 32" tall, and the sump is about 22" tall. This is again only a 10" drop so with a diagonal drop with a 2" pipe on the skimmer...there are no bubbles made and no noises to go with. By 'terracing' the tank's drain in this manner, the water never has the chance to accelerate as it drops...and this velocity increase is what causes a drop in pressure which sucks air into the standpipe...just like a venturi.

Kinda cool I always thought...terraced drains that is...

[alien9168]

Looks like a great drawing! :D

-alien

[REEFKEEPA]

Thanks again,
I am in no rush to complete this design because my house is being completely remodled. I will have a generator and an ATS so I won't have to worry about power outages. Thats what killed my 4 Y.O. 70 gal Reef.
It was virtually maintenance free.
Except of course feeding cleaning and monthly water changes!

[REEFKEEPA]

http://reefcentral.com/gallery/data/586/14364Back_View-Model2.jpg
I am seriosly considering this type of setup.
I know the Intake and returns for the Cl look low but the front view(working on it) will show the reasoning behind this.
Any input is most welcome.
:smokin:

[REEFKEEPA]

I can't spell seriously!

[fat-tony]

just a piping thought. where you have 90 bends, you may be more effecient with 2 x45's or even the really rounded "cleveland" elbows

[REEFKEEPA]

No problem Tony,
The Head is minimal on the CL the 90's are of little concern.
I need the space. I have 2 kids.

[hahnmeister]

Thats looking better. Ill hold my breath on the CL intake(s) as you requested...but I hope its a good reason. FWIW, I forgot to mention it, but I would also suggest dual intakes. Some things can clog one, but not two. Unless you plan on some wicked-huge intake strainer to prevent this (Im talking baseball size of larger here).

You can also plumb the overflow directly into the skimmer, and recirc mod it. Or, create a baffle setup that would make all the water pass through the skimmer area at least, of not the skimmer itself before anything else. This is a very effective way to skim.

I wouldnt bother with the Sea swirl on the sump return. Your return's flow will pale in comparison to the flow generated by the loop. The SS can go on the loop, or instead of a SS, perhaps an ocean's motions device on the CL would be a good idea.

[REEFKEEPA]

Hahn
You guessed it .
I do have some in tank plumbing going on with the intake and returns forthe CL. I already have the Sea swirl so I figured it couldn't hurt to throw it in.

[AfAqua]

Top drawings Reefkeepa, what did you use?

[ChemE]

Reefka,

I know you said these drawing weren't to scale, but why ask the CL pump to draw water left 2'-3' just to return it right 2'-3'? What I'm saying is, it would be very beneficial to rework your CL piping to include as few 90's and length of pipe as possible. Maybe something like this...
http://www.dragonhome.org/~lucas/modified_215.png

You know me, I'm all about that last 1%.

[Roland Jacques]

REEFKEEPA
Looks good, hahnmeister, stugray, ChemE gave you some great suggestions. I just add this in on your closed loop, I assume your going to use the right size plumping to maximize flow, 2-45s instead of 90s where you can...

So I would suggest you consider penductors on your outlets. You might have to do some math to determine how many outlets you can have with your pump. You can achieve around 10000gph of water movement with even a dart pump (12 of head rating is the min).

Tee off your "return to sump line" to divert desired amount off water to your skimmer put in the appropriate valves.

Nice Drawing.

Roland

[kalare]

Definately make the intake of the CL bigger than the output holes. If you don't, you'll most likely get serious cavitation. For example, I had an Eheim 1262 on a 1" intake and 1" outlet and still cavitation and I'm sure you pump will be pushing more than my 950GPH. I suggest minimum 1.5" inlet, but 2" may be better.

[REEFKEEPA]

There will be additional plumbing in the tank,
I am working on the front view now but am caught up in rebuilding the house.
As far as the intake is concerned If the pump has a 1" intake and a 1" output Whats the Diff?I'm looking at the Iwaki MD 100RLT

[REEFKEEPA]

I thought cavitation was a property imposed on a propeller,
Where water boils under lower or higher pressure and creates air bubbles.

[newreef8584]

Just anf FYI. There is a brand new 5000 Shorty for sale in the classifieds at http://www.aquariumpros.ca/pp-classifieds/showproduct.php?product=4546&sort=1&cat=38&page=2

Think he is looking for $580.00 Canadian

[Roland Jacques]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6984582#post6984582 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by REEFKEEPA
There will be additional plumbing in the tank,
I am working on the front view now but am caught up in rebuilding the house.
As far as the intake is concerned If the pump has a 1" intake and a 1" output Whats the Diff?I'm looking at the Iwaki MD 100RLT

That is a pressure pump. And 90s and other back pressure won’t be so much of an issue compared to a dart pump. On the closed loop cavitations not likely (but possable if something blocks your intake, have good a big strainer or a bunch of small ones). But in a small inlet line will affect flow rate more than the outlet side. I would use 1 1/2 inlet. I would also run use 1 1/4" or 1 1/2 outlet at least to the 1st tee then reduce to 1" if you want.

Iwaki MD 100RLT it even a better choice to use with pentuctors. You could 10000gph easy with that pump with 5 or 6 nozzles. It kind of a high amp pump in today’s age of amperage watching but I really like them. I would not use that pump without the penductors, theirs better chooses

Roland

[REEFKEEPA]

http://reefcentral.com/gallery/data/586/14364Front_view-Model.jpg
Ok this is a "ROUGH DRAWING"

[REEFKEEPA]

BTW the drawings are to scale.

[kalare]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6984608#post6984608 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by REEFKEEPA
I thought cavitation was a property imposed on a propeller,
Where water boils under lower or higher pressure and creates air bubbles.

You are correct, and the pumps impeller is just that, a prop, so to speak. By having a small inlet, you will be starving the pump of water the pump will be trying to move more volume then it is provided. Even if you have a 1in inlet on the pump, the 1" all the way from the tank to the pump, and all the elbows in there creates alot of backpressure and will reduce the flow. If this happens when the pump tried to move more volume than is provided, the pressure drops and air bubbles will form creating a very noisy and annoying sound. Trust me, just go 1.5" at least at the inlet. If you just choke the pump at the outlet to reduce cavitation then you'll be putting backpressure on the pump which isn't good for it.

[REEFKEEPA]

O.K. That should be no problem but it still gets choked at the pump inlet.

[REEFKEEPA]

I have read a lot of posts on Cl design and have come to the conclusion by popular opinion that the only loss is due to friction " minimal" due to the fact that the head is 0 in a cl.
Opinions?

[ChemE]

It is true that the static head loss is zero because there is no difference in height between the inlet and outlet. However, assuming that dynamic head losses are neglible is fallacious. Remember that skin friction varies linearly with velocity (or radius squared) so doubling the pipe diameter cuts the velocity by 75% which cuts the skin friction by 75%.

I would strongly encourage everyone to use the largest diameter pipe that they can and avoid as many changes in direction as possible. When you have to change direction, use sweeps and not 90's. You're paying a good bit of money for a pump and quite a good bit more to run it 24/7; why not get the most performance that you can? A well thought out piping system costs peanuts compared to the cost of the pump and electricity; yet a poorly designed piping system can castrate a pump.

[Roland Jacques]

you ask for opinions heres mine

Pipe friction with your plumping 1" all around and that type of pump IMO, Would reduce performance 10% to 15%. (With a high flow pump you would be looking at 30%- 40%.) That many 90s, tees, bulkheads strainers creates a good bit of friction. The straight pipe minimals, 90s maximals. If it was a direct input from the tank that number would be cut by more than half, heres why.

This is also just an approximation. Say that pump will put out 50' of head pressure max, that same pump can only pull 10' of "vacuum" before losing suction. 5 to 1 That is about the same ratio that friction affects the performance of the pump. one 90 on the input side = five 90s on the output side. this is in the ball park here. That why inputs are more important. This is not exactly right but it easier to get a handle on it this way.

why are you going with that pump?

[ChemE]

Let me illustrate the significance of dynamic head loss for you...

This example assumes that dynamic head losses are minimal so we've used pretty narrow pipe and many more 90's than we should
http://www.dragonhome.org/~lucas/piping1.PNG

In this example we've wised up and increased the pipe diameter and gotten rid of some pipe run and some 90's.
http://www.dragonhome.org/~lucas/piping2.PNG

That is an extra 800 gph just by increasing the pipe diameter, ditching some 90's, and shortening the pipe runs. If this hadn't been a pressure rated pump the difference would have been even more significant!

[REEFKEEPA]

Thanks guys,
Thats exactly why I posted this thread.
I'ts easy to change stuff on paper. I will take your advice and increase the ID to 1.5 but It will be hard to eliminate any T's or 90's because of the attempted distribution of the return.
I have not posted a "top view pic but was planning on a "ring type manifold with lockline oulets around the perimeter.
The pump is'nt written in stone yet either. It just looks like a good economical pump for my application. I need quiet.

[ChemE]

If it were me, I'd look long and hard at the Sequence ReeFlo Dart instead. It isn't as much of a pressure rated pump (which is beneficial in a CL since you shouldn't have pressure) so it puts out more gph per watt. It will end up drawing about 1/2 the power as the Iwaki but pumping out 50% more flow.

http://www.marinedepot.com/IMD/pump_mdm_sequence_reeflo_dartcurve.jpg

You can see that 12' of head shuts it down whereas the Iwaki is still putting out 1200 gph at 27' of head but then at 0' of head the Dart crushes the Iwaki. That is the difference between a pressure rated pump and a flow rated pump. For a CL, pressure rated = waste of electricity.

[Roland Jacques]

ChemE

agreed if your not going to use penductors Dart is a much better choise.
i dont have to ball park any more, thats awesome thanks
just what i needed also.

wwwwwwwwwwWAIT it dose not work????

roland

[REEFKEEPA]

Wow Chem E.
That chart is a mind blower.
Does that apply to all EM pumps?

[Roland Jacques]

ChemE where can i get this calculator at?
thanks Roland

[REEFKEEPA]

It"s on the RC hompage on the left under CALCULATOR.

[hahnmeister]

Wow, where to begin. Seems I have been away too long..lol.

First, DONT USE PENDUCTORS. They are seen as a beneficial way to get 3-5x the flow from a nozzle, but this means a pressure rated pump (more watts), and more back-pressure. Taking this deduction simply doesnt return what you put in. When you look at the watts per gph standpoint, the low-pressure, low-wattage, high-flow method wins every time. Penductors and flow eductors are a waste. I can do the math if someone disagrees, but take my word for it, the Dart is a much better option. I have had people challenge me on it and after I do the calculations...its obvious...eductors are a waste of energy.

As for elbows, many pump mfg's suggest using one size larger than the pump's outlet. So a 1" outlet should have 1.25-1.5" piping, etc. If you run the head-loss calculator with this 'oversized' piping, the elbows result in minimal restriction and head loss. 90's arent as big a deal if you do this.

BTW, head-loss from restrictive piping is not due to friction or turbulence, etc...Its a simple conservation of energy principle (Bernoulli elaborates on this in his work, but the principle is based off his relationship with Newton). The basic idea is that as velocity increases, pressure decreases. Just thought it might benefit some of you down the road.

Oh, and for the closed loop, I would still move the intakes up to the top 6" of the tank. This will make for much easier cleaning of the intakes. In fact, I have an important consideration for you...depending on this...are you planning on using a canopy or open top?

[REEFKEEPA]

http://reefcentral.com/gallery/data/586/14364Top_view-Model.jpg
Here is the preliminary top view.
I am planning on using 1/2 " lockline and directional nozzles coming off the T's. Talk about hard to calculate loss.
Come on Chem E what can I expect out of this?

[hahnmeister]

Not much loss...there are so many outlets that the overall diameter of all those bends and outlets that the back-pressure and head-loss will be minimal. You might consider plumbing your CL over the side and eliminating the intake/outlets on the back wall. The top manifold will allow for just as much flow coverage (just add a few more outlets to the manifold along the back), and the intake can simply be run over the back wall (dual 1.5" intakes). This will also give the back panel back alot if its integrity...those three bulkheads weaken the back panel alot because they are right in the middle of the panel which is its highest stress point. This means much thicker glass at least. Also, you might consider splitting the manifold into two...and using a valve like an oceans motions to switch between the two for some wave action, as well as increased flow at any given time because each side will be getting the full amount once intended for the whole manifold. I suppose you answered my last question...you must be using a canopy/hood. In that case...plumbing it all from above/over the back would be better.

[REEFKEEPA]

Hahn,
Did you see the rough draft of the front view?
I want you to look closer at the rear, front and top views.
Run through the thread for me.
Thanks.

[Roland Jacques]

where do you find "oceans motions" switch valves??

[ChemE]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6987609#post6987609 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by REEFKEEPA
Wow Chem E.
That chart is a mind blower.
Does that apply to all EM pumps?

The shape of the power curve is very typical of all pumps (EM or otherwise). The flow curve varies wildly from pump to pump. In short, no. Unfortunately, few manufacturers put out flow/energy curves.

One of my favorite pumps is this bad boy; the Blueline NS-800. Look what 40 watts can get you! Talk about Energy Star Reefing!

http://www.bluelineaquatics.com/images/blpumpcurve.gif

This is less than the Dart but remember it is sucking down about 140 watts, this is only drawing 40! A few of these on seperate closed loops would put out some monster flow.

[REEFKEEPA]

***? where are you getting these charts?
keep in mind I AM NOT AN ENGINEER!

[ChemE]

I guess I just gravitate towards this kind of information. It does all come from reefing websites or vendor websites, so nothing crazy or engineeringesque.

On a side note, I see you suffer from insomnia too.

[hahnmeister]

the oceansmotions are at oceansmotions.com

I have reviewed the top/front view diagrams and my comments stay the same. I would move the intake (and double it) towards the upper corners of the tank, if not just run it over the back wall to eliminate drilling. Then, for the returns, if you are going to have a top-of-tank manifold, you might as well eliminate the two returns coming through the back wall, and simply add a few more returns on the back half of the top-of-tank manifold. And, split the manifold into two...perhaps a left and right loop, or front and back...(or maybe even split it into 4...left/right...front/back) and run it with an oceans motions 4-way unit.

Oh, and what size sea-swirl do you have already?

Ill mull this over today as Im out & about...later on Ill post a diagram of what I would do...we can go from there.

[REEFKEEPA]

It's the 1" model.

[Roland Jacques]

1. Why does the power drop off after 8' is it the motor or the impeller?
2. It seems like it would have to be the motor, is it what they call an inductive motor?
3. Does the motor slow down with load?

I can’t seem to find the dart model in stock. Champion doesn’t have them even listed anymore.

[ChemE]

I'm not sure about the other questions, but Premium Aquatics has an excellent price on it...
http://www.premiumaquatics.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Product_Code=SQ-REEFLO18-SW&Category_Code=Sequence

or if you prefer to give your business to Marine Depot...
http://www.marinedepot.com/aquarium_pumps_mdm_sequence_reeflo_dart_barracuda_hammerhead_manta_ray_tiger_shark.asp

[Roland Jacques]

hahnmeister

Ok, Ill bite. i want to learn as much as i can about these pumps and penductors as possable. :)

BARRACUDA Pump 4500 gph average amp 2.5 18' max head.

At 6' of back pressure it produces 3500 gph it will use 325watts.

That can drive at least 7 penductor right? Each penductor using 350gph to drive it. Then it multiplying flow buy say 3 times (that is very conservative form what i've seen).

Or 2 Darts pumps at 2 feet of head = 3200gph ea 150watts ea


1 BARRACUDA Pump 7 pendtuctors
1050 x 7= 7350gph divided by 325 watts = 22.62 gallons per watt

2 Darts pumps
3200 x 2 = 6400 gph. divided by 300 watts = 21.33 gallon per watt

(I leaned this in favor of the dart pumps and still came up the best case almost even, I could probable add a few more penductors) So what did I miss?

Roland

[hahnmeister]

You really think that the back-pressure with a penductor/eductor is only 6'? I wouldnt bet on it. There is no way to have the RC calculator do it, but the actual nozzle on them is something like 3/8" for a 1" eductor. Now, looking at the RC calculator, you cant make any exact calculations, but if you look at the 'trends' with pipe diameter, in higher pipe-diameter ranges, and consider how much back-pressure going with an outlet that is only 3/8" compared to 1.5" pipe... That head pressure calc of 6' is waaaay to generous. Most eductors require about 10 PSI just to get going!

We would have to compare exact pumps. The last one I did was a Dart vs. some 150-180 watt high-head Iwaki-type with dual penductors. The argument came when a guy suggested that his iwaki-type was making just under 1200gph at 20' head. This guy was claiming flow rates of that 1200gph x 3 for the penductors and getting 3300gph for 180watts. Lol ...when of course, that rating was more like 700gphx3, or 2100gph w/ eductors and thats being generous. Keep in mind that a 3/8" nozzle is about 15% of the cross sectional area of a 1" pipe. Thats a butt-load of back-pressure on the pump. And the more of that back-pressure you relieve by adding more eductors, the less pressure you get...and that 3x or 5x multiple for the eductor drops to 2x or less.

Someone should add eductors to the RC flow calculator (and # of eductors) so people can really compare.

Compare all these estimates to even a Dart...3600gph for 140ish watts. The low-pressure pumps always win. And the Dart is just an american example. Many overseas makers have known this for a while. If you look at Red Dragon pumps, Deltec digital, or Tunze recirculation pumps...the scale is tilted even more in favor of flow pumps.

The same idea applies to skimmers. Needlewheels dont rely on making a pressure point to educt air like becketts, spray injection, downdraft, mazzei, or any other methods based on the venturi principle do. This allows needlewheels to mix just as much air/water as a beckett but for 1/2 the electricity (often 1/4 or less). Any method that relies on the generation of pressure to induce flow wastes energy.

Pressure shouldnt be too low of course. I have a friend with a AGA 210, and runs it with dual hammerhead pumps (thats over 5000gph each), one on the sump, one on a closed loop. Now, thats something like 8000gph after head-pressure, but he has it split up into 20 different outlets. That 8000 gph just got turned into a spraybar with 20 outlets because each nozzle only does about 400 gph which doesnt go very far!

For this tank, you might want to consider the downside of splitting up your outlets so much to cover every corner of the tank. Often this can diminish the flow to a point where leaving the closed loop with only 1 or 2 outlets would create enough of a 'wash' that would hit all the corners of the tank with the flow. My cousin can place his single TUNZE stream in his 180 so that it sends flow across the whole tank, and then that 3000+gph displaces all that water over there so that water flows behind the rocks and everything creating more of a surge than if he had individual nozzles behind the rockwork to eliminate dead zones. Heck, half the time with so many nozzles, you get enough of them facing each other so that they cancel each other out and the net result is dismal flow...even with 8000gph running!

[REEFKEEPA]

How bout I ditch the CL and go with the Tunze Turbelle stream kit
TS21?

[ChemE]

Now you're on the right track. How about you ditch Tunze and Maxi-Stream it?

http://reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=717034&perpage=25&pagenumber=1

A MaxiJet 600 is about all the flow my 55 gallon mixed reef can tolerate!

[REEFKEEPA]

No doubt Chem E I will save a ton of money.
I have a bunch of spare MJ stuff laying around the shed
Including impellers. So if I mess one up I can do it again.
Thanks.

[REEFKEEPA]

Would it work with a 1200 and bigger props?

[aurorafish]

Hahn- I am confused. You say a needlewheel doesnt use pressure, if so how does it draw in the air?

[ChemE]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6992646#post6992646 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by REEFKEEPA
Would it work with a 1200 and bigger props?

Oh, no doubt! The MJ1200 will turn a 1.75" Dumas prop which produces absolutely insane flow. I tried it in my 55, and the flow blew 4' across the back of the tank, bounced off the right side of the tank, blew back 1.5' across the front of the tank, and chucked a softball-sized pipe organ coral about a foot before I could get to the off switch (which was right next to me). The thing was still getting up to equilibrium! There is no telling how it would have been in my 55 when it established the flow it is capable of!

[hahnmeister]

"Hahn- I am confused. You say a needlewheel doesnt use pressure, if so how does it draw in the air?" - aurorafish

It uses suction, having air and water both pulled into the intake of the pump and mixed mechanically with the needlewheel.

[Roland Jacques]

Hahn

Ive found penductors only need 6 psi NP (nozzle pressure) to run good, getting about 3 xs. 7 psi NP they run very good 4- 5xs. I no they say 10 psi. But at 7 psi they rocked. Less than 5 psi don’t bother.

I really just want to say is that they are a very good option for a lot of tanks, especially tanks with plumbing size constraints like standard reef ready aquariums and for people concerned about the looks of 1 1/2 plumbing.... ive installed a few of them on existing tanks in the past 3 weeks and they work amazingly. I no I can get 6 or 7 on that barracuda pump keeping the pressure above 13' of head. That is at least 7000 GPM that same pump without penductor 4500 GPM.

Im sure your right about the Red Dragon pumps, Deltec digital, or Tunze recirculation pumps being more efficient, I have never even seen one of those. All im saying they have very good applications and in most cases should be considered.

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6991434#post6991434 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by hahnmeister
You really think that the back-pressure with a penductor/eductor is only 6'?

I have time now so I will try to get the numbers right from that earlier post.
(6’ is what should have been subtracted from 18' max head for flow out of the seven .3" nozzles. so I meant 12'). The nozzle dia is .3". They say they consume 300gpm at 10 psi. So I assume 280gpm at 7 psi and 260 for 5 psi. So the math can be done and a informed choice can be made.

Example; i hooked 1 little giant MD 3 pump with about 5 feet of head, to 1 penductor. It pushed water across the 8' long 240 gallon tank and you could see the water movement in the far corner, it was impressive. that was about 6 psi.

Roland

[Roland Jacques]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6994885#post6994885 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by hahnmeister
"Hahn- I am confused. You say a needlewheel doesnt use pressure, if so how does it draw in the air?" - aurorafish

It uses suction, having air and water both pulled into the intake of the pump and mixed mechanically with the needlewheel.

The needlewheel thing was a bad example, but I think i no what Hahn was saying.

Needle wheels pumps do require pressure deferential like all pumps in order to move water. The water movement causes a low pressure to draw in air, just like all skimmers. (Except air pump/stone types). It just dose it with better energy efficiency.

Roland

oceansmotions.com ; they looks great Thanks Hahn
Thanks ChemE on the links.

[REEFKEEPA]

I'll try it out.
I will need to use 2" PVC so they will be a bit bulky,
But I should still save a ton of mony.
After reading most of the thread on the mod , I was wondering If I could shorten the length of the Mod without reducing performance. Another thing that I didn't see in there is how he glued the acrylic to the PVC.

[ChemE]

Hey Reefkeepa,

I've made about a half dozen of these so far (mad scientists can't help themselves) and they are pretty darn amazing. The acrylic is glued in place with the thick CA glue. We've all pretty much agreed that the mod can be shortened quite a bit. My latest shroud is only 5 cm long and I think I can shorten that a few more cm without decreasing performance.

Hope this helps.

[hahnmeister]

yourfishman,
I agree that not every tank can easily have 1.5" plumbing used, but two or three 1" outlets equal one 1.5" pipe...so if large piping is an issue...splitting the outputs up solves that problem. Your exaqmple is a good one, as the larger a pumps gets, the better it is able to deal with the back-pressure created by an eductor.

You said that the eductors have given you good results with less than the suggested minimum of 10psi (I believe 10psi for penductors...thats why they are only 3x, and regular eductors are 5x but the suggested minimum is 12psi). I just want to point out (not for you, but for others reading this) that that means that that multiple that the eductor is able to enhance the flow by drops as well. The lower the pressure, the lower the venturi effect on the output and the less flow the eductor is able to make.

I just havent found a situation where an eductor would be considered an advantage. The wattage that they consume in the form of back-pressure just isnt made up for in the flow that they return. If the noxxle diameter is only 3/8" diameter, or .3" like you said, it would take 6 of them to come close to the same cross-sectional area as a 1" pipe, let alone a 1.5". But adding these extra outlets lowers the total pressure of the system and screws things up even more by splitting up the flow, and therefore the pressure.

Until someone changes pump technology in a big way, the low-wattage/high-flow pumps will be the best option.

And although your example is impressive, we should be sure not to confuse flow volume with velocity. Even though in the case you have shown gives an outlet with enough velocity to reach across the tank in a beam...volume is better.

That is another reason why I prefer low-head/high-flow pumps. Their relative gentle output results in a larger, although gentler water motion. Much like the difference between a Maxi-Jet and a SEIO. Sure, the MJ can project a beam of water farther, but the SEIO moves more water (comparing a MJ1200 to a SEIO 620 for instance, also note that the SEIO uses 1/3 the energy).

I dont want to get into an argument with you though. I can understand the attraction of an eductor, and was once in favor of them. Our methods may vary due to personal reasons as much as why some prefer BB or DSB.

As for the needlewheel...its a perfect example. See, a venturi skimmer (becketts, injectors, etc all operate on the same idea) uses a higher pressure pump to accelerate water in a narrow diameter section. Due to conservation of energy laws, the increase in speed results in a relative drop in pressure...sucking in air at this point. The problem is that the acceleration of the water is produced in exchange for the back-pressure that decreases the pump's capacity. A needlewheel, or reverse venturi, does not rely on back-pressure to create suction (kinda like taking two steps forward, one step back), it simply relies on the suction of the pump intake to introduce air (more like one step forward, and then another). Any time you use the creation of back-pressure for either eduction or induction, you have a net loss of flow and pressure as a result. With a needlewheel, you may still have a net loss, but its a small one because its a more direct method of introducing air as you never develop a head-pressure at all on the pump. This is why you dont see many Euro-made beckett skimmers. They simply eat too much electricity compared to a needlewheel.

yourfishman, glad to help you out with the OM site. I would have though for sure you would have seen it by now. Its a great product, with many happy customers here at RC and worldwide. As a note, Paul the owner consulted myself and a few others on hydrodynamics when a few of the users were wondering about using the OM units with eductors. I suggested that Paul not warranty/suggest the units with eductor use and gave my reasons on his website. Paul has stuck with this so far. The only exception would be if Paul changed his drum design in the future. The constant rise and drop in line pressure as the unit switches from port to port causes a cyclic wear & tear, and although there is no pre-defined tolerance for this figure...cyclic variations in pressure are the #1 reason for failure with any motor.

[Roland Jacques]

Hahn,

Your example was good, but did not have to be perfect when you end it with, "Any method that relies on the generation of pressure to induce flow wastes energy". That dose say it a lot right their.

I think the most amazing thing about the penductor is how well it turns that high velocity stream into a gentle flow. The penductor flow pattern seems very similar to my Lutz maxi stream mod pumps, maybe with a little more velocity. Their appears to be different size I only tested the short .3 models. Maybe you should try this model. My numbers on multiplication of the flow are fairly accurate. Here is a link, their multiplication are more generous than mine. Id rather sale a pump than a penductor it more money for me, but I try to save people money were I can, so i recomend them for consideration. That maybe partially why I don’t have a store any more.

http://www.kthsales.com/website/vendors/Eductors/mixing_eductors.htm

A lot of this equipment is new to me, penductors, BK skimmers, OM…. It kind of cool, take a 3 year break and it like Christmas all over again. It gives you a fresh look at the hobby and the industry.

I surely enjoy hearing your input even if we don’t always agree, you have always helped me to think a little more about a given subject, thanks.

Hahn, You seem to have a lot of knowledge and influence. Do you think you can look at that flow calculator, add tees and double check the 45s and 90s formulas theirs seems to me to be an error with their numbers? It show 2 45s restricts more than a 90???

Roland

[hahnmeister]

The mods know about that. The flow calculator has many flaws to it since hydrodynamics is not an easy thing for even a computer to calculate w/o some engineer looking over its process. To eliminate the loss of any elbow, T, or bend, using a larger diameter pipe seems to work very well.

I have seen the kthsales specs and that page. I happen to have a 3/4" and 1" eductor. 12psi seems like a huge waste of energy to me. I wish that the RC calculator could have an added spec in the flow loss calculator for nozzle diameter.

[REEFKEEPA]

Chem E ,
I would like to shorten the length for sure.
Think about this.
I will have a 215 gallon tank that is 6' long
and 2' wide. For good flow how many of what Mods would you recommend?

[hahnmeister]

I would do two or three of the MJ1200s with 1.75" Octura props.

[REEFKEEPA]

And ixnay the CL ?

[ChemE]

Reefkeepa,

I'm going to slightly disagree with hahnmeister and recommend 3 MJ900's running the 1.75" Dumas prop on a wave timer that runs 2 at a time. And ixnay the CL. That will bring you up to 25.5 watts for your main circulation which is pretty incredible. That should also put you somewhere around 9000 gph of water circulation believe it or not!

Make a MJ900 w/ a 1.75" Dumas prop, pop it in your 54 and plug it in; you'll be a convert for sure! That prop is absolutely insane! 3 would be plenty for the tank you're planning.

[REEFKEEPA]

I still have my empty 70 AG. I might fill it up to test with.

[hahnmeister]

That is up to you Keepa. Both systems have their advantages.

CL:
-minimal equipment visible in tank
-no power cords in tank
-can be placed to reach harder areas (like behind the front walls, etc.)

In tank powerheads:
-Lower power requirements by a wide margin. Thousands upon thousands of GPH for under 100watts, heck, under 50 usually due to lack of back pressure/plumbing restrictions. My cousin does his 180 with nothing but two Tunze 6200s and an eheim 1250 on the sump return. Thats about 75watts at any given time and up to 10,000gph+ of flow.
-the pumps can be moved as the reef changes, a CL is fixed in place
-opposite of a CL, that means that there is no equipment to hide behind or underneath the tank that could be a problem on the outside to cover.


I prefer in tank powerheads myself. With some proper planning and the right tank dimensions, they can be hidden very easily inside aragacrete rocks or in areas where they are less noticed. Some tanks this is harder to do with, and then a closed loop is a better idea. Besides making aragacrete rocks to enclose powerheads, I have also made black acrylic boxes to hide powerheads in. Much like a Tunze wavebox, these boxes are often 6"x6" and as tall as the tank, and have slots routed in on all sides at all heights. Then I put powerheads inside of them facing in the desired directions. This way, the powerheads are secure, and less noticable (they look like an overflow box). The same idea could be applied to a aragacrete rock however.

For your 215...a couple stream style pumps hidden in some rockwork might be just the thing...

[REEFKEEPA]

And what pump would you suggest for my overflow?

[ChemE]

Make sure you leave a few inches at the top! It is that nuts! And make sure you use the Dumas prop, it is the most agressively pitched 1.75" prop the MJ's will turn thus they give you the most flow.

[hahnmeister]

ChemE, maybe you are right. MJ900s are about 1/3 the wattage of 1200s. I was thinking that the octuras might need the extra torque...but with dumas props... I suppose its a tradeoff. I was thinking MJ1200s are only 24watts as is...but you are right...the MJ900 is a better watts/gph performer...it might mean a need for another pump or two though.

[REEFKEEPA]

I'm leaning toward the mods.
As stated before I am a few months away from "worrying" about my aquarium.

[ChemE]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7009063#post7009063 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by REEFKEEPA
And what pump would you suggest for my overflow?

Honestly, shoot for 300 gph, so you could very easily use something smaller like the Blueline NS-800 which only draws 40 watts max and should give you around 700 gph @ 4' of head.

[ChemE]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7009083#post7009083 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by hahnmeister
ChemE, maybe you are right. MJ900s are about 1/3 the wattage of 1200s. I was thinking that the octuras might need the extra torque...but with dumas props... I suppose its a tradeoff. I was thinking MJ1200s are only 24watts as is...but you are right...the MJ900 is a better watts/gph performer...it might mean a need for another pump or two though.

Yeah, the 1200's really stink as far as efficiency go. The 900 and 1200 both seem to be able to turn the 1.75" Dumas and put out about 300 gph. The Dumas is more aggressively pitched that the octura's that D got to run on the MJ's so it is king as far as flow goes.

[REEFKEEPA]

Very good advice guys,
My tank will be super queit with this setup compared to my original design.
RIGHT?

[ChemE]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7009192#post7009192 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by REEFKEEPA
Very good advice guys,
My tank will be super queit with this setup compared to my original design.
RIGHT?

No doubt...

Noise I can tolerate, I like trying to get the power consumption as low as possible. We've shaved a few hundred watts off your plan too. 200 watts 24/7 at FPL prices ($0.10/kWh) works out to $14.6/month!

[REEFKEEPA]

You must be single.

[ChemE]

Hehe, married for 4 years. My wife is a scientist as well, and she does an amazing job of tolerating my crazy engineering need to improve everything.

[hahnmeister]

Well, the 1200s stink for efficiency based on their stock flow specs...the 1200 is 295gph for 24 watts, and the 900 is something like 8 or 9watts and can push 230gph. The 1200 is designed with a much higher head-pressure however...to be used for skimmers. top-offs, and some sump returns where the lower wattage ones would begin to choke.

At that, with the stream mods, the 1200 has loads of torque that it can cash in on with that extra 16 watts...like by running dual 1.75" props. So I guess what I am trying to say is that the 1200 might still be an option, as a way of only having to use one unit to make 3000gph and not two. Also consider that the wattages on these prop modded units seems to go down 20%.

While the MJ1200 might consume 3x the wattage, it might also produce 3x the flow, and my thoughts were to minimize the number of pumps needed when I suggested 1200s...but 900s might be fine as well.

Maybe ChemE and I need to come up with a scientific way to test these stream pumps.

[ChemE]

I'd be game hahn. I'm always up for a good exhaustive study. I've been meaning to buy a kill-a-watt anyway.

[REEFKEEPA]

You guys are something !
Thanks for the advice.
I will now turn my attention to clearing out my house so Olshan can come in here and bust holes in my slab so they can raise it 2'.
I plan on adding a floor drain below where the tank stand is going to be set up.

[hahnmeister]

So....hows it coming? Any updates?