Karim's 1500gal dream reef

[taricha]

Originally Posted by karimwassef

Back to the "hairs" - do you agree that two elbows or more would stop the flow?

90 degree elbows with this volume and speed of water would definitely make flow much less than theory.
My bigger concern would be significant sideways forces from deflecting that volume of fast moving water through an elbow, and the nature of the design is that the sideways forces would turn on and off constantly. Seems really hard on a structure.

[karimwassef]

Why am I so focused on this?

there's no way to move enough water down 12' of tank without a massive flow mechanism and doing it without pumps would be ideal for life. Doing it without splashing 50gals over the edge would be good too...

I can't run powerheads of flow diverters down that massive of a tank without lots of ugly piping and DIY underwater electric cabling...

So this is a key part of this tank.

[karimwassef]

Originally Posted by taricha

90 degree elbows with this volume and speed of water would definitely make flow much less than theory.
My bigger concern would be significant sideways forces from deflecting that volume of fast moving water through an elbow, and the nature of the design is that the sideways forces would turn on and off constantly. Seems really hard on a structure.

The loss in head pressure was so massive, it wouldn't flow at all... at least that's what I get with just two elbows!

[taricha]

Originally Posted by karimwassef

Based on your derivation, what is your initial velocity v0 and the exponential form for the flow rate? I think I've fixed it but I would appreciate a second set of eyes again.

I get the same starting velocity for both conditions because the difference in water level is the same in both.

The only difference I get when setting up my diff eqn. is that in the "surge" case every bit of volume out the bottom pipe is equal to the volume drop in the container...
Apipe*dx = Acontainer*dh
But in the connected containers, the volume out the bottom both subtracts from one and adds to the other connected containers. so it must be doubled when accounting for the change in the water height difference.
Apipe*dx * 2 = Acontainer*dh


Aside:
I don't think your exponential solution is a bad model, and I think you can make it work, but (if it matters to you) I still can't get an exponential as the solution to the diffeq.

I still don't get an exponential solution to the diff equation, because it comes from the water velocity out being proportional to sqrt(h) and not proportional to h.

my equation is not dVolume/dt = - (constants)*Volume

my equation is dVolume/dt = - (constants) * Sqrt(Volume)

https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?...),+V(0)+%3D+V0

[taricha]

Oh, and crazy idea you might consider.
Maybe instead of a big vacuum pump pulling many gallons of water up by sucking air.....
Why not just pump air into one underwater tank and let the other have water, then let that imbalance create the flow.

Guessing the pump would be way cheaper.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

[karimwassef]

I'm planning on having the vacuum suck air out of one container and pump it into the other container. The idea being that if the volume of air is the same, then they're guaranteed to level back to the tank waterline. This is important because I'd like to create this massive flow flow changing the waterline significantly (minus the wave effect due to propagation speed).

My current surge on my tank is awesome and truly bubble free... except for the secondary surge into the overflow and down to the sump. That creates a massive bubble effect.

If I can get the two tanks to passively balance, it simplifies the flow immensely. It really should emulate a circulating loop of flow.

Danny (jcca) actually suggested pressurizing the containers to drive flow instead of a vacuum. I'm incorporating both ideas.. negative pressure in one and positive pressure in the other and then letting their natural settling drive the flow.

To be honest, I haven't confirmed that the vacuum flow and pressure rating will support both the sucking and blowing... it needs to be verified.

[McPuff]

Karim, why not just get two hydrowizard ECM63 pumps and let them do all the work. It would probably be cheaper and I'm sure you'd get more than enough flow! Heck, you could probably even use 4 of the ECM42 and be happy. Definitely cheaper than the vacuum approach.

[karimwassef]

actually, the peak flow isn't enough with that pump. I need to reach a peak of 50,000 gph and they peak at 13,500. So I would need 4 per channels... multiplied by 4 channels = 16 powerheads. At $2000 each = $32,000. The vacuums each cost $100 and I may need two per channel = $800. The vacuum channels and plumbing is maybe $2000 (that includes 16 valves for the air)... so ~$3000 to achieve up to an instantaneous peak flow of 150,000 gph.

the vacuum chambers push and pull equally in a circular loop. They do this passively (without active control) just by ensuring the same levels in the storage tanks. I may be able to get the powerheads to do the same, but it would need active control.

also, I don't want a single round outlet flow (pipe outlet). I want a flow pattern that is uniformly pushing in the same direction through the whole aperture.

I also want to avoid directly pushing water through high shear. The theory being that pumps rip plankton apart and that kills the lifecycle in the captive reef. I would like to do it all without any mechanical force directly in the water.

My original approach was to use a matrix of 10 powerheads (Jebao) per channel (40 total at $80 each = $3200). That's more affordable, but also unproven. The wire bundles for power and control were becoming a nightmare ... not to mention having to get in there for maintenance. Not having any mechanical devices in the water creates a significant relief there. There's no potential for fouling or impacted flow due to impellers jamming or being invaded by life.

[karimwassef]

taricha - ok... I've reformulated by result. What is your time constant for two tanks at 2' x 4' x 4' centered around the display tank waterline. One is full to the top (2' above waterline) and one is full of air (2' below waterline). They're connected to the display with 12 pipes of 3" PVC.

I get a time constant of 2.5 seconds which means that most of the flow occurs in about 5 seconds (twice the time constant).

time constant = 4 A h / ( n pi D^2 sqrt(2 g h) )

A = 8 ft2
h = 2 ft
n = 12
D = 3 in

time constant = 2.4 sec (volume delta drops from 100% to 1/e = 37%)
time to mostly purge = 2 x time constant = 4.8 sec (volume delta drops from 100% to 1/e^2 = 14%)
time to near total purge = 3 x time constant = 7.2 sec (volume delta drops from 100% to 1/e^3 = 5%)

This is without taking into account the hairy parts of the equations.

[dave.m]

Originally Posted by karimwassef

The theory being that pumps rip plankton apart and that kills the lifecycle in the captive reef.

This has been repeatedly disproven.

Dave.M

[karimwassef]

Originally Posted by dave.m

This has been repeatedly disproven.

Dave.M

where? when I researched algae farms and fisheries breeding programs, the consensus was that pumps kill life at that scale.

It's why they use slow motion paddle wheels for aeration for example.

I spoke to the breeding expert at the LI museum aquarium and he confirmed that pumps cannot be used because of the forces they exert on very small scale life.

The organisms that do survive have hard surfaces (like dinos, etc...) but the embryonic stages of shrimps and fish don't.

So I guess the answer is that it depends - but the sensitive stuff gets mashed up.

The other reasons I prefer non-contact are important too.

[dave.m]

It has come up often in articles over the years. I did a quick Google on "copepod amphipod killed pump aquarium" and got a variety of answers. Here's one article that clarifies Harpacticoid copepods are more likely to survive pumps than Calanoid copepods. If you wade through the flotsam and jetsam there is also mention of baby Banggai cardinals safely passing through circulation pumps. It's a common enough question so please don't get the impression that I am dismissing you concerns.

Dave.M

[karimwassef]

No worries. It also depends on the age of the babies. Some are more robust. I can't find a zero pump solution yet, but the circulation volume will be minimal compared to the surge flow, so the majority of motion should be "soft".

The idea is to increase the odds of the more gentle babies surviving and potentially becoming plentiful enough to get to the next stage.

There's no doubt that this tank is experimental. I'm doing many things that are unconventional because I believe they can be better... and maybe so much better that they could improve the hobby for all of us.

I also have very finite resources and a very big tank to support so I need to think out of the box to get the cost back into the box

It's why the sump is now going to be cinderblock and concrete.. and the surge tanks are likely to go plywood.

The biggest ongoing expense right now is still cooling and the increased power consumption of the vacuums... and the cost of RODI water has crept up to becoming silly (monthly change).

It's still evolving but I always always always appreciate the input here. Sometimes, it's easy to get excited in a vacuum (pun) but the smart questions and feedback here keep it grounded.

[karimwassef]

Ok. Big news. We signed the docs on the new house. Location is Prosper, TX.

It's not a southern facing back yard, but it's a big western facing back yard with enough clearance that I can get sunlight from 8:30am to 3:30pm every day of the year!

It will require a separate conservatory/sunroom though- not attached to the house. I'm working on a glass walkway to bridge the space to the house.

Quotes for the sunroom are coming it very high, but it's progressing.

[karimwassef]

ok. with the site finalized, I decided to map out the neighborhood with existing and future structures to find the best location the tank. There are some tall fences (11'), a few big trees (16'), the house itself and even a water tower... all casting shadows at different times of day and year.

A little sketchup ray tracing shows the times when the tank will be in full sunlight (Dallas). I ran the same for Boulder just to see how much difference it makes:



Average is about the same, but northern locations will have more swing.

A little more calculation on angle of incidence throughout the year... and I converted the actual hours of direct sunlight to effective hours... this should be equivalent to full real reef sunlight (in the tropics where the sun is directly overhead most of the time):



So I was kind of happy that I always had at least 8 hours of sunlight every day, but the winter is rough. Even with direct sunlight, the angle cuts the light by 50% to 4 hours of equivalent direct sunlight.

So winter ~4 hours, summer ~10 hours... average of ~7 hours throughout the year. It's not bad, but the winter seems very short.

here are some links that really helped along the way:

http://www.itacanet.org/the-sun-as-a...lar-astronomy/
http://www.itacanet.org/the-sun-as-a...-solar-angles/
http://www.itacanet.org/the-sun-as-a...arths-surface/

[karimwassef]

but the sun is a powerful source of light energy...

https://ag.tennessee.edu/solar/Pages...%20Energy.aspx

http://www.egc.com/useful_info_lighting.php

So at about 1000W/m2 = 4600 PAR

I wanted to compare it to my current tank where I have peak light of 1600 PAR and I run peak power for 14 hours (8am - 10pm). I actually run it for 2 more hours but at reduced levels. So... we'll say that the photon "exposure" = 22,400 PAR-hrs.

This doesn't really change throughout the year.

At 4.2 hours in the winter, the sunlight would be ~ 19,320 PAR-hrs...

I realize that this is a gross oversimplification since corals can't necessarily store the excess energy so PAR-hrs is an artificial "measure", but until I have a better yardstick:



So overall, there will be more energy going into the tank most months except for December and January where it would dip from -10% to -15%.

[karimwassef]

... will all the corals die in the winter?

... will an algae breakout kill all the coral in the summer as they bleach?

... will the wavelength shifts make them all turn a miserable brown?

... will the IR radiation bouncing around in the greenhouse cook the tank at 110F?

truth is I have no idea. The basic analysis says the site will work and that there will be light that should be sufficient.

The cooling will be critical clearly, but that's another topic.

[dave.m]

Originally Posted by karimwassef

The cooling will be critical clearly, but that's another topic.

Some great deals on at amazon right now.

Dave.M

[karimwassef]

Ha ha ha!!

[karimwassef]

Ok... little more research on how to quantify sunlight:

http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2013/12/lighting

My instinct that a "PAR-hrs" using "effective hours" is useful turned out to have a real standard: DLI (daily light integral).

It's similar to my PAR-hrs but divided by 1000 and multiplied by 3.6 (they use seconds and divide by a million).

So my 22,400 PAR-hrs is ~ 80.6 DLI which is 2.5x what the paper cites.

However, they identify peak surface PAR at noon as 1900 in Hawaii vs. the 4600 I get from other sources which also happens to be ~ 2.5x their estimate.

So maybe it all evens out?

Also, I'm using a correction factor for angle of incidence based on month (low angles during winter, more vertical in summer). They're using a factor for incidence during the day also in their DLI calc.

I'll dig into it some more.

[dave.m]

Dana Riddle has a few books and many articles written about the physics of light for reef tanks. He also has a reef collection company in Hawaii. Why not contact him directly if you want to hash out the gritty details?

Dave.M

[karimwassef]

Sure. Got a contact point?

[dave.m]

Oh dear. You don't seem to be aware of how to stalk... er... find folks on the Internet. You can reach him through his Facebook page, for starters.

Dave.M

[karimwassef]

Lol!!!

[ReefWreak]

Originally Posted by karimwassef

Ok. Big news. We signed the docs on the new house. Location is Prosper, TX.

Clearly you're beyond this already, but congrats. Big tank move ahead!

Looking forward to seeing how your beautifully designed CAD drawings change to show your new detached greenhouse.

Great commentary/discussion recently from dave.m's followups! Always learning in this thread.