40 Breeder Sump (sorry another thread)

[tidus10]

What is the biggest you would make the skimmer section? I know I should make it big enough to fit MOST skimmers..

Im thinking 10 x 18?
then bubble trap and return area 9" total
fuge 17"

Does this seem right?

 

[RocketEngineer]

12" would be better for the skimmer section. Making the return section larger is better as it allows for more time before you need to top off the tank if something goes wrong. The refugium is the least important section of the sump.

What is the goal (singular, purpose built) for the refugium?

 

[Mrramsey]

Keep in mind also too large of a return can be a problem if your drain to the sump gets obstructed. You can flood the display if you don't size it accordingly or don't add a float switch to kill the pump in the event of a blockage scenario.

 

[NanoReefWanabe]

Keep in mind also too large of a return can be a problem if your drain to the sump gets obstructed. You can flood the display if you don't size it accordingly or don't add a float switch to kill the pump in the event of a blockage scenario.

if your tank is drained properly this is not an issue"¦do a bean or a herbie (if need be) siphon system and this is not ever an issue"¦

if you do not have an ATO i would make the return as large as you can"¦as mentioned a fuge is highly over rated for what most people are using it for"¦as it was originally designed and implemented and as the name suggests it was meant as a refuge for pods to grow, (some have taken it further then that and assumed it means for marcos to grow without being eaten by herbivore fish)"¦however the only need for marco algae is to grow and remove it a means to reduce nitrates and PO4"¦and this is the only reason you would put it in a sump"¦if you are keeping it for pods then your fuge should be at or above tank level, so as to drain into the display rather then being pumped in and ripping apart all the pods"¦

i am sure an ATS is much more efficient at removing NO3 and PO4 though, as micro algae grows considerably faster then the macro"¦

an for that matter, a 5g bucket DSB (deep sand bed) is even more efficient and requires no maintenance or intervention"¦which is clearly the better choice for anyone looking to reduce the amount of work needed around the tank.

so back to the sump"¦i would do a myself a favour and use the refuge area as a DSB (12x18x14t only 12" of sand with 2" water above it) would make for an amazing NO3 reducing bed, then a 12x18x9t would make for an excellent skimmer/ inlet area, then the remaining 12x18x~7t area would make for a good area to have your heaters, probes and return pump"¦

just my two cents, and exactly how my next will be set up"¦plumb the DSB off the return pump manifold, and through the end of the tank to blow water across the top of the sand and have to fall over the baffle into the return section of the sump"¦

you could likely take an inch or so off the fuge section to add bubble traps too...

 

[fishgate]

I suggest not wasting space, time and money with bubble traps. I have made 2 40B sumps using just two partitions (3 sections, 2 pieces of glass) with no bubble traps and have never had any issues with bubbles making it to the DT. I am at a loss to know where they come from for people that do get them. Your skimmer is the main source and it is first in line. All bubbles from that have ample time to dissipate before they get to the return chamber. YMMV

 

[tidus10]

So something like 12" fuge, 12" return 12" skimmer?

 

[fishgate]

Here is my build - http://reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2270518&highlight=how+to+build