Bubble blaster vs Askoll pumps?

[Garage1217]

There are many other factors such as insulation of the pump housing / epoxy and so forth that come into play and how efficiently the heat is transferred to the water. that is what so many fail to understand.

I personally do not believe in any way shape or form that for example a 100W pump will heat the water exactly like a 100W heater. Heat transfer from the case of a water pump would be very poor & could be easily dissipated unless the container was totally sealed and insulated over a large amount of time, where a heater is quite efficient at heating the water itself quickly.

For example, turn a 100W heater on and after 5 minutes touch it and scream *LOL* A 100W pump will barely be warm to the touch.

Way to many factors come into play than to just say a watt is a watt and all heat the water equally.

 

[sjm817]

If the pump housing is insulated, and is submerged in the water, where does the heat go, if not to the water?

A 100W heater has the heat element close to the surface. A pump does not. A water cooled pump transfers heat to the water through internal cooling passages. It wont feel hot to the touch like a heater will.

When it comes to heat, a watt is a watt.

 

[Garage1217]

I respectfully disagree totally

Here is a simple way to view heat transfer & efficiency. Take a piece of aluminum pipe and heat the inside to 200F in a large container with liquid circulating. Stick the pipe raw into the container and the water inside will heat quickly.

Take the same rod and coat it in 1" of plastic, epoxy, or any other material that can insulate. Put the pipe in the same container and it will heat much much slower, but eventually will heat to the same point as the bare rod. Since the coated rod cannot efficiently transfer the heat into the water like most aquarium pumps "some can more than others" the tank can dissipate the heat much more easily than it can with the same wattage heating the water directly.

Hope this makes sense.

 

[flipteg]

consider a 70 watt 100% efficiency pump... all the electrical energy put in that pump will be CONVERTED to mechanical energy right there and then... as you claim, the friction in the water movement will "eventually" convert ALL that mechanical energy back to thermal energy... when will that happen...? 1 week...? 2 weeks...? a month...? by which time, other variables such as evaporation and heat transfer from water to surrounding air would have already acted to dissipate the heat...

now consider a 100% efficiency 70 watt heater... all that 70 watts of electrical energy is being CONVERTED to thermal energy right there and then, heating the water much faster since it doesn't have to go through all that mechanical energy conversion...

if you claim that a 70 watt water pump will "right there and then" put out 70 watts worth of thermal energy (which is what you keep referring to as heat), then where did the mechanical energy used to move water come from...?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forms_of_energy

 

[Garage1217]

^ Exactly. I think this will take a video / test to show him. I am off for two weeks, if I have time I will do so just to end this topic as it pops up all of the time.

Another simple way to look at it. Right now I have around 220w worth of pumps in my tank / all submerged. If said pumps transferred heat into the tank with the same efficiency as a simple glass heater, everything I have would be dead quite quickly However I have to have an additional 300W worth of heaters that are actually capable of efficient transfer in order to keep temps stable.

 

[flipteg]

i should have used 1.21 jiggawatts in my example... hehe...

 

[Garage1217]

JIGGA FTW!


"and yes I know it is giga" But I like JIGGA much better

 

[plancton]

Dude, who cares about wattage, we're talking about 35 watt vs 50-60watt is not a big deal.

My experiment will be to achieve the same performance on skimmate, if you want something very eco friendly wait for the new line of Deltec skimmers.

 

[sjm817]

I can see why these discussions of wattage always go on for far too many pages. There are so many things wrong with the above statements, I dont really want to spend the time going over them. I just really dont have the interest going on with this discussion. Maybe if I feel ambitious, I'll find some of the previous threads and link them. This has all been hashed out many times before.

Plancton, sorry the topic got so off track. Yeah, the power use between an Askoll 1500 based pump and a BB 5000 will be very small and is nothing that should be a major factor either way.

 

[Garage1217]

They go on way to long as some just do not listen to reason and argue what they do not technically understand. Feel free to enlighten me on what is wrong with my statements, I tried to dummy them down as far as I possibly could so anyone could understand. Also feel free to PROVE me wrong. Would love to see that

Yes another example...
The sun produces around 130w per square foot, yet different materials are heated at different rates as they absorb energy differently & will reach different maximum temperatures.... We insulate our homes from the heat which all falls under thermal transfer... Under your logic, all homes with an equal roof size, no matter the material on the roof would be equally hot simply because a "watt is a watt per square foot" Different pump housings are made of different material and are of different thickness over a heater element which is designed to efficiently transfer heat into the water. If you had 5 pumps of capable of drawing the same amount, all with different thicknesses of housing & housing types, you would have 5 different kinds of heat transfer & transfer ability. Further more, all energy is not converted to heat in a pump, it is converted to mechanical energy.

Now under your logic of cooling passages "which none of my pumps contain" then thermal transfer ability would be greater. However as I stated, None of my pumps have any sort of active cooling passages to transfer heat to the water which again is why a heater is much more efficient at heating water.

Basically the heat an electric motor produces is proportional to it's efficiency. Efficiency varies from load & motor design. Any losses not converted into mechanical energy is converted to heat. Man it has been a long time since I had to think about these things *LOL*

 

[sjm817]

True. People dont listen to reason and ignore the laws of physics. The insulation point doesn't work. Yes, you can insulate a pump (or anything else) and prevent heat transfer. The problem is it will overheat and self destruct. As I posted, this has been gone through many times before. Again, I'm done with this thread (REALLY THIS TIME) . You are free to believe what you wish.

If anyone wants more info, there are many threads like this that go though the same thing ad nauseum. You can do a search and find plenty that look like this and and the ones below.

Plancton, I again apologize for my part in taking this thread off topic. I wont be posting in it again. I hope the others respect that point.

Rekonn - In answer to your question: no, you cannot determine how much heat energy will be added to the system based solely on the watts of energy consumed by the pump. The pump is doing work moving water, so the amount of heat generated will be a function of how much energy is consumed - how much energy is the useful work that we bought the pump to perform (this is a broad simplification.) The watts consumed is only a useful comparison when the amount of water being moved by the different pumps is (practically) the same.

Having an external pump complicated things a little bit because some cooling will be done by the external air, depending on the design of the pump. The vast majority of the cooling is still done by the water moving through the pump though I suspect since water is a much better thermal conductor than air is.

My direct observation leads me to the conclusion that the E-heim has very little heat transfer to the tank relative to other pumps. At night, when my 215 tank is running an E-heim 1262, mag 12, a couple of seios, and a 150W MH light on the sump, it stays about 2 degrees above the ambient room temperature with no chiller. Since a considerable amount of heat is transfered from the other pumps and lights in the tank the E-heim is a very small contributor indeed. When I replaced my old mag 24 return pump (run externally) with the E-heim 1262 (run internally) my average tank temperature dropped 3.5-4 degrees.

For a 90 gallon tank I think that you will be very happy with the 1260.

Wryknow... if the pump is submerged in water, then 100% of the energy goes into the water. To argue any differently is to go against the basic laws of physics. It's that simple! If your internal mag 7 draws 60 watts, and your internal eheim draws 60 watts, they both contribute the EXACT same amount of heat into the water.... this has been hashed out a dozen times. You simply can not re-write the laws of physics. Put each pump into an insulated box and they will both produce the same amount of heat.

That said, one pump may produce more flow and that flow may aid evaporative or conductive/convective cooling, but that is beside the point. Both pumps (drawing the same amount of power) will produce the same amount of heat. Energy is energy.

The same goes for MH vs FLUORESCENT. MH may give off mor einfrared heat, and fluorescent more visible light, but close them in a box and they will produce hte same amount of heat in the box. (if you want to nit pik, radio waves may not be contained in the box, so the lamp that produce more RFI may produce less heat).

Your observations have way too many variables to be valid for anything more than anecdotal observations.

 

[flipteg]

that guy is assuming the exact same thing as you that all energy will eventually settle as heat... i do not know why this assumption even started in the first place... heat is not even energy... if all energy will basically end up as thermal energy, then that statement does not make sense as it pretty much disregards ALL the other forms of energy... no where in physics says that thermal energy is the path of least resistance when it comes to conversion of energy...

it doesn't matter how many people in how ever many pages of threads say so, it doesn't make it correct... he is citing laws of physics but also keeps giving examples to contradict it...

in his light example... both equal wattage MH and FL light will produce the same amount of energy (NOT HEAT, but more accurately, not necessarily thermal energy) while inside an isolated box... he says that FL will produce more light which is a type of radiant energy, though he doesn't even acknowledge it as a form of energy... then he goes to say " but close them in a box and they will produce hte same amount of heat in the box." if some of that energy is already being given off as radiant energy, there is no way it will ever have the same amount of thermal energy as an MH light which is also giving off another kind of energy, which according to him is infrared heat... that example is in direct contradiction of the law of conservation of energy because if thermal energy are equal in both lights, which according to both of you is also equal to the wattage of electrical energy put in to power the lights, then where does the radiant energy of visible light come from... unless radiant energy (and what ever else energy being generated by the lights) spontaneously converts to thermal energy as soon as the box is closed and no one is looking...

it's not even just for the sake of arguing, but if you're going to keep citing physics, you have to at least start using correct terms and defining exactly what you mean when you talk about things such as energy... because apparently, your definition of what energy is doesn't seem to be what physics says energy really is...

 

[rkaires]

Old post from hahnmister:

Power Factor is used directly as a multiplier for calculating pump efficiency. Simply put, a PF of say... 0.6 means at best, you are 60% efficient, as in, at least 40% of the wattage of the pump is going directly to heat rather than moving water. So lets say you have a PF of 0.25 (about the lowest I have seen on those chinese motors), you are gonna have one hot pump. 0.8 or 0.9... thats a 'cool runner'. Most needlewheels vary somewhere between .4 and .6... its just hard to get an AC motor that performs best at mixing air and water but still has to start in 100% water. Sometimes other methods come into play, to get around this... like using larger or more powerful impeller magnets, or some sort of circuit in the motor which does 'power factor correction', or a 'startup circuit'.

 

[Amoore311]

As much as I would love to read a virtually meaningless conversation about heat tranfser..... can we please stick to the original intention of the thread.

 

[cerobbins]

True. People dont listen to reason and ignore the laws of physics. The insulation point doesn't work. Yes, you can insulate a pump (or anything else) and prevent heat transfer. The problem is it will overheat and self destruct. As I posted, this has been gone through many times before. Again, I'm done with this thread (REALLY THIS TIME) . You are free to believe what you wish.

If anyone wants more info, there are many threads like this that go though the same thing ad nauseum. You can do a search and find plenty that look like this and and the ones below.

Plancton, I again apologize for my part in taking this thread off topic. I wont be posting in it again. I hope the others respect that point.

This is false. If you can provide data to prove this then please do. Otherwise like you said some people don't listen to reason and ignore the laws of physics. Thermal dynamics are a bit more involved. No matter how simple the law of consersavtion of energy seems I believe it is clearly being misused here.

 

[flipteg]

As much as I would love to read a virtually meaningless conversation about heat tranfser..... can we please stick to the original intention of the thread.

i don't believe it's meaningless conversation trying to correct flawed logic that's being spread on some watt vs watt pump threads to a point that some people believe it as the truth... after all, this thread is part about efficiency of Bubble Blaster vs Askoll... going on with a thread with logic that pretty much throws efficiency out the window is more meaningless to me...

 

[Amoore311]

i don't believe it's meaningless conversation trying to correct flawed logic that's being spread on some watt vs watt pump threads to a point that some people believe it as the truth... after all, this thread is part about efficiency of Bubble Blaster vs Askoll... going on with a thread with logic that pretty much throws efficiency out the window is more meaningless to me...

Do you really think 40 Watts is deserving of this immensely drawn out back and forth?

It is detracting from the original purpose of the thread, which is why sjm817 didn't want to get into this in the first place.

If you want to get into a debate about physics and heat transfer make a thread in the appropriate forum for it.


I know I, and many others, are very interested in how these pumps stand up to the proven askoll/red dragon line. Both in terms of straight performance, and in terms of reliability.

In my case, I just want to know if the Bubbleblaster can put up askoll numbers with the stock MSX300 intake. It would be much easier for me personally to buy a BB5000, then have to send my skimmer body to MS and have them bore out the intake. That is of course if the BB can compete.

It seems easy enough for Reef Specialty to test. But they ignored my request for a quick test when I brought it up in their forums.


To come in here and read 2 pages worth of back and forth about physics and heat exchange is tiring.

 

[flipteg]

yes, i think it's deserving... i too am here because i am in the market for a pump and really want to know if these Bubble Blaster pumps are as good as they seem... it would seem silly to post a thread on the appropriate forum about some random pump vs pump thread... i'm sorry if it's detracting from the thread but if someone is gonna throw statements around like "all energy is heat", you can't possibly expect not to get any reaction from anyone...

 

[cerobbins]

Do you really think 40 Watts is deserving of this immensely drawn out back and forth?

It is detracting from the original purpose of the thread, which is why sjm817 didn't want to get into this in the first place.

If you want to get into a debate about physics and heat transfer make a thread in the appropriate forum for it.


I know I, and many others, are very interested in how these pumps stand up to the proven askoll/red dragon line. Both in terms of straight performance, and in terms of reliability.

In my case, I just want to know if the Bubbleblaster can put up askoll numbers with the stock MSX300 intake. It would be much easier for me personally to buy a BB5000, then have to send my skimmer body to MS and have them bore out the intake. That is of course if the BB can compete.

It seems easy enough for Reef Specialty to test. But they ignored my request for a quick test when I brought it up in their forums.


To come in here and read 2 pages worth of back and forth about physics and heat exchange is tiring.

One of the aspects of any pump that is used for comparision is power draw. Many people have false beliefs of how power draw is used to compare pumps. It is tough to compare two pumps under the criteria of power consumption if people have false beliefs about what watts do in a pump.

If you don't see the need for comparing and understanding power consumption you should start a thread (and I quote) " How these pumps (bubbleblasters) stand up to the proven askoll/red dragon line. Both in terms of straight performance, and in terms of reliability" but excluding power draw.

You can't compare pumps and exclude power draw. I also don't understand how you think this thread will give you any insight into the reliability of a pump that has been on the market for a very short time period. All we can do at this point is compare numbers. Power draw is an important number for comparision.

 

[Amoore311]

And we all know how much power each pump is already drawing, without getting into a physics debate. That is my point.

Power draw is obviously a factor in comparison.

I also don't understand how you think this thread will give you any insight into the reliability of a pump that has been on the market for a very short time period.

Maybe not a completely accurate depiction of the pumps' build quality, but reports of early failures would point us in some kind of direction.