I'm going out of my mind!
So I sold my puffer to a fellow RC member today. I showed him what I plannd to do with my 225 SPS build. He was of the "low flow through the sump" mind set. He thought my Barracuda was overpowered for a return pump. He got me thinking about power consumption again.
Tell me what you think of my potential new design:
I'm considering using my Dart for the return. The 1 1/2" outlet would T at the top of the tank into two outputs, these would go over the tank on either side of the overflow, then down and behind the rock. If I T the output off just above the pump onto a manifold like I was planning, and if my calculations are correct, I'll get MAYBE 900 - 1000 gph going through the sump. This is with minimal plumbing up and over the tank, feeding the media reactors (which will run in sequence), calcium reactor, and the chiller (500 gph). Anyone have experience with a Dart? Do you think I'll get sufficient flow behind my rocks after bleeding off so much flow to the chiller and reactors? How many gallons per hour do I need to push through a single 3/4" loc-line flare nozzle to get sufficient velocity? Is 450 enough? I'd planned on 750 - 800 out of each outlet using the Barracuda. It's really hard for me to make any sense of the head loss calculator and reeflo's graphs, but I figure I'm up against 10 feet of head pressure with this design, the top of my tank sits just under 6' tall.
If I had another Dart I'd use it on the closed loop with the OM 4-way 24/7. Instead, I'd be left with the Barracuda. This thing draws around 250 watts. I'm considering running it on the closed loop but for only 8 hours or so durring the day.
What do you guys think? Will running it during the day like that simulate a natural reef? Stronger flow durring the day? Calmer at night? Does anyone know what water movement on a natural reef is ACTUALLY like durring a 24 hour period?
I'd use 1" outlets on all four corners. The drum opens outputs 1 & 2 then 2 & 3 then 3 & 4 then 4 & 1. In theory this would move the water to the left, then cross in the front, then move it to the right, then cross in the back and repeat.
The original plan was to put the OM 4-way on the Barracuda as the return pump. With this set up, all four outlets would be on the top of the tank, along the front, pointing down at the face of the rock. One problem with this is that there might be a shadow from the two pipes feeding the middle outputs in the center. The other is that there'd be quite a bit of water going through the sump, as well as a good amount of energy being used 24/7. The plus, in my mind, is that by pushing more water through the sump, any detritus floating around in the tank would have a better chance of going up and over the overflow and into one of the two socks. Anyone know if this is a valid assumption? Is it just simply wasteful of energy? Is that the main reason people are starting to go "low flow through the sump" or am I missing something else? I designed my sump to handle a lot of flow so I'm not worried about bubbles. I'd really like to get your thoughts on the subject. BTW the flow through my skimmer is pretty low, only 350 gph. The difference in using the Dart over the Barracuda as the return is about 100 watts, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year.
According to Reeflo, at 10' of head pressure, a Dart will push 1,520 gph. A Barracuda at 10' will push 3,018. With the old plumbing design and the OM 4-way attached, the head pressure would have been a bit more, I think around 14', which would give me around 2,200 gph on the Barracuda. By simplifying the plumbing I'm making it way more efficient already. The way the pumps are designed I wasn't getting a whole lot of extra flow for my 100 watts. It seems these pumps drop off significantly at a certain head pressure. It seems as though with the old design I'm near the drop off point of the Barracuda and with the new design I'm near the drop off point of the Dart. Question is how correct am I in my calculations. It may be that the Dart is just right. It might also be that it won't be enough and that I'll need to run a seperate submersable pump to feed my chiller. I would actually rather waste some watts on the Barracuda before I add a submersable pump. I feel I'm defeating the purpose of a chiller by adding a hot running pump to the water. I'd almost rather try to go chillerless. In that case I think the Dart would be just fine. It'd just be nice to know I had the chiller installed "just in case". It gets really hot in my office over the summer weekends.
See why I'm going crazy? I have so many workable options. To find out which is best I need to put it together and run it. Problem with that is if I get it wrong, it won't be easy or cheap to change it after the fact.
Here's some pics of how I have it mocked up so far:
<a href="http://s60.photobucket.com/albums/h39/thechad21_2006/?action=view¤t=FishTankBuild068.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h39/thechad21_2006/FishTankBuild068.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>
None of these pipes are cut to the right length, It's just to get an idea of how it'll all sit. I'll probably move the closed loop pump over to the right a bit more to make it slighlty easier to reach. Which brings me to another worry, how difficult is it going to be to maintain these things? Can I afford to place them towards the middle where I want them or should I move them as far over to the ends as I can to make them more accessable? There's going to be 11" of clearance between the wall and the tank.
<a href="http://s60.photobucket.com/albums/h39/thechad21_2006/?action=view¤t=FishTankBuild069.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h39/thechad21_2006/FishTankBuild069.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>
