Briney Dave
New member
wow, sandstone that is crazy!!
Coral Tank from Canada (1350gal Display Tank)
- Thread starter nineball
- Start date
- Status
Hello Mr. Wilson and everyone....
Thank you for the extremely informative reply....you answered all of my questions and then some that I had held back from asking.. :beer:
I have also noted on some larger tank builds the use of diy manifolds from the return pump to feed items such as calcium reactors, carbon reactors, protein skimmers, etc...I'm curious if your an advocate of incoporating a manifold inta system. I have thought over the topic for my system but it slightly concerns me that I am essentially placing all of my eggs in one basket by relying solely on the return pump. Obviously in a perfect world you would have a exact pump back up on hand in case the problem ever in fact did occur.
It is however a nice idea to potentially have the opportunity to remove likely a half a dozen pumps that are feeding units such as reactors and skimmers though....
On a seperate topic but still in the plumbing realm I am curious your opinion on Peter's current return pump / possible plumbing problem. I really enjoyed you touching on the difference of head pressure pumps vs. flow pumps. It is kind of interesting to note that when I was installing my mag 1200 on my system it actually notes in the directions to have maximum flow you should use 1.5" lines for the return. That being said I don't absolutely recall the diameter of pipe that peter is using for his pumps but could that possible be a bigger factor with the pump problem than just an *undersized pump*. If this was the case then theoretically wouldn't upping the hp of the pump result in not that significant of an increase in gph vs. added electric consumption and perhaps significant unnecessary stress on the pump?
As always thanks in advance to everyone who comments in this thread.....it certainly is nice to see an abnormally high amount of productive communication taking place in a forum type setting.
Patrick
Thank you for the extremely informative reply....you answered all of my questions and then some that I had held back from asking.. :beer:
I have also noted on some larger tank builds the use of diy manifolds from the return pump to feed items such as calcium reactors, carbon reactors, protein skimmers, etc...I'm curious if your an advocate of incoporating a manifold inta system. I have thought over the topic for my system but it slightly concerns me that I am essentially placing all of my eggs in one basket by relying solely on the return pump. Obviously in a perfect world you would have a exact pump back up on hand in case the problem ever in fact did occur.
It is however a nice idea to potentially have the opportunity to remove likely a half a dozen pumps that are feeding units such as reactors and skimmers though....
On a seperate topic but still in the plumbing realm I am curious your opinion on Peter's current return pump / possible plumbing problem. I really enjoyed you touching on the difference of head pressure pumps vs. flow pumps. It is kind of interesting to note that when I was installing my mag 1200 on my system it actually notes in the directions to have maximum flow you should use 1.5" lines for the return. That being said I don't absolutely recall the diameter of pipe that peter is using for his pumps but could that possible be a bigger factor with the pump problem than just an *undersized pump*. If this was the case then theoretically wouldn't upping the hp of the pump result in not that significant of an increase in gph vs. added electric consumption and perhaps significant unnecessary stress on the pump?
As always thanks in advance to everyone who comments in this thread.....it certainly is nice to see an abnormally high amount of productive communication taking place in a forum type setting.
Patrick
nineball
Active member
The only two measurements used in the closed loop system A and system B are 2" and 1.5". As I recall we never go below 1.5".
The open system is a diferent story.........
Peter
mr.wilson
.Registered Member
It's really a case to case issue with plumbing and pumps. There are arguments on both sides of the fence and new products are emerging that influence the decision every day. I have been keeping marine fish since 1979 and this is the first year where I've seen technology make a significant advance. Most of our gear has changed little since the 60's. I remember the excitement in 1979 when powerheads came on the market. They really haven't changed much until the last year with DC options, controllers and larger props. MHL lighting went from 5500K to 20,000K back in the early 90's, but not much has changed in the past 20 years. Protein skimmer ads have flooded aquarium hobby media for the past 20 years, but they haven't improved much since the 1960's air driven units in my opinion. External centrifugal pumps still haven't changed since the 60's and I would say even earlier if you don't look at power consumption and size. The apple cart has been flipped, and the aquarium industry is finally ready for technology. The Macna show will be interesting.
In general I shy away from any form of submersible pump, but the new ones no longer shock you, use markedly less energy, run quieter, vibrate less, don't spin backwards and stop when the power goes out and don't appear to have much heat transfer. Now they actually have ports for attaching plumbing instead of a gerry rigged hose and cable tie combos. The issue of stray current has been resolved with low voltage and DC motors. I've been shocked by powerheads more that two dozen times and have seen at least as many melted powerheads that threw some sparks and charred some sumps on their way out. When it comes to fire hazard, I don't care how cheap they are.
So now... sure, I would use a dedicated powerhead to run individual devices. Trying to daisy chain a protein skimmer, UV, media reactors, and a bypass refugium off of your return pump can become a nightmare. If your water level in the tank rises or your sump level drops the water rethinks its fastest escape route. This wreaks havoc on protein skimmers and fluidized bed media reactors. An all in one pump offers the benefit of having just one cord to plug in instead of an octopus, it saves room in your sump, there is only one (large) intake screen to keep clean, it can be hard piped or at least use heavy duty fittings (instead of a crappy 1/2" hose on a powerhead that will collapse under its own weight), and you can fine tune flow at the turn of a valve... well five of them (@ $25 ea.). There goes your savings.
There are many factors that can sway you in either direction. I still use a single pump and run my devices in sequence. I don't use fluidized bed filters and don't feed the skimmer with the return pump, but I don't have a problem supplying water to the Ca reactor or sealed canister filters (mechanical, chemical, UV). I find it to be much cleaner and reliable. It also gives me more flexibility in return pump selection as most pumps are too strong for my needs. The cost is often negligible when upsizing to the next pump up.
Some filtration devices can be fed with the closed loop pump. Wave makers such as the Oceansmotions line of products offer an ebb and flow (on/off) cycle or directional change that keeps media filters from clogging and acts as a fluidized bed (media floats up under pressure, then sinks and reclassifies/mixes as the pressure drops in a continuing wave cycle). Running a mechanical filter on a closed loop, or return for that matter, only works if you are using a pressure pump. Because there is zero head pressure, many closed loops use volume pumps instead of pressure units. There still is friction loss and poorly designed manifolds and reducers working against the pump.
Using the same model pump for two closed loops has a distinct benefit in that a third back-up pump is easily swapped in/out, as you have stated. I try to make my plumbing as symmetrical as possible so in & outs can be reversed to backwash intake strainers and plumbing, and to lay a solid foundation for future improvements (or at least changes
).I'm giving Peter and the crew some time to iron out their pump issues. The last thing they need now is another cook in the kitchen. I'll wait until they establish where the actual problem lies, then if he has any specific questions I am here as always to be of assistance. He owes me some audio/visual advice in exchange.
tonyf
New member
My apologies for the late response ... gotta catch up on this magnificent thread. There's so much good to absorb; so much better than the marine library collection that I've built up over the years!
Well, much politics happening in this neck of the woods ... our prime minister has been 'deposed' ... requiring preparation of outcomes options and financial re-positioning ahead of the mob.
I lived in Cairns (Tropical North Queensland) for a couple of years ... to my recollection the water temp ranged from 22 to 28C. It was during a period of prolonged drought so there were reports of temperatures over 30C as well. Drought causes clear skies for prolonged periods and so the water is warmer than what usually might be the case. Extended periods of calm conditions exacerbates the warming.
The build is coming along very schweet! Love your work. Did I notice a bronze gate valve in one of the pics? Eish! I don't know where it fits but copper (bronze) doesn't go well with coral -- its probably been swapped out already.
PS ... make sure that there are at least a case or two of Grange Hermitage that goes into the wine cellar ... for old times sake
Cheers,
Tone
swissgaurd
New member
peter is the size of the pipe match the outlet of the pump.
you will loose pressure if upsized
vic
you will loose pressure if upsized
vic
nineball
Active member
No, Vic, the output for the open system is a reduction from the pump size. There was a small leak in one of the joins for the open system that was discovered while testing. Although I was not here to see it, the test flow strength for the open returns was excellent, apparently.
Peter
nineball
Active member
My apologies for the late response ... gotta catch up on this magnificent thread. There's so much good to absorb; so much better than the marine library collection that I've built up over the years!
Well, much politics happening in this neck of the woods ... our prime minister has been 'deposed' ... requiring preparation of outcomes options and financial re-positioning ahead of the mob.
I lived in Cairns (Tropical North Queensland) for a couple of years ... to my recollection the water temp ranged from 22 to 28C. It was during a period of prolonged drought so there were reports of temperatures over 30C as well. Drought causes clear skies for prolonged periods and so the water is warmer than what usually might be the case. Extended periods of calm conditions exacerbates the warming.
The build is coming along very schweet! Love your work. Did I notice a bronze gate valve in one of the pics? Eish! I don't know where it fits but copper (bronze) doesn't go well with coral -- its probably been swapped out already.
PS ... make sure that there are at least a case or two of Grange Hermitage that goes into the wine cellar ... for old times sake
Cheers,
Tone
Thanks Tone.......hope the political environment doesn't suffer too much from global warming. There's nothing worse than politicians and too much hot air, but that is another thread. :smokin:
After the considerable dialog and research papers (some excellent reading by the way) I have come at the subject somewhat through the back door I think. As was suggested at one point in the discussion, the general trend in this hobby is to end up somehow referring to our accomplishment in reef keeping with the phrase............."just like the real world, just like in nature".
"The truth is that nature doesn't always get it right". (credit to Mr Wilson)
Cyclones stir things up, monsoons cool things down, extended rain drops salinity, tsunami's rearrange everything, lightning strikes a reef every minute of every day somewhere in the world and all this has been happening fairly frequently in geologic terms. And yet the coral reefs today are the greatest source of new species on the planet. The simple truth is that chaos is mandatory for that kind of propagation rate. I believe that the reefs in one form or another are hugely adaptable to change. In fact, I'm becoming more convinced when I stand back far enough that the very conflict that must be present to produce the changing odds for new species creation is in no small measure responsible for the very vitality we seek. Before the obvious let me state that soaking the reef in crude oil is not what I am talking about. Nor am I suggesting that we approach the health of reefs with total disregard for our human utter stupidity on many environmental issues.
Also, in our quest to seek a presentation " just like in nature" we fail to realize all those neat species variety we cram into this small artificial column of sea water doesn't exist in nature at least in this kind of arrangement or proximity. The same thing can be said for many of our gardens at home. We reach out for an ideal and work hard as heck to make our creations pleasing or in many cases colourful with an attribute of remaining maintenance free as much as possible. But, this fabulous composition does not occur naturally in the real world.
My conclusion on the temperature debate is that before we can agree on an ideal target temperature or range of temperatures we have to look long and hard at what we are really trying to accomplish. We are creating an artificial reef that by in large is capable of sustaining life while avoiding the obvious extremes that mother nature provides randomly on a daily basis. I'm afraid that if you want to see the real thing in nature then its off to the Great Barrier Reef with you, but you won't find Chingchai's environment replicated in nature. Pieces of it yes but not as it sits in his tank. Personally, I want, in my home, Chingchai's world, or something like it because I just don't have the resources to replicate 'real life in the great barrier reef' no matter how many Bentleys I forgo.
In some ways I believe what we are attempting is very much like the impressionists in the art world. We take an impression of real world experience, as wide a collection of feelings as we can and scope that into our tanks.
There are folks out there who do an amazing job of getting the reality and the ideal almost perfect. There is a thread in this forum where a very bright and capable marine biologist is building an east coast cool environment as close as he can to the real thing. Essentially it looks like a pile of slate with a preponderance of marine life that looks like an appetizer for a Steven King nightmare. And yet he has absolutely captured life as it appears in the wild off New Brunswick. It is cold (temp) and sparse but absolutely a reflection of a great deal of underwater scenery off the north east coast. That cold water biotope that exists in this example is the result of a careful assessment as to a desire for for an end result of continuity and consistency to the real thing for research purposes. Not necessarily my cup of seawater but that's the diverse range of opportunities that open up this hobby to so many enthusiasts.
Temperatures, the point of this soliloquy, are arrived at after our goals have been set. Once we have agreed on the contents of our marine world then we can begin to look at the range of tolerances assembled together, rule out the extremes and choose a target which may well be a compromise based on the diversity of marine life chosen. Blend in to all that, the technology available to us and we might even be capable of tweaking the occasional cycles that are endemic to the life as well.
I have to pause to deal with household realities for a bit............
Good to see you pop up Tone.
Peter
Peter and group,
I note one of the biggest comments on the whole temperature debate has a direct link with oxygen availability rates in the aquarium. Just out of curiousity (I admit I didn't read the numerous articles provided) Mr. Wilson commented that the oxygen levels did not drastically change from a temperature level of 78 to 84 but I'm curious if there are any hobbyists reading this forum that have a dissolved oxygen probe that could provide us with some evidence that either agrees or dissagrees with his comments.
I would have to assume with the elaborate filtration capabilities of Peter's setup ie. large protein skimmer, refugium, intense flow and sheer volume of water that he would be able to maintain his temperature at 84 with no problems as noting that there would be little to no fear of his temp increasing past that level because of the multiple chillers running.
Talking about this topic also makes me think of the photos I have seen in Delbeek and Sprungs The Reef Aquarium Vol. 3 where at the Waikiki aquarium they have multiple outdoor reef exhibits. I am not sure if they utilize chillers on these exhibits but one would assume that these large systems would heat up significantly in the summer time in Hawaii.
Just thought I would throw in my two cents after reading Peter's interesting "soliloquy".
Patrick
I note one of the biggest comments on the whole temperature debate has a direct link with oxygen availability rates in the aquarium. Just out of curiousity (I admit I didn't read the numerous articles provided) Mr. Wilson commented that the oxygen levels did not drastically change from a temperature level of 78 to 84 but I'm curious if there are any hobbyists reading this forum that have a dissolved oxygen probe that could provide us with some evidence that either agrees or dissagrees with his comments.
I would have to assume with the elaborate filtration capabilities of Peter's setup ie. large protein skimmer, refugium, intense flow and sheer volume of water that he would be able to maintain his temperature at 84 with no problems as noting that there would be little to no fear of his temp increasing past that level because of the multiple chillers running.
Talking about this topic also makes me think of the photos I have seen in Delbeek and Sprungs The Reef Aquarium Vol. 3 where at the Waikiki aquarium they have multiple outdoor reef exhibits. I am not sure if they utilize chillers on these exhibits but one would assume that these large systems would heat up significantly in the summer time in Hawaii.
Just thought I would throw in my two cents after reading Peter's interesting "soliloquy".
Patrick
nineball
Active member
Patrick, I think the key qualifier in Mr Wilsons assessment of oxygen levels was significant changes. As you have so rightly pointed out there are a number of elements to consider when bringing technology into the discussion. Not only the range of technology but size and type or duration of deployment. So if someone can give us the temp and Ox levels we also need a template of sorts to benchmark an apples to apples kind of comparison. What equipment and how big and how long. I suspect with some help I will try and provide some of this kind of ongoing feedback in my environment as an ongoing benefit to you guys (and any lurking gals) for hanging around.
The point of my earlier musing before I was rudely interrupted with the litany of household chores, was to try and find enough ground or reasonable expectation to establish a basic principle for those in our hobby wanting some structure to follow. The temperature discussion should resolve to something like............(first cut is very high level);
If you are planning to maintain a tropical salt water coral reef the ideal target temperature would be 80 deg F with a range lower limit of 78 deg and an upper limit of 82.
I don't think that principle for a newcomer to this hobby will get them into any trouble based on everything I have read in various corners of Reef Central.
The type of environment (Hard/Soft/shallow/deep) might take you further from the range noted above but your experience, technology and objectives should be sufficiently understood before you migrate to even moderate deviations from the 78-82 recommended range. 76 degrees F may well be a healthy target for SPS in a large tank but you need a great deal of experience, technology and discipline to minimize the risks associated with the proximity to the extreme. In other words, there is not a lot of forgiveness for mistakes in this range.
Consider this principle sage advice for newbies and a not so bad reminder for the rest of us.
Then again I'm sure someone in this family will want to amend that principle and I give anyone license to try and improve it.
Remember there are two goals here. I would like to establish some principles through this build that I can nail to the fish room door that will not create a debate. This is the kind of stuff we should all be getting consistently from our local LFS staff. The second goal is to try and make sure that the principle has enough simple strength and integrity to build upon.
So if the first principle for target temperature is strong enough, the next discussion should center on detailed rational for heading north or south of that target range. We just have to remember that 'North" is not the same for everyone in this community........Right Tone?
Peter
nineball
Active member
It's really a case to case issue with plumbing and pumps. There are arguments on both sides of the fence and new products are emerging that influence the decision every day. I have been keeping marine fish since 1979 and this is the first year where I've seen technology make a significant advance. Most of our gear has changed little since the 60's. I remember the excitement in 1979 when powerheads came on the market. They really haven't changed much until the last year with DC options, controllers and larger props. MHL lighting went from 5500K to 20,000K back in the early 90's, but not much has changed in the past 20 years. Protein skimmer ads have flooded aquarium hobby media for the past 20 years, but they haven't improved much since the 1960's air driven units in my opinion. External centrifugal pumps still haven't changed since the 60's and I would say even earlier if you don't look at power consumption and size. The apple cart has been flipped, and the aquarium industry is finally ready for technology. The Macna show will be interesting.
In general I shy away from any form of submersible pump, but the new ones no longer shock you, use markedly less energy, run quieter, vibrate less, don't spin backwards and stop when the power goes out and don't appear to have much heat transfer. Now they actually have ports for attaching plumbing instead of a gerry rigged hose and cable tie combos. The issue of stray current has been resolved with low voltage and DC motors. I've been shocked by powerheads more that two dozen times and have seen at least as many melted powerheads that threw some sparks and charred some sumps on their way out. When it comes to fire hazard, I don't care how cheap they are.
So now... sure, I would use a dedicated powerhead to run individual devices. Trying to daisy chain a protein skimmer, UV, media reactors, and a bypass refugium off of your return pump can become a nightmare. If your water level in the tank rises or your sump level drops the water rethinks its fastest escape route. This wreaks havoc on protein skimmers and fluidized bed media reactors. An all in one pump offers the benefit of having just one cord to plug in instead of an octopus, it saves room in your sump, there is only one (large) intake screen to keep clean, it can be hard piped or at least use heavy duty fittings (instead of a crappy 1/2" hose on a powerhead that will collapse under its own weight), and you can fine tune flow at the turn of a valve... well five of them (@ $25 ea.). There goes your savings.
There are many factors that can sway you in either direction. I still use a single pump and run my devices in sequence. I don't use fluidized bed filters and don't feed the skimmer with the return pump, but I don't have a problem supplying water to the Ca reactor or sealed canister filters (mechanical, chemical, UV). I find it to be much cleaner and reliable. It also gives me more flexibility in return pump selection as most pumps are too strong for my needs. The cost is often negligible when upsizing to the next pump up.
Some filtration devices can be fed with the closed loop pump. Wave makers such as the Oceansmotions line of products offer an ebb and flow (on/off) cycle or directional change that keeps media filters from clogging and acts as a fluidized bed (media floats up under pressure, then sinks and reclassifies/mixes as the pressure drops in a continuing wave cycle). Running a mechanical filter on a closed loop, or return for that matter, only works if you are using a pressure pump. Because there is zero head pressure, many closed loops use volume pumps instead of pressure units. There still is friction loss and poorly designed manifolds and reducers working against the pump.
Using the same model pump for two closed loops has a distinct benefit in that a third back-up pump is easily swapped in/out, as you have stated. I try to make my plumbing as symmetrical as possible so in & outs can be reversed to backwash intake strainers and plumbing, and to lay a solid foundation for future improvements (or at least changes
I'm giving Peter and the crew some time to iron out their pump issues. The last thing they need now is another cook in the kitchen. I'll wait until they establish where the actual problem lies, then if he has any specific questions I am here as always to be of assistance. He owes me some audio/visual advice in exchange.
Help me through this Mr. Wilson and I will put Steven Spielberg on your 14 ft curved acoustically perforated screen...............
Peter
mr.wilson
.Registered Member
I have a Pinpoint DO (dissolved oxygen) meter, but I need to buy a new membrane cap for it.
There's a handy chart on this site that illustrates the relation of salinity and temperature to dissolved oxygen potential. http://www.algone.com/index.php?opt...e-aquarium&catid=38:technical-stuff&Itemid=58
That's the easy part. The hard part is establishing the significance of those numbers.
There's a handy chart on this site that illustrates the relation of salinity and temperature to dissolved oxygen potential. http://www.algone.com/index.php?opt...e-aquarium&catid=38:technical-stuff&Itemid=58
That's the easy part. The hard part is establishing the significance of those numbers.
nineball
Active member
That's hitting the nail on the head or should I say number, but which number...... good point Mr. Wilson.
here is a simple question that any high school student could answer but I can't. Given the large vats to hold my live rock in sea water at 1.025 and the rate of modest evaporation I am trying to determine how much is the salt content is affected with normal evaporation? I don't think the answer is 0 but i could be wrong.........and this sure as heck is the place to ask dumb questions and be wrong!!!
Anyone?
Peter
Evaporation is mostly influenced by the surface area of the water exposed to air, ambient temperature and humidity. Greater surface area and temperature will increase evaporation. Greater humidity will lower evaporation.
Fans increase evaporation by exchanging higher humidity air with that of lower humidity. Trying to determine your exact evaporation can be a complex task due to other variables such as partial pressure of gasses, etc.
Covering your holding tanks will greatly reduce evaporation but will not allow gas exchange, such as not allowing C02 to be released and hence accumulate, which will lower your ph.
I would guess your total evaporation for your system will be in the 10-15 gallons per day range. You can run a slow RO/DI freshwater drip to adjust for this and keep an eye on your salinity, then adjust the drip up or down as needed to maintain your salinity set point.
Fans increase evaporation by exchanging higher humidity air with that of lower humidity. Trying to determine your exact evaporation can be a complex task due to other variables such as partial pressure of gasses, etc.
Covering your holding tanks will greatly reduce evaporation but will not allow gas exchange, such as not allowing C02 to be released and hence accumulate, which will lower your ph.
I would guess your total evaporation for your system will be in the 10-15 gallons per day range. You can run a slow RO/DI freshwater drip to adjust for this and keep an eye on your salinity, then adjust the drip up or down as needed to maintain your salinity set point.
nineball
Active member
Thank you Dave this is what I hoped I would hear. So I can top off the tanks with ro/di and not harm my rocks then.
Peter.
dave.m
Active member
Yup. But you need to measure the salinity. To get a rough estimate (it's just live rock, after all) you can measure specific gravity, which is basically a measure of how thick the water is. Mix in your RO/DI water a bit at a time and keep re-measuring the specific gravity. It should normally be about 1.23 to 1.25.nineball said:
When you move on to your aquarium things will get trickier. You can't just bash in fresh water all at once as you'll shock your fish and sensitive (and real expensive) inverts. You will have to monitor your tank closely for a while to get an idea of what your hourly and daily and weekly evaporation rates are like. Then set up a drip or a dosing pump system to keep the supply of fresh RO/DI water steady and even to minimize fluctuations in salinity.
Some people take advantage of this fresh water dosing regimen to also keep up the supply of calcium and other nutrients that are constantly being used up by your pets or taken out of solution by your filtration system. More about this stuff when you're ready for it.
For now, keep an eye on your rocks and get used to dosing fresh water on a regular basis. It's good training.
Dave.M
khaosinc
The cyborg reefer
Its actually fairly easy to figure out if you know the volume of the tanks. Once you have the salinity where you want it, draw a line at water level and come back in a day or two and see how much it has dropped. Figure the surface area of the tank in sq. inches, and multiple that by the amount the water line dropped. This gives you the volumn in cubic inches. Divide that by 231 and it will give you gallons. Take that volume and divide it by the total volumn and that will give you the amount of change in salinity. There is some volumn loss to the live rock of course, it all depends on how exact you feel you need to be.
For simple math, say you have 500 gallons, and lose 5 gallons to evaporation, your salinty would go up by 1% or from 1.025 to 1.02525 if I did my math right.
I'm sure there is a simple formula for metric as well, but I don't know it off the top of my head. The nice thing about large systems is even a 30-40 gallon loss doesn't effect much in terms of stability in my opinion. Admittedly I run a more lackadaisical system than most people with large systems, but I simply drew a line on my sump and run my ro/di straight in to it and simply top off by sight, checking salinity occationaly.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
