Coral Tank from Canada (1350gal Display Tank)

[nineball]

Peter, I just wanted to chime in and tell you what an amazing job you're doing with this tank. Your open and accepting attitude about everyone's opinion is great and I think all this experience will really help you build the best tank possible.
Keep up the good work!!

Thanks Mark, my hope is that I can reconcile all this advice and deliver a system that works and not offend anyone in the process. The result will be a product of input from this community and hopefully everyone will feel strong ownership for their tank!!!!

Thanks for your kind words.

Peter

 

[LethargicCoder]

Lost in it all, yes it is and if it is inadequate then we will consider another, sized to the need. Very good observation by the way. We are not sure what a 400 gal water change will mean every two weeks on the performance of any of the supplementary systems but we sure are willing to learn. Plus the capable experience of you folks will help enormously.

Peter

Peter,

Thanks for the thread! Feels like I stepped into another community developed, open source project. Unfortunately I'm going to have to work on the weekend now as I didn't get any work done after stumbling on this thread today. Threads like these keep my dreams alive and confirm they're not just fantasy.

When I read the your post mentioning a 400 gal water change and its effects, I instantly thought of this article (old one) that I just recently read
http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2005-10/rhf/index.php.

I plan on implementing a continuous water change on the new tank I'm setting up and I think yours is an ideal candidate for it as well.

Instead of 400 gallons at once that would lower the water in your tank 10" or so and have a dramatic change, you could change 30 gallons a day or 1.25 an hour or however you wish to break it down. No change in you water levels and minimal change for you reactors to deal with.

-Eric

 

[cloakerpoked]

Peter,

Thanks for the thread! Feels like I stepped into another community developed, open source project. Unfortunately I'm going to have to work on the weekend now as I didn't get any work done after stumbling on this thread today. Threads like these keep my dreams alive and confirm they're not just fantasy.

When I read the your post mentioning a 400 gal water change and its effects, I instantly thought of this article (old one) that I just recently read
http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2005-10/rhf/index.php.

I plan on implementing a continuous water change on the new tank I'm setting up and I think yours is an ideal candidate for it as well.

Instead of 400 gallons at once that would lower the water in your tank 10" or so and have a dramatic change, you could change 30 gallons a day or 1.25 an hour or however you wish to break it down. No change in you water levels and minimal change for you reactors to deal with.

-Eric

Continuous water changes are a really great idea in principle, but from a failsafe perspective, I feel like they are a disaster waiting to happen, and at least in my opinion, that negates the benefits you'd gain from one. For example, what if your tank dumped 100 gallons of saltwater down the drain, and then the pump in the saltwater resevoir fails off. Now the sump runs low, putting pumps at risk of starting to suck in air, or worse run dry. Or even worse than that, the top off water fills the void, lowering the salinity to deadly levels. Just like aggressive wet-skimming, there are inherent risks you assume over and above normal risks associated with these things (and there are a lot) when you start exporting saltwater remotely from your system and trusting something to remotely put it back in. Seems to me that with the right resevoirs set up and plumbing already in place, a 50 gallon water change once a week should be just opening a gate valve on the resevoir and also one to dump the water into the drain.

 

[Aquarist007]

Continuous water changes are a really great idea in principle, but from a failsafe perspective, I feel like they are a disaster waiting to happen, and at least in my opinion, that negates the benefits you'd gain from one. For example, what if your tank dumped 100 gallons of saltwater down the drain, and then the pump in the saltwater resevoir fails off. Now the sump runs low, putting pumps at risk of starting to suck in air, or worse run dry. Or even worse than that, the top off water fills the void, lowering the salinity to deadly levels. Just like aggressive wet-skimming, there are inherent risks you assume over and above normal risks associated with these things (and there are a lot) when you start exporting saltwater remotely from your system and trusting something to remotely put it back in. Seems to me that with the right resevoirs set up and plumbing already in place, a 50 gallon water change once a week should be just opening a gate valve on the resevoir and also one to dump the water into the drain.

I'll be glad to come and do the water changes

 

[Moser]

Thanks Mo, I am getting better information at my end which should be helpful. I will be taking some more pics this weekend and hopefully have a plan emerge that gets a general agreement from the peanut gallery. These pumps are a very compelling solution I think combined with a much better plan than was initially apparant at the outset.

Peter

Good luck with it, Peter. I am sure it will be a stunner, whichever method you choose.

Mo

 

[Moser]

multiple post...

Mo

 

[swissgaurd]

Continuous water changes are a really great idea in principle, but from a failsafe perspective, I feel like they are a disaster waiting to happen, and at least in my opinion, that negates the benefits you'd gain from one. For example, what if your tank dumped 100 gallons of saltwater down the drain, and then the pump in the saltwater resevoir fails off. Now the sump runs low, putting pumps at risk of starting to suck in air, or worse run dry. Or even worse than that, the top off water fills the void, lowering the salinity to deadly levels. Just like aggressive wet-skimming, there are inherent risks you assume over and above normal risks associated with these things (and there are a lot) when you start exporting saltwater remotely from your system and trusting something to remotely put it back in. Seems to me that with the right resevoirs set up and plumbing already in place, a 50 gallon water change once a week should be just opening a gate valve on the resevoir and also one to dump the water into the drain.

i agree a 50 gallon is better than a 400gallon water change,its also less stressfull for the animals

vic

 

[nineball]

Peter,

Thanks for the thread! Feels like I stepped into another community developed, open source project. Unfortunately I'm going to have to work on the weekend now as I didn't get any work done after stumbling on this thread today. Threads like these keep my dreams alive and confirm they're not just fantasy.

When I read the your post mentioning a 400 gal water change and its effects, I instantly thought of this article (old one) that I just recently read
http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2005-10/rhf/index.php.

I plan on implementing a continuous water change on the new tank I'm setting up and I think yours is an ideal candidate for it as well.

Instead of 400 gallons at once that would lower the water in your tank 10" or so and have a dramatic change, you could change 30 gallons a day or 1.25 an hour or however you wish to break it down. No change in you water levels and minimal change for you reactors to deal with.

-Eric

Continuous water changes are a really great idea in principle, but from a failsafe perspective, I feel like they are a disaster waiting to happen, and at least in my opinion, that negates the benefits you'd gain from one. For example, what if your tank dumped 100 gallons of saltwater down the drain, and then the pump in the saltwater resevoir fails off. Now the sump runs low, putting pumps at risk of starting to suck in air, or worse run dry. Or even worse than that, the top off water fills the void, lowering the salinity to deadly levels. Just like aggressive wet-skimming, there are inherent risks you assume over and above normal risks associated with these things (and there are a lot) when you start exporting saltwater remotely from your system and trusting something to remotely put it back in. Seems to me that with the right resevoirs set up and plumbing already in place, a 50 gallon water change once a week should be just opening a gate valve on the resevoir and also one to dump the water into the drain.

i agree a 50 gallon is better than a 400gallon water change,its also less stressfull for the animals

vic

I read the link and the subsequent embedded link and I am truly confused.....I think its time to put this one to Chingchai who has a similar volume of water as I cannot argue with the quality of his managed result. I will also have a similar composition of filtration in the configuration of my fish room. I know he visits this corner of the forum from time to time but I will put the question to him in his thread as well.

Chingchai, what is the cycle for your water changes? I can produce 200 gal a day of ro/di. I can store and mix 440 gal SW in the fish room. I will have 25 gal ro/di in a raised tank for top off with a Y to supply both the main display and the Mars systems.

Peter

 

[chingchai]

I read the link and the subsequent embedded link and I am truly confused.....I think its time to put this one to Chingchai who has a similar volume of water as I cannot argue with the quality of his managed result. I will also have a similar composition of filtration in the configuration of my fish room. I know he visits this corner of the forum from time to time but I will put the question to him in his thread as well.

Chingchai, what is the cycle for your water changes? I can produce 200 gal a day of ro/di. I can store and mix 440 gal SW in the fish room. I will have 25 gal ro/di in a raised tank for top off with a Y to supply both the main display and the Mars systems.

Peter

Hi Peter,

IMHO, just do 15% water change weekly. That's it
Look forward to seeing your tank progress.

All the very best,
Ching

 

[JohnDQI]

I have a question about the bio-balls. I have read that they trap a lot of nitrates and this can have negative consequences on the water. Isn't it a good thing if they trap the nitrates? The bad thing is if you don't clean the bio-balls and they get too clogged up? They sound like a furnace filter to me...a great device but detrimental to your furnace/air quality if you don't clean/replace it regularly.

Thanks, John

 

[JohnDQI]

Duplicate

 

[nineball]

Hi Peter,

IMHO, just do 15% water change weekly. That's it
Look forward to seeing your tank progress.

All the very best,
Ching

Thank you my friend......please ignore the question in your thread. I forgot that Thai people NEVER sleep!!!!!!

It must be the wine:hammer::lolspin:

Peter

 

[cloakerpoked]

I have a question about the bio-balls. I have read that they trap a lot of nitrates and this can have negative consequences on the water. Isn't it a good thing if they trap the nitrates? The bad thing is if you don't clean the bio-balls and they get too clogged up? They sound like a furnace filter to me...a great device but detrimental to your furnace/air quality if you don't clean/replace it regularly.

Thanks, John

When we call them nitrate traps, what we really mean is nitrate factories. Nitrates are produced when organic matter is decomposed, first into ammonia, then into nitrite, and finally into nitrate. While nitrate is the least toxic of those compounds, none of them are good to have in the water. All of this work is done by bacteria. The concept behind bio-balls is to have a lot of aerobic bacteria, since they are the ones that most effectively convert ammonia into nitrite, and nitrite into nitrate. So far, so good. The problem is, with the rise of protein skimmers and the Berlin method of filtration, we use live rock to host the bacteria, but also use protein skimmers to remove suspended detrius in the water column before anything is converted into anything. If you have "dead zones" either because there is no flow in that region of the tank, or because you have bio-balls or whatever, they will trap larger detrius, where it is free to decompose, which inevitably produces nitrate. If you cleaned the bioballs religiously (i.e. weekly) then you shouldn't have a problem, but it would also probably prohibit the bacteria from growing on them, negating any benefit as well.

 

[GQJake81]

agree with cloakerpoked.

 

[nineball]

When we call them nitrate traps, what we really mean is nitrate factories. Nitrates are produced when organic matter is decomposed, first into ammonia, then into nitrite, and finally into nitrate. While nitrate is the least toxic of those compounds, none of them are good to have in the water. All of this work is done by bacteria. The concept behind bio-balls is to have a lot of aerobic bacteria, since they are the ones that most effectively convert ammonia into nitrite, and nitrite into nitrate. So far, so good. The problem is, with the rise of protein skimmers and the Berlin method of filtration, we use live rock to host the bacteria, but also use protein skimmers to remove suspended detrius in the water column before anything is converted into anything. If you have "dead zones" either because there is no flow in that region of the tank, or because you have bio-balls or whatever, they will trap larger detrius, where it is free to decompose, which inevitably produces nitrate. If you cleaned the bioballs religiously (i.e. weekly) then you shouldn't have a problem, but it would also probably prohibit the bacteria from growing on them, negating any benefit as well.

Terrific explanation cloakerpoked, clear, concise and extremely helpful.......

Peter

 

[nineball]

A set of dumb questions.........

A set of dumb questions.........

In an effort to set standards by way of example I want to ask some really dumb questions to encourage anyone out there to not feel inhibited to enquire about anything related to this hobby or this project using my silly questions as the watermark(pun intended).

My 2200 lbs live rock has been delayed again and is now expected next Friday.

If it arrives Friday night at the airport. Is it ok to wait and pick it up early Sat morning without any serious degredation??

I have two vats with one 400 gal mixed with new salt water we mixed up( is there a recommended SG???). the second is right beside it where it is easy to take the displaced water from the first tank as we fill it with live rock. both storage tanks have heat, pumps and small skimmers. I expect to have the rock sitting for about three weeks before we bring it to the display tank. The majority of the rock is a dense premium Jakarta branch rock and about 500 lbs of fiji premium mixed formation. Do I have enough water prepared? I have absolutely no idea of the displacement?????? I know this is probably a dumb question but I figured we might have a high school physics teacher who might have enough patience to answer this one.

My fish guy wants to do the initial water test and flush of the system with tap water and then use RO/DI to fill the tank and then add salt. Is there a reason NOT to do this?????? Hopefully there is a simple answer for this one that does not stimulate debate.

more later..... I'm off to lunch.

Peter

 

[Rybren]

My fish guy wants to do the initial water test and flush of the system with tap water and then use RO/DI to fill the tank and then add salt

This is pretty much a standard procedure for most people. If leaks are detected, you're not wasting RO or salt water.

 

[Lytehouse]

Peter,

Your rock will come in degrading as it is in shipment. There will ultimately be some death during shipment, unpacking etc... This is a great time to inspect the rock -- as you unpack and place it in your vats. 3 weeks is plenty of time (with proper sw, heat and light) to replenish life and prep it for your tank. If you have any concerns about the amount of death, seed the rock with a life from a lfs or local reefers tank.

As far as how your system is flushed and started-- I've seen it done both ways with no ill effects. Flushing it with tap water is a great way to test for leaks without wasting all that $$$$ on ro/di or salt.

Hope lunch was great

Have enjoyed your thread

 

[dogstar74]

The only worry about delay is that it's another night on the tarmac, won't the rock freeze quite a bit? The freezing would kill much more than the time out of water.

Just a thought,
Aaron

 

[dogstar74]

How about putting one of these inline with the CL before it reaches any pumps, or OM flow directors?

It seems like since it's made for a pool, that it would not restrict flow too much, and when it does, it just means that it's time to replace the cartridge. The cartriges would catch any large grain sand, detritus, hair, dead fish etc. That get caught in the system. And it's not like if the filter gets completely clogged it will overflow the system, It's a closed loop so all it would do is overwork the pump. You could have the pump on a Kill-a-watt meter to tell if it's creeping up, then when it get to drawing too many amps, it's clogged and it's time to change the filter. You could probably put some kind of addition or meter into your controller (Profilux maybe?).

Oh well, seems like a decent idea to protect your CL system. Expensive at first, but would protect your OM and Pumps.

Cheers,
Aaron

Here's the brochure:
http://poolsuppliessuperstore.com/pdfs/1986brochure.pdf