DIY sump need help =)

[chunkyzz]

So!
I'm working on an upgrade for my tank,
a sump with a refuge

and my biggest question is to do a little Review about how you guys are running it
option 1
section #1
Drain
Section #2
Refuge
section #3
Skimmer+return pump and other pumps for chiller reactor etc

Option 2
Section #1
Drain+Skimmer
Section #2
Refuge
Section #3
Return pump+other pumps and etc

Option 3
Section #1
Drain+skimmer
Section #2
Pumps+return pump divide by pipe to the tank and to the refuge
section #3
Refuge(Slow Flow from return pump and back to Section #2 for the return pump


i don't like option #3 but would like to hear from the ones that use that option

thanks a lot

Gal

 

[Pife]

Option 2 sounds best to me.

 

[saltwaterexotic]

from what I was told drain/skimmer than return than refug use return and t off with valve to refug

 

[uncleof6]

So!
I'm working on an upgrade for my tank,
a sump with a refuge

and my biggest question is to do a little Review about how you guys are running it
option 1
section #1
Drain
Section #2
Refuge
section #3
Skimmer+return pump and other pumps for chiller reactor etc

Option 2
Section #1
Drain+Skimmer
Section #2
Refuge
Section #3
Return pump+other pumps and etc

Option 3
Section #1
Drain+skimmer
Section #2
Pumps+return pump divide by pipe to the tank and to the refuge
section #3
Refuge(Slow Flow from return pump and back to Section #2 for the return pump


i don't like option #3 but would like to hear from the ones that use that option

thanks a lot

Gal

Option 1: Very few if any, put the skimmer in the return section, it belongs in the first (drain section) of the sump, so it is first in the schema.

Avantages: 'fuge' gets full system flow, to none. Disadvantages: Drain section is a useless section, 'Fuge' turns into a garbage dump, and a nutrient sink.

Option 2: Very common schema. Arguably the most 'popular.'

Advantages: 'fuge' gets full system flow, skimmer is first in the processing schema, 'fuge' becomes less of a garbage dump. Disadvantages: 'fuge' turns into a nutrient sink, cannot be isolated from the system without shutting the system down.

Option 3: Not as common as option 2, but gaining momentum.

Advantages: More 'fuge' volume (higher last baffle,) can be isolated from the system without interrupting the main system flow.

Disadvantages: Lower flow through the 'fuge,' for which there is no processing rational, that reduces the 'fuge' efficiency (what little there really is.) 'Fuge' turns into a nutrient sink.

In analyzing this, it becomes clear that the in-sump 'fuge' is the ambiguous componet of the schema, which raises the question of their true value.

The current trend is moving toward the middle return section, providing for more flexibility in the system. However, the 'low flow' through the 'fuge' is appropriate for a single pass system, not a 'multiple pass' system such as an aquarium. The way to keep it from becoming a nutrient sink/nitrate factory is to not put rock and sand in it, keeping only some macro.

Another segment is moving away from the in-sump 'fuge' to the much less ambiguous remote DSB (bucket DSB,) for which the method is far better defined, based on biology rather than common practice, and is more effective than an in-sump 'fuge.'

 

[RocketEngineer]

Option one isn't a good idea because the water level in the return pump section varies as the water evaporates from the system. This varying water level isn't good for most skimmers, they prefer a constant water level.

Option 2 is fairly common but the down side is all the water flowing through the sump goes through the refugium. While not the end of the world, it can be problematic if your are running a high flow setup.

I have used option 3 in my last two sumps because it allows me to adjust the flow into the refugium. I have a large enough return pump so this isn't a problem plus feed my GFO reactor from the same manifold as the refugium.

What don't you like about option 3?

 

[Salmo salar]

I run option 3 but instead of using a pump to get it there I put in a pvc Y and piped it from the underside of my drain line then I have a valve to adjust flow.

 

[uncleof6]

I run option 3 but instead of using a pump to get it there I put in a pvc Y and piped it from the underside of my drain line then I have a valve to adjust flow.

Due to the physics involved with drain systems, and the "garbage dump" effect that feeding a fuge from a drain line causes, this is not a good practice at all. Add to that, the general safe advice which is to never put a valve or otherwise restrict a single drain line. This is a flood waiting to happen.

 

[hijinks]

I run option 3 but instead of using a pump to get it there I put in a pvc Y and piped it from the underside of my drain line then I have a valve to adjust flow.

It's better to feed the fug via your return pump and not drain

 

[Justin_S]

DIY sump need help =)

If you can't decide check out the aqueon proflex series sumps. You could build your own similar, I'll get to that shortly. The flexes are adjustable for purpose of deciding between 1, 2, and three. And there's plenty of YouTube videos out there showing how it works. I built my own for functional reasons I admire about that design. I ultimately didn't buy the proflex because I hate it when I don't like something but can't change it, what if I got a skimmer that didn't fit exactly? How could I change it? Well mine allows me to do so much more in terms of flexibility: everything about my design can be removed, moved, adjusted, modified, or replaced! I can even run up to 3 drains into it and change the platform's orientation in section 1 accordingly. You'd be able to make the second and third smaller / larger as needed should the time ever come that you decide to do so, you could even adjust the water levels each section quickly. Yes.. I spent a long time on the drawing board & building mine, but it's been worth it! If you want more info / specs let me know. Someday in coming week I'm going to post a video on YouTube about how mine works.
Here's a photo of my current layout setup for components to go in the middle:

 

[_shorty_]

Option one isn't a good idea because the water level in the return pump section varies as the water evaporates from the system. This varying water level isn't good for most skimmers, they prefer a constant water level.

Option 2 is fairly common but the down side is all the water flowing through the sump goes through the refugium. While not the end of the world, it can be problematic if your are running a high flow setup.

I have used option 3 in my last two sumps because it allows me to adjust the flow into the refugium. I have a large enough return pump so this isn't a problem plus feed my GFO reactor from the same manifold as the refugium.

What don't you like about option 3?

I'm also planning my design - can you elaborate on issues that arrise with high flow rates through the refugium with an option like #2?

 

[Ontheway]

Well, I put the sump design to the end of list to make a better plan of things related to it. There are very good information presented here, but I thing none works for me. I have a POV DC-2 skimmer which requires about 6-6.5" water level, now combine this with a pump that moves 10k liters of water, makes 2500gph I guess, 6" water that barely covers the headpump and it will probably very easily take the water line below the safe level for itself. Any opinions? Want to build a sump in 20x25" total-area if possible, to rezerve an equal area also for RO water-Ato thing. Apparently, sump design come out more complicated then I thought...

 

[uncleof6]

Option 2 is fairly common but the down side is all the water flowing through the sump goes through the refugium. While not the end of the world, it can be problematic if your are running a high flow setup.

Yes, why would that be?

 

[uncleof6]

Well, I put the sump design to the end of list to make a better plan of things related to it. There are very good information presented here, but I thing none works for me. I have a POV DC-2 skimmer which requires about 6-6.5" water level, now combine this with a pump that moves 10k liters of water, makes 2500gph I guess, 6" water that barely covers the headpump and it will probably very easily take the water line below the safe level for itself. Any opinions? Want to build a sump in 20x25" total-area if possible, to rezerve an equal area also for RO water-Ato thing. Apparently, sump design come out more complicated then I thought...

Build a stand to put under the skimmer, so you can raise the water level in the skimmer section to a more reasonable depth of 9 - 10". Put the return section as the next section, with ~ a 1" drop, which will put the water level around 3 - 4" above the pump inlet. Make that section large enough, that within that 3" - 4" above the pump, there is about 6 gallons of water. (L * W * H)/231 = x gallons.

 

[RocketEngineer]

The issue is something most people don't consider and it may just be slightly annoying but I had a strand of cheato go over the baffle and into the return pump.......Came home to humming pump and no flow. Being able to adjust the flow through the refugium independent of the sump flow means I can have enough flow to properly feed the refugium even if I'm pushing a high flow rate through the rest of the sump that would drag the macro-algae over the baffle.

 

[uncleof6]

The issue is something most people don't consider and it may just be slightly annoying but I had a strand of cheato go over the baffle and into the return pump.......Came home to humming pump and no flow. Being able to adjust the flow through the refugium independent of the sump flow means I can have enough flow to properly feed the refugium even if I'm pushing a high flow rate through the rest of the sump that would drag the macro-algae over the baffle.

That is why I asked, before launching my typical sump "flow rate" speech.

I would subsequently ask what is "enough flow" to feed the fuge, as opposed to the full system flow rate, and the reasons that the lower flow would be more appropriate. In any type multipass filtration system, the higher the flow rate the more efficient the "filtration." Unlike reverse osmosis, a single pass system, or cold sterilization systems (fin-l-filter...prounounced "final" filter) that need a low flow rate. Of coure the lead in question, is a set up.

I think the questions this actually raises, is the chaeto really a very good idea to have running around in the sump, where the potential to get in the return pump, is present. The other question what are "we" really are accomplishing by doing the "all-in-one" thing with the sump, combining (or attempting to combine) export with production, in the hopes that by producing more, more will be exported.

I question the value of in-sump "fuges" and have for a long time, and view it as more "keeping up with the Jones's."

 

[RocketEngineer]

That is why I asked, before launching my typical sump "flow rate" speech.

I would subsequently ask what is "enough flow" to feed the fuge, as opposed to the full system flow rate, and the reasons that the lower flow would be more appropriate. In any type multipass filtration system, the higher the flow rate the more efficient the "filtration." Unlike reverse osmosis, a single pass system, or cold sterilization systems (fin-l-filter...prounounced "final" filter) that need a low flow rate. Of coure the lead in question, is a set up.

I think the questions this actually raises, is the chaeto really a very good idea to have running around in the sump, where the potential to get in the return pump, is present. The other question what are "we" really are accomplishing by doing the "all-in-one" thing with the sump, combining (or attempting to combine) export with production, in the hopes that by producing more, more will be exported.

I question the value of in-sump "fuges" and have for a long time, and view it as more "keeping up with the Jones's."

Yeah, I've already read the flow speech a time or ten, thanks. :deadhorse1:

Whenever folks talk about turnover, especially where it relates to a sump, folks seem to forget that the idea isn't to give the filters (skimmer) time to work so much as it is to keep the water quality in the DISPLAY the same as it is in the SUMP. What's the point of filtering the sump if the display collects detritus or an oil slick? The ideal situation would be having the exact same water quality in both places and having plenty of turnover is the only way to accomplish this.

I agree that most people try to do two things at once with a refugium and like all multipurpose endeavors, they do poorly at both. In my case, I'm using mine for nutrient export. This means I routinely pull out most of the macro-alage that has grown so the remainder continues to grow and use up nutrients from the system. The only LR I have in there are piece that were growing algae I wanted to use. If folks want to produce pods, they should have mostly LR rubble instead of macro-algae. I will say that refugiums do have their place but like everything else in our tanks, they should have a defined purpose and be set up accordingly.

For everyone else, take the two of us with a grain of salt but try to understand the WHY behind our recommendations, not just take what we say for granted. Too much of this hobby has folks repeating advice without fully understanding all the pieces that lead to the conclusions presented.

 

[chunkyzz]

Thanks alot pics soon