Dsb's work, what makes them work best?
- Thread starter barryhc
- Start date
Paul B
Premium Member
Barry OK I am going to let you do the math. I did a test of the flow of my RUGF. It was tough because I really can't get the powerhead out without moving a lot of coral so I connected a longer hose to it and ran it to a one gallon container.
It takes 25 seconds to fill one gallon. So every 25 seconds I am pumping 1/3rd of a gallon down each tube. You are the engineer so you will have to figure it out. It would take me a month.
Each tube connects to a UG filter plate that is 336 square inches.
Have fun.Paul
It takes 25 seconds to fill one gallon. So every 25 seconds I am pumping 1/3rd of a gallon down each tube. You are the engineer so you will have to figure it out. It would take me a month.
Each tube connects to a UG filter plate that is 336 square inches.
Have fun.Paul
Paul, that is 144 Gph total. ( 48 gph per tube ) That is .43 gph per square inch. I assume your tank is 60" by 18" outside, or equivalent. At 24" tall that is a 100 gal. tank.
The total flow over that area would result in a vertical rise of 33.26" per hour, or .554" per minute, or .0092" per second. That equates to 2 1/2 hair thicknesses per second, or 1/2 inch per minute.
This would be entirely undetectable as far as flow, with all OTHER flow pumps turned off. Food will fall directly to the bottom without other pumps, with no detectable "upflow resistance".
Not a complaint whatsoever, just a mathematical calculation. The same is true in my freshwater RUGF. I feed like a pig farmer in that Cichlid tank, and there is no algae, and not a single speck of visible detritus at the surface of the coarse gravel, nor down in the gravel as viewed from the front. This is after 2 years, and I'm ashamed how much food I pour into that tank. Very fat fish.
I actually run 350 gph RUGF, in that 55 gal. tank, as far as the flow, and I certainly wouldn't run that much in saltwater while looking for denitrification.
What a riot, heh ! !
This does still represent 12,000 times the flow , that I have proposed for the High Frequency Wasting Plenum, so, If anyone thinks that is going to represent over oxygenation in a once per day "Plenum draw", I'd like to hear the justification.
Thanks Paul, do I get a bottle ? Huh? Huh?
I would rather have one that has been in your tank, than one that is Antique, because, "in the long run", the one that has been in your tank, will be considered a far more specialized and RARE "piece" ! 
Thanks a bunch ! Barry :beachbum: :wildone: :thumbsup:
The total flow over that area would result in a vertical rise of 33.26" per hour, or .554" per minute, or .0092" per second. That equates to 2 1/2 hair thicknesses per second, or 1/2 inch per minute.
This would be entirely undetectable as far as flow, with all OTHER flow pumps turned off. Food will fall directly to the bottom without other pumps, with no detectable "upflow resistance".
Not a complaint whatsoever, just a mathematical calculation. The same is true in my freshwater RUGF. I feed like a pig farmer in that Cichlid tank, and there is no algae, and not a single speck of visible detritus at the surface of the coarse gravel, nor down in the gravel as viewed from the front. This is after 2 years, and I'm ashamed how much food I pour into that tank. Very fat fish.
I actually run 350 gph RUGF, in that 55 gal. tank, as far as the flow, and I certainly wouldn't run that much in saltwater while looking for denitrification.
What a riot, heh ! !
This does still represent 12,000 times the flow , that I have proposed for the High Frequency Wasting Plenum, so, If anyone thinks that is going to represent over oxygenation in a once per day "Plenum draw", I'd like to hear the justification.
Thanks Paul, do I get a bottle ? Huh? Huh?
I would rather have one that has been in your tank, than one that is Antique, because, "in the long run", the one that has been in your tank, will be considered a far more specialized and RARE "piece" ! Thanks a bunch ! Barry :beachbum: :wildone: :thumbsup:
Paul B
Premium Member
I sent a bottle to someone last week. I will poke around to see if any have fallen behind something.
50 GPH. Sounds right to me. I think thats what I figured.
I also think your dimentions for a 100 gallon, long tank are off.
Check your engineering again. Those are the dimentions for a 125 gallon tank.
Sleep good.
Paul
50 GPH. Sounds right to me. I think thats what I figured.
I also think your dimentions for a 100 gallon, long tank are off.
Check your engineering again. Those are the dimentions for a 125 gallon tank.
Sleep good.
Paul
dastratt
New member
Using the following input parameters
Tank Length = 60 inches
Tank Width = 18 inches
Tank Height = 22 inches
Tank volume is calculated as
Tank Volume = 102.9 Gallons
http://reefcentral.com/calc/vol.php
Tank Length = 60 inches
Tank Width = 18 inches
Tank Height = 22 inches
Tank volume is calculated as
Tank Volume = 102.9 Gallons
http://reefcentral.com/calc/vol.php
60 inch long tanks are 60 inches long on the outside.
Same thing with all tanks. Size is specified in outside dimensions.
RC's calculator does Ok, but I assure you the 99.865 gal. is exactingly accurate for a 60 X 18 X 24 tank, with 1/2" thick glass, and the surface of the water at 1/2" below the top "rim".
Extremely exactingly accutate, I guarantee it !
> Barry
Same thing with all tanks. Size is specified in outside dimensions.
RC's calculator does Ok, but I assure you the 99.865 gal. is exactingly accurate for a 60 X 18 X 24 tank, with 1/2" thick glass, and the surface of the water at 1/2" below the top "rim".
Extremely exactingly accutate, I guarantee it !
> Barry
Heck if I know, I only "Assumed" the dimensions, maybe more like guessed.
All right, with all the "suspense", I'll "guestimate" again.
Let's see. 72 X 15 X 24 outside dimensions, would be 71 X 14 X 23 inside dimensions, with 1/2 "thick glass, and water to within 1/2" of the top. So, 22862/231 = 98.9696969 . . . . . gal.
Is that "long" enough ? :lol: Tape measures work pretty well for this too!
ANYWAY, the assumed calculations were only intended to confirm an area value, which you already gave as 336 X 3 = 1008 Sq. In.
The only point to any of it was to establish a vertical flow rate of the water column. It is, still, just a bit more than 1/2 inch per minute, and is basicly undetectable without "dye".
I'm quite sure the flow is twice this amount in many areas, and zero in others, and it is this "channeling, that allows the Hypoxic ( denitrification ) zone to develop in between the two.
Many people are going to claim that it just can't work. I'm sure you cannot count the times you've been told "that". Heh Paul ?
It does work of course, and "channeling" is one of the reasons why.
Dolomite which tends not to dissolve, and "bind" and clump, is another reason.
The 4 gal. of live sand, along with misc. "mud dosings". are certainly a factor as well.
Then there is the great diversity of "fauna" that Paul has supplied to his "sand bed" ( substrate ).
At this point, Paul's tank really is a "classic sand bed" more than anything else, WITH the important exception, that he uses RUGF, and his sand bed works well with low maintanence because of the RUGF ( and dolomite ), and the RUGF works well contrary to popular "wisdom", because of the "channeling".
Now this is only MY observation thus far, but I think Paul may agree. How do other people see the success of Paul's tank ?
> Barry
Paul B
Premium Member
Barry, some people do not consider my tank a success because it is not filled with SPS. I can live with that. I did not start this tank to impress anyone. It just evolved into what it is and it is what it is. It is an experiment, always was and always will be. Thats why I lost many of my livestock three times so far, sometimes, experiments don't go well. Also I am not sure about the channeling. The last time I removed the UG plated the gravel was just full of tiny red tube worms. It seemed that the circulation was fairly even but of course it was impossable to really tell. Also , you are correct, my dolomite never clumps. I am not even sure if you can get it anymore.
And Barry, thanks for the blue type.
Paul
And Barry, thanks for the blue type.
Paul
Some people don't consider a Vette, a true sportscar either, but I would be happy to drive one any time just the same.
This is the definition I gave on the last page for a Standard Mixed Reef:
Sounds like You have a "Standard Mixed Reef" Tank to me.
Nobody cried about the definition at the time ( probably because I hid it so ingeniously within the l-o-n-g post there ).
So, SUCCESS IT IS ! ! ! :beachbum: :thumbsup:
I had suspected that you would have a lack of flow right under your rocks, if not anywhere else. In any case, the tiny tube worms may be causing a similar effect on a very much smaller scale.
I just happen to have 3" of the dolomite in the 150 gal. already, Gee, am I LUCKY or what ? add 5 gal. of live sand and a gallon of "infested mud", and away I go. Just add one Algae Tray.
Thanks Paul, > Barry
Paul B
Premium Member
My defination of a mixed reef is a tank with flounders, eels, blue claw crabs, tropical butterflies, sand worms, asphalt, rusty chains, moorish Idols, porgies, bottles, anglerfish, and an occasional new york seahorse.
But they have to be happy and all live together.
:beer:
But they have to be happy and all live together.
:beer:
So what is the final word on silica or aragonite sand? One better than the other? Or a draw. It was touched on several times, but never a clear winner. I've always used aragonite but the talk about the silica not having the "bound" phosphate already in it interested me.
By the way, thanks for the great thread.
By the way, thanks for the great thread.
For the next several months I'm going to be hit and miss. It is tax season after all.
To answer your question, we need to know your intentions. If your main goal is NNR (which is my goal), you're golden. I've done it and it works. However, if your goal is to house certain sand-dwelling critters, then find the needs of those animals.
Silica is definitely sharper and less homogeneous than ootlithic aragonite. Some sand-dwelling animals might not like that or might not be affected at all.
Paul B
Premium Member
Quote
Thanks Paul, do I get a bottle ? Huh? Huh? I would rather have one that has been in your tank, than one that is Antique, because, "in the long run", the one that has been in your tank, will be considered a far more specialized and RARE "piece" !
Barry I can let you have this one, PM me your address.
Paul
:eek1:
Thanks Paul, do I get a bottle ? Huh? Huh? I would rather have one that has been in your tank, than one that is Antique, because, "in the long run", the one that has been in your tank, will be considered a far more specialized and RARE "piece" !
Barry I can let you have this one, PM me your address.
Paul
crypt-keeper
New member
well I subscribed to this thread a while back but yet to read any of it. currently im running a mixed reef that is becoming a SPS DOMINATED tank, or that is what im trying to do...anyway its been a great success till now, trying to grow acro's.
its a 29 gal, 250w phoenix, er 5-2, dsb and 60#LR. I keep the calc at 450ppm, alk always needs buffering, ecery morning its down to 3meq/L, so I hit it with b-ionic, 1mL/gal. That brings it up to about 4. dosing kalk in the ato water. I;ve gottin rid of all my fish, still no3>10ppm. I put a phosban reactor on it a few months ago, its low but test kits dont say much on po3.
My green mili is growing like wild, but acro's arn't doing anything. the DE pendant is 5" off the water surface, the acro's are 8" from the surface.
Since this is a dsb thread, let me pose a prob that I am dealing with that is really funny.
after excommunicating the fish over the past 6 months, in an attempt to lower no3, I found that water changes where not lowering no3, not even 40%.
what I was doing was unpluging the return from my 10 sump, then suck it dry, fill it up with new s water, and start the return.
over the next couple days, im checking no3, really see very little difference. So I decided to suck the water out of the tank close to the sand, and fill at the same time. Now im getting somewere, its like the dsb is holding all the no3 and po3. I even replaced the sand with sugar sized arag. about 4 months ago. the tank had a fowl sell coming from it, the only way to get rid of it was slowly remove 50% of the sand that I could get to, so it looked BB in the front. then i when back to adding sand again later. the bad smell did go away when i removed the sand. I just bought a small calc reactor setup yesturday. this will be an attempt to keep my alk from swinging all the time. mag is 1290ppm.
As far as the cleanup crew, I just have astra snails, turbo, red& blue legged hermits. I did add one sand sifter, i forget what it was, has a long cylinder shaped shell, with orange on it, some type of snail???
so anybody think there is something I could do to get the acro's growing???
its a 29 gal, 250w phoenix, er 5-2, dsb and 60#LR. I keep the calc at 450ppm, alk always needs buffering, ecery morning its down to 3meq/L, so I hit it with b-ionic, 1mL/gal. That brings it up to about 4. dosing kalk in the ato water. I;ve gottin rid of all my fish, still no3>10ppm. I put a phosban reactor on it a few months ago, its low but test kits dont say much on po3.
My green mili is growing like wild, but acro's arn't doing anything. the DE pendant is 5" off the water surface, the acro's are 8" from the surface.
Since this is a dsb thread, let me pose a prob that I am dealing with that is really funny.
after excommunicating the fish over the past 6 months, in an attempt to lower no3, I found that water changes where not lowering no3, not even 40%.
what I was doing was unpluging the return from my 10 sump, then suck it dry, fill it up with new s water, and start the return.
over the next couple days, im checking no3, really see very little difference. So I decided to suck the water out of the tank close to the sand, and fill at the same time. Now im getting somewere, its like the dsb is holding all the no3 and po3. I even replaced the sand with sugar sized arag. about 4 months ago. the tank had a fowl sell coming from it, the only way to get rid of it was slowly remove 50% of the sand that I could get to, so it looked BB in the front. then i when back to adding sand again later. the bad smell did go away when i removed the sand. I just bought a small calc reactor setup yesturday. this will be an attempt to keep my alk from swinging all the time. mag is 1290ppm.
As far as the cleanup crew, I just have astra snails, turbo, red& blue legged hermits. I did add one sand sifter, i forget what it was, has a long cylinder shaped shell, with orange on it, some type of snail???
so anybody think there is something I could do to get the acro's growing???
Paul B
Premium Member
Barry I got your address and I will send it out. They look nice when coral grows on it. Here is the sister bottle to that one. Of course first I drank all of the Grand marnier. If anyone wants one of these send me a Grand Marnier bottle, Full
The large bottle. After a few months I will send you a nice empty bottle for your tank.
:dance: :wildone: :celeb3:
Paul
The large bottle. After a few months I will send you a nice empty bottle for your tank.
:dance: :wildone: :celeb3:
Paul
